Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[atheistgirl]

mmmmm Pepperoni!!!

No problem.

I’m making them to order

(Oh my Gosh, I’m sorry, we’re going to get so busted for this )

OK, back on topic and let’s all be civil and charitable

Sarah x

 

[marymary1975]

I didn’t bring these topics up

Another poster did, and I corrected their complete misrepresentation of the facts and highlighted and demonstrated where they were in error and showed where they were simply making stuff up

Back on topic

Sarah x

Yes, you did bring Uganda, you asked which.countries where persecuting Christians, you asked for links regarding China. Go and look.at your own posts. You didn’t demonstrated anything as you kept missing the point and never responded to anything that was asked to you.

Now.going back to the original point of the thread, about being hateful.against homosexuals, if you just go back to.this thread and read you can see that all Catholics are just pointing out that being against gay marriage is no.way equivalent to be hateful.against gays while atheist girl is jumping like crazy calling them hateful, saying that Catholics are trying to push their belief down others throats when she is the one in a catholic site trying to push gay marriage onto Catholics threats, and saying that Catholics want a theocracy. This gives us the answer, Catholics are not hateful.against gays, gay marriage activists are the one who are hateful.against Catholics and against anyone who disagree with them.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yes, you did bring Uganda, you asked which.countries where persecuting Christians, you asked for links regarding China. Go and look.at your own posts. You didn’t demonstrated anything as you kept missing the point and never responded to anything that was asked to you.

Now.going back to the original point of the thread, about being hateful.against homosexuals, if you just go back to.this thread and read you can see that all Catholics are just pointing out that being against gay marriage is no.way equivalent to be hateful.against gays while atheist girl is jumping like crazy calling them hateful, saying that Catholics are trying to push their belief down others throats when she is the one in a catholic site trying to push gay marriage onto Catholics threats, and saying that Catholics want a theocracy. This gives us the answer, Catholics are not hateful.against gays, gay marriage activists are the one who are hateful.against Catholics and against anyone who disagree with them.

Oh well, I tried.

I really did try.



blocked

Sarah x

 

[MarcoPolo]

Where I disagree is religious getting to define for others what their life should be like, when they do not adhere to or believe in that faith.

Well, I’m glad we have some agreement. But it affects religious people if the state defines marriage in accord with its own secular religion. Someone’s “religion” gets certified one way or another. There’s no religion-neutral option here. That same gendered people can get married is a reliigious “belief.”

One way it will affect traditional Christians, Jews, and everyone, etc… is that every argument in favor of “gay marriage” can be made for concubines, polygamist relationships, incest, platonic “marriages,” not to mention that any label becomes malleable. For example, in many countries there are movements where you can now go to the government and declare yourself the opposite gender and they’ll change it on your ID card. No surgery required. You just say I am now [the other gender] to fulfilll my desires and voila! We define whatever we want however we want. Just do a search for “sex change no surgery.” The movement is fairly common around the world.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m not commenting on gay marriage, I’m commenting on how you are talking about gay marriage. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Theft has a victim and perpetrator. One person doesn’t have a choice if they are involved in a theft. The victim. In gay marriage both are willing participants. Gay marriage isn’t forced on one party. So to equate theft and gay marriage makes it look like you don’t understand that both parties are willing participants. It weakens your argument. You should compare apples to apples.

If you are looking for an analogous sin, divorce is closer. Divorce is a sin in the eyes of the Church. The State allows divorce. The Church doesn’t perform divorces nor should they be forced to.

There are always two victims believe me–both of the people involved are victims–even though they give human assent to any action they perform. They still are each responsible for leading the other party into sin. Then, if you add to that issue (which I realize you don’t accept.) of expecting the Catholic church to accept or perform a marriage ceremony that is considered sin–well, that’s a 3rd victim. Nobody has the right to lead me to sin–I do well enough on my own at that, thank you. And conversely, I am bound not to lead anyone else down that path as well. There is really no such thing as a victimless sin or crime. All of humanity is always impacted by the worst or best act among us.

