Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed. That reason you have never shared, Sil.

None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.

Coming from your unique perspective, I'm sure that feels true.

Sil, your philosophical arguments have no basis, and you have misread Windsor, and you have created imaginary friends and imaginary cults that don't exist in your head. There is a reason, a personal reason, why you are doing this. Share.

 

[mdk]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^ That. Answer the question, please, Sil.

 

[mdk]

^^^ That. Answer the question, please, Sil.

Don't hold your breath. Only a day or so ago he got all haughty about how none of his questions have been answered, which wasn't correct because I've done so rather plainly. Since my answers don't fit his cartoonish narrative they have been ignored. It seems to be a common trait with this poster.

 

[Silhouette]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only so much as Windsor points out as does prohibit the civil liberties of folks to marry, which the courts are defining as marriage equality.

Several of us, I think, are aware of your issue. Please share. You will feel better.

 

[mdk]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

 

[SixFoot]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

I cannot, and I hope I never can. That would be wrong in so many ways, be it a gay couple or not.

 

[mdk]

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?

I cannot, and I hope I never can. That would be wrong in so many ways, be it a gay couple or not.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, marriage is a constitutional right, driving is not.

If you are going to continue arguing, you have to do better.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sil, marriage is a constitutional right, driving is not.

If you are going to continue arguing, you have to do better.

To be fair I think you mean religious marriage is a right, and driving on public roads is not.

Marriage licenses and drivers licences are subject to regulation.

 

[Silhouette]

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

A right for who specifically? I want you to respond with a comprehensive list. And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why. Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent. Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...

 

[mdk]

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

A right for who specifically? I want you to respond with a comprehensive list. And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why. Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent. Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...

Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.

 

[rdean]

The only thing churches should be forced to do is pay taxes.

 

[Silhouette]

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

A right for who specifically? I want you to respond with a comprehensive list. And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why. Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent. Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...

Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.

I notice that you haven't given a comprehensive list of all people who have a "right" to the privelege of marriage. Please give us a comprehensive list of all people who deserve the right to marry. It simply cannot be limited to just 'LGBT's [whatever that incomplete listing means?]. It has to include every person. Unless you're for inequality?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion. Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex. So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way. Do you realize that?

You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy.

And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.

Oh no, I won't. If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter. I'm calling you out. Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.

You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages. Which is of course abject bullshit. So I called you on it. And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.

I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same. And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently. Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage. Which is it?

I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.

I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.

I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.

I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.

OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages? Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?

And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?

You know what the next question will be. But for now just answer those...

Why are you such a homophobic bigot?

He has a right to his opinion, RK, just like you do yours. Perhaps you reinforce his 'bigotry' by calling him a homophobe. It's like trying to put out a fire with a bedsheet.

 

[mdk]

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

A right for who specifically? I want you to respond with a comprehensive list. And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why. Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent. Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...

Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.

I notice that you haven't given a comprehensive list of all people who have a "right" to the privelege of marriage. Please give us a comprehensive list of all people who deserve the right to marry. It simply cannot be limited to just 'LGBT's [whatever that incomplete listing means?]. It has to include every person. Unless you're for inequality?

Any person that can legally consent should have access to marriage. That includes gays, straights, polygamous, and those that practice incest. That being said, can answer any of my questions now? I have feeling you'll just deflect...again.

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against its wishes?

Since you've foolishly compared marriage to driving: Can you name a single SC case that declared driving a right? The SC has affirmed 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right.

I dare you to answer these questions. You won't, of course because the you already know the answer but don't have the stones to admit you're incorrect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

 

[Silhouette]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

Define who has the right to marry Jake. And who doesn't. Be very specific.

 

[Seawytch]

You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy.

And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.

Oh no, I won't. If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter. I'm calling you out. Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.

You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages. Which is of course abject bullshit. So I called you on it. And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.

I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same. And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently. Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage. Which is it?

I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.

I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.

I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.

I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.

OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages? Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?

And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?

You know what the next question will be. But for now just answer those...

Why are you such a homophobic bigot?

He has a right to his opinion, RK, just like you do yours. Perhaps you reinforce his 'bigotry' by calling him a homophobe. It's like trying to put out a fire with a bedsheet.

Would you call someone who referred to black people as the "n" word a racist or would you offer tolerant understanding of their racism instead? Is believing blacks to be less human than whites just a "difference if opinion"?