Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[UllysesS.Archer]

Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it. When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.

 

[JoeB131]

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...

So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".

Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it. When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.

A lot of straight couples are either infertile or require some kind of assistance to have a child.

Some people get married with the intention of NEVER having kids.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

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...

So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".

Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.

Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.

Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.

 

[JoeB131]

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...

So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".

Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.

Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.

Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.

No, only thing that bugs me is the lengths you go to rationalize your homophobia.

Like somehow, being a homophobe is okay if a person decided they wanted to do the gay at 20 or something.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

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.

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual....

OH, wait. YOu can't.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".

Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.

Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.

Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.

No, only thing that bugs me is the lengths you go to rationalize your homophobia.

Like somehow, being a homophobe is okay if a person decided they wanted to do the gay at 20 or something.

I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts.

You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

That's nice... ok back to Marriage always being between a man and a woman. Does anything you said change that? No it does not.

As far as homophobia.... did I indicate I care what you think about me? No I did not. Feel free to assume from here on, that I do not. If that floats your tiny little boat, by all means. What you think about me, means nothing to me. Have a nice day.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual....

OH, wait. YOu can't.

Ah. I remember it like it was yesterday. But, again, I choose not to share with you...

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.

What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes. They are not sins except in your bigoted eyes.

Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.

Might makes right? yeah and if authoritarian gays were in the majority heteros would be declared sinners who made the wrong choice.. Face it, your argument is that of an authoritarian jerk.

You are trying to justify your bigotry by stating that they have a choice to be sinful or not. You are the one judging them. Who gave you the authority to judge them?

 

[JoeB131]

I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts.

You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.

What "disgusting acts" are you talking about? Anal Sex?

38% of straights engage in anal sex.

Oral sex? 99% of straights do that.

Throwing really good Oscar Parties? You're right. Those are disgusting, and straight people never do those.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

A Black person is born black... True.

However, Blacks could marry. They were no laws against that.




However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice. Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?



>>>>

 

[Andylusion]

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual....

OH, wait. YOu can't.

Actually... I think I can. I can remember the first time someone explained to me what homosexuality was, and I remember thinking, that is the most revolting, disgusting, sick twisted, perverted thing I had ever heard. You are going to stick your penis, up someone else's butt, where poo comes out... and you think this is 'normal'.

I pretty much decided that's not the way to go.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women. Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc. The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing. Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple. They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.

What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes. They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.

Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.

I never said being black was a sin. Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.

 

[Andylusion]

Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

A Black person is born black... True.

However, Blacks could marry. They were no laws against that.




However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice. Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?



>>>>

Race doesn't exist. Genetically there is only one race.

Homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Andylusion]

Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.

What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes. They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.

Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.

I never said being black was a sin. Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.

Yeah, these people are nutz comparing having dark skin, with homosexuality. It's insanity, but then... that's what being homosexual is all about. Absolute insanity.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.

A Black person is born black... True.

However, Blacks could marry. They were no laws against that.




However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice. Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?



>>>>

Race doesn't exist. Genetically there is only one race.

Homosexuality is a choice.

Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it. When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.

You admitted earlier that it was not. You said that you are attracted to many women, but choose to act out your attractions with only one woman (me too). You did not choose to be attracted to many women. Being gay is just like that. You don't choose your attractions, you only choose to act upon them.

What does having children have to do with marriage, civil or religious? What state, country or religion, requires procreation? Which of those requires divorce if you don't "pump 'em out"? This is what a Federal judge had to say about procreation and civil marriage:

In striking down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, a federal judge Tuesday rejected Gov. Steve Beshear's argument that the ban is needed because only opposite sex couples can procreate and maintain the state's birth rate and economy.

"These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''​

That's what we call a slam dunk.