Gay Catholics Push for Church Weddings

[Quetzal]

1.) No, a phased in approach so that all bases are covered and loopholes are closed is a much better way to implement this type of huge change.

I agree, perhaps it would have been better this way.

2.) All concepts... abstracts have a human and monetary cost in implementing... and we are broke as a country.

Your right, we should continue to legally segregate because it is too inconvenient. Selfish.

Blacks are still paying the penalty for being freed the way they were... Lincoln is viewed as the great emancipator but all he did was ensure the blacks would be poor for hundreds of years and that racism would get much worse over time.

Racism became 10x worse after the civil war, FYI.

How can you even begin to make this argument? What is wrong with you? So, you believe they are better off enslaved? Interestingly, the plantation owners made this very argument. "So what if we whip them, rape the women, and hang them if they act out. At least they have a job, right?"

 

[bybee]

I agree, if a business does not want to carry out a service and there is another service provider willing to provide that same service, there really isn't much of an argument. It is just a poor business choice, in my opinion.

But, the freedom to make that choice? I back that freedom.

 

[Quetzal]

But, the freedom to make that choice? I back that freedom.

I agree, so long as it isn't some sort of service that is mandatory for something and there isn't an alternative: government services, for example. But yes, if someone has a cake shop and they don't want to serve someone, I think they should be able refuse that service. (Even if I don't agree with their reasoning.)

 

[bybee]

In regards to homosexuals, the view I uphold and fight for is the liberation of homosexuals from social and legal oppression. If your view is that they should continue to be oppressed, I will contest it every time. I understand you are trying to highlight the logical contradiction: "You are trying to oppress the views of others who oppress." I get it, I understand that point of view. It doesn't mean that I am going to stop.

To disagree does not necessarily mean an intent to oppress.
Here you are, an obviously young person with attitude and chutzpah arguing and jousting and attributing ulterior motives at the drop of a hat to any and all who hold differing opinions. Yet you remain free to express yourself so long as you mind the guidelines!
Now, isn't that wonderful? Especially since this is an avowed conservative web site!
I wonder how I would be treated if I were to blat out a conservative opinion on the "Daily Beast" (or whatever that publication is called)?
I'm betting the "fnheimers and all manner of vulgar retorts would be rampant....

 

[HisServant]

Your right, we should continue to legally segregate because it is too inconvenient. Selfish.

No, we should have a phased in plan.

How can you even begin to make this argument? What is wrong with you? So, you believe they are better off enslaved? Interestingly, the plantation owners made this very argument. "So what if we whip them, rape the women, and hang them if they act out. At least they have a job, right?"

Of course they should have been freed... but it should have been done in a phased in approach that compensated the slaves for their work and abuse and compensated the slave owners for loss of property.

Instead, the bullying of the north caused the south to secede... which caused a war in which 98.7% of southerners who DID NOT OWN slaves were forced to fight and die for. In the end it was reasonable to expect the non-slave owning southerners to blame the deaths of their family members during the war on the former slaves. (even though it is wrong... vilifying the weak is just human nature sometimes)

In the end, we should have phased in strict laws on how slave owners should treat their slaves... ban the importation of any more slaves.. enacted a program to purchase the slaves and educate them and provide them with a piece of land on which to subsistence farm, if they wanted it. Until there were no slaves left.

If we had done it right, the former slaves would have not been easy pickings for the former slave holders to terrorize and abuse.

 

[Quetzal]

To disagree does not necessarily mean an intent to oppress.
Here you are, an obviously young person with attitude and chutzpah arguing and jousting and attributing ulterior motives at the drop of a hat to any and all who hold differing opinions. Yet you remain free to express yourself so long as you mind the guidelines!
Now, isn't that wonderful? Especially since this is an avowed conservative web site!
I wonder how I would be treated if I were to blat out a conservative opinion on the "Daily Beast" (or whatever that publication is called)?
I'm betting the "fnheimers and all manner of vulgar retorts would be rampant....

I see your point. The reason I am so aggressive in regards to this topic is because I feel these ideas as harmful and dangerous to other people.

 

[Quetzal]

Of course they should have been freed... but it should have been done in a phased in approach that compensated the slaves for their work and abuse and compensated the slave owners for loss of property.

Instead, the bullying of the north caused the south to secede... which caused a war in which 98.7% of southerners who DID NOT OWN slaves were forced to fight and die for. In the end it was reasonable to expect the non-slave owning southerners to blame the deaths of their family members during the war on the former slaves. (even though it is wrong... vilifying the weak is just human nature sometimes)

In the end, we should have phased in strict laws on how slave owners should treat their slaves... ban the importation of any more slaves.. enacted a program to purchase the slaves and educate them and provide them with a piece of land on which to subsistence farm, if they wanted it. Until there were no slaves left.

If we had done it right, the former slaves would have not been easy pickings for the former slave holders to terrorize and abuse.

The north bullied who again? You do realize who fired first... right? Even if we accept your fundamentally flawed view of history, the southern states would not have accepted any program (no matter how "phased" it would have been) that went against their views.

Furthermore, even if that happened, do you think they would have shaken hands and gone their separate ways? No, of course not. That way of life and the opinions they held were ingrained so much that it was going to be ugly no matter what. Just because it is ugly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

 

[glassjester]

I see your point. The reason I am so aggressive in regards to this topic is because I feel these ideas as harmful and dangerous to other people.

Do you not think your opposition might be motivated by the very same concern?