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, I’m glad we have some agreement. But it affects religious people if the state defines marriage in accord with its own secular religion.

In reality, how much does this really actually bother people or affect their marriage

Is your marriage affected in any way by the fact I didn’t have a Sacramental marriage?

Is my marriage affected in any way by the fact a good friend and her partner have a same sex marriage?

Not in the least

One way it will affect traditional Christians, Jews, and everyone, etc… is that every argument in favor of “gay marriage” can be made for concubines, polygamist relationships, incest, platonic “marriages,” not to mention that any label becomes malleable.

Well, let them make the argument and let the people decide

There are sound genetic reasons for not supporting incest, but polygamy and concubines, let the lawyers thrash it out but the simple fact is the majority of people are just not interested in these options and prefer co-habitation or marriage.

For example,** in many countries **there are movements where you can now go to the government and declare yourself the opposite gender and they’ll change it on your ID card. No surgery required. You just say I am now [the other gender] to fulfilll my desires and voila! We define whatever we want however we want. Just do a search for “sex change no surgery.” The movement is fairly common around the world.

I only found two references, Spain and NYC.

And conditions apply.

Sarah x

 

[VanSensei]

Well, I’m glad we have some agreement. But it affects religious people if the state defines marriage in accord with its own secular religion. Someone’s “religion” gets certified one way or another. There’s no religion-neutral option here. That same gendered people can get married is a reliigious “belief.”

One way it will affect traditional Christians, Jews, and everyone, etc… is that every argument in favor of “gay marriage” can be made for concubines, polygamist relationships, incest, platonic “marriages,” not to mention that any label becomes malleable. For example, in many countries there are movements where you can now go to the government and declare yourself the opposite gender and they’ll change it on your ID card. No surgery required. You just say I am now [the other gender] to fulfilll my desires and voila! We define whatever we want however we want. Just do a search for “sex change no surgery.” The movement is fairly common around the world.

I don’t think it would apply for polygamous or incestuous marriage. It’s really more what mainstream society sees as acceptable, which is 99.98% monogamous. There are probably some factions of people that would be in favor of polygamous or incestuous or other attempts at marriage, but those are probably the same group who’s right now on their fifth or sixth divorce. At that point what they are doing is not marriage, but rather a way to legitimize their fornication.

 

[epan]

I would say that people’s religious freedom is being infringed upon (take any business or individual that has been sued over this issue). So your notion of “live and let live” sounds nice, but is simply not feasible. This also goes against the libertarian point of view, as again, businesses have been reprimanded for not supporting same sex marriage.

Isn’t your final statement hypocritical? Aren’t you in fact doing that same thing that you are accusing us of doing? Don’t get me wrong, it sounded nice and clever, but logically it doesn’t have much merit.

Please explain how someone else’s marriage infringes on your religious freedom. That is the difficult part for you, because it does not.

When the day comes that any religious organization is required to perform marriages which are contrary to it’s ethical code or religious views, then an infringement has occured.

What is taught in public schools, what is legislated as social rights, what benefits are given to people by employers or government agencies - none of these things infringe in any way on religious freedoms.

I can see that point the being required to provide some health insurance may feel like an infringement on religious liberty. The obvious counter to that, is that nobody is required to get an abortion (as a conscientious objector may be required to pay for war, but not to fight in one). Religious rights are a personally exercised rights. So, whether an employer is required to pay certain benefits to employees, who many not share the employer’s religious point of view, is somewhat disingenuous. Once again, no religious freedom has been infringed upon. It is merely another case of a religious groups objecting to the behavior of others.

The taxpayers’ situation is similar, by analogy. You may be a pacifist, in fact a Quaker with strongly held religious views. Yet, this will not stop the IRS from seizing everything you own, and charging you with criminal intent, if you fail to pay for our military operations through your taxes. There are numerous examples like this. Yet, you may be excused from military duty individually, if you are indeed such a conscientious objector.

