@sharrona --"You know the commandments"There is
no commandment which says "thou shalt not be homosexual". There is also no commandment which says "thou shalt reproduce". In
fact, Paul specifically taught that it is better to remain single than to marry
-- and Jesus himself said that men who are "born eunuchs" (a term which
encompassed gay men) should not marry women (Matthew 19:12).As Ranch
said, gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. You haven't offered even the
slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.
Kalindra, protest outside of *abortion clinics. Should all things related to
groups that protest be banned or just things you don't agree with?Jesus gave us a guide:(Do] You know the commandments: 'You shall
not commit adultery, you shall *not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not
give false testimony, honor your father and mother(not significant
other).'" Luke 18:20.Honor your Father and Mother which is
the first commandment(not a suggestion) with a promise. God distinguishes father
and mother from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to
Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.. Eph 6:2,3.RanchHand, re-read the (many, many, many) passages on hypocrisy.
True,"top judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
(John 7:24).Last Post.
Sarrona says:"One of their issues was about gay
marriage."---Yeah, so? Did you pay
attention to the so-called "religious" people testifying about gay
marriages in Hawaii?You're a hypocrite when you only castigate
one side for the things they do and ignore the other. Since you like reading
and quoting the bible so much, perhaps you'd like to re-read the (many,
many, many) passages on hypocrisy.
I don't see how same-sex couples getting married is going to effect my
life. Besides, what about separation of church and state? It seems like some
on here want a theocracy where they can force others who don't share their
beliefs to live by those beliefs. Separation of church and state was meant to
@ sharrona: Westboro Baptists engage in many protests. Political groups engage
in protests. There are many groups that protest outside of abortion clinics.
Should all things related to groups that protest be banned or just things you
don't agree with?
RanchHand, Your comparison is about angry people, not gay marriage. One of
their issues was about gay marriage.We were involved with helping
homeless vets but we had to leave. You confuse bigotry for the truth,
@sharrona;Was that the result of gay marriages? No, it wasn't.
Your comparison is about angry people, not gay marriage.@riki;Good for you for choosing bigotry. I'm sure your god is going to
just love you for it.
@sharrona --"When I lived in San Francisco...."There is no comparison whatsoever between a few angry gay activists and all
the harm done TO gay people by homophobes across the country and around the
world.Gays in the US are still eight times more likely to be the
victims of violent crimes than straights. Another transgender person
was beaten to death on the streets of NYC just a couple of months ago -- with
the killer shouting anti-gay slurs -- just because he had been flirting with her
before he figured out what she was.Another transgendered person was
found dead in a trashcan in Detroit just a couple of weeks ago.Roughly one third -- some estimates say one half -- of all homeless youth are
gay. They are often on the streets because their own families kicked them out
when they found out they had a gay kid.In some countries,
homosexuality is literally punishable by death, and gays are even more
frequently killed or beaten than they are here.So don't you
DARE try to compare a few shouting people in San Fran with the violence the LGBT
community has to survive every day of their lives.
@ RanchHand ,Gay marriage harms nobody. Partners in crime,When I
lived in San Francisco some gay rights groups harassed attendees of a local
Catholic church. Before The national guard arrived there were several
incidents with them.
@RikitikitaviI do not believe it is "too early" at all to
see the impact. Within the USA, Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage (SSM)
since 2004. It is 49th in the lowest divorce rate, exceeded only by New Jersey.
Additionally, we have Canada with SSM starting in 2001. In 1979, the
Netherlands had the first "Unregistered Cohabitation" providing some
civil rights to gays. In 1989, Denmark recognized "same-sex unions.So far, we have had no locust attacks, women have not become barren, and
the world has not spiraled into the Abyss of Hell for All Eternity. The
morality of which you speak is your opinion, just as an Islamic cleric believes
our women going about town UN-covered with no burka is immoral. Relax. Unless you are part of a SSM, I would not much worry about it.
