What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

Jamezz said:
What does freedom of speech and/or religion have to do with getting married, please explain. Nobody is keeping any gay person from speaking their mind or joining any religion they want or not want to.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense?
 
I consider myself a religious conservative but have never seen a problem with allowing civil same sex marriages. The worry for me is that those who have a moral or religious objection will be forced to perform these marriages or provide services for them. I know some will bring up the segregated bus or restaurant argument. I guess the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing is illegal? And if someone comes into Chucky Cheese using MF'er every other word he can't be asked to leave because of freedom of speech laws?

My problem has always been that there is a very active militant wing of the LGBT community that will never be satisfied until every person in the U.S. Is forced to agree with them morally and every church and pastor is forced to perform gay marriages. They feel this is the only way to truly legitimize same-sex relationships. It is truly astounding these people want to be able to live how they wish, believe what they do, but aren't willing to let those with opposing opinions have the same freedoms.
 
Jamezz said:
Fair enough, I hereby demand my right to not having to pay for a higher home and car insurance, as well as having to pay higher taxes in general for being a single man.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The only entity that has made and will enforce a law is the Government with this new ruling, one that doesn't address the discrimination sustained by non-married citizens. See, I can play the 'interpret it your own way' game too and find holes where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line is that I believe that this Reconstruction Amendment, as all others, were meant to be interpreted at an individual level.
Click to expand...

I've always interpreted a right as a freedom of action. Something that I am not prohibited from doing. Also, something that does not interfere with the ability of other people to enjoy their own rights. Never something that requires or forces the actions of other individuals.

Demanding lower rates on car insurance is an imposition of your interests upon those of your insurance carrier, where they must provide the same services for less money. Your insurance rates are essentially set by market forces and a negotiation between yourself and your carrier. Neither party is required to accept terms that they do not wish to. Of course, if you can't come to acceptable terms with any car insurance agency currently in existence than you will not be able to drive. It is, at that point, your choice if driving is worth more than the difference in terms available.
 
Stifle Tower said:
I consider myself a religious conservative but have never seen a problem with allowing civil same sex marriages. The worry for me is that those who have a moral or religious objection will be forced to perform these marriages or provide services for them. I know some will bring up the segregated bus or restaurant argument. I guess the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing is illegal? And if someone comes into Chucky Cheese using MF'er every other word he can't be asked to leave because of freedom of speech laws?

My problem has always been that there is a very active militant wing of the LGBT community that will never be satisfied until every person in the U.S. Is forced to agree with them morally and every church and pastor is forced to perform gay marriages. They feel this is the only way to truly legitimize same-sex relationships. It is truly astounding these people want to be able to live how they wish, believe what they do, but aren't willing to let those with opposing opinions have the same freedoms.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have never heard of this militant wing of the LGBT community demanding churches perform marriages for them. Never. I have a feeling that either its a fear tactic drummed up by the anti-gay marriage folks trying to scare religious people (imagine that), or they are such a small minority that they wouldn't even matter enough to get something like that to happen. I'm a non-religious liberal with many gay friends, some who are married, and they have NEVER wanted to get married within a religious organization, besides the Unitarian Church. Most religions have a prejudice view of LGBT folks and they want nothing to do with them either.
 
Gameface said:
I've always interpreted a right as a freedom of action. Something that I am not prohibited from doing. Also, something that does not interfere with the ability of other people to enjoy their own rights. Never something that requires or forces the actions of other individuals.

Demanding lower rates on car insurance is an imposition of your interests upon those of your insurance carrier, where they must provide the same services for less money. Your insurance rates are essentially set by market forces and a negotiation between yourself and your carrier. Neither party is required to accept terms that they do not wish to. Of course, if you can't come to acceptable terms with any car insurance agency currently in existence than you will not be able to drive. It is, at that point, your choice if driving is worth more than the difference in terms available.
Click to expand...

I don't like these terms, I'm switching over to Geico.
 
Jamezz said:
That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.
Click to expand...

There are a number of polls, but all of them are the same result; the majority of Americans support gay marriage. So don't mistake what's right with what you think is right. Negged.
 
ElRoach0 said:
It really is. And at that point, if it ever came to that, I'd actually be against it. As someone that has the power to sign marriage certificates and perform ceremonies(which isn't much power at all), if I had a problem with someone's relationship I would refuse to do the ceremony. Anyone who tries to write a law telling me I have to is going to have to fine me.

But you also have to wonder why would a gay couple want to be married in, say, an LDS temple? a place where their union clearly not wanted or respected? No law is going to change that. No amount of armed men coming into a temple and demanding a gay sealing take place is going to change their attitude about it.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between not serving an individual and not serving a group of individuals. In the same way that there is a difference between not promoting a woman and not promoting women.

I actually think that sooner or later this will lead to the loss of tax exempt status for churches that refuse to marry gay people.

The thing is churches really should embrace dropping the 501 c3 designation. When Americans were first considering dropping church sponsorship(Churches paid for by the state) many were worried that it would irreparably harm both churches ability to continue its activities and religious participation in America. They were wrong. Following the end of church sponsorship America went through "the Great Awakening". Religion reached a level of activity and participation in America not seen since the puritans landed.
Dropping 501c3 status would give the churches much more leeway(for better or for worse)with which to operate. An example is how 501c3 status ties the hands of an organizations political spending.
 
This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.
 
Xsy said:
This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

seriously everything we do in live affect things in a way a shape or form.

so by lying that this wont affect heterosexual is a simple disillusion. now don't get this twisted not arguing if it is a good or bad affect. I am just stating that this has an effect on society as a whole and since 95%-98% of people are heterosexuals it also affects them(again not arguing good or bad effect) .

so please dont twist it with your liberal lbgtq agenda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top