There seems to be a lot of recent confusion individual religious freedom. Your simple objection to another’s behavior on religious grounds, does not rise to the test of violating your religious liberty.

If you object on religious grounds to SSM, then your choice is simple. Don’t marry anyone of the same sex. As long as you have that right, and you are not forced to do enter such a marriage, then your religious liberty has been preserved.

There is a basic fundamental right to earn a living (perhaps to run a business) in our society. However, when a business infringes on a fundamental right of an individual, then a balance must be found. Your example of a business being sued, is one of precedence. Being required to cater flowers, or take photos, is not the same as being denied the right to marriage. The person providing the flower is not afterall, being required to do anything contrary to their religion. They are only objecting to the behavior of others. Taking a photo is not a religious act, in this case. Nor does taking a photo violate any religious precept in this case.

I assume that is what you meant by businesses being sued. The courts do indeed, and fortunately for all of us, do require people to act against their preferences in order to enforce individual rights. There is a sense by a business person that they have the right always to run their business in their own way. This is obviously false in our society. There are many laws, many regulations, and so on… which may be enforced.

If you disagree with me, then please explain how your religious freedom has been threatened, Because, I don’t understand how. It is a personal right to practice, as I understand it.

 

[epan]

I just felt the conversation had gone a bit too far off on a tangent and felt the need to end that line of discussion.

That statement doesn’t sit well with me. What it suggests is that right, wrong, just, unjust is unimportant. Therefore, rights are not being infringed upon in the pursuit of happiness for same sex couples.

…

Rights are, however, being infringed upon when a catering business, photographer, etc. are legally penalized for not offering services towards a same sex ceremony. Note this is not an argument against same sex marriage, but it is partially why so many people are so heated about the issue on this forum, and once emotions get involved people start to lose their ability to make sound logical arguments.

I think that the point of those who support SSM is that the historic treatment has been both wrong and unjust. As long as there is a valid argument to be made in that respect, then you can’t really claim this supposed high ground.

In a democracy, which shows no favor to any particular religious view, then the view which is diametrically opposed to yours must also be given equal treatment.

As for the isssue of a caterer being required to cater an SSM wedding, there is a sense of unfairness perhaps, but I don’t see injustice. What is being weighed by the courts is the fundamental right to marriage, against the preference of HOW to operate a business. The fundamental right to operate that business, and to make a living is not being infringed upon. It is the relative weight of the “rights” which are important.

Of course, for someone who rejects the notion of the right to SSM, then it does seem that the injured party is the caterer. But the courts to not have the option to make that sort of determination. If a marriage is legal, then it has the same status of any other marriage, and the same protections. If that same caterer decided not to cater inter-racial marriages, then the issue would be similar.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There are always two victims believe me–both of the people involved are victims–even though they give human assent to any action they perform. They still are each responsible for leading the other party into sin. Then, if you add to that issue (which I realize you don’t accept.) of expecting the Catholic church to accept or perform a marriage ceremony that is considered sin–well, that’s a 3rd victim. Nobody has the right to lead me to sin–I do well enough on my own at that, thank you. And conversely, I am bound not to lead anyone else down that path as well. There is really no such thing as a victimless sin or crime. All of humanity is always impacted by the worst or best act among us.

And lead us not in to temptation…

The point that I am making is civil laws are not the same as morality. I’d be hugely upset if I couldn’t buy a six pack to consume in my own home or a pound of bacon because someone found it immoral. I’m not hurting anyone having a beer and a BLT even though some may find it immoral. Render unto Caesar…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Are gay groups demanding that the Catholic Church redefine marriage and marry a gay couple in Church in front of a Priest?

I don’t think so.

I’d be the first on the picket-line supporting the Church if they were.

But I don’t think that’s what’s happening.

Sarah x

I’d like to believe that because you seem nice and practical. But really, what incentive would a non-Catholic have to be on the front-lines for us?

You see, I’ve heard the same thing from gay rights supporters regarding recognition of polygamous marriage, and some feedback is that is fine too because “it’s their culture” oi “I don’t care” once the issue gets pressed.

