Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling

The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.

It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling

The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.

It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.


>>>>

no one wants them to be discriminated against. Does the use of the word "marriage" eliminate all chances of discrimination? Why is that word so critical to the gay agenda?

 

[RKMBrown]

yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling

The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.

It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.


>>>>

no one wants them to be discriminated against. Does the use of the word "marriage" eliminate all chances of discrimination? Why is that word so critical to the gay agenda?

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

 

[Silhouette]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

Behaviors don't have rights. BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?

 

[Cecilie1200]

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?

Churches are changing too.


The Lead

Yeah, I see the polls. Problem is, I don't interpret them the way you do, so I'm not seeing, "Yayyy!! It's okay for us to be tyrants! We have suppressed our enemies and made it frightening to publicly disagree with us, which OBVIOUSLY means that everyone now agrees!" God forbid you should consider the possibility that people actually hate you twice as much, but just aren't telling your pollsters about it.

Which would I prefer? For some dumbass to tell everyone he meets how much homosexuals suck, or for him to keep quiet, never let anyone know how much he hates and resents homosexuals, and then explode and beat some poor gay guy to death in a bar parking lot? Hmmmm.

 

[RKMBrown]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

Behaviors don't have rights. BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?

Who said behaviors have rights? WTF did that come from?

IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages. I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults. I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of. Do you have Alzheimers?

 

[Silhouette]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

Behaviors don't have rights. BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?

Who said behaviors have rights? WTF did that come from?

IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages. I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults. I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of. Do you have Alzheimers?

The problem is legally of course. Because what we all know is that the fold of the LGBT cult are pushing SCOTUS to find protection for them under the 14th. And I'm saying behaviors don't have those protections.

 

[RKMBrown]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

Behaviors don't have rights. BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?

Who said behaviors have rights? WTF did that come from?

IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages. I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults. I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of. Do you have Alzheimers?

The problem is legally of course. Because what we all know is that the fold of the LGBT cult are pushing SCOTUS to find protection for them under the 14th. And I'm saying behaviors don't have those protections.

HUH?

Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?

I think someone has confused you. Marriage is a part of life and liberty. Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.

Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.

 

[Silhouette]

HUH?

Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?

I think someone has confused you. Marriage is a part of life and liberty. Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.

Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.

There is no such thing as a "homosexual citizen". There are only citizens who do this or that thing. Sex is a behavior.

 

[RKMBrown]

HUH?

Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?

I think someone has confused you. Marriage is a part of life and liberty. Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.

Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.

There is no such thing as a "homosexual citizen". There are only citizens who do this or that thing. Sex is a behavior.

Oh I see .. so there is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual or black or white or male or female or old or young just a bunch of potato heads walking around.

 

[Seawytch]

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads. Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one: if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind". I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time. Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life. I now love and admire you and your life choices." What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your ******* life, letting other people go on about THEIR own ******* lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements. It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT. Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.

We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?

Churches are changing too.


The Lead

Yeah, I see the polls. Problem is, I don't interpret them the way you do, so I'm not seeing, "Yayyy!! It's okay for us to be tyrants! We have suppressed our enemies and made it frightening to publicly disagree with us, which OBVIOUSLY means that everyone now agrees!" God forbid you should consider the possibility that people actually hate you twice as much, but just aren't telling your pollsters about it.

Which would I prefer? For some dumbass to tell everyone he meets how much homosexuals suck, or for him to keep quiet, never let anyone know how much he hates and resents homosexuals, and then explode and beat some poor gay guy to death in a bar parking lot? Hmmmm.

So the dramatic uptick in support for gay marriage is interpreted by you as freaks hating gays more? Yeah, you go with that one.

Gays aren't going back in the closet. We aren't going to STFU and just wait until you feel magnanimous enough to let us have some rights. We're going to fight for them and push for them. We're going to come out to our families and they are going to fight and push for us too. (And they're the ones that are forcing churches...pesky loved ones)

 

[rightwinger]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

 

[RKMBrown]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

In the end, Churches will be "forced" to perform gay marriages...but it won't be the government doing the "forcing", it will be the family, the friends, the loved ones of gays and lesbians that will do the "forcing" through public opinion.

Who will be last, the Mormons again? I'm putting my money on white evangelicals...

I can't think of any opinion in religion.

 

[Silhouette]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.

Your fake concerns about the proven-tyranny of the uber left are noted as such. Meanwhile I'll bet you opposed the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.

Your fake concerns about the proven-tyranny of the uber left are noted as such. Meanwhile I'll bet you opposed the Hobby Lobby decision, right?

No, I thought the Hobby Lobby decision by the SCOTUS was dead on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?

Tough.

 

[Silhouette]

The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?

Tough.

That's not how I read "state's choice" last year [Windsor 2013]...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?

Tough.

That's not how I read "state's choice" last year [Windsor 2013]...

Your read to your confirmation bias, happily ignoring SCOTUS retains the power to correct the states when they unconstitutionally restrict equal access to liberties.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not how I read "state's choice" last year [Windsor 2013]...

Your read to your confirmation bias, happily ignoring SCOTUS retains the power to correct the states when they unconstitutionally restrict equal access to liberties.

Yes, they retain that power and even discussed it in Windsor 2013 when they cited "if Loving applies" [paraphrased]. But then at the end of all that they went ahead and said that gay marriage was only legal in some states. And I think they did an excellent job clearly illustrating how New York arrived at making it legal there. A situation the Court clearly indicated it preferred:

United States v. Windsor

Page 14:
"The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another...

...After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood...

...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.

Windsor is the "state's choice" decision. Lower courts have been attempting since to overrule it from underneath.