Book of Mormon

[JLives]

Ned it has said been a hundred times in these threads. Seperate or different is not equal. That is what it comes down to.

[Big ned]

What are you talking about? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Separate or different is not equal? I'm not even going to begin to list how everyone is separate or different in one way or another. Does that mean that until we get everyones skin colour the same that someone is always going to be unequal? redefining a word does not bestow human rights on anyone.... it is a ruse. Fight for actual civil rights and I will support you 100%.

[usquebaugh]

If you want civil authorities to do the weddings, call them civil unions...

Why can a straight couple have a wedding performed by a Justice of the Peace and have it called a marriage?

[Big ned]

I'm getting a little tired of retyping it a hundred times.

The same reason it didn't work with adoption. They won't let good enough be. If the religious people knew that is where it would end.... I would be perfectly fine with that. but the adoption agency and fertility doctor both learned the hard way... the gay lobby has a tendency to be very vindictive. both of these entities were willing to refer to someone who would provide the service, but because they had their own views that didn't agree with the gay lobby, they got sued. The adoption agency was shut down and the fertility specialist is facing a lawsuit because of his religious beliefs.

Let's try to connect the dots. In law it is called precident. It has happened in two areas that are exactly the same. An individual or a church holds a view that differs from the gay lobby. The individual and church are both willing to allow the services to happen through a state run institution. Not good enough. There is no way they are going to leave it alone in this are either.

I say we make any union that is performed by a civil authority (be it gay or straight).. call it a civil union. Let the church authorities perform marriages. Then there is a distinct line drawn to protect the religious from being sued.. you don't even have to change the definition of a word to do it.

[JLives]

What is letting good enough be? I'm sorry but you can't use religion as an excuse to be a bigot to certain sets of individuals. I'm glad agencies got shut down that were acting in that matter. I'd like to see it happen more often but that's another topic. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous children out there who are desperate for a home. If there is a person or people out there who are responsible adults and want to love those children then let them! There is no legimate excuse to deny children who are desperate for stable homes to responsible same sex couples period.

My dad died in a car accident when I was 6 so I didn't have a father growing up. I did have father figures though through my uncles. Even if both parents are the same sex there are other ways for children to have guidance from both sexes growing up.

How about gay/straight couples can get "married" through a Justice of the Peace but if you do it in a church we call it a religious union. How would that go over?

[Big ned]

Because then the gay lobby will want to have religious unions Jenny... can't you open your eyes and see what is going on here. Where do you get off saying that you are glad an adoption center got closed down? You really are blinded by your dislike for religion aren't you? There were already agencies that were willing to serve the gay community for adoption and you are saying it is good that there was a bunch of agencies shut down just because of their religious beliefs? Good thing you care about the kids looking to be adopted. You really can't see how ridiculous that is? Let's shut down the women's fitness centers because they don't let men in... Let's shut down the bathrooms in public places because they discriminate against the opposite sex... everyone has to use the same bathrooms... while we're at it... no urinals in the bathrooms because women can't use them.

The lobbyists won't stop... that is my point.. the religious groups could call their marriages anything they want, but if they don't service the gay crowd there will always be a problem.

Another example in the news.. eharmony.com got sued by a gay person because there was no specific way for gays to hook up on the site... nothing stopping them from doing it, just the wording wasn't to this person's liking and so the company was sued. It is just bloody ridiculous.. these aren't civil rights they are arguing for.. it's something else altogether.

[Mr Danksworth]

That's some crazy circular logic you've got going there Ned. It's like watching a snake eat it's own tail.

[Big ned]

It's not my logic, it is what the gay lobby is involved in and I agree, it is simply ridiculous and the antithesis of what they claim to represent.

[JLives]

Excatly Soulra. It is amazing the stories people will come up with to try to excuse thier bigotry.

[onestop67]

How does that one go? Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged.

jenny, you left out making excuses for being a hypocrite and being judgemental...

Classic.

