http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/2012/06...rapher.php

Quote:And this is great news because one thing that is extremely important for the progress of our country is that people's deeply-held religious beliefs take a back seat to homosexual couples having their perverse lifestyle reaffirmed.

The state is superior to the Bible. We all know that. That's why Obama is telling Catholic employers that they must provide insurance plans which include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

You see, according to those judges, that lesbian couple had a right to that photographer's service. If we, as a nation, allowed him to not photograph their wedding because of his religious beliefs, then people might get this crazy idea that there could actually be something wrong with homosexuality. And that is absolutely, positively, totally not allowed.

Waiting on Atlantic to show up and endorse any possible law or lawsuit that limits freedom of religion to what he believes is the only acceptable religion...government.

all part of god's plan, right?

Quote:AtlanticLeague
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because AtlanticLeague is on your ignore list.

You're not yelling loud enough...

(06-14-2012 04:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  all part of god's plan, right?

Ummmm, no.

(06-14-2012 04:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/2012/06...rapher.php

Quote:And this is great news because one thing that is extremely important for the progress of our country is that people's deeply-held religious beliefs take a back seat to homosexual couples having their perverse lifestyle reaffirmed.
The state is superior to the Bible. We all know that. That's why Obama is telling Catholic employers that they must provide insurance plans which include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

You see, according to those judges, that lesbian couple had a right to that photographer's service. If we, as a nation, allowed him to not photograph their wedding because of his religious beliefs, then people might get this crazy idea that there could actually be something wrong with homosexuality. And that is absolutely, positively, totally not allowed.

Thats a riot.

(06-14-2012 04:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:AtlanticLeague
Show this Post
The contents of this message are hidden because AtlanticLeague is on your ignore list.

You're not yelling loud enough...

Whatever helps him sleep at night...

(06-14-2012 05:18 PM)Longstrangetrip Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 04:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/2012/06...rapher.php

Quote:And this is great news because one thing that is extremely important for the progress of our country is that people's deeply-held religious beliefs take a back seat to homosexual couples having their perverse lifestyle reaffirmed.
The state is superior to the Bible. We all know that. That's why Obama is telling Catholic employers that they must provide insurance plans which include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

You see, according to those judges, that lesbian couple had a right to that photographer's service. If we, as a nation, allowed him to not photograph their wedding because of his religious beliefs, then people might get this crazy idea that there could actually be something wrong with homosexuality. And that is absolutely, positively, totally not allowed.

Thats a riot.

Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone. Something wrong with homosexuality? Yeah, I'll tell you what it is: constant attacks and hate from people particularly those who don't understand it or have a vendetta that, in their minds, is legitimized by the whole religious aspect. One of the major parts of Christianity that these anti-gay hate groups seem to dismiss is the doctrine of loving thy neighbor. As a Christian, I feel disgust that these groups feel it's okay to constantly fire away at the LGBT community while trying to justify it on a "moral basis".

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone.

Where do we draw the line? Is it ok if someone wants to marry their daughter/sister? How about their son/brother? How about a child? What if they really love their dog, is that ok? Should someone be able to marry their T.V.? None of those would hurt anyone and it could make them very happy. If we are going by your standard, those should all work.

I'm sure the above will garner some snappy comments, but I guess I don't see the difference.

P.S. I'd love to see the Man/Dog wedding pictures....

(06-14-2012 07:35 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone.

Where do we draw the line? Is it ok if someone wants to marry their daughter/sister? How about their son/brother? How about a child? What if they really love their dog, is that ok? Should someone be able to marry their T.V.? None of those would hurt anyone and it could make them very happy. If we are going by your standard, those should all work.

I'm sure the above will garner some snappy comments, but I guess I don't see the difference.

P.S. I'd love to see the Man/Dog wedding pictures....

Daughter/sister, son/brother, child... those are all incestuous relationships and carry many risks - therefore people could be hurt. And dogs/TVs aren't sentient - not capable of loving back with human emotion and never could or will. Incestuous relationships carry all sorts of problems with them that homosexual relationships do not have (i.e. mortality rate 20%-36% between close family children). Anyone can get STD's that some perceive to be "gay-only" and you don't have to worry about genetic disorders and whatnot, since homosexual relationships just like heterosexual relationships that generate offspring produce completely healthy children.

