Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited. You would be wrong. No one is denied the right to marry.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Yeah, the repeated use of "fag" is especially adorable...but don't call him a bigot!!!!

I'll leave the name calling to him. It's not my style. I am more than capable of destroying his positions with resorting to such language.

 

[mdk]

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited. You would be wrong. No one is denied the right to marry.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?

And is every new person a "manufactured newby"?

No. But you are.

Hoisted, Sil. That's good. The poll says nothing about marriage equality.

Welcome, mmorado, Sil is simply unhappy almost no one takes her seriously on the Board.

Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.

Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.

 

[RKMBrown]

Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments. In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?

You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.

Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate. One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.

You're an idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

[

Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.

Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.

Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so. There have been other polls that would have been equal or even more damning to the LGBT cultural takeover attempt and they lack such a phenomenon. And if fake names were invented...all that trouble...surely you'd have a few of them show up to post about "why forcing churches to do gay marriages is so terrible!". But that is lacking. So we assume those were just regular people who voted and who were then afraid to say why. Like we see reflected in the chic fil a silent crowds and the A&E "likes" silent crowd...of over a million in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson..

Maybe those million "likes" were also fake identities too? Whew! That's a Lot of work in a very short period of time!

 

[Syriusly]

[

Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.

Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.

Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so. !

The only thing odd is why you keep saying the poll means something differently than the poll says.

 

[mdk]

[

Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.

Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.

Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so. !

The only thing odd is why you keep saying the poll means something differently than the poll says.

It fits the anti-gay narrative and that is all that matters to Sil.

 

[Skylar]

Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so.

Odd, I've made the same criticism of straw polls in general. Its one of the reasons that they're notriously unreliable: because they involve interested parties and because folks can vote more than once. And note you don't actually disagree with me either. Or deny anything I've said.

If anyone can create a 'manufactured newbie' and use that newbie to vote twice...or three times...or four times, then what possible value does your straw poll have at measuring anything? To say nothing of support for gay marriage, which your strawpoll doesn't even mention. There's a reason straw polls are a running joke among actual pollsters. Because they don't actually measure public support....of anything. As any Ron Paul strawpoll will indicate. He won every strawpoll of 2008. And didn't win a single state.

While conventional polls are random and anonymous. Any person contacted can vote only once. Nor are the respondents necessarily interested parties. They are contacted at random, so you get a broad sampling of folks. Which is why pollsters use conventional polling and laugh derisively at straw polls.

 

[Silhouette]

While conventional polls are random and anonymous. Any person contacted can vote only once. Nor are the respondents necessarily interested parties. They are contacted at random, so you get a broad sampling of folks. Which is why pollsters use conventional polling and laugh derisively at straw polls.

So a million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage was some "organized stuffed poll" eh? Do you realize how rare a million likes in less than 24 hours is on Facebook? It may not be important to you, but it is to them. Your random polls approach people on the street or on the phone who would rather be left alone and not encounter a hassel. They will answer quickly and hastily in a manner that involves the least amount of stress to themselves. If there is a broad public perception, via the VERY public witch hunts, consistently, against anyone who dares *peep* one iota of protest against the spread of the virulent LGBT cult, then those polled will naturally say whatever they think won't get them glitterbombed, or worse.

That's a factor in your gallup polls pal.

I could turn it around and say that gays canvassing "random people" in a proper poll" could be done with a heavy bias in the questions, the approach and the particular city and subdivision pre-chosen to be "very gay friendly". I wonder what polls taken in conservative towns and cities would show? [As long as pollsters were scrupulously careful to avoid blue-light districts on their outskirts]?

Your gallup polls would be akin in today's hostilities towards conservatives who disagree, much like a nazi approaching a german market in the late 1930s and polling the people there "how they honestly feel about the nazi party"... And then publishing those results as "most germans approve of the nazi party". [or they know their careers will be ruined...or worse...]

 

[mdk]

Poll after poll conducted by credible institutions are meaningless. Facebook "likes" have their finger of the pulse of America and is the only real gauge of the public's opinion on the matter. You know your argument isn't going too swell when you have to rely on "Likes" from a Facebook page as your evidence. Somebody needs to turn this evidence over to the lawyers defending gay marriage bans so they can present this compelling information to courts. Hopefully they bring earplugs, the deafening laughter from the jurists could shatter their eardrums.

I think Shakira should run for President. Her 87 million likes on Facebook means that she would be a shoe-in. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Stawmen aside, the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page that got the million "likes" in less than one day was specific and about the support of Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage.

BTW, the poll here at USMB, one of the largest ever, with over 33,000 views has just now passed 82% and is up to 83%. They're all so silent. But there they are like the Facebook folks...showing how important this topic is to them and hinting at the real numbers out there...

 

[RKMBrown]

Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.

Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.

Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.

That is a real possibility.

Not with the current SCOTUS...

The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays

That guy you are linking to... yeah he's an idiot.

Just to be clear I'm calling, Mark Joseph Stern the writer for Slat an idiot.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

the poll here at USMB, one of the largest ever, with over 33,000 views has just now passed 82% and is up to 83%
refers to 1st amendment church rights, not what folks think about marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

The majority would not and has not made "man/woman" marriage illegal. "The government" in this case is the People who voted to rule their state how they see fit . SCOTUS said in Windsor that majorities get to have the authority, the "unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage in their discreet community. What they decide, the fed has to abide by.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jacksonian Democracy can only void constitutional liberties by amending the Constitution. Go for it, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Jacksonian Democracy can only void constitutional liberties by amending the Constitution. Go for it, Sil.

What liberties? The liberty to steal when you are needy? Or drive while visually impared? Or drunk? The liberty to walk down the street naked? The liberty to marry more than one person?

When it comes to behaviors...you have to gain permission of the majority who may find your behaviors repugnant. LGBT is not a race of people. It's an organized deviant sex cult who is using the legal system to force opposing theologies to "come into line with the new cult" or else....

And those folks don't have constitutional protection to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, no, you don't get just once more.

All has been explained to you, and like Protectionist on the issue of guns, you simply reject whatever interferes with your confirmation bias.

Jacksonian Democracy does not rule America.

Step along, nothing for you here.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, no, you don't get just once more.

All has been explained to you, and like Protectionist on the issue of guns, you simply reject whatever interferes with your confirmation bias.

Jacksonian Democracy does not rule America.

Step along, nothing for you here.

About which behaviors Jake? Specifically? And why JUST them?

 

[Silhouette]

Jake? Which behaviors, and why?