It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized.

But YOUR moral relativist viewpoint IS going to change. You're already finding no reason to object to polygamy or brother/sister marriage in some cases. When the time comes, you will support virtually ANY kind of marriage demanded by any pervert minority. All you need to embolden you is the knowledge that other pinheads like you have your back.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

But YOUR moral relativist viewpoint IS going to change. You're already finding no reason to object to polygamy or brother/sister marriage in some cases. When the time comes, you will support virtually ANY kind of marriage demanded by any pervert minority. All you need to embolden you is the knowledge that other pinheads like you have your back.

Really?

Feel free to quote me on that.

As I have said- I really don't have a dog in your dog show. You are the one who keeps bringing up gay marriage and sibling marriage- not me.

You keep insisting that because of Obergefell brothers will soon be marrying sisters- and I have pointed out that bigots said the same thing about the ban on mixed race marriages.

Bigots like you always find a reason to discriminate against minorities.

When the time comes, you will support the government regulating virtually any kind of sexual conduct. You will be demanding that Christians be allowed to tell all Americans exactly how we can and must lead our 'moral lives' by insisting on legislating our sexual conduct, contraception, and of course eventually music and dance and literature and movies.

Because that is what moral bigots like yourself do.

 

[Boss]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

Homosexual behavior is condemned by all Christian religion. Tolerance for any sinner is advocated as well as reserving judgement, if you follow the teaching of Christ. Tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things.

The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming.

We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.

 

[EverCurious]

You're mistaken the argument for same sex marriage has actually been on supreme court record since 1967. The Supreme had long elected not to make a call on various cases, preferring to leave it to the individual states decisions - until states like Virginia decided to turn it to a discrimination issue by repeatedly tightening their state law's to specifically and willfully harm the Constitutionally protected rights of fellow American's, turning SSM not into merely a state issue, but a /national/ issue that could no longer be left unaddressed by the Supreme.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit!

 

[EverCurious]

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans. Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh

 

[Pop23]

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are ******* clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?

Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."

And yours has government issued love.

Is that done with direct injection or through an IV drip?

You're ******* retarded.

The government issued no love into my marriage. That is supplied by my wife, my kids, myself and my family.

But that's ok, I don't expect someone whose own marriage is limited to just a "set of benefits" to understand that. Actually, I feel sorry for you that you don't have what I have. It truly is beautiful.

Take a chill pill dude.

 

[Pop23]

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

 

[Pop23]

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans. Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh

And in those arguments the requirement that the two licensed individuals remained one man and one woman with no possibility of incest occurring.

 

[Seawytch]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

Homosexual behavior is condemned by all Christian religion. Tolerance for any sinner is advocated as well as reserving judgement, if you follow the teaching of Christ. Tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things.

Ah, but the acceptance is happening too...that's the part that pisses you off, doesn't it?

Churches becoming more Gay Friendly

The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming.

And polygamists did so before the Obergefell ruling. They either have a case or they don't, gays have nothing to do with it. You're echoing the same "slippery slope" fallacy used in Loving. Same bigots, different target.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.​

We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.

No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

Homosexual behavior is condemned by all Christian religion. Tolerance for any sinner is advocated as well as reserving judgement, if you follow the teaching of Christ. Tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things.

Ah, but the acceptance is happening too...that's the part that pisses you off, doesn't it?

Churches becoming more Gay Friendly

The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming.

And polygamists did so before the Obergefell ruling. They either have a case or they don't, gays have nothing to do with it. You're echoing the same "slippery slope" fallacy used in Loving. Same bigots, different target.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.​

We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.

No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.

So what you're seeing in the above argument, is that those who rode the slippery slope down to the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, coming to misinform you that "There is no Slippery Slope".

It's foolishness on a profound scale.

 

[Boss]

No, they weren't being denied. Black men could marry black women. No discrimination just like you're arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on race while you want to do it based on gender. Same bigot, different target.

Yes, black men were being discriminated against and not allowed to marry white women. There was no gender discrimination with marriage, it was the union of two genders. It was not prohibited on basis of skin color or sexuality. You had to fundamentally change what marriage is in order to make it a discrimination, and it's that fundamental change that will be the problem in the future.

The reality of truth here is, you don't care. IF it leads to legal polygamy... so what? That was going to happen anyway... you've already got your convenient excuse ready! When sibling marriage is demanded, you'll find a way to crab walk over and support that or you'll just shrug and say, what are ya gonna do? When the perverts come for our children, you'll be lamenting how all this 'age of consent' stuff is rooted in religion and needs to go anyway, so what's the big deal... it's not hurting you or your marriage... sit down and shut up!

