Question for gay marriage opponents

[Flash Farley]

Oh, bull. You're not gonna side with Christians.

Bud, you are the minority here, not me. I am Christian, I support Marriage Equality, and I leave judgement to the Lord. I support the Constitution, and there is nothing there that allows the government to compel a church to marry anyone. No has ever tried to my knowledge in our history. Do you know of any such attempt?

You're confused or ignorant. Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female. I don't believe anything you say.

So you disagree with me. I could give a ****.

Nope. You claim to be a Christian and you disagree with your Lord. I've got nothing to do with it.

 

[World Savior]

And you are merely butt hurt. This is over and all you can do is whine.

"Butt hurt" in a gay troll thread?

Yeah, little dave is trolling and wondering about his inner farley.

The point is, the issue is over for now. I am curious to see if it has any serious bearing on the election next year. I don't think so.

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

 

[World Savior]

I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.

If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.

If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.

Your thoughts?

You only have one mom, Gertrude.

No, Gertrude is not my mom. Thanks.

 

[Papageorgio]

"Butt hurt" in a gay troll thread?

Yeah, little dave is trolling and wondering about his inner farley.

The point is, the issue is over for now. I am curious to see if it has any serious bearing on the election next year. I don't think so.

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

I don't care who I hire to make my coffee, but it has to be done right or I'll fire your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. You claim to be a Christian and you disagree with your Lord. I've got nothing to do with it.

And you lie as well. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus never mentioned it. Evangelicals like you are the minority of Christianity in this country, and I think you folks are in the minority within the Christian community. Whether you disagree with me means nothing to me, because I don't value your willingness to lie in pursuit of your goals. I think you are a poor Christian and a worse Republican. I want John Kasich to win this election, and I want this country to kick the far left and the far right in the ass. Folks like you, Roo and Antares and daveman and the rest, are simply the pimples on the ass of America, and you all got popped last week. Now stop you whining and get to work.

 

[Flash Farley]

"Butt hurt" in a gay troll thread?

Yeah, little dave is trolling and wondering about his inner farley.

The point is, the issue is over for now. I am curious to see if it has any serious bearing on the election next year. I don't think so.

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

 

[Flash Farley]

Nope. You claim to be a Christian and you disagree with your Lord. I've got nothing to do with it.

And you lie as well. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus never mentioned it. Evangelicals like you are the minority of Christianity in this country, and I think you folks are in the minority within the Christian community. Whether you disagree with me means nothing to me, because I don't value your willingness to lie in pursuit of your goals. I think you are a poor Christian and a worse Republican. I want John Kasich to win this election, and I want this country to kick the far left and the far right in the ass. Folks like you, Roo and Antares and daveman and the rest, are simply the pimples on the ass of America, and you all got popped last week. Now stop you whining and get to work.

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, little dave is trolling and wondering about his inner farley.

The point is, the issue is over for now. I am curious to see if it has any serious bearing on the election next year. I don't think so.

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Very good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. You claim to be a Christian and you disagree with your Lord. I've got nothing to do with it.

And you lie as well. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus never mentioned it. Evangelicals like you are the minority of Christianity in this country, and I think you folks are in the minority within the Christian community. Whether you disagree with me means nothing to me, because I don't value your willingness to lie in pursuit of your goals. I think you are a poor Christian and a worse Republican. I want John Kasich to win this election, and I want this country to kick the far left and the far right in the ass. Folks like you, Roo and Antares and daveman and the rest, are simply the pimples on the ass of America, and you all got popped last week. Now stop you whining and get to work.

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female.

Show me where Jesus said that it was exclusively male and female.

 

[Flash Farley]

Nope. You claim to be a Christian and you disagree with your Lord. I've got nothing to do with it.

And you lie as well. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus never mentioned it. Evangelicals like you are the minority of Christianity in this country, and I think you folks are in the minority within the Christian community. Whether you disagree with me means nothing to me, because I don't value your willingness to lie in pursuit of your goals. I think you are a poor Christian and a worse Republican. I want John Kasich to win this election, and I want this country to kick the far left and the far right in the ass. Folks like you, Roo and Antares and daveman and the rest, are simply the pimples on the ass of America, and you all got popped last week. Now stop you whining and get to work.

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female.

Show me where Jesus said that it was exclusively male and female.

You said you're a Christian and you don't know Matthew 19 teaching on marriage and divorce? I already know what you're going to say next. You're going to say Jesus never mentions or condemned homo marriage in chapter 19. Now my question is when did any believer in Scripture condone homosexuality? No one. Romans chapter one condemns homosexuality. First Corinthians chapter six condemns homosexuality. You are mistaken or simply lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right that Jesus never mentioned nor condemned homosexuality.

 

[Flash Farley]

You are right that Jesus never mentioned nor condemned homosexuality.

He didn't have to. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi. He believed the Scriptures. Round and round you go and you end up with the truth. You believe a lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right that Jesus never mentioned nor condemned homosexuality.

He didn't have to. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi. He believed the Scriptures. Round and round you go and you end up with the truth. You believe a lie.

He condemned a lot of things. This was not one of them. Since you are not a Christian authority anymore than Keys, I will let you roar while your message ignore.

 

[Flash Farley]

You are right that Jesus never mentioned nor condemned homosexuality.

He didn't have to. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi. He believed the Scriptures. Round and round you go and you end up with the truth. You believe a lie.

He condemned a lot of things. This was not one of them. Since you are not a Christian authority anymore than Keys, I will let you roar while your message ignore.

LOL. I never claimed to be an authority. The Scriptures are the authority and you know it, but your agenda and lack of courage to face the truth is holding you back from reality.

 

[World Savior]

Yeah, little dave is trolling and wondering about his inner farley.

The point is, the issue is over for now. I am curious to see if it has any serious bearing on the election next year. I don't think so.

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

 

[Flash Farley]

No, the issue of homo marriage is not over. The next step is to force Christian churches to perform homo marriage ceremonies.

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

 

[World Savior]

Nope, no one is forcing Christian churches to perform gay marriages.

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

 

[whitehall]

Umm, so far studies indicate that the average sodomite union lasts for 1 1/2 years.

 

[World Savior]

Umm, so far studies indicate that the average sodomite union lasts for 1 1/2 years.

Oh really? Who did the study? You?

 

[Flash Farley]

Are you going to guarantee that it's not going to happen? You know that's the next step. Why not just be honest and admit it.

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.