Californicate

Worse than that, Sam, he called my pastor a liar--something that is not permitted in today's political climate.

This coming from someone who pretends to be two different people?

Regardless, pastors aren't sacred If they fib, I'll point it out.

And Keli lies, like when he states that "prayer has been taken out of school", knowing full well that a student can pray any time they want as long as it isn't disruptive.

Lies. Does anyone here deny that?

People with weak arguments, like TRC, always result in AD HOMINEM attacks.

My arguments are strong enough that YOU haven't been able to defuse them.

What right of yours is infringed upon if queers marry?

No one here has been able to answer that question, ever.

TerryRC wrote:
Worse than that, Sam, he called my pastor a liar--something that is not permitted in today's political climate.

This coming from someone who pretends to be two different people?

Regardless, pastors aren't sacred If they fib, I'll point it out.

And Keli lies, like when he states that "prayer has been taken out of school", knowing full well that a student can pray any time they want as long as it isn't disruptive.

Lies. Does anyone here deny that?

People with weak arguments, like TRC, always result in AD HOMINEM attacks.

My arguments are strong enough that YOU haven't been able to defuse them.

What right of yours is infringed upon if queers marry?

No one here has been able to answer that question, ever.

Terry,

When the law is changed so that photographers and printers and florists and entertainers can refuse to participate in gay weddings based upon their religious or moral objections without being sued, I'll support gay marriage. Until that time I remain opposed.

Nobody has the "right" to force a private citizen to provide a service or product to them if that individual doesn't want to. Their liberties shouldn't trump anybody else's liberty. Those are the rights I am concerned about.

Nobody has the "right" to force a private citizen to provide a service or product to them if that individual doesn't want to. Their liberties shouldn't trump anybody else's liberty. Those are the rights I am concerned about.

Didn't we discuss the difference between a public business and a private business?

If the business is open to the public, it must serve the public, all of it.

The law is crystal clear on that subject.

Can a florist refuse to serve an interracial couple? Absolutely not. Nobody is screaming about the loss of rights in that situation.

That boat has sailed. Expecting wedding planners, etc. to serve gays doesn't step on any rights that haven't already been stepped upon by expecting them to serve blacks.

Again, Aaron wants attention without having to actually think.

Perhaps you should be quiet while the adults are talking...

Aaron wrote:I have.

If you use the 14th amendment to legalize same sex marriage and don't allow the government to define marriage, then you can't deny polygamist the right to marry either and with that comes a bushel of problems on the issues you stated, estates, custody of children and then some.

Republicans use the 3 G's and democrats use social security and medicare to spread their lies and keep important issues out of the conversation as much as possible.

I understand why you don't address it Terry. You didn't on the other thread and you won't here because you can't.

TerryRC wrote:Nobody has the "right" to force a private citizen to provide a service or product to them if that individual doesn't want to. Their liberties shouldn't trump anybody else's liberty. Those are the rights I am concerned about.

Didn't we discuss the difference between a public business and a private business?

If the business is open to the public, it must serve the public, all of it.

The law is crystal clear on that subject.

Can a florist refuse to serve an interracial couple? Absolutely not. Nobody is screaming about the loss of rights in that situation.

That boat has sailed. Expecting wedding planners, etc. to serve gays doesn't step on any rights that haven't already been stepped upon by expecting them to serve blacks.

Terry,

That ship has sailed in YOUR opinion. In mine it has not. You know what they say about opinions, right??? lol

The Constitution protects freedom of expression. How better can one express their personal objection than by refusing to participate in an event or provide goods and services to those they find objectionable? Would you prefer the homophobic DJ take the job and speak his feelings about gay marriage at the reception?

btw.....I do object to the notion that the government or the courts can compel a private citizen or a privately owned business to provide goods and/or services to interracial couples if they object to interracial marriages. As private citizens and business owners they have the right to refuse service to anyone. The government's job is not to make them better people. The government's job is to protect their rights which include the freedom to express their bigotry or disgust or stupidity or whatever it is by refusing to participate in things they find objectionable.

We don't have to agree with them to respect their rights. As a matter of fact, I find it very important to defend the rights of those I disagree with.

The law has been crystal clear on a LOT of stupid things over the course of American history. The law used to be clear that women didn't have the right to vote. The law used to be that whites could buy and sell blacks. The law used to be that alcohol was prohibited.

Today federal law is crystal clear that marijauna is illegal. That is a crystal clear stupid law too.

Very, very well said, Stephanie.

TerryRC wrote:
[i]4. Nature is on our side. One need not hold to any particular religious convictions to understand from common sense that men and women are different. Same-sex relationships are contrary to the natural order. “Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually,” Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has written.

Homosexuality is quite common in nature.

Definition of Homosexual

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.

Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3781

.

That ship has sailed in YOUR opinion. In mine it has not. You know what they say about opinions, right??? lol

It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on gender, race and religion.

If you own a movie theater that is open to the public, you can't stop all Jews at the door. You will be sued and lose. Rightfully so

That boat HAS already sailed. Did you think I was making it up?

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.

Some people are animals and some animals are more human than people I know.

Regardless, perhaps I should have said "same-sex intercourse and /or pair bonding is not uncommon in nature".

Score one for you, Sammy.

OIC.....so we just continue trampling on the rights of individuals for minority groups because it has already been done.