You may yet be surprised to what this will lead to and why. It’s no longer about rights. Not sure it ever really was. It’s about money and power, like any good progressive cause from gender to race. So-called gay “marriage” won’t end well for a lot of GLBTQ folks, and you can bet they’ll be kicked to the side by the big government types once their vote is locked in order to pursue bigger fish.

The same thing happened to Native Americans and Blacks and single, pregnant women.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’d like to believe that because you seem nice and practical. But really, what incentive would a non-Catholic have to be on the front-lines for us?

Empathy and the overwhelming urge to fight injustice.

I am where I am and can be who I am because of great people, religious and non religious, in the past, who stood up to injustices and those people today who continue to stand up and fight injustices.

It would be an unbearable violation of your religious freedom to have something that is anathema to you, forced upon you.

I do not believe this will happen, I do not believe any Catholic Priest will ever be forced by law to perform a sacramental same sex marriage.

It wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage anyhow

But if that day should ever arrive, I will be the first on the streets to protest.

Sarah x

 

[SuperLuigi]

Please explain how someone else’s marriage infringes on your religious freedom. That is the difficult part for you, because it does not.

If we have to pay for it, it infringes on our freedom and involves us.

When the day comes that any religious organization is required to perform marriages which are contrary to it’s ethical code or religious views, then an infringement has occured.

What about businesses who are sued because they won’t service certain couples? Where does that end? Will the government force them to service people who can’t pay because it’s a “human right” to have a wedding cake or a certain wedding planner?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I assume that is what you meant by businesses being sued. The courts do indeed, and fortunately for all of us, do require people to act against their preferences in order to enforce individual rights.

Perhaps then the courts can rule in the name of “equality” that GLBTQ groups have to have a certain % of straight people, even if it hurts their bottom line? Maybe gay bars should be forced to have a certain % of jihadi Muslims in order to promote “diversity”. Doesn’t that sound harmonious?

That’s how tyranny starts and how people get hurt. Because the government tries to make everything “fair”.

But life is not fair and will never be—no matter how many laws are passed and no matter how many court decisions are slapped down, life never will be fair. You will never be able to seal your favourite groups of people into a bubble for their protection. You will fail, and so will the big government.

But I’ll even wager that you don’t care. In the end, GLBTQ folks will not be happy and will get kicked to the side of the road.

There is a sense by a business person that they have the right always to run their business in their own way.

Actually, they do. You see, there is this great concept called the FREE MARKET that doesn’t need the nasty, corrupt state. Instead, the customers (ie We the PEOPLE) get to decide WITHOUT government middlemen.

You cannot make that argument, however, because your illogical stance DEPENDS on government picking winners (so-called “gay marriage”) and losers (Christian businesses, not Muslim, not Jewish, Christian).

This is obviously false in our society. There are many laws, many regulations, and so on… which may be enforced.

Which is the antithesis of freedom. More laws = more government power. All you’ve done is hide behind society’s “laws” instead of look at the bigger picture, because you agree with most of the “laws”.

What happens when a government comes to power that you don’t like? Why, then you’ll be screaming for deregulation.

I’m sure though that you’e been told something along the lines that only old rich straight white Christians are the only major opposition and will die out and your views will exist now until forever.

So many others have claimed this immortality and their cultures and customs are in the fossil record.

If you disagree with me, then please explain how your religious freedom has been threatened, Because, I don’t understand how. It is a personal right to practice, as I understand it.

It’s also a right to practice it in public, so you evidently do not understand it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What is taught in public schools, what is legislated as social rights, what benefits are given to people by employers or government agencies - none of these things infringe in any way on religious freedoms.

If they teach our five-year olds about sex to make someone else feel better about their supposedly great and awesome relationship, that’s a pretty stark violation.

I can see that point the being required to provide some health insurance may feel like an infringement on religious liberty. The obvious counter to that, is that nobody is required to get an abortion

Doesn’t matter whether or not someone is “required” to. We should not have to pay for someone else’s sex life or its consequences PERIOD.

