Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

The questions were not to me. Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?

Ahhh... "homophobic bigot" I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.

You continue to misrepresent my position because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?

 

[Seawytch]

ANY business should be able to deny service to ANY person. PERIOD.

But they can't...so until you get rid of them all, quit bitching over one small protected group...that isn't even protected in all 50 states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have to come clean for your motives here. They are obvious to us all now, but you must own up.

Your position has been represented clearly by your opponents. You have lied and been corrected, and you have misdirected and you have been corrected. I do think we all agree that adults that prey on children need to be stopped, homo and hetero. You have made a spurious argument that marriage equality threatens children, when the actual logic you have used indicts all marriage.

You can't carry the argument. Ever.

 

[Silhouette]

The questions were not to me. Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?

Ahhh... "homophobic bigot" I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.

You continue to misrepresent my position because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?

Even black couples for the reason that they are black?

 

[mdk]

The questions were not to me. Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?

Ahhh... "homophobic bigot" I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.

You continue to misrepresent my position because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?

Even black couples for the reason that they are black?

Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?

 

[Conan]

No.

To forces churches to accept social behavior is Authoritarian by nature. Would the gay community want us to force our laws and behavior onto them?

BTW hi to my friend MDK.

 

[mdk]

No.

To forces churches to accept social behavior is Authoritarian by nature. Would the gay community want us to force our laws and behavior onto them?

BTW hi to my friend MDK.

Spot on!

What's up Conan! Nice to see you!

 

[JakeStarkey]

No church has been forced to and a slipperly slope exists for those who suggest it will happen in the future.

 

[Seawytch]

The questions were not to me. Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?

Ahhh... "homophobic bigot" I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.

You continue to misrepresent my position because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?

Even black couples for the reason that they are black?

Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?

Not in the United States they can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, and never will. OP fail for the 140th page

 

[mdk]

The questions were not to me. Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?

Ahhh... "homophobic bigot" I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.

You continue to misrepresent my position because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?

Even black couples for the reason that they are black?

Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?

Not in the United States they can't.

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

 

[Seawytch]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.

The UK case will fail. And the reason it will is because of this decision: European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum The European Court, binding on England as well as 48 other countries or country-states in Europe, said that gays do not have a human right to marry. What that means is any lawsuit they bring to try to assert their "right to marry" to force others to participate with them will fail.

Additionally, you ask why Americans should care. There is nothing more viscerally-important to people than the concept of family, child raising and marriage. Europeans are in clear majority of their general populations, quite opposed to the idea of people proud of displaying sexual perversions to children in "pride parades" having legal access to raising them through the legal-loophole of marriage. To grant so-called "gay marriage" [another poster called that term an oxymoron accurately] and that access to orphans would likely enrage what's left of our world allies against what little regard they have left for the USA's "moral integrity". We are at quite a tenuous state in world affairs today. We'd do well to remember that while we tool our controversial moral internal policies.

 

[mdk]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.

The UK case will fail. And the reason it will is because of this decision: European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum The European Court, binding on England as well as 48 other countries or country-states in Europe, said that gays do not have a human right to marry. What that means is any lawsuit they bring to try to assert their "right to marry" to force others to participate with them will fail.

Additionally, you ask why Americans should care. There is nothing more viscerally-important to people than the concept of family, child raising and marriage. Europeans are in clear majority of their general populations, quite opposed to the idea of people proud of displaying sexual perversions to children in "pride parades" having legal access to raising them through the legal-loophole of marriage. To grant so-called "gay marriage" [another poster called that term an oxymoron accurately] and that access to orphans would likely enrage what's left of our world allies against what little regard they have left for the USA's "moral integrity". We are at quite a tenuous state in world affairs today. We'd do well to remember that while we tool our controversial moral internal policies.

None of that has anything to do with churches being forced to marry couples against their wishes. You're deflection duly is noted.

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, we are not going to import European law here.

SCOTUS is headed with Sotomayor and Kennedy firmly in charge of what is going on to marriage equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And no church is going to be forced to marry folks they don't want to and my more than you are going to be forced to marry someone of your own sex, Sil.

It's time to out yourself for your real reason for this thread. It is obvious to everybody but you will feel better coming clean.

 

[Silhouette]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed. That reason you have never shared, Sil.

 

[Seawytch]

Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed. That reason you have never shared, Sil.

None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.

 

[Silhouette]

Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed. That reason you have never shared, Sil.

None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.

Coming from your unique perspective, I'm sure that feels true.