What's new
By:
Filters

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

Stoked said:
To me he is clearly showing his own bigotry towards religion.
Click to expand...

I look at religion like I look at quilting bees or sports bars; if you want to spend your money that way, and you're not using the government to tell my kids they need to join you, it's no skin off my nose. I'd rather spend the money and time playing board games.

My current understanding of you is that you do not hesitate to say a church which bans interracial marriage is embracing bigotry. I am applying the same standard to your church.
 
Edgewriter said:
And this type of talk is why I think we will see an ongoing slew of lawsuits after legalization of gay marriage. (again I am not against it. Gay couples getting married is none of my business.)
Click to expand...

Again: it did not/does not/will not happen to churches that banned/ban/will continue to ban interracial marriages, and it will not happen to the LDS over gay marriage. You have the complete, total right to be as bigoted as you choose while practicing your religion (in the US), and the very worst you will experience is hear a lot of people complain about it.
 
Edgewriter said:
All because of people like you who will call it Institutionalized Bigotry and because of a movement that needs a bad guy to fight. Suddenly instead of a force for good, for teaching good values, for helping others, providing disaster relief, Mormons will be portrayed in the media as a bastion of hate.

That's when our religious rights will be at risk.

Now it may seem crazy on the surface to some people but there are real threats here. I'm not saying I believe for sure that this will happen, but I find the possibilities frightening.
Click to expand...
No it isn't far-fetched. Already lawsuits have been brought against Christian florists, bakeries and photographers for refusing the business of gay and lesbian couples. Compare this to excluding blacks from dining in certain restaurants if you will, but forcing someone to support a practice they morally oppose - or shutter their doors is wrong.
 
One Brow said:
I look at religion like I look at quilting bees or sports bars; if you want to spend your money that way, and you're not using the government to tell my kids they need to join you, it's no skin off my nose. I'd rather spend the money and time playing board games.

My current understanding of you is that you do not hesitate to say a church which bans interracial marriage is embracing bigotry. I am applying the same standard to your church.
Click to expand...

Diagreeing and not personally taking part in something does not always equal bigotry and hate. That is the distinction between us. To me it seems like you are saying it is and to me that is no less bigoted than those groups that are doing so out of hate.
 
Stifle Tower said:
No it isn't far-fetched. Already lawsuits have been brought against Christian florists, bakeries and photographers for refusing the business of gay and lesbian couples. Compare this to excluding blacks from dining in certain restaurants if you will, but forcing someone to support a practice they morally oppose - or shutter their doors is wrong.
Click to expand...

I made a cake with 2 boys on it. blahhh
6qwe9y.gif

forgive me jesus
 
One Brow said:
Such a case would be laughed out of court. To this day, no interracial couple has been able to sue to use a religious building, and it won't happen with gay couples, either.

Now, there may be suits regarding land/buildings owned by religious groups, but available for public use. In the law, these are very different things from religious buildings. Your temples will be safe havens for bigotry.
Click to expand...

not exactly the same.
but those f's wiill force their way in
 
One Brow said:
The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise. Denying gay marriages in temples, churches, cathedrals, etc., is institutionalized bigotry, and having a religious source does not alter that. Bigotry inspired by religious beliefs is still bigotry.
Click to expand...



speaking of truth.

mariage is for procreation!.

thats a cold hard truth buster brown.

another turth is 2 men can not procreate.

TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder
 
DutchJazzer said:
speaking of truth.

mariage is for procreation!.

thats a cold hard truth buster brown.

another turth is 2 men can not procreate.

TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder
Click to expand...

It would be far more accurate to say that sex is for procreation.

Marriage doesn't equal procreation.

I personally consider the argument you're making here to be among the weakest of the weak. There is no procreationablity tests for heterosexual couples who wish to get married. There are many hetro couples who don't want to procreate and there are many who simply can't.

My first job was at a retirement home. A couple of the residents who had been dining together for years decided to get married. So, Dutch, should they have been denied?
 
Gameface said:
It would be far more accurate to say that sex is for procreation.

Marriage doesn't equal procreation.

I personally consider the argument you're making here to be among the weakest of the weak. There is no procreationablity tests for heterosexual couples who wish to get married. There are many hetro couples who don't want to procreate and there are many who simply can't.

My first job was at a retirement home. A couple of the residents who had been dining together for years decided to get married. So, Dutch, should they have been denied?
Click to expand...

soo it is ok to chance defintions?
how about changing the definition of theft. or race?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top