Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Uncensored2008]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

 

[Spoonman]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

yea, those clowns think they are like the elite noble. they see themselves as royalty

 

[bodecea]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

No it will not. But we can keep track of your wishful thinking in that regard.

 

[The Rabbi]

where does it say that?

Where does it say what?

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

Gen 5:2 for starters. It is clear these were the only two humans created by G-d.

 

[High_Gravity]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest was acceptable back in medieval England right?

 

[bodecea]

Where does it say what?

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

Gen 5:2 for starters. It is clear these were the only two humans created by G-d.

So...the bible promotes incest. I see.


I suppose you actually believe that load.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest was acceptable back in medieval England right?

It probably depends on the definition of incest. I dont recall any brothers and sisters marrying. But cousins were OK.

 

[The Rabbi]

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

Gen 5:2 for starters. It is clear these were the only two humans created by G-d.

So...the bible promotes incest. I see.


I suppose you actually believe that load.

I didnt suggest the Bible promotes incest. That's your spin. It actually forbids some forms of incest.

 

[bodecea]

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest was acceptable back in medieval England right?

It probably depends on the definition of incest. I dont recall any brothers and sisters marrying. But cousins were OK.

Actually, they were stricter when it was the kings, queens, etc. They needed papal dispensation by 2nd, 3rd cousins...

 

[Uncensored2008]

No it will not. But we can keep track of your wishful thinking in that regard.

Incest is the new Gay

Now that homosexuality is accepted and universally promoted, Hollywood has shifted focus to a new frontier of sexual deviancy, the normalization of incest.

Shows that feature incest;

Game of Thrones - Brother and Sister romance is the spawn of the young king
Dexter - Borderline since Deborah is not a blood relation.
Boardwalk Empire - Mother and son ******* is all the rage.
Yellow - Feature film that promotes brother and sister incest.

Of course father and daughter incest is the favorite of Hollywood; with many films featuring this "alternate orientation:"
"A Thousand Acres"
"Eve's Bayou"
"U-Turn"
"The Devil's Advocate"
"The Sweet Hereafter"
"Cold Around the Heart"

Is incest just another expression of love? Should we normalize incest and add it to the definition of marriage? Are those who speak against incest "bigots" and hate mongers?

{The director of the popular romance "The Notebook" was out promoting a new film that features an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister.

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes said. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”}

'The Notebook' director Nick Cassavetes says of incest: 'Who gives a damn?' | Fox News

As always, you're a complete ******* moron, Shortbus..

 

[Uncensored2008]

So...the bible promotes incest. I see.


I suppose you actually believe that load.

Same parents, huh Shortbus.

Oh wait, no parents at all.

Guess this was just another example of a topic too damned complicated for you....

 

[Spoonman]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest was acceptable back in medieval England right?

it was the preferred method among nobility to keep blood lines pure. not at much so with the common people

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see no issue with the above provided the buisness is in the open about it. Let the market decide. The woolworth segregated counter was a symbol of government mandated segregation, which was wrong and is unconsitutional. What was taken as the next step, banning buisness from VOLUNTARILY imposing restrictions on who they want to do business with to me was overreach.

To you going against your morals may not be real harm, but to the baker it sure as hell might be. So to you his discomfort of going against his morals is somehow to be ignored simply to make some gay couple able to use his services, even if there are other options availible who would be more than willing to do them?

What this is isnt about equality at that point, its about forcing people to have the same moral compass as yours.

It's interesting that at one point you said we need to draw the line somewhere, but every other post of yours seems to suggest that the line ought to be drawn just below 'anything goes' when it comes to business practices,

and just above 'sorry about that' when it comes to individuals.

Do you really think the spirit of our Constitution was meant to be that slanted towards businesses,

and away from individual rights and equality?

So when a person runs a buisiness they cease to be an individual? Being a baker requires you to check away your rights just to make some donuts?

The spirit of our consitution was to limit what government can do to individuals, even business owners. This limitiation was at the state and federal levels. What you seek is imposing your own will on the actions of others using the big stick of government to get your way.

There is nothing to gain from forcing a person to work with someone they do not want to work with, or in the event they refuse, ruining thier life and thier livelyhood. The only thing gained is some smug satisfaction people like you get when you force your ways on other people.

Where is the right to discriminate in our Constitution, explicitly or implicitly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

What is the opposition to incestuous marriage based on,

other than eugenics?

 

[antiquity]

Where does it say what?

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

Gen 5:2 for starters. It is clear these were the only two humans created by G-d.

According to KJV both the man and woman names were Adam. What gives with that?

 

[antiquity]

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest! Kind of like back to our roots according to the Bible?

 

[Katzndogz]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Trust me on this, in 10 years, Incest will be regarded as "normal."

Hollywood is already engaged in a major campaign to legitimize/promote incest. I did a thread on this not long ago.

Incest was acceptable back in medieval England right?

It depends on the limitationn you put on incest. Brothers and sisters did not marry as the Egyptians did. The royal families of Europe being royal families all married one another. They are cousins of one another. Even so, royal famiilies occasionally threw in a bastard once in a while. For commoners, war helped keep the gene pool healthy.

 

[The Rabbi]

that Adam and eve were the only people made or even the first made? God made man the bible didn't say God just made Adam. God made Adam, Eve cause he was unhappy the bible didn't say that women weren't already made prior.

Gen 5:2 for starters. It is clear these were the only two humans created by G-d.

According to KJV both the man and woman names were Adam. What gives with that?

I dont know what the KJV is.
Odom is the generic term for Man in Hebrew.

 

[jtpr312]

It always amazes me that these guys who are the loudest homophobes are usually the ones caught in a hotel room with a gay hooker and a pile of crystal meth.

Lol, it always amazes me how eventually the ****** will resort to calling a straight person a ****** as an insult, showing that even they know the truth.

He didn't call you gay, he merely spoke a statistical reality...that the most vocally homophobic usually get caught with a dick in their mouths.

Yeah, he pretty much did imply that, the fact that you had a problem comprehending that shows me you're not only a vulgar sob, but a dumbass also. Don't worry though, I expect moralless deviants to be vulgar and you sure showed me I was correct.

 

[jtpr312]

Noom, you're responding to a full fledged racist who won't hire people because they're black let alone gay.

You know that how?
So what? Is that wrong?

Because he said so if you bothered to read the thread.

Not hiring someone because they are black is not only immoral, it's illegal.

Nothing immoral about it, I have experience working with negroes and have seen their work ethic first hand and I want no part of it. We won't even get into the fact that approx. 33% of the male negroes in this nation are under, or have been unde,r some form of court supervision, may it be jail, prison, probation, parole or house arrest.