60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Judicial review]

They are screwed because they will never be able to do what men and women can do in every state. Or find a pastor that they want to do it for them because it's against their religion.

1. Within the next few years they will be able to enter in to Civil Marriage in all 50 states.

2. There are religious institutions in all 50 states now that would marry them and the number is growing.


>>>>

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, because they didn't vote for it and ok it on the federal level. It's state by state. gays in the GOP states are like I said really screwed.

And what do you mean by 'really screwed'? Having their right to marriage recognized, perhaps?

What else are we talking about here in this thread.

So you think "gays are screwed' because they can legally marry now?

Is this just some whacky "I hate marriage" meme?

They are screwed because they will never be able to do what men and women can do in every state. Or find a pastor that they want to do it for them because it's against their religion.

Nonsense.

State officials so designated are presiding over marriages of same-sex couples.

And as already correctly noted there are many members of the clergy who will accommodate same-sex couples with wedding ceremonies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are screwed because they will never be able to do what men and women can do in every state. Or find a pastor that they want to do it for them because it's against their religion.

1. Within the next few years they will be able to enter in to Civil Marriage in all 50 states.

2. There are religious institutions in all 50 states now that would marry them and the number is growing.


>>>>

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

 

[Judicial review]

They are screwed because they will never be able to do what men and women can do in every state. Or find a pastor that they want to do it for them because it's against their religion.

1. Within the next few years they will be able to enter in to Civil Marriage in all 50 states.

2. There are religious institutions in all 50 states now that would marry them and the number is growing.


>>>>

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

You're just misinterpreting it. I can't help that or control you.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Within the next few years they will be able to enter in to Civil Marriage in all 50 states.

2. There are religious institutions in all 50 states now that would marry them and the number is growing.


>>>>

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

You're just misinterpreting it. I can't help that or control you.

Or even back up anything you claim.

 

[Syriusly]

The reason the tide is turning is because the traditional marriage people do not know how to articulate their case. If you believe that the creation of life is a miracle as well as the key to the survival of our species than the union of a man and a woman is on a pedestal above any other unions. Two men together cannot create life. Two women together cannot create life. They are not equal and therefore cannot be considered on par with the history of the social construct that has preserved our species for eons. This is not disrespecting same sex people in any way, this is a fact of life that all humans should revel in. .

Traditional marriage people have tried to articulate exactly that. Why that fails is that our legal system has no linkage between the ability to procreate and marriage.

There is no legal requirement to be able to, or have a desire to have children in order to marry.
Wisconsin even has a law which requires some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they can marry.
And there is no legal requirement to get married if you have children.
And there is no legal requirement to stay married if you have children.

We have no disagreement that it takes an egg from a woman and sperm from a man to produce a child. But that has nothing to do with marriage, and that is why that argument fails in court.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Within the next few years they will be able to enter in to Civil Marriage in all 50 states.

2. There are religious institutions in all 50 states now that would marry them and the number is growing.


>>>>

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

You're just misinterpreting it. I can't help that or control you.

Or even understand any of us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So when an individual cannot choose his or her morality, cannot think in a way that parallels the majority of the people, and cannot act according to their longstanding religious norms, but are controlled by a small virulent minority and restricted by that minority in the most all encompassing pedestrian ways, infringing manifestly in ones everyday activities, that persons liberty is not being violated?

Sure they can. They can think as they like, they can act within the laws. Part of the laws are the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, freedom and liberty.

That means they can do what they like as long as it doesn't take away the freedoms and liberties of others. Ie, they can hate gay marriage, and as religious people they don't have to get married to someone of the same sex.

But stopping other people is something quite different.

 

[frigidweirdo]

faggot "marriage" will never be equal to real marriage. But the first amendment gives you the right to claim otherwise.

They will never, ever be able to get married

How sad for the faggots, can the mashed potato and peas get married?

 

[Redfish]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

 

[Syriusly]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

I haven't seen anyone but Conservative alarmists suggest otherwise.

Actual churches will never be required to marry anyone.

If you doubt that try getting married in a Catholic Church if you are not a Catholic.