That’s what freedom is all about, but in order to justify your stance, you have to come up with your own moral code.

(as a conscientious objector may be required to pay for war, but not to fight in one).

That doesn’t mean it’s right, but that’s what you get by supporting big government.

Religious rights are a personally exercised rights.

Freedom of religion includes the public sphere.

So, whether an employer is required to pay certain benefits to employees, who many not share the employer’s religious point of view, is somewhat disingenuous.

No it’s not. It’s government interference in the private sector.

Once again, no religious freedom has been infringed upon. It is merely another case of a religious groups objecting to the behavior of others.

Behaviors are not covered under Equal Protection.

The taxpayers’ situation is similar, by analogy. You may be a pacifist, in fact a Quaker with strongly held religious views. Yet, this will not stop the IRS from seizing everything you own, and charging you with criminal intent, if you fail to pay for our military operations through your taxes. There are numerous examples like this.

So that means government should get even bigger to cover even more situations?

There used to not even be an IRS or a federal tax.

If you object on religious grounds to SSM, then your choice is simple. Don’t marry anyone of the same sex.

Why can’t GLBTQ folks just marry someone of the opposite sex? The law doesn’t stop that so it is applied equally.

The fact they may prefer not to isn’t relevant to the legality.

As long as you have that right, and you are not forced to do enter such a marriage, then your religious liberty has been preserved.

So you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex, just shut up and pay for someone else to do it?

How about those bans on gay conversion therapy?

There is a basic fundamental right to earn a living (perhaps to run a business) in our society. However, when a business infringes on a fundamental right of an individual, then a balance must be found.

The counter here is easy: these are not Constitutional “rights”. Your side of the issues is just making up rights as you go along in order to advance your agenda. First, marriage is a Constitutional “right”. Religion is. Religion trumps marriage.

Your example of a business being sued, is one of precedence. Being required to cater flowers, or take photos, is not the same as being denied the right to marriage.

Now, everyone has a “right” to have their wedding photographed???

So where does this end??? Why not make it illegal for restaurants to refuse nude people? Being naked in the booth next to you while you eat could also a be a “right” by your logic.

No one is required to do any of those things. It’s a PRIVATE contract!

The person providing the flower is not afterall, being required to do anything contrary to their religion. They are only objecting to the behavior of others. Taking a photo is not a religious act, in this case. Nor does taking a photo violate any religious precept in this case.

Actually, it does. What if the photographer were asked to shoot a porno film? Should the government make them do that? What religious precept in your logic is being violated?

Christians are sometimes reluctant to support something that they don’t agree with instead of quietly conspiring. We sometimes are even obliged in conscience to stand up publicly against evil and don’t need self-centered movements and individuals telling us when and if we can do that. Our authority comes from a higher place that the GLBTQ bedroom or pandering straights trying to make a name for themselves, and many of whom wouldn’t touch a gay person with a ten foot pole.

Let’s say that your daughter is marrying a total jerk that you don’t like and want nothing to do with. Should the government mandate that you provide flowers and still pay for the wedding and be involved because marriage and all its fixings are a right?

Or like a good progressive, are you going to exempt yourself from the laws you expect everyone else to follow?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think that the point of those who support SSM is that the historic treatment has been both wrong and unjust.

Yeah, because getting more votes and $$$$ and special recognition for being “tolerant” has nothing to do with it…

As long as there is a valid argument to be made in that respect, then you can’t really claim this supposed high ground.

Sure you can!

In a democracy, which shows no favor to any particular religious view, then the view which is diametrically opposed to yours must also be given equal treatment.

We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. And no, views do not need “equal” treatment by mandated by government. The free market can decide that.

As for the isssue of a caterer being required to cater an SSM wedding, there is a sense of unfairness perhaps, but I don’t see injustice.

That’s funny, because I sure do!

What is being weighed by the courts is the fundamental right to marriage, against the preference of HOW to operate a business. The fundamental right to operate that business, and to make a living is not being infringed upon. It is the relative weight of the “rights” which are important.