[Mr Danksworth]

It's not my logic, it is what the gay lobby is involved in and I agree, it is simply ridiculous and the antithesis of what they claim to represent.

Is being intolerant of intolerance really a bad thing? I think not.

[LineontheHorizon]

The same reason it didn't work with adoption. They won't let good enough be. If the religious people knew that is where it would end.... I would be perfectly fine with that. but the adoption agency and fertility doctor both learned the hard way... the gay lobby has a tendency to be very vindictive. both of these entities were willing to refer to someone who would provide the service, but because they had their own views that didn't agree with the gay lobby, they got sued. The adoption agency was shut down and the fertility specialist is facing a lawsuit because of his religious beliefs

Need I remind you Ned that there are gay people who happen to be religious as well. Heteros do not own faith, nor do they lay claim to family or morality. The gay lobby has a tendency to be vindictive? Give me a break. Day after day, preachers malign, degrade and dehumanize gay people from their pulpits and people eat this stuff up because it makes them feel better about themselves and less accountable for their own actions. And the preachers keep telling us that we must put up with it because of their freedom of religion. No, we will not. To me, vindictive is defined as voting away civil rights as was done in California, and spending multi-millions of dollars to do it. If that isn't hateful vindictiveness, I don't know what is. Millions of dollars to not have to be aligned or associated with the neighbours that YOUR lord and saviour commands you to love and respect. The disrespect shown to us day after day by religious groups is appalling to say the least.

[GordonH]

wtw right on good post. I agree fully.

[Big ned]

Listen wtw, I can only control what I do and not others. does vindictiveness on one part make it ok on the other. The end justifies the means. I go to a church where I have never heard one negative thing said about any group of people. Do they condemn sin in my church? Yes. I have never supported those who go around saying "God hates *bleep*" or any such preaching from the pulpit. As a matter of fact, I outright condemn that kind of talk about any group of people. If you read my posts, I know that there are gay people who are religious.. they exist in my family. They know and accept that they can't get married in certain churches to a member of the same sex.

wtw, you and I know this really has nothing to do with marriage at all. This is where a line has been drawn in the sand by both sides. On the lobbyist side (I won't say gay because I don't think they represent even a majority of gays) you have a group who is pushing a secular agenda and they are using the gay community to try to accomplish it.

Let's look at the civil rights gay couples would get if they had a piece of paper saying that they were married.... Not one. Jenny brought up quite an interesting argument that "separate and apart" is not equal. Then she went on to say "why don't the religious people have a religious union and let the gays call their's a marriage". When you put the two statements side by side you see how ridiculous and argument it is. Let's say we do give the gay lobbyists the right to call their union a marriage and the religious get the "religious ceremony". They are still apart and different and they lobbyists will pursue the "religious ceremony" difference now.

Let's call a spade a spade. The secularists want to destroy religion. They know that the only way that gays will get everything they want is by destroying religion because the religious won't redefine God's laws that state that marriage is the only place that sexual relations are sanctified between a man and a woman. On top of that God's laws state that sex between two people of the same sex is a sin. So, how do you destroy religion? try to legislate it out of existence.

If you can redefine marriage as between two people of the same sex, it opens the doors to law suits against people of religion. The becket fund just completed a study of over 1,000 civil laws and found that 350 of them would open up lawsuits against people of religion for various reasons if marriage was redefined. For the umpteenth time there have been examples of it already when it comes to adoption and fertility... lawsuits even when there were options that the organizations were willing to refer to. That is the vindictiveness that I am talking about. It has nothing to do with rights, or they would be pursuing the actual rights such as equal taxation as a couple and benefits as a couple. I am all for those rights that are actually rights. I am not for the kind of rights these lobbyists are pursuing and that is the kind that takes away other peoples right to have an opinion based on their religion.

[Glacier]

I'm sorry but you can't use religion as an excuse to be a bigot to certain sets of individuals.

I have friends with zero religious beliefs, and they think homosexuality is wrong. Is that being bigoted?