 

[Quetzal]

Do you not think your opposition might be motivated by the very same concern?

The only reason homosexuality is seen as harmful is because of morals rooted in dated traditions. It doesn't challenge our ability, as a species, to reproduce because we have that under pretty good control. Certainly, the sexual act offers risks, but so does any sexual act. So, my question is this... what is dangerous about two men or two women loving each other? Further, how is this scenario dangerous if they choose to express it?

 

[HisServant]

The north bullied who again? You do realize who fired first... right? Even if we accept your fundamentally flawed view of history, the southern states would not have accepted any program (no matter how "phased" it would have been) that went against their views.

Furthermore, even if that happened, do you think they would have shaken hands and gone their separate ways? No, of course not. That way of life and the opinions they held were ingrained so much that it was going to be ugly no matter what. Just because it is ugly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

There is no revisionist history in anything i have stated.

 

[HisServant]

The only reason homosexuality is seen as harmful is because of morals rooted in dated traditions. It doesn't challenge our ability, as a species, to reproduce because we have that under pretty good control. Certainly, the sexual act offers risks, but so does any sexual act. So, my question is this... what is dangerous about two men or two women loving each other? Further, how is this scenario dangerous if they choose to express it?

The problem is that physical aspect of homosexuality exposes its practitioners to disease in ways that 'normal' sexual activities that heterosexual couples are not exposed to.

In the end, you have the same problem that heterosexual people have... promiscuity... multiple partners = many many dollars spent on cures that would have been better spent on cancer or the common cold.

Have you ever been to a gay pride parade?... half the people should be arrested for public nudity and debauchery.

 

[TracerBullet]

The only reason homosexuality is seen as harmful is because of morals rooted in dated traditions. It doesn't challenge our ability, as a species, to reproduce because we have that under pretty good control. Certainly, the sexual act offers risks, but so does any sexual act. So, my question is this... what is dangerous about two men or two women loving each other? Further, how is this scenario dangerous if they choose to express it?

I think an equal reason would be the decades of false information anti-gay groups have foisted on the public as facts. False claims about life expectancy, of promiscuity, of disease, of violence, of attempts to associate gays with child sexual abuse.

 

[TracerBullet]

The problem is that physical aspect of homosexuality exposes its practitioners to disease in ways that 'normal' sexual activities that heterosexual couples are not exposed to.

In the end, you have the same problem that heterosexual people have... promiscuity... multiple partners = many many dollars spent on cures that would have been better spent on cancer or the common cold.

see above re my comments on disease and promiscuity

Have you ever been to a gay pride parade?

Have you?


I've been to gay pride parades and i have never seen arrestable behavior from those participating in the parade

... half the people should be arrested for public nudity and debauchery.

sounds more like mardi gras.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What rights were they withholding?

If the SCOTUS had done the right thing, they would have invalidated all government involvement in marriage and removed all benefits of it. It works against the constitution which gives INDIVIDUALS rights... marriage TAKES AWAY rights and responsibilities that should be required of every citizen.

As far as the handling of assets, etc... it should be handled by civil contracts and should NOT BE UNIFORM. People should have the right to agree to what they want without tortuous interference from the government.

As far as all other parts of government, LGTB people have the exact same protection from the federal and state governments as everyone else.

The constitution does not require that individuals treat other individuals equally... nor should it. It requires government to treat INDIVIDUALS equally... which is good.

Libertarian alert! Libertarian alert!

 

[Cons&Spires]

Separation of Church and State guarantees that Christian establishments do not have to accept homosexual marriage.

Let LGBT cry all it wants, Catholic or otherwise.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Separation of Church and State guarantees that Christian establishments do not have to accept homosexual marriage.

Let LGBT cry all it wants, Catholic or otherwise.

Except that most if not all Christian churches got in bed with the state when they accepted the tax exempt status (which at the time was a good thing, because the state was promoting Christianity by doing so).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions

 

[Cons&Spires]

Except that most if not all Christian churches got in bed with the state when they accepted the tax exempt status (which at the time was a good thing, because the state was promoting Christianity by doing so).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions

I've always presumed that churches are tax exempt because they are not subject to the state, such is what SoCaS implies.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I've always presumed that churches are tax exempt because they are not subject to the state, such is what SoCaS implies.

Per the article that I linked:

Restrictions on religious groups
Though the IRS seeks to protect the religious-liberty rights of church members, it is also concerned that churches function within their designated sphere and not engage in prohibited activities.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions

Christian business owners have been heavily fined and threatened with jail time for engaging in "prohibited activities" (i.e. failing to provide services for sodomites who insist on having a 'wedding cake' baked for their faux wedding, even though said Christian told them it goes against their moral doctrine), Many following the culture war foresee churches losing their tax exempt status for failing to perform faux marriages, and even worse, being brought up on hate crime charges.

 

[TracerBullet]

Christian business owners have been heavily fined and threatened with jail time for engaging in "prohibited activities" (i.e. failing to provide services for sodomites who insist on having a 'wedding cake' baked for their faux wedding, even though said Christian told them it goes against their moral doctrine), Many following the culture war foresee churches losing their tax exempt status for failing to perform faux marriages, and even worse, being brought up on hate crime charges.

Just like those poor Christian business owners who are being forced to go against their moral doctrine and serve black people.

 

[bybee]

Just like those poor Christian business owners who are being forced to go against their moral doctrine and serve black people.

That was a hit below the belt. You appear to desire to spread judgmental divisiveness?