Since marriage is not a Constitutional right, that’s a no-brainer.

Of course, for someone who rejects the notion of the right to SSM, then it does seem that the injured party is the caterer. But the courts to not have the option to make that sort of determination.

This doesn’t make sense.

If a marriage is legal, then it has the same status of any other marriage, and the same protections.

Of course! Everyone has to be “equal”, and if not, why, the nice people in government who of course aren’t there for their own selfish reasons, are there to “help”.

Because that has worked so well historically.



I hear a lot about so-called “gay marriage” and how great it supposedly is, but gay divorce sure does like to follow!

So, be sure to include that in your “equality” argument.

If that same caterer decided not to cater inter-racial marriages, then the issue would be similar.

Not really. The interracial couple could just find someone else, which shouldn’t be too hard. The free market would probably put them out of business. No one likes a racist.

I don’t see why gay rights activists are seeking to target Christians over this. I think it’s rather interesting they haven’t pulled this on a Muslim or Jewish business.

I wonder why.

Besides, race is not a behaviour.

 

[RedFox0456]

These examples are brought up all the time.

Can you seriously see something like that happening, today?

It doesn’t matter. If we are looking at this logically then you have to consider all cases. You can’t just dismiss a logical argument because you don’t think it’s likely to happen.

atheistgirl:

Are you saying that the right to get married does not exist?

And therefore same sex couples can’t complain that they can’t get married since there is no right for any couple to get married?

That is actually precisely what I’m saying. We are not entitled to marriage simply because we want to be. Sacramental marriage is a gift, and also a vocation. Legal marriage and any benefits conferred are similarly not actually rights, and therefore no one can claim entitlement. They can, however, look at the function of marriage and come to a conclusion as to whether or not the intended purpose is being fulfilled in various situations. Sort of like how if a straight couple gets married and one of the people wasn’t from this country, and then the government will investigate to find out if it is a legitimate marriage and if it turns out it’s not then heavy legal action can be sanctioned.

Now I can jump to math for a second. This means that the set of all invalid situations for civil marriage is nonempty. Therefore, we can safely assume that other situations can be reviewed and deemed invalid because the precedent has been set.

atheistgirl:

OK then.

Let religious people accept the gift of sacramental marriage and let those of no religion and who are of the same sex have their legally binding contracts marriage.

Just make sure the two are equitable in terms of any ‘‘rights’’ and benefits conferred as a result of the marriages and treat both marriages as equal

Why? This once again goes to entitlement, which I have established is not a given, and which you did not actually give a counterargument to.

atheistgirl:

I disagree.

You’re claiming a religious right of not recognizing same sex marriages and expecting people to accept that trumping civil law.

If they are running a business or service to the public but refuse to provide that service to one section of the community, namely homosexuals, for no other reason than they are homosexuals, then that is nothing short of blatant discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Sarah x

The businesses are not refusing service to homosexual people. They are refusing service to an event. In many of the cases the plaintiffs made it clear they would be happy to do business with homosexual people outside of services rendered for a same sex wedding. In some cases, the people were openly gay and had done regular business with the plaintiff. In some cases, the business actually offered to help them locate someone who would be comfortable providing for their event. And, as religious freedom is a form of freedom, it should certainly be protected. Just like we have the right to freedom of speech, etc.

 

[epan]

If they teach our five-year olds about sex to make someone else feel better about their supposedly great and awesome relationship, that’s a pretty stark violation.

Doesn’t matter whether or not someone is “required” to. We should not have to pay for someone else’s sex life or its consequences PERIOD.

That’s what freedom is all about, but in order to justify your stance, you have to come up with your own moral code.

That doesn’t mean it’s right, but that’s what you get by supporting big government.

Freedom of religion includes the public sphere.

No it’s not. It’s government interference in the private sector.

Once again, no religious freedom has been infringed upon. It is merely another case of a religious groups objecting to the behavior of others.