(06-14-2012 08:01 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:35 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone.

Where do we draw the line? Is it ok if someone wants to marry their daughter/sister? How about their son/brother? How about a child? What if they really love their dog, is that ok? Should someone be able to marry their T.V.? None of those would hurt anyone and it could make them very happy. If we are going by your standard, those should all work.

I'm sure the above will garner some snappy comments, but I guess I don't see the difference.

P.S. I'd love to see the Man/Dog wedding pictures....

Daughter/sister, son/brother, child... those are all incestuous relationships and carry many risks - therefore people could be hurt. And dogs/TVs aren't sentient - not capable of loving back with human emotion and never could or will. Incestuous relationships carry all sorts of problems with them that homosexual relationships do not have (i.e. mortality rate 20%-36% between close family children). Anyone can get STD's that some perceive to be "gay-only" and you don't have to worry about genetic disorders and whatnot, since homosexual relationships just like heterosexual relationships that generate offspring produce completely healthy children.

So you can justify all the reasons why a guy can't marry his sheep or microwave but can justify a marriage where biological children are impossible. The reason why men are attracted to women is to perpetuate our species. That makes a man liking another man unnatural.

(06-14-2012 08:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 08:01 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:35 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone.

Where do we draw the line? Is it ok if someone wants to marry their daughter/sister? How about their son/brother? How about a child? What if they really love their dog, is that ok? Should someone be able to marry their T.V.? None of those would hurt anyone and it could make them very happy. If we are going by your standard, those should all work.

I'm sure the above will garner some snappy comments, but I guess I don't see the difference.

P.S. I'd love to see the Man/Dog wedding pictures....

Daughter/sister, son/brother, child... those are all incestuous relationships and carry many risks - therefore people could be hurt. And dogs/TVs aren't sentient - not capable of loving back with human emotion and never could or will. Incestuous relationships carry all sorts of problems with them that homosexual relationships do not have (i.e. mortality rate 20%-36% between close family children). Anyone can get STD's that some perceive to be "gay-only" and you don't have to worry about genetic disorders and whatnot, since homosexual relationships just like heterosexual relationships that generate offspring produce completely healthy children.

So you can justify all the reasons why a guy can't marry his sheep or microwave but can justify a marriage where biological children are impossible. The reason why men are attracted to women is to perpetuate our species. That makes a man liking another man unnatural.

Biological children aren't really impossible... Many same-sex couples have children through surrogates that are direct products of either person. And furthermore, research is constantly underway for viable options for completely genetically linked offspring between same-sex couples (see here: http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-c...ion.html).

So, the reason people get married is to simply perpetuate our species. (I know this isn't exactly what you're saying but it brings up my next point...) If marriage was only for perpetuating marriage, then why should we allow older, infertile people to have children? FIVE married US presidents never had children... does that make their marriages any less valid? Two elderly people fall in love, and they get married - but only if they're man and woman. They can't have children, so they can't perpetuate our species.

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 05:18 PM)Longstrangetrip Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 04:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/2012/06...rapher.php

Quote:And this is great news because one thing that is extremely important for the progress of our country is that people's deeply-held religious beliefs take a back seat to homosexual couples having their perverse lifestyle reaffirmed.
The state is superior to the Bible. We all know that. That's why Obama is telling Catholic employers that they must provide insurance plans which include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

You see, according to those judges, that lesbian couple had a right to that photographer's service. If we, as a nation, allowed him to not photograph their wedding because of his religious beliefs, then people might get this crazy idea that there could actually be something wrong with homosexuality. And that is absolutely, positively, totally not allowed.

Thats a riot.

Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone. Something wrong with homosexuality? Yeah, I'll tell you what it is: constant attacks and hate from people particularly those who don't understand it or have a vendetta that, in their minds, is legitimized by the whole religious aspect. One of the major parts of Christianity that these anti-gay hate groups seem to dismiss is the doctrine of loving thy neighbor. As a Christian, I feel disgust that these groups feel it's okay to constantly fire away at the LGBT community while trying to justify it on a "moral basis".

I generally agree with everything you say here... But to the link, it seems (knowing I don't know everything) that an independent businessman doesn't have the right to refuse his services to someone... Which seems like total bs to me. While the poster may have his reason wrong, his opinion is correct IMO

A photographer should be allowed to refuse to take any picture he ants to refuse to take, and you can take your business elsewhere

(06-14-2012 08:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 05:18 PM)Longstrangetrip Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 04:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/2012/06...rapher.php

Quote:And this is great news because one thing that is extremely important for the progress of our country is that people's deeply-held religious beliefs take a back seat to homosexual couples having their perverse lifestyle reaffirmed.
The state is superior to the Bible. We all know that. That's why Obama is telling Catholic employers that they must provide insurance plans which include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

You see, according to those judges, that lesbian couple had a right to that photographer's service. If we, as a nation, allowed him to not photograph their wedding because of his religious beliefs, then people might get this crazy idea that there could actually be something wrong with homosexuality. And that is absolutely, positively, totally not allowed.

Thats a riot.

Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone. Something wrong with homosexuality? Yeah, I'll tell you what it is: constant attacks and hate from people particularly those who don't understand it or have a vendetta that, in their minds, is legitimized by the whole religious aspect. One of the major parts of Christianity that these anti-gay hate groups seem to dismiss is the doctrine of loving thy neighbor. As a Christian, I feel disgust that these groups feel it's okay to constantly fire away at the LGBT community while trying to justify it on a "moral basis".

I generally agree with everything you say here... But to the link, it seems (knowing I don't know everything) that an independent businessman doesn't have the right to refuse his services to someone... Which seems like total bs to me. While the poster may have his reason wrong, his opinion is correct IMO

A photographer should be allowed to refuse to take any picture he ants to refuse to take, and you can take your business elsewhere

I agree with you. Freedom is what our country is about. If someone refuses me service, then that's fine... I'm not going to speak very highly of them from now on, and that'll be their loss of business. The private industry doesn't function the same way the government does.

(06-14-2012 04:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  all part of god's plan, right?

Care to address the actual question? Or do you stick w/ your typical cowardly avoidance?

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone. Something wrong with homosexuality? Yeah, I'll tell you what it is: constant attacks and hate from people particularly those who don't understand it

Irony is always funny.

(06-14-2012 08:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 07:12 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Agreed. I do not have any respect for someone saying that homosexual couples have "perverse" lifestyles for living their lives in a way that makes them happy and does not harm anyone. Something wrong with homosexuality? Yeah, I'll tell you what it is: constant attacks and hate from people particularly those who don't understand it

Irony is always funny.

You're right! Haha, your posts always make me laugh . Tell me, when's the last time you got hurt by a homosexual couple getting married?

Other than some financial benefits that could be covered under civil unions, what other benefits to calling two dudes getting together, marriage, are there?

(06-14-2012 09:20 PM)maximus Wrote:  Other than some financial benefits that could be covered under civil unions, what other benefits to calling two dudes getting together, marriage, are there?

Civil unions - classic example of the Separate but Equal in current use. Marriage would make adoption easier for same-sex couples, grant hospital visitation during illness, enable taxation and inheritance rights, allow access to family health coverage, and would provide both physical and psychological health benefits. In addition, homosexual marriage would provide an increase in marriage licenses, bring in higher income taxes, and decrease costs for state benefit programs. NYC's comptroller found that legalizing gay marriage would bring in $142 million to the city's economy and $184 million to the state's over three years.

So we want to make adoption easier for gays? Do you think kids should have a say in going into a homosexual home? I've been predicting the next thing homosexuals will declare a right is the right ro have a child by any means necessary.


And it's not a classics example at all. No one is keeping a homosexual from getting married. They just can't marry someone from the same sex.