Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions


Look at California. San Francisco to be exact.

Look at Massechuesetts.

This entire debate is about making marriage available to all.

Some links to the issue:

New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

ALLorNotAtAll.org » Blog Archiv » Protest at Anti-Gay Pastor Rick Warren’s Church

We are going to hold a peaceful protest with a positive tone outside his church the Sunday before he delivers the invocation in D.C. to let him know that we are not some radical, crazy fringe group that is merely looking to be appeased. It is time for us to go stand outside his homophobic bubble and show him the harm that he is causing. Show him that he cannot use religion and the Bible as a weapon. Show him that we are not child molesters or polygamists and that we are not looking to marry our pets. Show him that we are also kind, decent humans who deserve the same treatment in the eyes of the law as every member of his congregation.

This is about forcing churches to succumb to the pressure and to accept and marry gays in church. This is a war waged against the doctrine of the church and nothing short of complete acceptance will suffice to appease the activists.

Immie


No, these are legitimate protests against an out of state controlled religious organization
spending millions of dollars in CA to maintain Segregation. I'm proud to have been at some of those protests too.

So there were never any protest before Prop 8? It all has to do with the millions of dollars spent by the church to defeat one Prop? Even the protests that happened years before the proposed prop?

Immie
 
Gay marriage has been in MA for about five years. How many lawsuits can you show that have been filed against churches trying to force them to marry gays?

So, because no law suits have yet been filed, that means that gay activists are not pushing the issue?

Activists know that at this point in time, they would lose such a battle based upon the Separation between church and state issues. That does not mean they are satisfied with separate but equal. The timing is not right, but the battle is not over by a long shot

They would not be protesting churches if this were only a legal issue.

Immie

We were protesting churches becoming involved in a LEGAL issue.

Isn't it odd that you don't have a problem with the church sticking it's nose into civil matters...isn't it?

These protests have been going on for a hell of a lot longer than Prop 8 has been discussed.

What civil matters might you be thinking about and how do you know that I don't have a problem with it?

Immie
 
Look at California. San Francisco to be exact.

Look at Massechuesetts.

This entire debate is about making marriage available to all.

Some links to the issue:

New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

ALLorNotAtAll.org » Blog Archiv » Protest at Anti-Gay Pastor Rick Warren’s Church



This is about forcing churches to succumb to the pressure and to accept and marry gays in church. This is a war waged against the doctrine of the church and nothing short of complete acceptance will suffice to appease the activists.

Immie


No, these are legitimate protests against an out of state controlled religious organization
spending millions of dollars in CA to maintain Segregation. I'm proud to have been at some of those protests too.

So there were never any protest before Prop 8? It all has to do with the millions of dollars spent by the church to defeat one Prop? Even the protests that happened years before the proposed prop?

Immie
Show me some church protests before the churches pulled out all the stops with Prop 8...I'd like to read about them.


BTW, I live here in CA...the churches were handing out 100,000s of free yellow "Yes on H8" signs and bumperstickers. The churches were cancelling mass/services and marching their congregations, kids in tow, to street corners to protest, yell, and hold up signs on Sundays. All in the name of Segregation.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't see what you are attempting to state.

Are you saying that gays do not want to be accepted by all of us including the church and that they do not want to be married by the church?

Of course, not all of them are interested in a church wedding, but many of them are.

And simply because you, Valerie, Bod and others do not agree with me, does not make me wrong. Nor does it make me dishonest.

Immie


I don't think you're being "dishonest", I just think you've fallen for the Church rhetoric that has deliberately mischaracterized the "evil gay agenda" in this manner.

Despite any particular individual emotions on the subject, "The Gay Agenda" has never asserted their "rights" to receive the Holy Sacrament of Marriage in any Church! :rolleyes: In fact, a big part of their legal argument affirms the separation of Church and State...The Church [DOMA] can not dictate to the State which committed relationships it can legally recognize as equal...so Civil Marriage or Civil Union is being sought by committed homosexual couples so they will be equally recognized under the LAW, not under the CHURCH!

Payperview is the one that called me dishonest.

so Civil Marriage or Civil Union is being sought by committed homosexual couples so they will be equally recognized under the LAW, not under the CHURCH!

When I first entered this discussion, I made it clear that the majority of people both gay and straight would accept civil unions. Perhaps you missed the distinction between majority and activists?