Behaviors are not covered under Equal Protection.

So that means government should get even bigger to cover even more situations?

There used to not even be an IRS or a federal tax.

Why can’t GLBTQ folks just marry someone of the opposite sex? The law doesn’t stop that so it is applied equally.

The fact they may prefer not to isn’t relevant to the legality.



So you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex, just shut up and pay for someone else to do it?

How about those bans on gay conversion therapy?

The counter here is easy: these are not Constitutional “rights”. Your side of the issues is just making up rights as you go along in order to advance your agenda. First, marriage is a Constitutional “right”. Religion is. Religion trumps marriage.

Now, everyone has a “right” to have their wedding photographed???

So where does this end??? Why not make it illegal for restaurants to refuse nude people? Being naked in the booth next to you while you eat could also a be a “right” by your logic.

No one is required to do any of those things. It’s a PRIVATE contract!

Actually, it does. What if the photographer were asked to shoot a porno film? Should the government make them do that? What religious precept in your logic is being violated?

Christians are sometimes reluctant to support something that they don’t agree with instead of quietly conspiring. We sometimes are even obliged in conscience to stand up publicly against evil and don’t need self-centered movements and individuals telling us when and if we can do that. Our authority comes from a higher place that the GLBTQ bedroom or pandering straights trying to make a name for themselves, and many of whom wouldn’t touch a gay person with a ten foot pole.

Let’s say that your daughter is marrying a total jerk that you don’t like and want nothing to do with. Should the government mandate that you provide flowers and still pay for the wedding and be involved because marriage and all its fixings are a right?

Or like a good progressive, are you going to exempt yourself from the laws you expect everyone else to follow?

Your oddball collection of non sequiturs is no doubt amusing to some. But this rather illustrates the problem. I non responsive “response” is just that. Non responsive to the issues at stake. Why do you make it personal? Nothing that I stated was a personal observation. It was all based on content and fact.

Talk of my personal perceptions, of which you cannot possible do anything but infer from your biased perspective, talk of “higher authority” which has no relevance to political discussions, personal attacks “like a good progressive”, etc… and diminutive to your own point of view, and will continue to render it increasingly irrelevant and time continues to leave you in its wake.

In that sense I accept you inappropriate labeling as a “good progressive”. Progress is creating “good anachronisms” of some. Keep in mind that one of the best definitions of mental health is the ability to adapt well to change, while you balance “progressive” points of view against “obstructionist” points of view.

 

[epan]

Yeah, because getting more votes and $$$$ and special recognition for being “tolerant” has nothing to do with it…

Sure you can!

We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. And no, views do not need “equal” treatment by mandated by government. The free market can decide that.

That’s funny, because I sure do!

Since marriage is not a Constitutional right, that’s a no-brainer.

This doesn’t make sense.

Of course! Everyone has to be “equal”, and if not, why, the nice people in government who of course aren’t there for their own selfish reasons, are there to “help”.

Because that has worked so well historically.



I hear a lot about so-called “gay marriage” and how great it supposedly is, but gay divorce sure does like to follow!

So, be sure to include that in your “equality” argument.

Not really. The interracial couple could just find someone else, which shouldn’t be too hard. The free market would probably put them out of business. No one likes a racist.

I don’t see why gay rights activists are seeking to target Christians over this. I think it’s rather interesting they haven’t pulled this on a Muslim or Jewish business.

I wonder why.

Besides, race is not a behaviour.

You seem very emotional and confused on this issue. Just my personal observation. There is a confluence of fact and imagination in your posts. Nobody is “paying” for SSM marriages. You seem to be confused about sexual orientation, insisting on calling it a “behavior”. Even the catechism, in spite of its anachronistic approach, is more advanced in its view.

My suggestion would be to enter the 21st century. You point of view is waning rapidly. My hope is that you will not become bitter as we “good progressives” find that progress continues onward.

 

[RedFox0456]

Keep in mind nothing in that last post is a direct argument against same sex marriage, but rather an argument against it being considered a given right.