"Why gay marriage opponents have lost"

You are right. I should have said you are no more being forced to accept gays than you are forced to accept Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Jews.

 

And I think you are a stupid totalitarian, when someone thinks differently you accuse him of having "animous" towards Homo... like Lenin... accusing anyone who thought differently to have animosity towards People...I am the State (Louis XIV), I am the People (Lenin)... I am the Homo Defender (Liberatis).

Well, It´s over. Bye and Cheers!

 

Its why they use a separate word. Marriage only obligates a man, married to the woman who gives birth, to provide and care for the child.

 

I agree on that. I have not heard of one Mosque being forced to perform a Catholic wedding

 

That is just stupid. What if a woman doesn't give birth?

- - - Updated - - -

Likewise, haven't heard of a single church being forced to preform a marriage of a same sex couple.

 

There is no child the man is obligated to provide and care for, of course.

 

Would you care to provide any proof of this please.

Name one church or private club that has been forced to do the above .. It's a very different story if the property is a for-profit business.

For-profit businesses, name one church or private club that has been shut down.

Again name a single church or private club that this has been done to.

No it's not really, except in your own twisted imagination, and the only hypocrisy here is the one of your own making.

More bollocks from the resident bollocks expert.

 

​

so thanks for clarifying his irrelevant it was.

 

And as a big believer in the First Amendment, I believe that government does not have any right to tell a religion how to perform its ceremonies, but on the flip side, I don't believe religions have any right telling the government who it can or cannot extend marriage benefits to.

 

I like you comment, though I have yet to find a single case of the government forcing a religion to perform its ceremonies.

All the cases, often cited, in these threads have little to nothing to do with religion, they are all about for-profit businesses discriminating against a select group.

 

Right after you show us the medical test that shows a person is born left or right handed.

 

Sec is not interested in reasonable responses or biological facts it might make him question his own bias.

 

No relevance what so ever to my post.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrably false.

- - - Updated - - -

Which has no relevance what so ever

 

Freedom of religion is a right of the individual, not the "religion" or church.

 

So Hobby Lobby is an individual?

 

Ifthey are incorporated, legally speaking yes they are. And it is an "Inc."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)

 

Many individuals, each of which dont suddenly lose their rights because they have incorporated.

 

If it is incorporated the corporation itself is one individual.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)

 

That was my point to Fugazi, that a religion is a group of individuals. It is an individual that will have to perform the actual ceremony.

 

correct, that is why no ordained person has been forced or prosecuted to perform a SSM . .prove me wrong.

 

Not sure of the point you are trying to make.

 

No, it is recognized in the law as an individual, because it is nothing more than an association of individuals

 

One more point to note-

NOT ONE of the Republicans who ran for House or Senate this year....

ran on a promise to introduce the "Federal Marriage Amendment" to Constitutinally ban gay marriage.......despite Republicans running on this in elections past.


Guess why?

 

1st Amendment rights belong to the individual, not just the "religion"

 

Does a gay individual have a 1st Amendment right to practice their religion?