I am certain that the most people both homosexuals and heterosexuals believe that state sanctioned civil unions, both gay and straight, is a compromise that fits well. But, I believe the devout activists, the extremists, (on both sides) will not be satisfied with this middle of the road answer. That was all I was trying to say.

Immie


But why do you want to cling to this notion of such "extreme activists" pushing for Church acceptance when it is indeed a fallacy in this debate? The Church was NEVER in danger of having the State dictate who is eligible for the Sacrament of Marriage.

Yes, most gays are angry at those religious folks who ran around the country in "Defense of Marriage" but that's just the emotional level, not the REAL legal issues involved.

I have not had a chance to read this entire thread, but I just happened to notice your post which perpetuated this MYTH of gays forcing themselves onto Churches.

When all is said and done here, it looks like we actually agree except for that whole fallacy thang. :lol:
 
45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?

Churches have been and will continue to be able to discriminate in who they wish to marry, for whatever reason.
Your commentary on that is a

You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie


Immie, I think this is a fallacy...Or it has become a (deliberate?) misunderstanding from the Church perspective?

I'd like to see just ONE instance of this ever happening...Gays trying to force their will upon the CHURCH?

Gays are not trying to force CHURCHES to marry them, they are trying to force the state LAWS to recognize their committed partnerships equally.


Sorry Val, I disagree, if a same sex couple can sue a photographer for refusing to take pictures and win, they can and will sue a church for not allowing a same sex wedding.
 
Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?



You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie


Gay marriage has been in MA for about five years. How many lawsuits can you show that have been filed against churches trying to force them to marry gays?

So, because no law suits have yet been filed, that means that gay activists are not pushing the issue?

Activists know that at this point in time, they would lose such a battle based upon the Separation between church and state issues. That does not mean they are satisfied with separate but equal. The timing is not right, but the battle is not over by a long shot

They would not be protesting churches if this were only a legal issue.

Immie


So you make a claim about gay activists and when it's realized you cannot support that claim you justify it using......what? A 900 psychic hotline? Magic 8 Ball? Miss Cleo's Guide Through the Stars?

What the fuck is wrong with people like you? Even them you know you can't defend a claim you invent some corny yellow brick road reason why you are not wrong.
 
The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.


During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.


When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."


The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.


"We were crushed," she says. "I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful."


Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. "We were so stunned, we didn't know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done," she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.


"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
 
Last edited:
Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?



You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie


Immie, I think this is a fallacy...Or it has become a (deliberate?) misunderstanding from the Church perspective?

I'd like to see just ONE instance of this ever happening...Gays trying to force their will upon the CHURCH?

Gays are not trying to force CHURCHES to marry them, they are trying to force the state LAWS to recognize their committed partnerships equally.


Sorry Val, I disagree, if a same sex couple can sue a photographer for refusing to take pictures and win, they can and will sue a church for not allowing a same sex wedding.



:lol: Yeah, so anybody can ATTEMPT to sue anybody...SO WHAT??? :lol:



I'm going to need more details about this story you mention, but if the law found this photographer conducting business contrary to discrimination laws, it CERTAINLY wouldn't be the same as the legal view of a Church performing a religious Sacrament, now would it?
 
Immie, I think this is a fallacy...Or it has become a (deliberate?) misunderstanding from the Church perspective?

I'd like to see just ONE instance of this ever happening...Gays trying to force their will upon the CHURCH?

Gays are not trying to force CHURCHES to marry them, they are trying to force the state LAWS to recognize their committed partnerships equally.


Sorry Val, I disagree, if a same sex couple can sue a photographer for refusing to take pictures and win, they can and will sue a church for not allowing a same sex wedding.



:lol: Yeah, so anybody can ATTEMPT to sue anybody...SO WHAT??? :lol:



I'm going to need more details about this story you mention, but if the law found this photographer conducting business contrary to discrimination laws, it CERTAINLY wouldn't be the same as the legal view of a Church performing a religious Sacrament, now would it?

See above. Post 167

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...attention-to-civil-unions-12.html#post1763870
 
Last edited:
As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.


"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.


Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.


A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.


On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.


Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"


Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.
"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."


Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.


"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.


The defendants' attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he's gay. But it's different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don't believe, he says.


"It's a very different situation when we're talking about promoting a message," Lorence says. "When it's 'We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,' that for me is a very different deal. It's compelled speech. You're using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you."


In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
 
I'll postulate the same hypothetical situation I offered to Dogbert.



