Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

If you bigots, don't like it, why don't you call for abolishing the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. You are allowed a process for doing that, oh wait you know you can't lol.

Us gay loving patriotic americans will continue to carry out the egalitarian, secular, liberal, and sexually libertine agenda of the founding fathers and preserve the original intent of the Constitution.

bravo, great satire!

Do look up charitable activities in relationship to the tax laws, though.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

If you bigots, don't like it, why don't you call for abolishing the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. You are allowed a process for doing that, oh wait you know you can't lol.

Us gay loving patriotic americans will continue to carry out the egalitarian, secular, liberal, and sexually libertine agenda of the founding fathers and preserve the original intent of the Constitution.

bravo, great satire!

Do look up charitable activities in relationship to the tax laws, though.

The "letter of the law", you could say it is something I am gay for...

 

[Andylusion]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?

Facetious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Trust me, there is nothing waiting for us when we die. No thought, no vision, no senses, nothing. Religion is an outdated lie which tries to explain the universe to simpletons. Much in the same way that the story of Santa Claus is used to condition children to behave a certain way, religion is a story used to condition societies to behave a certain way.

But since humanity is capable of great acts of kindness and simultaneously great acts of evil, the contradictions inherent in human nature carry into humanity's religions, causing an irreconcilable dichotomy within the teachings of the religion. Contradictions such as "God loves you unconditionally, unless you don't believe in Him in which case He will punish you forever in lava." Religion is a very bad, very sick joke which has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities that humans can think of.

The sooner that people realize that we don't need religion to explain the world to us anymore, the sooner we can begin to look at the reality of our situation and stop looking for salvation and redemption in the clouds and start to work together towards salvation and redemption here on Earth, because this is the only home that We the Human Race will ever know.

The major religions even try to tell us that this world is unimportant, and we shouldn't care about what happens here because "Heaven" is forever. Heaven doesn't exist. It is a lie. We need to work to stop the lies which are destroying our home and killing our people. One of the lies that is causing strife and misery for humans is the idea that gay marriage will somehow destroy civilization. It won't. That is a religious lie that should be identified and rejected.

And you can prove there is nothing after death? You've been there? Or know someone who has? Because I do... and He said there was.

 

[JoeB131]

As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone. I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else. I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.

But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage. If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".

Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.

But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want. What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style. THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.

Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.

The reason why gays are "hung up" on the word marriage can be explained in one picture.

Now you can argue that "Civil Unions" dispense the same nice water that "Marriage" does, but the fact is that it is a stigmatizing separation, therefore, unconstitutional.

Separate but Equal is not Equal.

 

[Andylusion]

As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone. I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else. I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.

But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage. If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".

Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.

But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want. What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style. THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.

Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.

The reason why gays are "hung up" on the word marriage can be explained in one picture.

Now you can argue that "Civil Unions" dispense the same nice water that "Marriage" does, but the fact is that it is a stigmatizing separation, therefore, unconstitutional.

Separate but Equal is not Equal.

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

 

[Andylusion]

[

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

Irrelevant. Marriage and Race are not connected.

Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?

Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.

You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong. Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman. Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.

It's not that difficult. There actually is no such thing as race. Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.

There is no different race of Humans. We are all human.

So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.

Homosexuality is a mental illness. It causes death, and the spread of disease. It causes suicide and domestic violence. It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.

You can do it all you want. But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same. It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two. But that goes hand in hand with what it is.

 

[Seawytch]

you just made the case against gay marriage

because the next natural legal step is multiple marriages of all forms and numbers. If a gay union of two people is called a marriage then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought against polygamy and bigamy or all forms. Maybe you and your "partner" can bring your dog into the "marriage".

Oh Fishy...you have no idea how much folks like you help marriage equality along...

As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone. I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else. I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.

But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage. If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".

Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.

But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want. What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style. THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.

Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.

How many times do you have to be spanked on this issue? You do this every time...you lie, you get caught, you run away. It's quite the pattern.

Gays don't care what it's called, you do...therefore the onus is on YOU to change it (for everyone). Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant. Marriage and Race are not connected.

Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?

Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.

You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong. Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman. Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.

It's not that difficult. There actually is no such thing as race. Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.

There is no different race of Humans. We are all human.

So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.

Homosexuality is a mental illness. It causes death, and the spread of disease. It causes suicide and domestic violence. It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.

You can do it all you want. But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same. It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two. But that goes hand in hand with what it is.

Guy, the problem with the "historical" marriage argument is that through most of history, marriage was not a union of equals but a transfer of property. A father was expected to transfer the property of his daughter to another man, often with the payment of a dowry. The man had the unquestioned right to beat his wife for disobedience or even kill her for adultery.

Clearly, this is not the kind of marriage we have in the US today.

And frankly, the only mental illness I see here is your homophobia.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

[

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.

Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.

Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?

I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.

Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.

Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?

I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.

Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.

I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.

It was asked for a very specific reason. There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?

I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.

Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.

I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.

It was asked for a very specific reason. There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

 

[Seawytch]

[

Still not applicable. Marriage and race are not connected in any way.

They most certainly are.

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple. SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama. And the vote was 60-40 for.

Get this. 40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!

Irrelevant. Marriage and Race are not connected.

Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?

Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.

You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong. Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman. Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.

It's not that difficult. There actually is no such thing as race. Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.

There is no different race of Humans. We are all human.

So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.

Homosexuality is a mental illness. It causes death, and the spread of disease. It causes suicide and domestic violence. It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.

You can do it all you want. But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same. It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two. But that goes hand in hand with what it is.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (although both are innate traits). What is compared, and comparable, is the discrimination.

My legal marriage license, issued by the State of California, disagrees with your "it's not a marriage" sentiment...which is all that matters.

 

[Seawytch]

I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.

Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.

I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.

It was asked for a very specific reason. There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.

Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.

It was asked for a very specific reason. There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.

Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?

If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.

My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.

I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

More power to you. I'm sure that fear of your magic sky fairy keeps a lot of you misogynists under control.

[
Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

[

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

More power to you. I'm sure that fear of your magic sky fairy keeps a lot of you misogynists under control.

[
Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.

Is insults and name calling all you have? Can you provide no intelligent argument?

I know exactly when I made my choice. If I choose not to provide that information to you, that is my choice after all...

Now go back to your name calling and senseless arguments, you make things much harder for homosexuals to get any real credibility, and I wish to see you continue to make false arguments...

 

[Seawytch]

I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.

Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.

Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.

Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?

If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.

That's great...I have no problem with heterosexual civil unions in that case. If you get civil marriage, I get civil marriage. If you don't want me to have civil marriage, the onus is on you to change civil marriage to civil unions for everyone.

I'd also like to point out that there is not state in the US where gays turned down civil unions, but there are 19 that wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws.

My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.

Then your "problem" is entirely contrived because race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, discrimination is...so it is no where near analogous to comparing consenting adult gays to pedophiles.

Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.

Being gay isn't a choice, acting on it is. The "bad choice" is when gay people lie to themselves and others when they try to live life as heterosexuals.

We agree, the government should not force churches to perform ceremonies against the tenants of their faith. (Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples) They never have been and they never will.

Public opinion will do it for them.