Let's leave churches out of it guys for the sake of the political forum

---

Let's leave churches out of it guys for the sake of the political forum

 

Difficult since marriage is first a religious institution and secondarily a social one. As an ordained minister I don't care what they do, just don't force me to be a party to it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Difficult since marriage is first a religious institution and secondarily a social one. As an ordained minister I don't care what they do, just don't force me to be a party to it.

I agree with you 100% which is why there's a difference in how the issue is addressed. Simply allowing consenting adults to enter unions is one thing. Making a sexual preference a protected minority class is another.


I'm just pointing out church bashing isn't really fair game when we can't defend nor debate religion here.

---

I agree with you 100% which is why there's a difference in how the issue is addressed. Simply allowing consenting adults to enter unions is one thing. Making a sexual preference a protected minority class is another.


I'm just pointing out church bashing isn't really fair game when we can't defend nor debate religion here.

 

The problem is, the opposition to gay marriage is based in religion.  If you take religion out of the discussion, there's no argument against gay marriage. 

---

The problem is, the opposition to gay marriage is based in religion.  If you take religion out of the discussion, there's no argument against gay marriage. 

 

Understood but we can't discuss religion here, so it's just a cheap shot when people want to church bash if the believers of a religion can't defend themselves. I'm just saying lets stick to the topic at hand, the legal standing of same sex marriage. If we go off into the moral end of the question where all going to end up getting the thread closed. 

 

From a legal stand, their is no justification for government to prohibit consenting adults entering a union. I believe that also extends into polygamy and prostitution. Regardless of how I or someone else might view those issues on a moral level, there's no authority for government to regulate private unions and agreements between consenting adults regarding sexual or religious practices. 

---

I agree with you 100% which is why there's a difference in how the issue is addressed. Simply allowing consenting adults to enter unions is one thing. Making a sexual preference a protected minority class is another.


I'm just pointing out church bashing isn't really fair game when we can't defend nor debate religion here.

I wonder what the line is. Can links be posted or didscussions be had about improper dealings with minors or massive spending on construction by churches, for example. Or is discussing the church in this manner considered religious talk? I am really interested to know where the line is on this. I guess probably can't.

---

I wonder what the line is. Can links be posted or didscussions be had about improper dealings with minors or massive spending on construction by churches, for example. Or is discussing the church in this manner considered religious talk? I am really interested to know where the line is on this. I guess probably can't.

Probably ok to discuss specific events such as ___ church ____ happened but when it starts becoming an attack on a specific group or broad religion to me that's crossing the line. Simply because someone associated with that group can't defend themselves or points of view.

---

Probably ok to discuss specific events such as ___ church ____ happened but when it starts becoming an attack on a specific group or broad religion to me that's crossing the line. Simply because someone associated with that group can't defend themselves or points of view.

That seems fair to me. I just don't want to be the guy that gets a thread closed down due to bringing up something like that, hence my question. I'd be interested to hear from a mod on this.

---

Difficult since marriage is first a religious institution and secondarily a social one. As an ordained minister I don't care what they do, just don't force me to be a party to it.

This was what I meant..

 

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-cou...e-opt-out/

---

This was what I meant..

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/'>http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/</a>

This is what you meant when comparing gay people to pedophiles?

---

No, when I brought up the Church part...

 

You watch, they're already teaching them about homosexual sex in Elementary school sex ed. It won't be long before pedophiles want rights too.

 

 

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial, 'Lucida Grande', Helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(249,249,249);">Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

http://www.b4uact.org/

 

But, I'm just spitballing here... :whistling:

---

Now TMD will move here. Dadgummit

---

Blakes Life Matters

This was what I meant..

 

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-cou...e-opt-out/

 

Wow - someone in America may sue someone! Stop the presses!

 

This is what has you worried? Tell me how this applies to American jurisprudence and then we'll talk. 

 

Fear is becoming less and less of an effective weapon. Just seems as if more people are thinking for themselves rather than waiting for some authority figure to tell them what is "right".

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

No, when I brought up the Church part...

 

You watch, they're already teaching them about homosexual sex in Elementary school sex ed. It won't be long before pedophiles want rights too.

 

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

http://www.b4uact.org/

 

But, I'm just spitballing here... :whistling:

A: Slippery slope argument. Read up on it because this is pretty much a textbook case.

B: People can sue and demand whatever they want, doesn't mean they're going to get it. 

---

Alright, you win.

 

People in the '30s never would have thought chicks were getting married yesterday. 

---

Difficult since marriage is first a religious institution and secondarily a social one. As an ordained minister I don't care what they do, just don't force me to be a party to it.

Marriage predates Christianity so that first part isn't true.

---

Alright, you win.

 

People in the '30s never would have thought chicks were getting married yesterday. 

 

In the 30's whites marrying blacks was a crime in most of the country, then again in parts of the country you could also marry a 13 year old of you had consent from the parents, essentially making pedophilia legal. 

---

No, when I brought up the Church part...


You watch, they're already teaching them about homosexual sex in Elementary school sex ed. It won't be long before pedophiles want rights too.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517'>http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517</a>
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.b4uact.org/'>http://www.b4uact.org/</a>


But, I'm just spitballing here... :whistling:

But what does one have to do with the other? You are talking about two completely different things.

---

Difficult since marriage is first a religious institution and secondarily a social one. As an ordained minister I don't care what they do, just don't force me to be a party to it.

Amen. Oops, am I getting banned?

---

This was what I meant..

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/'>http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/</a>

This is obsurd. If you don't believe in it, someone shouldn't try to sue. Find someone else to do your bidding. We C*******s are losing our rights.

---