If you, a pro-choice print shop owner, refuse to print pro-life material for my church group, should I have the right to sue you for violating my religious civil rights?


Or taking it a step further:

If I, a conservative photographer, refuse to take pictures for an ultra-liberal PACs ad campaign, should they be able to sue me for discriminating on the basis of political orientation?
 
Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?



You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie


Immie, I think this is a fallacy...Or it has become a (deliberate?) misunderstanding from the Church perspective?

I'd like to see just ONE instance of this ever happening...Gays trying to force their will upon the CHURCH?

Gays are not trying to force CHURCHES to marry them, they are trying to force the state LAWS to recognize their committed partnerships equally.


Sorry Val, I disagree, if a same sex couple can sue a photographer for refusing to take pictures and win, they can and will sue a church for not allowing a same sex wedding.

Photographer = church in a 1st amendment issue? Are you serious?
 
The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.


During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.


When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."


The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.


"We were crushed," she says. "I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful."


Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. "We were so stunned, we didn't know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done," she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.


"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

Ah, I love it how this story keeps popping up... You DO realize that the religious organization has a contract stating they could not discriminate in the usage/renting of that site (which, btw, is NOT a church nor a religious service place)?
 
No, these are legitimate protests against an out of state controlled religious organization
spending millions of dollars in CA to maintain Segregation. I'm proud to have been at some of those protests too.

So there were never any protest before Prop 8? It all has to do with the millions of dollars spent by the church to defeat one Prop? Even the protests that happened years before the proposed prop?

Immie
Show me some church protests before the churches pulled out all the stops with Prop 8...I'd like to read about them.


BTW, I live here in CA...the churches were handing out 100,000s of free yellow "Yes on H8" signs and bumperstickers. The churches were cancelling mass/services and marching their congregations, kids in tow, to street corners to protest, yell, and hold up signs on Sundays. All in the name of Segregation.

You cannot honestly believe that these protests against the church only began in what 2008? This has been going on for decades.

1993 far enough before Prop 8?

Homosexuals in San Francisco Stage Riotous Protest at Local Baptist Church

Unfortunately, I have to admit that Googling "gays protest church" and other variations provides a hell of a lot of Prop 8 protests and finding links to protests before Prop 8 is difficult for me at the moment. Also, much of what is found is the church's reply so that doesn't fit in this discussion as we are looking for gays protesting against churches not the churchs' response.

But I ask you, do you honestly believe that Gay activists only began their assaults on the church because of Prop 8?

I remember, but can't find a link to, gays entering a church in SF probably 3 or 4 years ago in protest and disrupting the services in protest.

Can you tell me what you think Gays want and how they would acheive their desires? Is it not acceptance by straight people? Would that not include "Gay Marriage" and acceptance by the church? Ordination? "Equal Rights"? Can they be equal if the church will not marry them?

How does the church fit into this if it is only based upon Prop 8?

Why all the protests against churches in other states besides California? Gay protests against the church are about acceptance of the Gay lifestyle. These protests did not simply spring up during the battle for Prop 8 although there has plenty of that. Gays have been demanding acceptance by the church for decades

Gay protests against the church have been going on for decades. Not only in reference to marriage; but ordination and adoption as well.

BTW as for what the churches did in California, no where have I supported that stance.

Immie

PS: I apologize for not taking more time to find better links. I'm in the middle of a project and not giving this discussion my full attention.
 
Ah, I love it how this story keeps popping up... You DO realize that the religious organization has a contract stating they could not discriminate in the usage/renting of that site

Credible Link?

(which, btw, is NOT a church nor a religious service place)?

May I call your attention again to the activist's quote:
"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"
 
Last edited:
As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.


"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.


Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.


A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.


A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel
a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.



Gee, I notice NONE of these legal examples have ANYthing to do with a Church being forced to perform a religious Sacrament. :eusa_whistle:


Some guy named Stern has projected some of legal "what ifs?" based on some law suits involving gay people as if individual minorities never sued anybody before this whole "radical" marriage agenda swept across the nation...? :lol: Notice the legal marital status of these individuals has nothing to do with any of the legalities in these cases?

People can ATTEMPT to sue each other for all sorts of discrimination, sometimes there is a valid legal argument and sometimes there is none. Citing individual legal cases and individual emotional reactions DOES NOT constitute an "extreme" gay marriage agenda.
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage has been in MA for about five years. How many lawsuits can you show that have been filed against churches trying to force them to marry gays?

