Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[DiveCon]

It's not threatening to the separation of church and state because marriage is not a religious institution. If it is a religious institution and since the State legally recognizes marriages that means the line you "fear" has already been crossed.

Doh!

(Marriage is not a religious institution.)

actually, as it stands right now, Marriage is BOTH a religious institution AND a civil one
the proposal is that it be confined to religion and keep the government out of it, and all legal matters currently contained in marriage be moved into civil union contracts that everyone can legally partake

Thank you for affirming my claim marriage is not endemic to religion.

thats something i didnt do
i just stated that it CURRENTLY is both

 

[Valerie]

Ummm......



if

I don't see a direct quote from Immie.

 

[CurveLight]

Seems to me being harsh to Immie is counter-productve. He is mistaken, but more likely to listen and learn if you're not busy calling him a bigot. Don't your friends ever make mistakes, CurveLight?

It's not being harsh to say he is a bigot on the grounds he wants to prohibit gays from having the title of marriage. My conclusion (while flexible) is based on his intellectual dishonesty of citing a photography business to try and prove a church was forced to marry any couple.

We all make mistakes and I've called some of my friends bigots when their positions are that of bigotry. I don't know how it works in your world but in mine friends give honest opinions versus being dishonest or holding your tongue out of fear of feelings being hurt. If he could have demonstrated his reasoning was valid I wouldn't have called him a bigot. His claim is no different in nature from Affirmative Action opponents on the accusation african americans use it because they are lazy and stoopid.

 

[CurveLight]

actually, as it stands right now, Marriage is BOTH a religious institution AND a civil one
the proposal is that it be confined to religion and keep the government out of it, and all legal matters currently contained in marriage be moved into civil union contracts that everyone can legally partake

Thank you for affirming my claim marriage is not endemic to religion.

thats something i didnt do
i just stated that it CURRENTLY is both

Lol! You ******* moron! By saying it is currently both you are saying it is not endemic to religion. Hence, you affirmed my claim it is not endemic to religion.

 

[Madeline]

In my world, I treat my friends with respect, always. If we disagree, I keep the disagreement to the topic...I don't attack their character.

And BTW, Immie has said he supports gay marriage and wishes more christians would do so. I know you're aware of this, as Valerie just quoted him.

You have an unfortunate tendency to wander off topic into ad hominiem attacks, CurveLight. They aren't always deserved and they never advance the convo. There are plenty of homophobes and haters to bash....why choose to dump on a good man?

 

[CurveLight]

Ummm......



if

I don't see a direct quote from Immie.

For the second time.....look at post 503.

 

[Valerie]

Seems to me being harsh to Immie is counter-productve. He is mistaken, but more likely to listen and learn if you're not busy calling him a bigot. Don't your friends ever make mistakes, CurveLight?

It's not being harsh to say he is a bigot on the grounds he wants to prohibit gays from having the title of marriage. My conclusion (while flexible) is based on his intellectual dishonesty of citing a photography business to try and prove a church was forced to marry any couple.

We all make mistakes and I've called some of my friends bigots when their positions are that of bigotry. I don't know how it works in your world but in mine friends give honest opinions versus being dishonest or holding your tongue out of fear of feelings being hurt. If he could have demonstrated his reasoning was valid I wouldn't have called him a bigot. His claim is no different in nature from Affirmative Action opponents on the accusation african americans use it because they are lazy and stoopid.

He is not mistaken that some gays will try to push the issue and you can't prove that they won't cuz they have and they will. I happen to agree it isn't much of a threat considering any hetero couple could try to sue a Church right now for the same reason and it would never fly.


Still, the legitimate fear of legal precedent threatening the autonomy of the Church from the State does not make him a BIGOT.


Bigotry in this context implies intolerance toward gays and YOU are the one being dishonest here. Why?

 

[CurveLight]

In my world, I treat my friends with respect, always. If we disagree, I keep the disagreement to the topic...I don't attack their character.

And BTW, Immie has said he supports gay marriage and wishes more christians would do so. I know you're aware of this, as Valerie just quoted him.

You have an unfortunate tendency to wander off topic into ad hominiem attacks, CurveLight. They aren't always deserved and they never advance the convo. There are plenty of homophobes and haters to bash....why choose to dump on a good man?

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

 

[Madeline]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

 

[Madeline]

In my world, I treat my friends with respect, always. If we disagree, I keep the disagreement to the topic...I don't attack their character.

And BTW, Immie has said he supports gay marriage and wishes more christians would do so. I know you're aware of this, as Valerie just quoted him.

You have an unfortunate tendency to wander off topic into ad hominiem attacks, CurveLight. They aren't always deserved and they never advance the convo. There are plenty of homophobes and haters to bash....why choose to dump on a good man?