It's coming folks. As sure as I am sitting here, it is coming.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

Homosexual behavior is condemned by all Christian religion..

Are you lying- ignorant- or just a bigot who declares what is 'Christian religion'?

Liberal Christians are supportive of homosexuals. Some Christian denominations do not view monogamous same sex relationships as bad or evil. These include the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ,[32] the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Sweden, the Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Denmark, the Icelandic Church, the Church of Norway or the Protestant Church of the Netherlands. In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination of 40,000 members, was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community, and is devoted to being open and affirming to LGBT people. The United Church of Christ and the Alliance of Baptists also condone gay marriage, and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. Within the Anglican communion there are openly gay clergy; for example,

 

[Faun]

The SCOTUS did not go by the Constitution, and that's the whole problem here.

You are ******* deranged.

 

[Faun]

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are ******* clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?

Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."

And yours has government issued love.

Is that done with direct injection or through an IV drip?

You're ******* retarded.

The government issued no love into my marriage. That is supplied by my wife, my kids, myself and my family.

But that's ok, I don't expect someone whose own marriage is limited to just a "set of benefits" to understand that. Actually, I feel sorry for you that you don't have what I have. It truly is beautiful.

Take a chill pill dude.

 

[Faun]

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

I'm simply arguing what was argued successfully before many federal courts and the USSC.

Marriage is not only between a man and woman now. That was removed because another group argued that intercourse and procreation was not a valid reason to deny the benefits of marriage. This renders the following, which was put into place so that the state did not license incestuous marraige moot. That being, not to closely related. It's subjective because many that would be eligible for the license:

A. Would not desire sex with their license partner (hetro same sex)

B. Might desire sex with the partner, but could not procreate together.

Now name the compelling state interest in denying group A the same right afforded any other same sex couple, then try it with group B.

Despite all of your effort and years of homosexuality being legal, group B still remains illegal.

There's your compelling interest.

Next idiocy... ?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

The ramifications of the ruling have not been realized as the ruling is very recent. It may take years for those ramifications to transpire but they are coming. Polygamists are already challenging the laws in many places and when their case gets to SCOTUS, in order to maintain consistency with Ogeberfell, they will have to rule in favor of polygamists and polygamy will be law of the land. That won't happen tomorrow or next week, it may take several years or perhaps even a decade... it's coming.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- same gender couple are getting married.

Everything is is just your homophobic hyperbole. Polygamists have challenged the laws before- and can challenge the laws again- the task before them is the same task that mixed race couples and gay couples face- they have to make a case and then the State has to come up with compelling reasons why the State does ban polygamous marriages.

Whether or not the State can do so has nothing to do with Obergefel or Loving- either the State can defend the ban on polygamy- or it cannot.

If you think that the State cannot defend its ban on Polygamous marriage- then why do you oppose polygamous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

Misleading as usual. Most churches do not accept or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Tolerating it is not accepting or condoning it. That is where you're confused. Are there a few oddball examples out there of churches who accept and condone homosexuality? Sure there are, religion is widespread and diverse in this country because we have religious freedom. It's a far cry from "most" or "a majority" by any stretch. And that is not going to change due to a SCOTUS ruling... and it certainly isn't going to change when the ramifications of that ruling are realized..

The one who is attempting to mislead is of course you.

You are the one who declared that homosexuals marrying is 'condemned by the church'.

And I asked- What church? Yes- many churches do condemn gay marriage- and there are more and more churches that accept gay marriage and welcome gay marriage within the church.

The ramifications of the ruling have been realized- Americans who happen to be gay couples are legally allowed now to marry in all 50 states.

Just like the ramifications of ending the ban on mixed race marriages- this is a very good thing.

We've been over mixed race marriage. It's a different issue. How many American GIs were denied marriage to their Korean wives? Black men were being denied something white men could do. That was wrong, that was unconstitutional, that violated the black man's rights. Gay marriage did not exist, no one got to marry same gender, it wasn't a thing. It's never been a thing until now.

It is a 'different' issue in that ban targeted a different minority group to prohibit the marriage of.

Just like you argue that 'gay men' can marry anyone they want- as long as the person is a woman-

The State of Virginia argued that black men could marry anyone they wanted- as long as the person is black.

That was wrong- that was unconstitutional- just as the ban on same gender marriage was wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Bullshit!

Every post from you- starting with and especially your OP- has been nothing but bullshit.