Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals. My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.

We are not the First Baptist United States.

 

[beagle9]

Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.

a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds

b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for any reason. Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against other people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.

1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.

2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.

Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.

You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...

 

[beagle9]

I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals. My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.

We are not the First Baptist United States.

Like I ask who who runs the morals in the country then, do you have an answer ? I thought not...

 

[beagle9]

I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals. My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.

We are not the First Baptist United States.

My conscience is clear, and I'm glad yours is to, now lets keep asking the good questions and getting to the answers then shall we ?

 

[Paperman299]

Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.

a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds

b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for any reason. Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against other people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.

1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.

2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.

Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.

You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...

1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic.

2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?

In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.

 

[Seawytch]

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

 

[kaz]

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

Yes, she gets in those moods. When she gets bad I just start telling her to repent her sinful ways so she doesn't fry in hell. Actually, I'm not a Christian and have no issue with gays. I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay. My wife and I both have a good friend who is lesbian, and it's not the same person. And I agree, being gay wouldn't affect my babysitting choice. There are gays I wouldn't let sit for kids, but there are straights I wouldn't let sit for kids either. That fact would be irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper? Seriously? I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing. This is very educational. So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.

I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit. I don't believe that.

I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now?

Gays marry for all the same reasons straights do. Let me know how your protests of city clerks offices are going.

Bam! You're starting to develop a long term memory. You still can't state anything without overt bias, but what you said is actually based on what I said. Let's hope that can hold.

I didn't actually say either of those strawmen though. A

Seawytch: "I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage"

- I said that I didn't question government in marriage at that time. The reason I wanted it was the reasons I said, my wife wasn't going to marry me in the church or outside it without a government marriage. The government in my marriage wasn't that important to me then either but I didn't question it then. I was always pretty libertarian, but in the 80s I was really a conservative as for example I was pro-life, for the war on drugs and supported being in the middle east. I always opposed morality laws. That started changing as I read Atlas Shrugged and other Ayn Rand and libertarian writers and I started to question everything government did. I am still against abortion, but I don't think it's government's job to do that, so politically I am pro-choice. I oppose drugs, but I don't think it's government's job to do that and oppose the war on drugs. I first voted Libertarian (for the party) in 96. I said now I am against government in marriage, then I wasn't. That isn't what your strawman asserted.

Seawytch: "and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now? "

- No, I don't need to take back something I never said. I said the government part is meaningless in my marriage to me and I think government should not be involved in marriage at all. I support changing the law so the reasons it exists aren't necessary. No one should pay a tax for dying, it's another redundant tax and it's for social policy not tax revenue. Taxes should be flat. Parentage should be determined by genes not paper. What couples are agreeing to should be a contract between them, not a contract between them and their politician and bureaucrat. Ironic since you get that with abortion decisions, LOL.

You use words like "loathing" because since you are such an angry person, you assume everyone else is angry too and see it even when it's not there.

 

[kaz]

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

But when they do, it's their state right, right?

Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals. I'll break it down more.

Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws. There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them. The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws. It cannot prevent States from implementing them.

State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them. I oppose them implementing them.

What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question. Have we connected yet?

Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.

And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument? I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level. I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are. I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it. I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it. Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue. I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.

The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.

LOL, liberals crack me up. Sylar says I'm not allowed to question whether government should do something, only what government should do. You say I'm allowed to have an opinion on the Federal level but not what States and local government's do. You're both idiots, I don't know how to respond to that other than to let you know I'm going to pass on your instructions.

 

[kaz]

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell. It's no "less." LOL, liberals have no gray at all. It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

 

[Silhouette]

I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals. My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.

A shoving match...hmmm...wouldn't that get the thread shut down? ..lol..

Yes Jake, you must be overwhelmed with how clear your conscience is lying to the general public as you are here, with your knowledge of legal ease and how precedents work, insisting that congregations of individual christians (churches) have nothing to fear being sued as individual christians have already received the whip of today.

"Oh, no! The church of LGBT will draw the line at suing GROUPS of chrisitans...worry not!"

That is very very intellectually dishonest of you Jakey. Not a clear conscience for you at all..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The intellectual dishonesty of Sil comes in part from not telling the truth and in part from suggesting "shoving match" used above is violent rhetoric.

Foolish Sil. It is not such and Sil knows it, but is reduced to vague threats because the issue will be over in June.

Lying Sil. Sil knows churches of all religions have nothing to fear from the impending ruling. Sil's fear mongering reveals his terror that feels for what is coming.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for any reason. Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against other people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.

1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.

2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.

Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.

You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...

1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic.

2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?

In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.

I can't believe that you took something that is said about a broader interpretation of discrimination on here, and somehow turned what I said towards the gay's. Kidding me right ? Sometimes we may veer off topic for a second or two in order to discuss an item or two that may or may not be related, but that doesn't mean that the item applies to the thread in the way that you tried to work it in that way. You people are as cunning as a snake and more poisonous than a green mamba I think.

 

[beagle9]

The intellectual dishonesty of Sil comes in part from not telling the truth and in part from suggesting "shoving match" used above is violent rhetoric.

Foolish Sil. It is not such and Sil knows it, but is reduced to vague threats because the issue will be over in June.

Lying Sil. Sil knows churches of all religions have nothing to fear from the impending ruling. Sil's fear mongering reveals his terror that feels for what is coming.

Let me ask you something Jake.. When a person goes to Church to learn about sin and what the Bible says about that sin, and the Christians then leave the Church or place of teachings armed with the knowledge of sin, then how is that the Christian student is supposed to apply those teachings in their everyday lives in America now ? I mean when the Christians leave that Church does the learning that was taught to them end there ? Is it not allowed for them to come out into the public having the knowledge of sin in their understanding now, and also having the knowledge of what it does to a human being as it now resides within their hearts and minds these teachings ? How are they to separate themselves freely from that sin when it is encountered by them where ever they might go in life ?

Are they discriminating against someone, when they are trying to separate themselves from the sin in which may be engulfing the person in which they would want to help all because of or would it be better for them to go on and attempt to get themselves away from that sin if they are rejected by the person who see's that sin as being OK in his or her life ? As the number grows in the acceptance of sin these days, is it safe to say that Christians territory in America will be shrinking by leaps and bounds now in America ? Will they survive it all or will sin win the day in the end against them and their beliefs in these things ?

 

[Paperman299]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for any reason. Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against other people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.

1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.

2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.

Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.

You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...

1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic.

2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?

In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.

I can't believe that you took something that is said about a broader interpretation of discrimination on here, and somehow turned what I said towards the gay's. Kidding me right ? Sometimes we may veer off topic for a second or two in order to discuss an item or two that may or may not be related, but that doesn't mean that the item applies to the thread in the way that you tried to work it in that way. You people are as cunning as a snake and more poisonous than a green mamba I think.

Everything I wrote after "Secondly" in that post was pertaining to discrimination against homosexuals. Those "other people" I referenced were homosexuals. Since you numbered your post the same way, I assumed in my next reply that you had ordered your content the same way, and that all that you wrote in your #2 spot pertained to discrimination against homosexuals.

It's a misunderstanding. Bring it down a notch.

 

[Seawytch]

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell. It's no "less." LOL, liberals have no gray at all. It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.

I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell. I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.

 

[Seawytch]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A Christian does not rely on the far right social con churches to tell him about sin, righteousness, and morality, for they a sink pit of depraved heresies that exalt a false interpretation of Jesus and His Will.

The Pharisees of our religious far right today are interested in controlling others, not their personal welfare or their salvation.

beagle, most American Christians simply don't accept your intepretations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.

stmike is a bigot and liar both.