Sorry, but for all that didn't vote in Florida---- you S_ _ K !!!!***!!#!!##*

Figgy

Well-Known Member
do you not see the utter contradiction here?

if you are leaving religion out of it, then why do you boast about defending your religious christian beliefs?

and if you do not oppose marriage equality on the basis of religion, then on what basis do you oppose it? bigotry?
You don't read a damn thing here do you?

I started off not using Christianity for anything we discussed: abortion, states rights, marriage rights for gays...then when it came up I ran with it. Yall ignored everything I said, while throwing up bad information and making false claims. If you somehow don't see that in this thread, then buddy you are just fortunate to have made it to today.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
You really are a special person. For the THIRD time, I'm ALL for equal rights for gays who want to get hitched. My late brother-in-law and his partner wanted to get married, and our whole family was all for it. It took his death to stop our family from celebrating that relationship. But You're right, I'm the anti gay bigott. You're a real literate genius kinda boy.

And by definition, a marriage under Christianity can only be between man and woman. Man and woman join in marriage to become one again. This is the reason the church cannot agree with a "marriage" between same sex partners. I agree with the church's reasoning, but support the government out of marriage all together. It is illogical for government to not give the same rights.

I hope you understand these words, and don't repeat this for the forth time.
Then you would support gay marriage
 

Figgy

Well-Known Member
Then you would support gay marriage
I don't give a crap what you want to call it. Just don't try to put pastors in jail for not performing a Christian ceremony.

Wait, that is what's going on right now.

So do you "libertarians" think pastors should be able to refuse a marriage ceremony for gays?

And ChesusRice, you continue to amaze me.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You really are a special person. For the THIRD time, I'm ALL for equal rights for gays who want to get hitched.

so they get access to the same institution of marriage that you get, name and all?

or do they get to make due with civil unions?
 

Figgy

Well-Known Member
I don't personally care what it's called. But the story above is what makes me want to call it a union. It gives all the benefits, and won't lead to more government involvement. The word marriage has a meaning of man and woman whether you like it or not. And having churches being threatened like that now would only get worse if that language was passed to gays.

Yeah, it's stupid, but it's the reality of America today.
 

Figgy

Well-Known Member
that's a business. apparently that particular city in idaho recognizes sexual orientation as a civil right, surprisingly.

why do you hate civil rights? you want to deny service to people based on skin color and religion as well?
You go in circles without realizing it. Too funny!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I don't personally care what it's called. But the story above is what makes me want to call it a union. It gives all the benefits, and won't lead to more government involvement. The word marriage has a meaning of man and woman whether you like it or not. And having churches being threatened like that now would only get worse if that language was passed to gays.

Yeah, it's stupid, but it's the reality of America today.
see, you're not for marriage equality. you;'re for "separate but equal". where else in history have we heard that?

and you cite your religion when saying why.

not very smart.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I don't personally care what it's called. But the story above is what makes me want to call it a union. It gives all the benefits, and won't lead to more government involvement. The word marriage has a meaning of man and woman whether you like it or not. And having churches being threatened like that now would only get worse if that language was passed to gays.

Yeah, it's stupid, but it's the reality of America today.
For a self proclaimed Christstain
You sure are dishonest
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho -
The Hitching Post is one of the most well known chapels in the Inland Northwest. In its 95 years of operation thousands of people have been married in the small chapel. But the owners are willing to walk away if the ban on gay marriage is permanently lifted.

When the future of same-sex marriage in Idaho is finally sorted out in court, the owners of the Hitching Post said they are prepared to close their doors rather than conduct same-sex marriages.
"I think the Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is not his way, and therefore I cannot unite people in a way that I believe would conflict with what the Bible teaches," Hitching Post owner Donald Knapp said.
When it comes to who can and can't be married at chapels like the Hitching Post, Warren Wilson at the Coeur d'Alene City Attorney's Office references a different set of rules. The laws of the land.
"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d'Alene City Attorney's Office said.
The 9th Circuit Court hasn't yet issued a stay but they are putting a halt to gay marriages until they make a decision.
If gay marriage stands, by law Knapp wouldn't have a choice as to whether he would marry same-sex couples.
"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you're looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said.

http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho-news/hitching-post-owners-will-close-before-performing-samesex-marriages/26006066
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The first thing you need to know is that most “wedding chapels” are not actually chapels. They are private businesses, sometimes run by ordained ministers who are thus licensed to perform marriage ceremonies, but just as often run by Elvis impersonators. Thus, the question of how marriage-equality laws apply to private wedding chapels is ostensibly a question of under what circumstances the government can lawfully step on a for-profit company’s blue suede shoes.
Ground zero for this debate is now Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. There, the city is apparently requiring the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel to officiate gay weddings. Now, it’s hard to imagine any gay couple wanting to get married at the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel. Their website talks about “the difference between men and women” and says “women respond to love positively because they were created that way” and “men respond to respect because that is the way they are created.”
Yeah. And the private “chapel” reportedly gives its newlyweds a conservative Christian CD with hetero-reinforcing marriage sermons. Then again, given the über-butch Paul Bunyan log-cabin façade, if some gay men mistook the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel for a for a Western bar, that would be understandable.
Anyway, after a court effectively made marriage equality the law of the land in Idaho a week ago, it appears some misguided gay couple wandered into the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel. The owners, Evelyn and Donald Knapp, apparently declined to marry the couple and instead filed a federal lawsuit to stop the city of Coeur d’Alene from enforcing its non-discrimination law. Yup, Evelyn and Donald Knapp are “ordained Christian ministers” suing for the right to discriminate.
State and federal laws generally exempt religious institutions from having to perform gay marriages. Yet the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel is not a church or a synagogue or a mosque but a private business—apparently one in the newly created categorical mold of Hobby Lobby, a “for-profit religious corporation.” If you wondered what the slippery slope of the Hobby Lobby decision might entail, here’s a good look. In the Hobby Lobby ruling, Justice Alito wrote that the decision does not “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” We’ll see about that. The faith-based legal advocacy group defending the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel will undoubtedly lean on Hobby Lobby to make its case.
Either way, it’s worth noting that the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel is at this point being required to officiate same-sex weddings not because of any federal or state law, but because of local non-discrimination laws passed in Coeur d’Alene. So much for all those conservatives who want the federal government to butt out and let local jurisdictions rule. I guess that’s only when they agree with the local jurisdictions.
By the same token, conservatives seem to only support government forcing people to do things when it comes to requiring that doctors read out loud misleading information written by abortion opponents to any women patients contemplating terminating a pregnancy. That kind of government coercion of speech and action seems a-OK to the conservative liberty crowd. But requiring a private business to provide equal accommodation to all Americans, including the gay ones? Tyranny!
 

Figgy

Well-Known Member
see, you're not for marriage equality. you;'re for "separate but equal". where else in history have we heard that?

and you cite your religion when saying why.

not very smart.
You willingness to attempt to show me as some kind of hater of gays won't work. Again, circles here.

And are the two of you gay? It's the only thing you talk about. Not only that, but then you become with biggest possible hypocrite by bashing Christianity. The sad thing is you are don't see it for what it is.

If you don't see how the forcing of marriage of gay couples in that chapel is a bad thing for liberty, then your entire argument of liberty is BS.

Your parents must have never taught you that life is not fair. I agree about the rights, yet the single word of marriage is what has you upset. Stupidity at the very best.

My guess: you say you are libertarian b/c of your sexuality, not b/c you are truely pure libertarians or anarchists. Please continue to beat this dead horse.

Edit: here's a question - are the two of you for the right for someone to marry an animal or inanimate object.
 
Last edited:
Top