RE:RanchHand ,Gay marriage harms nobody. When I lived in San
Francisco some gay rights groups harassed attendees of a local Catholic church.
Before The national guard arrived there were several incidents with the
It is way too early in this whole same-sex marriage debate for anyone to so
boldly assert that there is no harm in same-sex marriage. As for me and my
house, we choose to side with the Lord's Prophet in opposing same-sex
marriage. Rapidly declining moral values can only bode ill for this once-great
@smart aleckone small problem with your logic your business model cannot
violate state or federal law. (i.e. public accommodation laws and civil rights
laws, unless of course you want to go back to segregation).
@Culbear;Pedophiles harm children. Gay marriage harms nobody.
Therein lies the difference.@Smart Aleck;Businesses are
granted licenses to operate by the government. Those licenses require the
business owner to operate within the law, they do not give the business owner
carte blanche to discriminate against society.
Every business operates on core principles and those principles are identified
by the individual owners and shareholders. That those principles can, and
should, include those that are religiously based should come as no surprise to
anyone. This initiative would simply codify the already implied right of
individuals to run their businesses according to their own business model, to
provide a service to a niche-market, opposite gender weddings, for example.Other financial and logistical concerns constantly limit every business
from providing service to all-comers, so the right to refuse service to anyone
can be as much a matter of insufficient staff as to crossing the religious
convictions of the owner.
I love it how people will use the logic that such previous comments have been
open about the idea of consequentialism with this law. But they utterly refute
the same logic when people introduce it to say that pedophiles will be saying
that they are on equal footing for being attracted to children, or that it will
lead to societal acceptance of bestiality and utter removal of marriage as a
concept etc... not that I agree with either. It essentially eliminates freedom
of the business owner (or whomever is on the awarded end of this bill) deny them
they lose repute and business that's how it should be fought not by saying
they are mean, make it illegal and punishable to say no to us.
"... it would exempt religious objectors from accommodating same-sex
couples."---No blacks served here.No
Mormons served here.No Catholics served here.No
inter-racial couples served here.Do you see where that leads?
In the article: "While exemptions for clergy and houses of worship in
same-sex marriage bills have been successful in several states, protections for
private individuals have gone nowhere. The Oregon initiative would be the first
time such an exemption would be put before voters."Well, I would
hope they are successful for the clergy and houses of worship as those are
covered by the First Amendment. Quite correctly, the States would abide by the
U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment "religious umbrella" does not
extend to businesses open to the public and this is why they constantly fail.
It is not same-sex marriage per se, but outright discrimination based upon
sexual orientation. Oregon can put these "outside the
umbrella" exemptions on the ballot. Should it win, the first court case
that comes along will find the law unconstitutional because it is public
accommodation discrimination. It is no different than refusing to bake a
wedding cake for an inter-racial couple - regardless of the reason. If you are
open for business to the public, you are open to ALL of the public. That's
the rule. Take it or leave it.
"right to discriminate initiative"And that's exactly
what it would be, too.-- Does your religion tell you that blacks are
inferior to whites? This initiative will allow you to turn them away at your
business's front door.-- Does your religion tell you that white
Christian men are the Evil Overlords? You can turn them away at the front door
too.-- Does your religion tell you that Mormons are cultists? No
wedding cakes for them.-- Does your religion tell you that it's
sinful to give birth out of wedlock? You don't have to help with baby
showers for unwed mothers.-- Does your religion tell you that women
should stay in the home and raise babies? You don't have to hire any to
work for your business.-- Does your religion tell you that blood
transfusions are evil? The hospital you run doesn't have to offer them to
any of its patients.-- Does your religion tell you that taxes are
the work of the Devil? No income tax for you!Talk about slippery
slopes and unintended consequences! This sort of right-to-discriminate law would
only lead to widespread hatred and fragmentation of society.
Freedom is for people first. Not corporations, nor religion.