PLEASE CHANGE

WinterBorn said:
I accept Darla as speaking for herself or speaking on the topic. I have never said that she represents all of feminism, nor does she speak for feminism groups.
Click to expand...

Didn't say all of feminism, there are at least two different types; equality feminism with which I broadly agree and gender feminism for which I don't.
 
Stone Pig with Wings said:
tom everyone in this thread has told you that you are wrong. idiot bogtrotter.
Click to expand...

I would rather listen to Howie than you on the subject.

It's about equality. In the eyes of God all are equal, even sinners. God does not hate. If a straight couple can be married in a churchthen a gay people can.

After all, God would never disapprove of love between two human beings.

That said, any church that enjoys tax free status, should have that status removed if they don't follow the law of the land.
Click to expand...
 
Stone Pig with Wings said:
tom everyone in this thread has told you that you are wrong. idiot bogtrotter.
Click to expand...

What if I was to tell you that is the equivalent of calling someone black a nigger? I'd love to see you go into a bar on the Springfield Road and call somebody in there a bogtrotter and see how long you last, racist cunt!!
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
I would rather listen to Howie than you on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would. You have had several well educated people tell you the same thing. And yet when one person validates your original claim you cling to that answer.

Except the answer you are clinging to stands against the US Constitution. So unless Howey thinks he can muster enough support to push thru a constitutional amendment, he is wrong.

Also you didn't really get an answer, just Howey's opinion. "That said, any church that enjoys tax free status, should have that status removed if they don't follow the law of the land"
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What if I was to tell you that is the equivalent of calling someone black a nigger? I'd love to se you go into a bar on the Springfield Road and call somebody in there a bogtrotter and see how long you last, racist cunt!!
Click to expand...

1) I never knew it was a racist term or what it meant

2) White racist terms aren't as bad as non-white racist terms.

See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY#t=2m02s

3) It's a term for irish. I am also irish, so I am re-claiming it, you stupid mick.

you're an al qaedia funder, terrorist supporter, and hat. NOT ENGLISH!!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Ok Howie, I respect your honesty in stating that is the goal of LBGT groups. People like Grind does not get it and think that the First Amendment will stop churches beng coerced into allowing gay marriages.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
So now Howey speaks for LBGT groups?

Regardless, the same US Constitution that prevents religions from ruling also protects a religion's right to freely practice their faith.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
I'm sure you would. You have had several well educated people tell you the same thing. And yet when one person validates your original claim you cling to that answer.

Except the answer you are clinging to stands against the US Constitution. So unless Howey thinks he can muster enough support to push thru a constitutional amendment, he is wrong.

Also you didn't really get an answer, just Howey's opinion. "That said, any church that enjoys tax free status, should have that status removed if they don't follow the law of the land"
Click to expand...

I never claimed my words were anything other than my opinion.

As far as churches denying gays the right to marry after it,s legal, I repeat that I strongly believe that if a church subsidized by the US government in any matter refuses to follow laws, they should lose that government assistance, particularly tax exempt status.

Additionally, there's plenty of churches that welcome the high disposable income of gays, so who really gives a damn about the bigots?
 
Howey said:
I never claimed my words were anything other than my opinion.

As far as churches denying gays the right to marry after it,s legal, I repeat that I strongly believe that if a church subsidized by the US government in any matter refuses to follow laws, they should lose that government assistance, particularly tax exempt status.

Additionally, there's plenty of churches that welcome the high disposable income of gays, so who really gives a damn about the bigots?
Click to expand...

Calm down. I was merely pointing out to Tom that his choice to pick one answer and ignore the rest was ridiculous. He insists that lawyers will be able to get around the 1st Amendment. I understand what you wish, but each church will be able to decide based on their religious beliefs.
 
WinterBorn said:
Calm down. I was merely pointing out to Tom that his choice to pick one answer and ignore the rest was ridiculous. He insists that lawyers will be able to get around the 1st Amendment. I understand what you wish, but each church will be able to decide based on their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Ok, my friend. Panties unwad. :)
!
Stone Pig with Wings said:
i think he originally said bogtrotter and I got it wrong. so bogman is just a failed parody of 007.
Click to expand...

Oh hell. I thought it was a typo for boogeyman.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
And what about if they lose their charitable status?
Click to expand...

For what? They don't perform the religious rite of marriage for charity, and renting basement space is also not a form of charity. They already don't reject people in their charity for being gay... I doubt they'd even think to reject renting space to a party because somebody is homosexual...

Give me a real reason they'd lose that, and you may have a point. At this time though, all you have is baseless "worry". It isn't even logical. If "equal access" caused them to have to perform my marriage, you might have a point, but it doesn't and won't. It won't cause them to "have" to perform homosexual marriages either.

The Brits really don't understand this whole Constitution thing. You are wasting your time coming up with silly nonsense at this point.
 
WinterBorn said:
Calm down. I was merely pointing out to Tom that his choice to pick one answer and ignore the rest was ridiculous. He insists that lawyers will be able to get around the 1st Amendment. I understand what you wish, but each church will be able to decide based on their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Right wingers were confidently claiming that the Constitution would be on their side in the Obamacare debate and we know how that worked out!!
 
Damocles said:
For what? They don't perform the religious rite of marriage for charity, and renting basement space is also not a form of charity. They already don't reject people in their charity for being gay... I doubt they'd even think to reject renting space to a party because somebody is homosexual...

Give me a real reason they'd lose that, and you may have a point. At this time though, all you have is baseless "worry". It isn't even logical. If "equal access" caused them to have to perform my marriage, you might have a point, but it doesn't and won't. It won't cause them to "have" to perform homosexual marriages either.

The Brits really don't understand this whole Constitution thing. You are wasting your time coming up with silly nonsense at this point.
Click to expand...

I understand it well enough, I am just saying there are many ways to skin a cat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top