OCinBuffalo Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Since you write like a 3 year old, I'll try this in the way you seem to understand: Wrong. And no, I don't feel like providing support because I have no interest in engaging you. And why do I hold you in such disdain? See Same old crap with you. Let's be clear: it's not that you won't engage, it's that you can't engage. As evidenced by the fact that you guessed what I posted, bungled it, and now are trying to play it off. Kooky fringe Episcopalians, right? Only 14 presidents have been that religion and 2% of the US pop. Friggin' outliers. Ah, so now you are engaging? You like #s? Ok how about these #s: 100% of 45 state legislatures passed anti-gay marriage laws, because people like you can't get over yourselves, and thought it was a good idea to antagonize religious people, of which I AM NOT ONE...so far....so stop trying to make this about me. The very attitude you are exhibiting here is why gay rights got the shaft. But, go ahead and blame me. Then they shouldn't pass laws telling religions who they can marry. Agreed, and, they shouldn't pass laws forcing religions to marry people they don't want to, just because some of their members think its a good idea. We can do this all day, you can't argue one side without the other, and unless you are a complete idiot, you know that, so quit wasting my time with this.
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Actually, it's too bad that they "so often" come together in a number of different packages: unions and racists; educators and racists; manufacturers and racists; liberals and racists; churches and racists; actors and racists....the list goes on and on and on. But it takes a liberal to bust their ass trying to oversell the conservative/racist combo pack as an exclusive product. When you have nothing, play the race card. Not that it matters to you, but I expected more from you, Deano. Not sure why, but I did. I think it's the avatar
OCinBuffalo Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 came back to read this thread, saw that post, remembered why i dont come to PPP. But let's not kid ourselves; I'm sure your not coming to PPP is 100% motivated by hatred of religion... Love it when people misquote me. I said the weaponization was 100% motivated, NOT gay marriage itself. Re-read it. Words mean things, and mine were specifically chosen.
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Love it when people misquote me. I said the weaponization was 100% motivated, NOT gay marriage itself. Re-read it. Words mean things, and mine were specifically chosen. And I was doing you a favor. "Weaponizing gay marriage" wasn't exactly making you look any less irrational.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 I've not seen where anyone is trying to force churches to accept gay marriage. The churches can and do select who they will marry in their own religious tradition - I know the Mormons won't marry non-Mormons (in fact, you have to be Mormon to attend the ceremony in a Mormon temple), and from what I understand the Catholic church puts all sorts of conditions on marrying (pre-marital education, willingness to agree that children will be raised Catholic, etc.) - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and as a separation of church and State issue the State should not dictate who churches should marry. What is being argued is that if the State decides who should be allowed to marry (and it is the State making this decision), gays should not be excluded. People talk about civil unions all the time, but the truth is that these are not full marriages - they aren't recognized beyond state borders, there is no legal precendent requiring them to be recognized and in general serve as some sort of "separate but equal" arrangement. The push is for full legal marriages in the State sense, not the church sense - this is where people aren't willing to compromise. All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations. Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well. Unintended consequences are b_tch, huh? Per Darin's request from 3 threads ago, I am not going to bring up the other "alternative" marriages. The problem really is that a marriage often has components that aren't easily separated - the civil component and the religious component. It may just be a matter of symantics, but until society shifts to be concerned with whether you're "in a civil union" instead of whether you're "married" this problem will continue. I think gays need to be allowed to have a marriage, called a marriage, with all the rights of any other marriage but with the understanding that this is a State marrige, not a church marriage. Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying in this thread. We all agree, something like this needed to, and should have happened Unfortunately, the John Adam's of the world decided to play the punk, started schit in the bar, got beat down, and now is outside....still running his mouth and saying he didn't lose, and he didn't start the trouble.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 And I was doing you a favor. "Weaponizing gay marriage" wasn't exactly making you look any less irrational. Yeah, having people on every news show all day all the time calling church people bigots and hate mongers is the height of rationality. Thanks for the help!
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Yeah, having people on every news show all day all the time calling church people bigots and hate mongers is the height of rationality. Thanks for the help! And that's "weaponization", and means the issue is 100% about hatred of religion. Hyperbole and overgeneralization at the same time. The height of rationality, as you say.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 And that's "weaponization", and means the issue is 100% about hatred of religion. Hyperbole and overgeneralization at the same time. The height of rationality, as you say. You missed it again. Taking a rational issue, that nobody has a problem with -> gays getting the same rights as straight people but instead of stopping there, and arguing the problem at hand, turning the issue into something completely different and (I will change words just for you) bastardizing it for perceived political gain, is the height of irrationality. And the results speak for themselves. Is this really that hard to comprehend? They made a choice, and they chose poorly.
