PLEASE CHANGE

Aoxomoxoa said:
Grind: I know that being the smug person that you are, you will start quoting the First Amendment at me. However that is not the way it will happen in the US, I suspect that lawyers will attempt to remove the tax exemption status to get what they want.
Click to expand...

You are a bogman, a terrorist supporter, and a hat.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I cannot, in good conscience, do such a thing simply because it would then mean I give the government legitimacy in to defining marriage. something i just have a moral problem allowing.
Click to expand...

did and do you support doma?

is that not government interference in the affairs of states
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Oh do shut the fuck up with your Constitution, it can't even allow a cell user to unlock their phone legally. Do you really think that it will protect churches from predatory lawyers, you cannot be serious!! Oh by the way, the next targets are polygamy and incest!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-studying-Equality-Act-voted-Coalition.html
Click to expand...

what is wrong with marriages of 3 or more adults?

love is the answer no matter what gender(s) wish to form a bond of marriage

incest is a genetic problem, not a moral problem if everyone involved is an adult

some cultures (like ancient Egypt) required their rulers to marry their brother or sister

then check out the inbreeding of some of Europe's 'royal' families
 
I totally support your right to do whatever you please, with informed consent... but I do not believe that the government is the proper tool to define "marriage".
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I do know that you live in a country that has 70% of the world's lawyers and if you seriously think that there won't be someone amongst that lot that wants to take on the churches then you are a bigger chump than I had previously believed.
Click to expand...

They would have no standing, the 1st Amendment thing keeps the government out of our churches. Basically they could try, but the courts could not force a religion to break their own tenets. Their right to worship as they please trumps everything.
 
Damocles said:
I totally support your right to do whatever you please, with informed consent... but I do not believe that the government is the proper tool to define "marriage".
Click to expand...

while it is not the province of the state to define marriage, the state does have a vested interest in the protection of children of unions and of abandoned spouses

there is also the problem of bigamists

however, if the people involved in a union desire to separate, it should be up to them to resolve the division of property and making provisions for the support of any children of the union and of any spouses that worked as a house person rather than in the work place earning 'work' experience

perhaps 'marital' unions should be treated like corporations

any suggestions?
 
Damocles said:
They would have no standing, the 1st Amendment thing keeps the government out of our churches. Basically they could try, but the courts could not force a religion to break their own tenets. Their right to worship as they please trumps everything.
Click to expand...

not inflicting great bodily harm or worse on people ala human sacrifice and other oddities, unless self inflicted

also child abuse

also, fraud and other crimes
 
Damocles said:
They would have no standing, the 1st Amendment thing keeps the government out of our churches. Basically they could try, but the courts could not force a religion to break their own tenets. Their right to worship as they please trumps everything.
Click to expand...

it's amazing how the redcoat is totally clueless about our great country. His mind must be blown that we actually have rights that aren't going to be broken.
 
Stone Pig with Wings said:
it's amazing how the redcoat is totally clueless about our great country. His mind must be blown that we actually have rights that aren't going to be broken.
Click to expand...


Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

[h=1]Proposed Ordinance Would Force Kansas Churches to Host Gay Weddings[/h]
Apr. 23, 2012 3:31pm Billy Hallowel

l
marriage.jpg



According to advocates, religious freedom may be under attack in Hutchinson, Kansas. There’s a controversial ordinance being considered in the local community that would force churches to host gay weddings and parties.


According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, the Hutchinson City Council is going to consider whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the city’s human relations code. If this action is approved during next month’s expected vote, churches may find themselves in a tough position.
Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has explained that, under the new regulations, churches that make their buildings available for the general public would not be able to refuse gay couples. This essentially means that churches would be forced to, via rental agreements, support gay nuptials.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination,” Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an interview with Fox News. “If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”


Gay-Marriage-Legalized.jpg


But Matthew Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel Action, said that the proposal isn’t in line with American values.

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda. This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment,” he proclaimed. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church.”



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ce-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top