 

[Skylar]

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

I think we're all on the same page regarding churches being forced to perform gay marriage. Religion is irrelevant to the marriage equality debate. What churches believe should or shouldn't happen is irrelevant. As the is a matter of the law. Churches, in their irrelevance, shouldn't be forced to participate in something that simply doesn't concern them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

I think any church or chapel should be able to refuse who they like. To be honest I though people had to be members of a church in order to be married in them in the first place. Seems pretty sensible to me.

Like I said, liberty.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nope and irrelevant.

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

You're just misinterpreting it. I can't help that or control you.

Or even understand any of us.

Why in the world would anyone want to understand you? Mental disease is. It doesn't have to be understood.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Yep.

2. Very relevant to your statement that gays won't be able to find pastor's to perform Religious Marriages for them.



>>>>

No they will find pastors but it won't be the ones they want. That's what I was referring to. It won't be in all 50 states, ever. Sorry to break the bad news.

You're merely compounding your nonsense.

You're just misinterpreting it. I can't help that or control you.

Or even understand any of us.

Why in the world would anyone want to understand you? Mental disease is. It doesn't have to be understood.

Well I wish you well and hope you are able to get effective treatment for your mental disease. Even if I don't understand your disorder, I do wish for a speedy recovery for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

That private organizations aren't subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence is fundamental Constitutional doctrine.

Government has never had the authority to compel religious organizations to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple; this is not and has never been part of the issue.

Consequently there is no 'start,' 'good' or otherwise.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. Ordained ministers who have a religious constraint about marrying gays are forced to do,so, their liberty is denied. A mayor in Houston who wants to jam her gay agenda down citizens throats uses taxpayer money and city attorneys to harass ministers that oppose her agenda going so blatantly far as to subpoena their sermons, their liberties are not only denied but others who would oppose her are put on notice that the power of the state will be used against them if they dare to resist. The examples are legion. For the lgbt community when it comes to promoting their agenda, liberty is only what they say it is.

The constant comparison of the gay movement to the black experience and the civil rights movement is as farcical as it is bogus, and black people will tell you that. It is another pr move to create the illusion of centuries of persecution and suffering on an epic scale. Scratch the comparison.

The graph of public sentiment on gay marriage only goes to prove my point about the overwhelming liberal bias in education at all levels. Our students are not asked to form their own opinions on gay marriage they are told that if they don't agree with gay marriage they are just despicable human beings just as many people present themselves on these boards. There is a steady drumbeat of anti Christian propaganda that parallels the efforts to remove every vestige of Christian faith and history from public halls of education. What we have now in public education are lgbt madrasahs. The graph closely parallels the takeover of the education system and really shows how pliable young minds are to repeated suggestion, but Yes just like the op, cause and effect are turned upside down.

I cannot argue the law or pretend to have any legal chops. But while our founders struggled with slavery they never even had a passing thought for gay marriage and while Jefferson would absolutely want all citizens to be treated fairly he would consider the marriage of a man and woman to be the premier union of the land and a necessary component to a stable and moral country. While many here see gay marriage as a positive step only time will tell whether the crumbling of formal norms and the blurring of moral boundaries will strengthen or weaken our nation.

 

[Syriusly]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

 

[Syriusly]

while Jefferson would absolutely want all citizens to be treated fairly he would consider the marriage of a man and woman to be the premier union of the land and a necessary component to a stable and moral country..

Really- Jefferson?

Jefferson- who it appears had a black slave as a mistress while he was still married to his wife?

I have a lot of respect for Jefferson.

But bringing Jefferson into the argument as an example of a founding father and telling us what Jefferson thought marriage should be is pretty ironic.

 

[Syriusly]

The constant comparison of the gay movement to the black experience and the civil rights movement is as farcical as it is bogus, and black people will tell you that. It is another pr move to create the illusion of centuries of persecution and suffering on an epic scale. Scratch the comparison..

Discrimination is not all the same. African Americans are not the only persecuted minority the United States has had- other members include American Indians, Jews, Catholics, Irish and yes- Homosexuals.

The question is whether or not the discrimination homosexuals experience is the same- or as bad as African Americans have encountered.

The question is whether discrimination is right- or wrong.