John Adams Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Unfortunately, the John Adam's of the world decided to play the punk, started schit in the bar, got beat down, and now is outside....still running his mouth and saying he didn't lose, and he didn't start the trouble. I read this: Bad apostrophe use. I love you Internet tough guys. "Keep it up John Adams or and I'll weaponize my keyboard on you." Gay marriage is 100% or 90% about gays finding an issue to attack organized religion! Good **** OC: way to understand the issues. Can you write a 5 page essay about that like the old "How to win in Afghanistan" lecture. Dance for me monkey.
Adam Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Because if a gay couple asked to be married in the Catholic church and the pastor refuses, he will be "discriminating" against them, even though everyone should know by now that the Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If you don't agree with that you are not Catholic and should not be asking to be married there, but they won't let that stop them. If it is left to the church, they will reverse field quickly, cause money talks.
bartshan-83 Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Agreed, and, they shouldn't pass laws forcing religions to marry people they don't want to, just because some of their members think its a good idea. Is that what Loving v. Virginia did? All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations. And the church would win. Find me legal precedent that makes you think otherwise. Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well. What is this pandora's box you are talking about? What law currently on the books requires any church to marry anyone?
The Avenger Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations. Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well. Unintended consequences are b_tch, huh? Per Darin's request from 3 threads ago, I am not going to bring up the other "alternative" marriages. There is no right to a religious marrige now, nor does there appear to be any movement to do so - you're confusing right to marriage bestowed by the State and right to marriage bestowed by the Church. If the fight was for the right to marry anywhere, in any church this would be a whole different ball of wax with civil rights vs. freedom of religion. Right now the only part the churches have in the argument is that their traditions/morality don't support gay marriage and therefore the State shouldn't allow it - in this latest ruling the court said that didn't really matter. If there was a right to a church marriage churches would already be defending lawsuits - "Why can't I get married in the Mormon temple - it's so beautiful!" "Why won't the Catholic church marry me because my fiance is Jewish?". Churches can and do set the parameters of who they marry and under what conditions - plenty of people haven't liked it, but they can't sue - they just have to get married somewhere else. Saying that allowing gays to marry will require any church to marry them as an uninteded consequence is a straw man argument.
Dan Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 You missed it again. Taking a rational issue, that nobody has a problem with -> gays getting the same rights as straight people but instead of stopping there, and arguing the problem at hand, turning the issue into something completely different and (I will change words just for you) bastardizing it for perceived political gain, is the height of irrationality. And the results speak for themselves. Is this really that hard to comprehend? They made a choice, and they chose poorly. All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations. Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well. Unintended consequences are b_tch, huh? Per Darin's request from 3 threads ago, I am not going to bring up the other "alternative" marriages. Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying in this thread. We all agree, something like this needed to, and should have happened Unfortunately, the John Adam's of the world decided to play the punk, started schit in the bar, got beat down, and now is outside....still running his mouth and saying he didn't lose, and he didn't start the trouble. Always nice when someone points out the flaws in their own arguments. Nicely done.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Again for the record... Hetero-marriage should NOT be recognized by the state. I never believed it should. Flame away.
Booster4324 Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Again for the record... Hetero-marriage should NOT be recognized by the state. I never believed it should. Flame away. Why? You have to be trolling, or you are bat **** stupid. I am going to hope it is the former. If we are to take you at your word, you are a simple bigot.
LeviF Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Why? You have to be trolling, or you are bat **** stupid. I am going to hope it is the former. If we are to take you at your word, you are a simple bigot. At the drink again there, Booster? Or are you responding to a post that isn't the one you quoted? Or am I just missing something (I need my sleep, after all).
Booster4324 Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 At the drink again there, Booster? Or are you responding to a post that isn't the one you quoted? Or am I just missing something (I need my sleep, after all). I am rarely drink <sic>. EII always tries to find some reason to condemn homosexual marriage. So now that most of the nonsensical reasons have been batted down, he tries to bring up some bull **** that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. He does this frequently, and occasionally has a point I grant you. However, this time he adds nothing but his bias.
drnykterstein Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 its not impartial to have a gay judge decide this case. If this were black rights, and a black judge decided the case, would you say the same thing?
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Why? You have to be trolling, or you are bat **** stupid. I am going to hope it is the former. If we are to take you at your word, you are a simple bigot. I guess I a bigot against hetero-marriage too. I am not saying people can't get married! I am saying it has not part in being recognized by the state. Everybody is equal. No problems. I am not trolling. ALL marriage should be in the eyes of religion alone.
Recommended Posts