So race, gender, religion....now sexual orientation......what next? Are there any limits or should we all just dispense with our own judgement and morality and let Big Brother decide everything for us?

TerryRC wrote:
Regardless, perhaps I should have said "same-sex intercourse and /or pair bonding females (lesbians) is not uncommon in nature".

/

Regardless, perhaps I should have said "same-sex intercourse and /or pair bonding females (lesbians) is not uncommon in nature".

It happens with males, too, Sam.

Why don't you come right out and say what you are trying to say?

So race, gender, religion....now sexual orientation......what next? Are there any limits or should we all just dispense with our own judgement and morality and let Big Brother decide everything for us?

Don't serve the public. Have your business serve a private clientèle or get into a different line of work.

Why is it wrong to turn all baptists away at the door but not gays?

TerryRC wrote:So race, gender, religion....now sexual orientation......what next? Are there any limits or should we all just dispense with our own judgement and morality and let Big Brother decide everything for us?

Don't serve the public. Have your business serve a private clientèle or get into a different line of work.

Why is it wrong to turn all baptists away at the door but not gays?

Terry,

Why should the government be able to force a private business or individual to serve Baptists? You seem to be under the misguided impression that I think it's OK for the government to force atheists to serve Baptists but not OK for the government to force Baptists to serve homosexuals. This simply isn't the case.

The government shouldn't be in the business of forcing private citizens to provide any good or service to any particular individual or group of individuals. The role of the government isn't to make us better people.

I absolutely believe in the right for a restaurant not to serve me because I am white, or Christian, or whatever. If I don't like it (and I surely wouldn't!) there are, what, a million other places in the country?

Similarly, I am not a Mormon and therefore ineligible to be married in a Mormon church. Should I be able to coerce the Mormons to sanction my marriage even though I do not believe as they do?

This train is going to the station of making pastors officiate "weddings" that they don't believe in. For many years liberal churches have been "consecrating" gay marriages and it has not whatsoever been illegal (and nor should it have!) That domestic partnerships, complete with rights and cash, and liberal ceremonies have not been enough, suggests to me that this is not about rights at all, but about the imposed acceptance of gay sex onto the culture at large.

Some people don't believe in eating pork, others in working on Saturday, and still others in two men having sex. Yet for whatever reason, only the last belief is criticized as intolerant. Note that I didn't say "attracted to men" , but rather, "having sex" ("acted on that attraction.") You may be "born" gay (although then one wonders how such could survive natural selection, given that gay sex does not cause reproduction), but you are not born forced to act on that inclination, just as my birth does not force me to have sex with women.

I was born, it would seem, with a high level of testosterone. Should I therefore be able to sleep with as many women as are willing (4, perhaps, if given enough drugs:) and my wife's objections should be countered with "I'm doing what's natural, you must be a bigot?"

The United Church of Christ has been performing gay marriages for decades now. I do not think they should stop performing gay marriages; but rather, I believe people should stop attending the United Church of Christ. But as far as "rights" go, they should do as they wish without compulsion. I just wish they would let Christians have the same courtesy.

I was born, it would seem, with a high level of testosterone. Should I therefore be able to sleep with as many women as are willing (4, perhaps, if given enough drugs:)....................

Whether you do this or not, it should be none of the government's business.

................... and my wife's objections should be countered with "I'm doing what's natural, you must be a bigot?"

If you are going to sleep with four women, all four of them- be they "wife" or not- should know about and be cool with that arrangement. It is their business- but not the government's.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless, perhaps I should have said "same-sex intercourse and /or pair bonding females (lesbians) is not uncommon in nature".

It happens with males, too, Sam.

Why don't you come right out and say what you are trying to say?

TRC, cite me a reference to .... "pair bonding females (lesbians) in nature" .... or ...... "females (lesbians) in nature engaging in same-sex intercourse".

If homosexuality is not uncommon in nature ........ then it shouldn't be a problem for you to cite me a few examples and/or references to a few lesbian animals.

.

Zig,

I would agree that it would be none of the government's business, JUST LIKE my marriage should be none of the government's business. My point is that gay activity is a choice, even if the preference for your own sex over the other's is not.

My point is that gay activity is a choice, even if the preference for your own sex over the other's is not.

So would you likewise suggest that hetereosexual activity between me and Ms. Ziggy or between you and your spouse is a "choice"? Or is it a natural, god-given impulse- I would even suggest a demand- of, by and for our own living bodies?

Yes, it is absolutely a choice. Are you telling me that Miss Ziggy has never chosen "incorrectly?"

Well, uhh, as my dad use to say, "Not to speak of".

TRC, cite me a reference to .... "pair bonding females (lesbians) in nature" .... or ...... "females (lesbians) in nature engaging in same-sex intercourse".

If homosexuality is not uncommon in nature ........ then it shouldn't be a problem for you to cite me a few examples and/or references to a few lesbian animals.

I don't have time for this crap.

I wasn't sex specific in my post, Sammy. You are the one that pointed out that homosexuality refers only to male same sex relationships.

I clarified my point, still without bringing sex into it. Go back and read. You are the one that brought lesbians into it.

Males will have sex with other males in some insect mating swarms.

Start with that and it will lead you to other examples. Ever seen a doe humping another doe?

I'm not going to get caught up in your nitpicking, however. Go be a boob to someone else.