Yes I know .....you hate marriage ....for whatever reason ...It's beyond me. You know my thoughts on that and you probably know that marriage is here to stay. So in the mean time you do endorse marriage equality! Great!! It's the first time you said that. Again, you should have said it sooner. So we're good, right?
i'm sorry, but I will have to respectfully decline that offer. As you well know i am extremely hostile to liberals. And I say hostile because I don't use the word hate lightly. - - - Updated - - - i'm sorry, but I will have to respectfully decline that offer. As you well know i am extremely hostile to liberals. And I say hostile because I don't use the word hate lightly.
Aww...I meant on the subject of gay rights. After all, you are, like me, a self described champion of equality. You, like me are in favor of marriage equality and the right to adopt children, right? As for your blanket disdain for liberals go, maybe you should give that some thought
I've given it lots of thought. For all of my life. My hostility and prejudice does not come out of nowhere, like most other bigots and racists. The only way you could possibly understand is if you have lived my life. But I'll leave it at that.
While I am independent and have no use for either Reps or Dems. I do realize that more than not, I an somewate liberal, I call it radical. and refer to myself as a maverick. It all depends on the issues, but democratic is not necessarily liberal, nor is Republican necessarily Conservative. (and I am seldom Moderate)(and even less often a Mug-a-wump)
I am a 55 year old heterosexual male who gets the impression that you might be able to get your mind around the following statement in much less time than the five years that it took me to do so?! http://www.near-death.com/andreason.html#a11
I may be wrong..... but I believe that "the conservative movement" is largely founded on the "many are called/few chosen" and "broad way leading to destruction and many going in thereat vs narrow way leading to life and few finding it" statements by Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus. Liberalism seems to be founded on our tendency toward "universal salvation" as it might apply in economics, job creation, monetary policy and a social safety net. I personally am a Christian universalist and I am finding myself become generally more "liberal" as I get older. http://www.near-death.com/andreason.html#a04h
I've seen this before, and in addition to my post, I have to say, I am also an atheist, but a rather special kind of atheists because my god is nature, and I believe very strongly in reality and evolution. (please also note that I started this thread)
In general. I do, and have for many years, My Personal form of the Golden Rule is" Never do anything Harmful. Hurtful. Mean or unfair to any other being, human or otherwise. The first two are nearly impossible, but I try. the last two are simply up t0 the individual, and their conscence
Spiritual Marriage (what's religious), is contained within the hearts and minds of the participants (whether gay/straight). Legal Marriage (as a legal status), is what most are advocating for today. I think the distinctions are clear. There is only a problem, when an individual or group seeks to deny others their reasonable rights under the U.S. Constitution. While I understand people not WANTING others to have certain rights, the fact is that our Constitution consistently does a more prudent job of defining and ensuring people's rights than various religious beliefs, personal moral values or political persuasions.
Do you feel that today, or at any time in the future, that the govt should be able to dictate to churches that they must perform marriage services for homosexuals?
Apparently it doesn't matter how many times we explain the difference between a legal marriage and a religious rite of holy matrimony, or that we're pursuing the former, not trying to compel any church to provide the latter... ...some people just refuse to get it.
I'll answer that NOBODY DOES ! Why do you even bring that up? It's just a red herring and it's used because red herrings and other logical fallacies are all that you have .The first amendment is clear. Freedom of religion will not be prohibited. Furthermore, it 's a ridiculous question. Who would want to be married by someone who doesn't think that they should be married? Ya think it might get things off to a strange start?
Do you really think that all supporters of gay rights are gay? Were all of the freedom riders black? I really don't care what you think that I am , nor will I discuss it with you, but your assumption really does highlight your ignorance , as does most everything that you say. As far as your idiotic question about the churches goes, why don't you take a poll?
Short answer: There is no need for government to dictate that. As long as a couple is granted that legal status (marriage), what's necessary to/for that couple has been addressed. Longer answer: In the future, I can see that many churches or elements within the same, WILL have no problems with presiding over the union of two people of the same sex. I've heard more than a few interpretations of biblical texts which generally show that homosexuality is acceptable. While not every religious organization will give their blessing to such a (same sex) couple, many likely will; in due time.
Fear is what grips/restrains the logic of many a person. That's why I think they resist 'seeing' reality.
then we agree if any church wishes to perform the service based upon their own free will then that's great. But, if the govt steps in, and tries to mandate that they perform the services, I hope you will stand shoulder to shoulder with me in protest over that. I cannot walk into a Mosque and demand that they perform a traditional Catholic wedding. Oh, are you still "in" ? If so, please be safe as these are very troubling times even if you are stationed here at home.
all?-no my assumption highlights nothing of the sort. It was a valid question posed by me and you went and made the blanket statement, not me. Once homosexual marriage is the law of the land, which it will be. Do you believe that it then gives the govt the green light to force all churches (incl mosques), some churches (Catholic/Christian only) or none of them to perform marriage services for homosexuals? Now, don't forget that they are performing the services for heterosexuals so why wouldn't the govt and homosexuals use the same argument they use against bakers/florists/venues/diners etc? If you still say no, would you support the removal of tax-exempt status from churches which did not marry homosexuals? That must also include mosques
The assumption was stupid. That is the end of that. And why are you asking the same inane question again after I had already answered it? The first amendment protects religious institutions or clergy from having to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. It does not, however allow a baker or a florist who offers a service to the public to discriminate. Selling cakes and flowers is not practicing a religion . Are you really to obtuse to understand that or are you just being deliberately difficult? As far as a tax exemption goes, same answer. Churches should lose their tax exemption for political activities though. Butter yet, take away tax exemptions all together. Isn’t that a special right? The same thing that you anti-gay crusaders say when gays want the right to marry. And how about this-stop allowing the clergy to legally marry people at all. Civil weddings should be performed by a government official to make it legal. Then, if the couple wants a religious ceremony, they can have it, completely separate from the legal aspect of it. You make it difficult to remain civil. That is what this is supposed to be about
post not poster you have the wrong guy. I' comfortable in my own skin and could care if any try and insult me by calling me homosexual. In fact, what's hilarious is that it's the homosexuals who do that. Allow me one more time to make my point on the topic if homosexuals. The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual is how one chooses to have sex. How in the heck is it insulting to anyone to "accuse" them of being homosexual?
it is not I who posts insults. I simply point out what is your opinion and call it to task. At least you came out and stated that you are comfortable with the removal of the tax exempt status for churches. I applaud the honesty. I will also state that I do question your honesty about not supporting the concept of govt forcing homosexual marriage upon churches. I base that on your history of posts and disdain toward religion, primarily Christianity.
