Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too. Don't forget the polygamists! You always leave them out Seawytch. Why do you leave out the polygamists? Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo? Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to? Really? After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?

You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th. So why not advertise it now? Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative? You know it's a fact.

We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day. You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems. What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race. Are all those laws discriminatory? Of course they are. And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination. Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't. I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

If you have to ask that, then you are too stupid to participate in this discussion.

Based on your response, I'm gonna assume you think all polygamists of the bible were to stupid. Oh btw use the word to when saying to stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too. Don't forget the polygamists! You always leave them out Seawytch. Why do you leave out the polygamists? Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo? Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to? Really? After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?

You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th. So why not advertise it now? Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative? You know it's a fact.

We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day. You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems. What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race. Are all those laws discriminatory? Of course they are. And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination. Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't. I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed. How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.

What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?),

Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?

WHy is it the homophobes always have to throw in incest, pedophilia or bestiality when they can't make a rational argument against homosexuality?

Obviously, a woman marrying her adoptive son would cause harm in that there would be some serious psychological abuse going on.

Now here's the thing. the very act of having sex with a close blood relative is a crime. This is what you guys don't get, is when the court struck down all the sodomy laws, they opened the door to gay marriage.

Not that anyone is actually out there fighting for incestuous marriage, but they'd have to strike down the laws in all the states.

 

[Gadawg73]

For those that have a religious test to oppose gay marriage:

"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

 

[Seawytch]

Quite true. My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor. She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.

Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.

Which has fuck-all to do with the topic OR with Christianity . . . so it's par for the course where your posts are concerned.

It has everything to do with the topic. Churches cannot be forced to perform ceremonies against the tenants of their faith. They aren't forced by the government to perform ceremonies for divorced or interracial couples.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed. How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?

Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

[

So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.

What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?),

Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?

WHy is it the homophobes always have to throw in incest, pedophilia or bestiality when they can't make a rational argument against homosexuality?

Obviously, a woman marrying her adoptive son would cause harm in that there would be some serious psychological abuse going on.

Now here's the thing. the very act of having sex with a close blood relative is a crime. This is what you guys don't get, is when the court struck down all the sodomy laws, they opened the door to gay marriage.

Not that anyone is actually out there fighting for incestuous marriage, but they'd have to strike down the laws in all the states.

Why do you have to resort to name calling, incest pedophilia, and bestiality will be next on the board after homosexuals, if they get their way. There is nothing irrational about it. You just can't stand the comparison that it is just "immoral people committing disgusting acts" and that includes homosexuals.

Now 2 adopted children, both not blood relatives decide they want to get married. Are you going to tell them they can't? I got a million of these, by the way.

Everyone of the cases listed by me, have more legitimate rights to be married than homosexuals do. For they did not make a choice to be born related. Homosexuals make a choice, everyone knows that, homosexuals just try to pretend to themselves that "God made me this way" but they make the choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"a brother and sister getting hitched" is silly statement and a matter of legislative action, which will never occur.

 

[Seawytch]

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed. How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?

Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.

If you truly believe that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to civilly marry, I wish you luck in court. Your fight for sibling marriage is unrelated to gays seeking marriage equality.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think you're making my point, right?

Or you are making my point. You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy.

I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior. Nutz.

Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority. Hypocrites are in all groups.

Who's "we", paleface? I think the way people conduct their "relationships" these days is utterly, cockeyed insane and virtually guaranteed to bring them nothing but misery and drama. On the other hand, drama seems to be the only thing most people seem to want these days, so maybe that's why they do it.

Ok. Are you gonna brand a scarlet letter on non-monogamous hetero foreheads and ban them from having the same liberties as monogamous heteros as you have done to gays? Or are you a hypocrite with regard to how you judge others sins?

Oh and the "we" well that would be others who think like me that people should live as free men and women and not be subject to tyrannical views of those who give themselves authority over liberty.

 

[RKMBrown]

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay. Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry. Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage. It's completely different ... yeah right. Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book. IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse. Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings. IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.

Minority group? Hmmm? How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?

Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.

If you don't know what the term minority means look it up in the dictionary.

Lying is a sin. Should we take away your liberties because you lied?

 

[RKMBrown]

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed. How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?

Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.

Then I, personally, would have no problem with it. Not my cup of tea. But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty. If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child. Maybe some system where we let them petition, hear their petition, give them education on the dangers and what will befall them, then have a judge decide on the petition as to whether the couple appears to be ready to adhere to your proposed limitations.

 

[Gadawg73]

Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed. How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?

Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.

Then I, personally, would have no problem with it. Not my cup of tea. But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty. If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.

What harm to the child?

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.

Then I, personally, would have no problem with it. Not my cup of tea. But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty. If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.

What harm to the child?

Your kidding right? The chances of genetic problems with a child increase by an order of magnitude when the child is born of two siblings. At least that's what I had read as the basis for the law. What is your understanding for the basis?

Percent of children with severe birth defects.

 

[Silhouette]

This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.

Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:

1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and

2. They feel very passionate about that.

Adjust your political platforms accordingly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and

The poll asked "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

That's not what you said.



You appear to be trying to play word-games and imply that 85% of people feel that States should not be Constitutionally required to treat same-sex couples equally under the law.

That is a much different question.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.

Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:

1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and

2. They feel very passionate about that.

Adjust your political platforms accordingly.

One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately

Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion

So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.

SCOTUS disagrees.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you "do not want" gay marriage
THEN:
Do not marry a gay person.

 

[Gadawg73]

Then I, personally, would have no problem with it. Not my cup of tea. But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty. If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.

What harm to the child?

Your kidding right? The chances of genetic problems with a child increase by an order of magnitude when the child is born of two siblings. At least that's what I had read as the basis for the law. What is your understanding for the basis?

Percent of children with severe birth defects.

Read it wrong, thought you were speaking of gays adopting kids as I responded to the wrong post.
Totally agree with what you are saying. My bad.

 

[Gadawg73]

Christian Victim mentality:
I am allowed to oppose whatever I want to and NO ONE can question my beliefs because I AM A CHRISTIAN.
All the while they bash anyone and everyone when they disagree with THEM.

I oppose all of the political correctness where everyone is always offended by the slightest of things. Time for people to grow some stones.
All the while if THEY are offended by something then they want a law to ban it because they do not want to hear about it.

Hypocrits of the highest order practicing their double standard.