- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,392
- Reaction score
- 20,164
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Well, if that's true, it's total bull****.
Why? It's a private church, and they can do whatever they want.
Well, if that's true, it's total bull****.
Were there religious exemptions on inter-racial marriage? That's where the favorite analogy of SSMers breaks apart.
The cons here are just too damn ready to apologize and make friends with our lib counterparts. I won't name names, but there are strong con posters who seem to go out of their way to say, "Oh, but I'm not a racist. or a homophobe, like those others." And they still get eaten up. SCREW that.
PS. Sooo. . . . you're gay too? Not that there's . . . .skip it.
That is fine. If a church doesn't want to do the ceremony, I am sure the couple can find another that will.
I forget who said it, but the comment was made about Nixon, and how he was great because he knew who the enemy was and went after them all out. He was terrible in that he sometimes thought other Americans are the enemy. Other Americans are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. If we remembered that more, we might be in better shape as a country.
I got into the gay mafia on the family plan. I have 2 gay relatives.
Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Yes. An example from 2000.
Pastor bars interracial marriage
I think this article puts it well.
The Rev. Madison Shockley: Racist Judge Inadvertently Makes the Case for Gay Marriage - Truthdig
Mon 21 Aug 00 18:31
Earlier this month it was reported that a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to perform the wedding of an interracial couple. Justice Keith Bardwell claimed he was not a racist, having married black couples in his own home, but explained that he declined all interracial marriages out of concern for the children of such unions. He voiced the belief that the children of interracial couples have a difficult time in life.
Does this mean it happened 11 years ago?
Anything more recent?
Oh. There is:
Note that Bardwell is not a man of the cloth, but a JP.
Yes, it's bull****. Both were wrong. In my experience, children of black-white marriages are freakin gorgeous.
No, they will not be forced by law in the future.
And that's the concern, I think.
the first amendment will not be changing in the future because of equal gay rights.
leaving aside the dispute over what you call "equal gay rights" - the first amendment absolutely will have it's enforcement changed over this issue in the future. already we have seen that the right to association (which is part of the first amendment) can fall before the homosexual demand for Acceptance. Dating sites are forced to match homosexual couples, and pushes abroad to force Christian adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual married couples have given rise to similar movements here.
marriage will be declared to be a state function (which it already is), and it will be argued that those entrusted with carrying out state duties are not allowed to discriminate. You start with adoption, then with employment, and you work your way up; and slowly the church's right of association falls before the demands of the Accept Me crowd. We still have all of the "Civil Rights" organizations decades after they have achieved the changes in law that they were founded to effect. Do you think that the homosexual advocacy movement will disappear simply because they succeed in having some states marry them? No, their organizations will continue to exist, and they will be in need of new justifications for their activism. Ministers and churches will be told to either start marrying homosexual couples, or lose their ability to officially wed people at all.
sadly (or not) no, it won't. the law has already ruled that Christian Organizations do not have the right to association when it comes to deciding to exclude homosexuals; and when it comes to their churches performing state duties? that law will turn quick.
and the people here and now swearing up and down that they would oppose such a measure will be defending it.
no doubt they will be allowed to continue to have religious ceremonies. they will simply lose the ability to perform legally binding ones.
and the inevitable is that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their license. :shrug: It's not a scare tactic - it's simply the direction of travel.
Slippery slope, not a logical argument. It is very plausible, and likely that a court will rule that churches have a right to discriminate on religious bounds when preforming a religious ceremony, even if there is a legal component involved, which separates it from other services where they aren't allowed to discriminate like adoption, in which they aren't preforming a religious ceremony.
Slippery slope, not a logical argument.
It is very plausible, and likely that a court will rule that churches have a right to discriminate on religious bounds when preforming a religious ceremony, even if there is a legal component involved, which separates it from other services where they aren't allowed to discriminate like adoption, in which they aren't preforming a religious ceremony.
I am completely opposed to the spread of religion. You have asked how I think it should be stopped. You think I meant that legal measures should be put in place to prevent the spread of religion. I don't. Nothing should be done. Nothing legislatively, that is. For the sake of freedom, I am resigned to the continued existence of religion. That was the point of me mentioning my opposition to religion, and I thought that would be clear from the context. I think Ludahai, the devout conservative Catholic, understood it. He 'liked' my post, in any event. Thanks Ludahai!You oppose the spread of religion? By what means should the spreading of religion be stemmed? I believed your claim until I read that. You sure your "vigorous opposition" is not just a case of political expediency?
Hummm, why would something so devoid of substance illicit such a pissy, ideologue response from you? Seems even raising the question about people's opinons pisses you off. What is the mindless far left so worried about?
well, and it is warranted - we are already seeing moves in this direction.
leaving aside the dispute over what you call "equal gay rights" - the first amendment absolutely will have it's enforcement changed over this issue in the future. already we have seen that the right to association (which is part of the first amendment) can fall before the homosexual demand for Acceptance. Dating sites are forced to match homosexual couples, and pushes abroad to force Christian adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual married couples have given rise to similar movements here.
marriage will be declared to be a state function (which it already is), and it will be argued that those entrusted with carrying out state duties are not allowed to discriminate. Ministers and churches will be told to either start marrying homosexual couples, or lose their ability to officially wed people at all. You start with adoption, then with employment, and you work your way up; and slowly the church's right of association falls before the demands of the Accept Me crowd. We still have all of the "Civil Rights" organizations decades after they have achieved the changes in law that they were founded to effect. Do you think that the homosexual advocacy movement will disappear simply because they succeed in having some states marry them? No, their organizations will continue to exist, and they will be in need of new justifications for their activism.
Everyone now votes in favor of option #1. I am reminded of someone swearing up and down that if the Civil Rights Act led to racial quota's, he would eat his hat.
no, they will simply lose their licenses if they do not.
Panzies is not what we would call right wingers. We have much more entertaining names for them. I would tell you what those names are, but I would get kicked out of the gay mafia if I did.
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Sulk much?
I stepped out for the night, but it looks like we had a lot of interesting debate while I was gone.