So, because no law suits have yet been filed, that means that gay activists are not pushing the issue?

Activists know that at this point in time, they would lose such a battle based upon the Separation between church and state issues. That does not mean they are satisfied with separate but equal. The timing is not right, but the battle is not over by a long shot

They would not be protesting churches if this were only a legal issue.

Immie


So you make a claim about gay activists and when it's realized you cannot support that claim you justify it using......what? A 900 psychic hotline? Magic 8 Ball? Miss Cleo's Guide Through the Stars?

What the fuck is wrong with people like you? Even them you know you can't defend a claim you invent some corny yellow brick road reason why you are not wrong.

Can you not enter a discussion and honestly debate it?

This is a discussion. I may be wrong, but I do not believe so. Gay activists want acceptance from the church. I have proven that time and time again.

Acceptance would require full rights which would include the right of marriage and the right of ordination.

And you can't even argue against what I said. You know full well that any lawsuit be a lost cause at this point in time and extremely expensive to the cause. In fact, it might even be detrimental to the cause.

Immie
 
As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.


"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.


Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.


A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.


A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel
a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.



Gee, I notice NONE of these legal examples have ANYthing to do with a Church being forced to perform a religious Sacrament. :eusa_whistle:


Some guy named Stern has projected some of legal "what ifs?" based on some law suits involving gay people as if individual minorities never sued anybody before this whole "radical" marriage agenda swept across the nation...? :lol: Notice the legal marital status of these individuals has nothing to do with any of the legalities in these cases?

People can ATTEMPT to sue each other for all sorts of discrimination, sometimes there is a valid legal argument and sometimes there is none. Citing individual legal cases and individual emotional reactions DOES NOT constitute an "extreme" gay marriage agenda.


Wow, how narrowly can you focus that laser beam?

If the government is forcing me to violate my religious tenets, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon freedom of religious sacraments." It also doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws that infringe religious freedom except while you're at work".
 



Gee, I notice NONE of these legal examples have ANYthing to do with a Church being forced to perform a religious Sacrament. :eusa_whistle:


Some guy named Stern has projected some of legal "what ifs?" based on some law suits involving gay people as if individual minorities never sued anybody before this whole "radical" marriage agenda swept across the nation...? :lol: Notice the legal marital status of these individuals has nothing to do with any of the legalities in these cases?

People can ATTEMPT to sue each other for all sorts of discrimination, sometimes there is a valid legal argument and sometimes there is none. Citing individual legal cases and individual emotional reactions DOES NOT constitute an "extreme" gay marriage agenda.


Wow, how narrowly can you focus that laser beam?


If the government is forcing me to violate my religious tenets, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws infringing upon freedom of religious sacraments." It also doesn't say "Congress shall make no laws that infringe religious freedom except while you're at work".


:D My laser beam is focused on the legalities of Gay Marriage/Civil Union.


My posts in this thread, to Immie and now you, are focused on dispelling the notion of this new fallacy that gays are trying to force Churches to "Marry" them.
 
Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?



You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie
Prove it

Look at California. San Francisco to be exact.

Look at Massechuesetts.

This entire debate is about making marriage available to all.

Some links to the issue:

New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

http://www.allornotatall.org/protest-at-anti-gay-pastor-rick-warrens-church/

We are going to hold a peaceful protest with a positive tone outside his church the Sunday before he delivers the invocation in D.C. to let him know that we are not some radical, crazy fringe group that is merely looking to be appeased. It is time for us to go stand outside his homophobic bubble and show him the harm that he is causing. Show him that he cannot use religion and the Bible as a weapon. Show him that we are not child molesters or polygamists and that we are not looking to marry our pets. Show him that we are also kind, decent humans who deserve the same treatment in the eyes of the law as every member of his congregation.

This is about forcing churches to succumb to the pressure and to accept and marry gays in church. This is a war waged against the doctrine of the church and nothing short of complete acceptance will suffice to appease the activists.

Immie


With the call for "debating honestly" I quoted this post to show the lack of honesty via making a claim about gays then falling flat ass down canary canyon when you can't support it. Then you ask others if they can enter a debate and do it honestly? Your conspiracy theory about gays is simply ridiculous and if it wasn't you'd be able to support your claims.


You also seem to be woefully unaware there are Christian (and other) churches that do have ordained gays in the priesthood and will marry gays. Take your advice about being honest and apply it to yourself. Please.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom