Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[RiversideRedneck]

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>
You're making claims to a claim. In other words moron you're not demonstrating you have any basis, any proof to your claims.
-How are gays a public nuisance. Because you don't like them??? That's not a nuisance so specifically shitass - how are gays a 'public nuisance'.
-How does homosexuality 'violate nature'??? Specifically how? Many here would argue nature made them gay so let us know where you came up with that gem.
-Why would using the word 'gay'to identify homosexuals not be "OK"??
---Then you go onto 'do you have evidence to the contrary?'...LOL!!!!
Why not make the claim the Milky Way is made from recycled Sears lawnmowers only to ask 'Do you have evidence to the contgrary?'
ROFL!!!!- You're an IDIOT.
Back your BULLSHIT claims if you can ya monkey.
And why would a gay marriage be appropriate??- Pretty easy to answer that one. It would confirm we as a nationa are following the rules and direction it was set by in allowing all citizens to enjoy a full set of libverties and freedoms.
Why is it wrong to dispute gays??- Dispute away. It's a free country. What you should NOT have a right to do is impede in their lives and freedoms unless you can find viable harm.
Is sexuality a right?? Damn skippy Junior.
As far as 'sex cults' being gay does not apply.
Now fetch boy. Go find that proof.

.

I gotta say, I disagree with everything you have to say. All your doing is preaching your opinion which doesn't matter to me at all. You switch up my posts to fit your twisted view. You're the idiot.

Funny how when one opposes "gay rights" (which is a fallacy all it's own) they get hammered by fags and fag lovers saying "Wheres your proof? Wheres your proof?".

I challenge you to prove to everyone reading that being gay is natural & should be condoned. Don't give me your "born that way" shit or your "human rights" shit or your "marriage rights" shit. All you're trying to do is make it more socially acceptable to make gay love....nothing else.

Well guess what, a lot of straights out there DO NOT condone your way of life & find it disgusting. Regardless of what they say. It's what they think that matters.

So. Prove that gay should be accepted. Prove, not opine.....

[Pietro Armando]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Many things used to be male-only, and they have changed to allow women access. Change happens, and it is inevitable.
Clearly, marriage is NOT male/female-only, since it is practiced by same-sex couples in several states. The word "marriage" is a legal term in this arena, and everyone is supposed to have access to our legal institutions.
<quoted text>

1. Statistically speaking, it's virtually male female only.

2. The point I was making is that two men, or two women are not seeking the institution called marriage, but rather to use the word "marriage" for their own institutions. As you have repeatedly stated, you are not attracted to women. Understood. It's not logical to state you want access to marriage as it's practiced, for lack of better word at the moment, but rather as two men wish to practice it. Or to build a gay male marriage institution. Yes I know legally they're both called marriage, but not everything about OSM institute is applicable to GMM institute.

[Drew Smith]

Pietro Armando wrote:

The point I was making is that two men, or two women are not seeking the institution called marriage

That's like claiming that women weren't seeking the institution of "voting", because only men were allowed to do it.

[Drew Smith]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

Well guess what, a lot of straights out there DO NOT condone your way of life & find it disgusting. Regardless of what they say. It's what they think that matters.

Well, guess what. In 2000, Alabama finally removed their laws against interracial marriage from the books. And yet, there were *still* lots of people in Alabama who did not condone interracial marriage. But what they thought didn't matter to anyone after 1967, because the USSC had already found Alabama's law unconstitutional.

[Just Think]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Repeating yourself doesn't help your case. AGAIN, I never said they have, but obviously the gay weirdos with their gay agenda's are trying to change all that. IF (key word there) they do, then churches will be forced to marry gays or pay a fine.

You might want to do a little research. The ordinance in question has nothing - nothing - to do with marriage. It only relates to the business side of the church. If a church, as part of its revenue generating operations, rents out spaces to the general public, they would not be able to discriminate against people covered under the city's anti-discrimination laws.

AGAIN - the would not be forced to marry gay people. The law would not require them to marry gay people. They could not be sued for marrying gay people. They would not be fined for not marrying gay people.

No church has ever - ever - been forced to marry someone it does not wish to marry.

[Chicagoan by Birth]

cpeter1313 wrote:

No, they don't. I have no doubt there are some unscrupulous, unethical teachers out there who do it, but they open themselves and the school for lawsuits and bad press. Why would a math teacher even comment on parenting?
What facts do you spew? You make grand pronouncements and expect everyone to swallow them whole, and it's not happening.
<quoted text>

BS, No you're the only one arguing.
Because a myriad of items come up in a school day. The only one who would file a lawsuit might be you. You "claim" to have just found your "sexuality"? You are spewing talking points of a 'newby'?

[RiversideRedneck]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
You might want to do a little research. The ordinance in question has nothing - nothing - to do with marriage. It only relates to the business side of the church. If a church, as part of its revenue generating operations, rents out spaces to the general public, they would not be able to discriminate against people covered under the city's anti-discrimination laws.
AGAIN - the would not be forced to marry gay people. The law would not require them to marry gay people. They could not be sued for marrying gay people. They would not be fined for not marrying gay people.
No church has ever - ever - been forced to marry someone it does not wish to marry.

keep pn typing the same thing over and over... Someone will believe you...

[cpeter1313]

Suppositions? Those are laws, twit. If you can't defend your own points, don't bring them up, puppy.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how you freaks spout your meaningless suppositions on everyone that you disagree with (and ONLY those you disagree with).
Everything you just posted was wrong, & I'm not gonna waste my time going line by line with you.

[cpeter1313]

Then overturn the bigamy lws. UNTIL that happens, you have no argument.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The question is still valid. Why should we alter the marriage requirements/laws for one group, but not for another? Bigamy laws can be changed, or eliminated. What makes the same sex argument superior, more compelling, better, than the plural marriage argument?

[woodtick57]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
And if the laws change & a church chooses to marry the straight couple & not the gay couple, they'll get fined, persecuted & slandered all over the media.

We have this thing called the constitution. you should read it sometime...

[woodtick57]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Not under the law being proposed. The law being proposed has to do with the church renting out their facility as a public accommodation.

If churches want to play in the real world, they have to play by real peoples' rules.

If they want to stay in they mythical church world, they pretty much get to do what they want...

[cpeter1313]

This isn't a matter of churches having to marry gays. It is about churches that own secular propert6y and businesses not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of orientation. If a church wants to rent out property or create businesses that are not religious in nature, they are free to do so but are just as liable for compliance of local, state, and federal rules as any other business.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say they had, I said IF...
From theblaze.com :
"Faith
Proposed Ordinance Would Force Kansas Churches to Host Gay Weddings
* Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:31pm by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell
* Print »
* Email »
*
*
*
* Comments (227)
Proposed Ordinance Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings | Hutchinson, KansasAccording to advocates, religious freedom may be under attack in Hutchinson, Kansas. There’s a controversial ordinance being considered in the local community that would force churches to host gay weddings and parties.
According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, the Hutchinson City Council is going to consider whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the city’s human relations code. If this action is approved during next month’s expected vote, churches may find themselves in a tough position.
Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has explained that, under the new regulations, churches that make their buildings available for the general public would not be able to refuse gay couples. This essentially means that churches would be forced to, via rental agreements, support gay nuptials.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination,” Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an interview with Fox News.“If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
Proposed Ordinance Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings | Hutchinson, Kansas
But Matthew Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel Action, said that the proposal isn’t in line with American values.
“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda. This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment,” he proclaimed.“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church.”
So, let’s say the ordinance passes and a church refuses to comply. Unless there’s an exemption for houses of worship when the measures passes, a discrimination complaint can be waged by gay couples or individuals who are refused rental service. If churches are, indeed, found guilty of not complying, fines and other penalties would come into effect."
--Most of you idiots probably didn't even read this, just scanned over looking for a good arguement, but at least read the last paragraph.

[Quest]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
And if the laws change & a church chooses to marry the straight couple & not the gay couple, they'll get fined, persecuted & slandered all over the media.

In the same way that the law was changed to force all denominations to marry divorced individuals, and for Christian denominations to marry Muslims and Jews?

Sounds silly, doesn't it? Just as silly as your fears.

There are NO laws that demand any religion change their marriage traditions.

However, if a church chooses to do BUSINESS with the public, say, renting their church hall to folks outside of their church, they would be regulated as all other businesses with regard to discrimination.

So while they would never be required to marry a gay couple, or a previously divorced couple, they could be in trouble if they refuse to rent out that hall to someone based on such differences.

[RiversideRedneck]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Suppositions? Those are laws, twit. If you can't defend your own points, don't bring them up, puppy.
<quoted text>

To which law are you reffering??

Defend you point.....

[RiversideRedneck]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>We have this thing called the constitution. you should read it sometime...

Shut up. You missed the whole point.

[cpeter1313]

Gays are part of society and are human. You have no argument.

O/S marriage has been, for the most part, legal enslavement of women.

"Bath house culture?" Idiot. The reasons such places exist is because gays had to create safe places to meet, such as gay bars, etc. For decades, we could be arrested just for holding hands. Such places will probably continue to thrive because they are utilitarian and far more honest than the usual mating rituals created by straights.

You can disagree with homosexuality all you want; you might as well disagree with chlorophyll. We are citizens, we have rights, and the courts are being more an more supportive of those rights.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is motivated by the same wrong-headed desperation: homosexuality is at odds with society and human nature; gays are trying to fix this with same sex marriage and any other hair-brained scheme they can come up with.
Traditional marriage is the right thing to do which is why it has existed in every culture we know of since the beginning of recorded history. Same sex hasn't.
The simple fact is, as seen with bath house culture, homosexuality -- when allowed to run wild -- is a public menace.
As an America, I have EVERY RIGHT to disagree, I have EVERY RIGHT to vote AGAINST gay freaks, to protest AGAINST gay freaks. Sorry 'bout yer luck, child but that's just the way is.
Don't like it, go call 1-800-LIL-BOYS, I'm sure your a lifetime member.

[Marengo Jon]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Shut up. You missed the whole point.

Or did you fail to make your point known?

[woodtick57]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Shut up. You missed the whole point.

No, i did not. you just are trying to create scenarios that won't happen to support your prejudice. Churches can do whatever they want in their little fairy-land church activities. if they only want to give their rite of matrimony to blue eyed people to blue eyed people, they can do that.

[cpeter1313]

And if they want to indulge in secular businesses, they need to follow secular laws. No church is bound by doctrine to rent out halls.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
No, in other words, you don't understand that a lot of churches do not own their property of buldings, they rent or lease them, thereby meaning that they are bound by the rules of their city, county, state & federal governments.....

[woodtick57]

cpeter1313 wrote:

And if they want to indulge in secular businesses, they need to follow secular laws. No church is bound by doctrine to rent out halls.
<quoted text>

Most churches are bound by doctrine to make shitloads of cash, actually. that is why they are there.