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

 

[Valerie]

It will eventually. Politicians are just waiting for the opportunity.

What is your opposition to getting the state out of the marriage business all together? The state should not be licensing the Religious Blessings of a couple. It never should have to begin with.

Immie

Atheist marry too. They could care less about religous blessings.

There are over a thousand federal and state rights and priveleges that go along with legal marriage.

I want those just like every other married person.

Exactly!!

And I want you to have those privileges too.


If I didn't, I'd tell the homosexual community to get lost and I would not offer a compromise. I would support DOMA and Prop 8.


But the fact is that the government should not be involved in this issue at all.

When I first started thinking about this issue, I was completely against the entire idea of gay marriage. To me it was nothing but gays seeking extra rights. Then I had a conversation with someone very much like Bod and I realized that she was right, the homosexual community was excluded from many privileges of marriage and that despite my religious convictions, it was not right that the government play favorites.

It was after that that I began to think that civil unions were the fairest way to handle this issue. If a gay couple gets married in a church, then I am in full support of that couple and the institution that married them. What I am not in support of is the activists using the term "marriage" to insist that all churches provide their facilities for their weddings.

I understand that CL and Bod are good hearted people and believe that would not happen, but I do not trust activists whether they are from the Religious Right or the homosexual community.


I am confident that homosexual activists will seek to force their agenda on religious institutions and win when it get to SCOTUS.

Immie

Post 503

 

[Valerie]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Why are you pretending he ever suggested anyones civil rights should be denied ?

 

[CurveLight]

Seems to me being harsh to Immie is counter-productve. He is mistaken, but more likely to listen and learn if you're not busy calling him a bigot. Don't your friends ever make mistakes, CurveLight?

It's not being harsh to say he is a bigot on the grounds he wants to prohibit gays from having the title of marriage. My conclusion (while flexible) is based on his intellectual dishonesty of citing a photography business to try and prove a church was forced to marry any couple.

We all make mistakes and I've called some of my friends bigots when their positions are that of bigotry. I don't know how it works in your world but in mine friends give honest opinions versus being dishonest or holding your tongue out of fear of feelings being hurt. If he could have demonstrated his reasoning was valid I wouldn't have called him a bigot. His claim is no different in nature from Affirmative Action opponents on the accusation african americans use it because they are lazy and stoopid.

He is not mistaken that some gays will try to push the issue and you can't prove that they won't cuz they have and they will. I happen to agree it isn't much of a threat considering any hetero couple could try to sue a Church right now for the same reason and it would never fly.


Still, the legitimate fear of legal precedent threatening the autonomy of the Church from the State does not make him a BIGOT.


Bigotry in this context implies intolerance toward gays and YOU are the one being dishonest here. Why?

It is bigotry to say a group should not have the same right to call their marraige a "marriage" due to crotch watching. The bowlshit "compromise" of civil unions is simply a sly way of trying to hide the bigotry. His reasoning for being against gay marriage is so unbelievably laughable it takes dishonesty to call it valid. I clearly gave him a chance to support his view by citing cases where churches were forced to marry someone and he references a ******* photography business and you accuse me of being dishonest? **** off with your double standards.

 

[CurveLight]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Why are you pretending he ever suggested anyones civil rights should be denied ?

He wants to deny gays the title of marriage which is a denial of civil rights.

 

[Hister]

Against gay marriage = homophobe = obsessed with fudge packing = closet bonesmuggler.

 

[CurveLight]

In my world, I treat my friends with respect, always. If we disagree, I keep the disagreement to the topic...I don't attack their character.

And BTW, Immie has said he supports gay marriage and wishes more christians would do so. I know you're aware of this, as Valerie just quoted him.

You have an unfortunate tendency to wander off topic into ad hominiem attacks, CurveLight. They aren't always deserved and they never advance the convo. There are plenty of homophobes and haters to bash....why choose to dump on a good man?

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

You just got done saying he wants to deny civil rights to gays. That makes him a bigot by your own words. What the **** is up with people being so damn PC sensitive they can't even be honest about simple things? For the tenth time....I have tried to persuade him to seeing his error which is why I asked him to provide evidence to support his position and he fell flat on his face and he has yet to be honest about that.

 

[Madeline]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

 

[WillowTree]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Why are you pretending he ever suggested anyones civil rights should be denied ?

because she is a fat assed *****.

 

[Madeline]

Now that was an example of christian friendship if ever there was one!

 

[WillowTree]

Now that was an example of christian friendship if ever there was one!

hey *****, I don't neg you everyday. You do it to me. So you are a big fat assed ***** and a ******* hypocrite to boot. Kerry ON now.