The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Pop23]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

Then why is there so much angst when pointed out that there are others wishing to attain the same rights?

Seems odd that pointing out that the arguments used for one alternative lifestyle seem to work for all, created such displeasure

No angst.

I have seen only one type of person starting threads about 'others wishing to attain the same rights'- and those are started by people who are essentially against not only 'gay marriage' but those 'others' being married also.

Those threads are all strawmen by people who really can't stand homosexuals marrying.

My reply- and most of those who have replied have replied honestly that the Supreme Court's decision on Friday is as unrelated to incestuous marriage as Loving v. Virginia is.

People who actually want polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage have the same avenue of recourse gay couples have- the legislature or the courts- and they are welcome to try others.

As I point out- their cases are different and the State may have a compelling argument against those marriages- but they are welcome to make the argument.

You simply can't make the claims.

The arguments for polygamy and many relationships that were traditionally taboo, are the same as for SSM. I know it's disheartening, but I have yet heard different.

Then you simply are refusing to listen.

We have had this discussion- and I will say it to you again- if you do not have an argument on why polygamous marriages are wrong- then you didn't have an argument before Friday's ruling either.

If you do have an argument- then you have an argument.

But if your only argument is " I think its icky" or "Its Tradition!"- then yes- you have no legal argument- but that has been the case since Loving v. Virginia.

Loving contaned a limit of 1 man to 1 woman. There was reasoning for that that limit no longer makes sense.

Sorry dude

 

[Pop23]

You first.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

We already have it. Caesar gives us a marriage liscence...you stop there...we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

So relax, it's done. There is already a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage. Gays and straights can get civilly and/or religiously married.

You are correct...because some morons changed the definition.

Correct, once the definition changes, it becomes open to interpretation, a moving target

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

That is what you keep telling everyone.

That claim is as false now as it was before.

Before, the requirement that siblings could not marry was all encompassing and not discriminatory. None could.

Now, since same sex siblings cannot procreate, the limiting factor that existed seems absurd except for opposite sex couples.

I'm sure you see that

 

[Seawytch]

You been reading black history again?

No love, women's. Women wanting to own property is the reason government is involved.

 

[Coyote]

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

Marriage and children don't define conservative or liberal.

But - gays are like heterosexuals - some are conservative, some are liberal, etc. It's quite possible that now that the SCOTUS has resolved this issue - the Republican party might be more welcoming to gays since certainly there are conservative gay people.

 

[Coyote]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

 

[g5000]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

Until this week, gay marriages did not cross state lines and did not receive the same government cash and prizes as everyone else's.

You know this, because it has been explained to you time and time and time again. So stop asking willfully ignorant questions.

 

[deltex1]

Nothing that could not have been achieved by negotiation and legislation. A bit of strategic patience would have carried the day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes Christ walked among sinners......didnt join them in their sin though........

lol, how do you know? I mean how do you really know?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

What are you caterwauling about this time?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

No one can tell me why?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yes Christ walked among sinners......didnt join them in their sin though........

lol, how do you know? I mean how do you really know?

Really...........pretty simple question even cursory knowledge of theology would allow you to "puzzle" the answer out

 

[SwimExpert]

we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

Just like gay people do....

 

[deltex1]

My experience was in 1960...haven't kept up with the latest trends.

 

[SwimExpert]

My experience was in 1960...haven't kept up with the latest trends.

Then perhaps you should refrain from jumping to conclusions, and making an ass out of yourself.

 

[deltex1]

My experience was in 1960...haven't kept up with the latest trends.

Then perhaps you should refrain from jumping to conclusions, and making an ass out of yourself.

That would require me to believe what you say. Sorry...can't do dat...

 

[Zoom-boing]

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

With abortion being legal, brothers and sisters can now marry and have a sexual relationship if desired. If she becomes pregnant, she can just have an abortion. The argument of "pure bloodlines" is no more. Claiming "that's icky" is now no longer a valid argument either.

 

[Pop23]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

 

[Pop23]

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

With abortion being legal, brothers and sisters can now marry and have a sexual relationship if desired. If she becomes pregnant, she can just have an abortion. The argument of "pure bloodlines" is no more. Claiming "that's icky" is now no longer a valid argument either.

It won't matter, if you exclude hetro couples, but include same sex siblings, you have discrimimated.

And why would that be?

The ability to procreate????

The irony is absolutely thick.

 

[SwimExpert]

My experience was in 1960...haven't kept up with the latest trends.

Then perhaps you should refrain from jumping to conclusions, and making an ass out of yourself.

That would require me to believe what you say. Sorry...can't do dat...

So you are inventing outlandish fantasy islands, simply because you don't want to believe that the truth is true. Wow. You're worse than Nancy Pelosi.