Talk of The Villages Florida - Rentals, Entertainment & More
Talk of The Villages Florida - Rentals, Entertainment & More
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But, if you really want to know why it SHOULD be banned, since there is no federal law regarding marriage, maybe it's because the majority of Americans believe that marriage is religious, and the majority of Americans believe that a religious marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Homosexuality is a deviant abnormal behavior that is TOLERATED, but not condoned. That is my opinion, which is shared by the majority. Deviant, but unharmful behavior should be kept in the bedroom where ALL sexual behavior should be kept. Not in parades in the street or on TV for the children to see. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BS thread kept alive by the master baiters!
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I doubt they put in on they're resume or will Amit to it like others when applying for job. They only come out of the closet when it's convenient to advance the cause or lawsuit. ![]() |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No one has said why Gay Marriage should be repealed.... what harm has it caused? How does it affect YOUR everyday life?
This is just another example of the Christian right trying to impose their religions on the rest of us!!!! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
No one can tell any religion that it needs to have anything to do with gay marriage. No priest or shaman or preacher can be forced to officiate over a gay marriage. But the law now is that the state may not prohibit gay persons from marriage. You see there is no such thing as "religious" marriage according to civil law. There is only marriage. If the Catholic church decides it will not call a straight couple "married" if the ceremony was done in a courthouse not by a cleric, that is fine with me. It was a marriage without the blessing of a priest. If the Catholic church does not want to call me married to my partner, that is fine with me. I don't need the approval of the Catholic church, or you, on my orientation or my marriage for it to be completely 100% legal in every state of the good old USA Deviant? My behavior is not deviant. The Church of course defines deviant in lots of ways depending on your particular flavor of God. Oral Sex, deviant. Masturbation super deviant. Anything but Missionary position DEVIANT, as the lovely missionaries of the Christian faith told those sexed up natives to stop having it any other way or go to Hades. So are you deviant too? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You say that the gov can not force the church to marry gays? WRONG! They are threatening to take away tax exempt status if the church does not comply. Yes Deviant behavior. Abnormal behavior. Just because your lifestyle is tolerated does not make it normal or condoned. Make up all the excuses you wish, but facts are facts. You can bring up all kinds of issues not related, kind of like blaming Bush for Obama's failures, but it doesn't change fact. You can attempt to excuse it, but that doesn't matter. Fact: homosexuality is deviant and abnormal behavior. Is it accepted? It is TOLERATED, not condoned. It does not have to be the Church that condemns it, science does also. But, I don't want to argue the issue of gay marriage. It is already considered legal, thanks to a group of judges, NOT the majority of American voters. I am not a bigot because I tolerate it. I don't agree with it, or condone it, but I tolerate it. As far as I am concerned, what two people do in privacy is their business. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You are full of bluster and certainty. I request, no I insist that if you are going to continue to make statements of fact that you support them with evidence. Start with something simple. Find me a single shred of evidence that anyone in any level of government has threatened the tax exempt status of any church over gay marriage. I do not accept a statement that someone on the right is afraid it might happen, but I want to see a real statement from a real personal doing exactly what you said has happened, because I know you are wrong. Here is the link to Family research council which is a far right wing organization actively anti-gay marriage and even their website says you are WRONG Family Research Council and here is the exact wording from the court on how it impacts churches Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. Lastly as to your insistence that because you tolerate gay people you are not a bigot, I suppose that if you tolerate Negroes that does not make you a racist and if you "tolerate" Jews you are not an anti-Semite. And your risible assertion that "science" condemns homosexuality... You know nothing about science as science absolutely shows that homosexuality is a normal part of most mammalian species, and science never condemns anything, it presents evidence, posits theories, and seeks to understand the world in which we live, but it never condemns behavior. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Anti-Gay Marriage Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status | The Daily Caller Churches could lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissenting opinion. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf see page 28 of his writing He said very clearly that non churches which are tax sheltered by being associated with a religion might be at risk. That means things like a college associated with a church which refuses marital housing to a legally married gay couple might place their institution at risk, a college which will not add a gay partner to its health insurance which is provides for straight couples might be at risk. But this absolutely does not apply to an actual church and Roberts makes that very very clear in his writing. The Daily Caller has mislead you. This exact situation happened to Bob Jones University when it had its tax exempt status threatened because it refused to accept dating or marriage of a white person to a non-white person. If you really care you can read a summary of the SCOTUS decision in revoking Jones's tax exemption here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jo..._United_States or just read this very clear part proving my point that a university being at risk is not the same as a church The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."[2] See how you were mislead? By the way, Bob Jones University did not lift its ban on interracial dating until 2000 after GW Bush made a speech there and their policy became more widely known. No GOP Presidential candidate has blessed BJU with a visit until this year when both Cruz and Carson have made official visits, certainly within their right to go after that kind of Evangelical voter. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Please cite references to that statement. That would be citations from National Geographic or Nature or the like, NOT GQ magazine.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Washington Post:
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns. “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.” “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” =============== Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion: "The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools." |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You misspeak when you define same sex sex as not being deviant. But that's not my objection. My objection is that militant homosexuals demanded the redefinition of marriage not for any civil right because their civil rights were never violated but rather to attempt to normalize a deviant act. and one way you normalize it is to remove gender and one way to legalize it was to redefine the definition of marriage But you can't fool mother nature Another way to normalize it comes from Hollywood because if you display it enough you socialize it and once you socialize it you normalize it. Its like tell a lie long enough makes it the truth. This same sex controversy has opened up a pandora's box where just about every deviant form of sexual activity will become an obsession with movie makers because they will do anything for a buck Let me be clear I am no more pleased with Hollywood's overuse of gratuitous heterosexual sex. And further I do view the performance of oral sex as both deviant behavior as well as a real health hazards for participants Our societies obsession with sex was bad enough but now the push by militant homosexuals agenda is destroying mind and soul especially for young people. Hedonism will continue to grow as we continue our slide toward total secularism. Welcome to the Rise And Fall Of The Great American Empire I am sorry but America is getting uglier by the day |
|
|