Social I have been married for a year and a half...

[m52nickerson]

OK let me rephrase:

SSM advocates who argue it is a civil right.

From now on when I say ssm advocate I am referring to those who claim not recognizing ssm is discrimination.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You guys have begun acting like children again. Looks like we need another break.

*shrugs*

 

[m52nickerson]

You guys have begun acting like children again. Looks like we need another break.

*shrugs*

You mean like the last one in which you stayed away for about the time it takes to get a drink?

You're getting called out and simply don't like it. The truth is you are not for SSM marriage. You say you are, but only through a vote, which at this point you know is not how it is going to become legal in all 50 states. You have simply positioned yourself in a place that you can argue against SSM in every way you can think of, but not be against it. Perhaps it is to keep people from labeling you, or so you can throw out your "stance" when they do. Perhaps you know that those opposed to SSM are going to go down in history as being on the wrong side of the argument. Whatever your reason saying you are for SSM is you being dishonest.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Not at all. A church could marry a Jewish couple and then refuse to marry the next Jewish couple who shows up.

The issue is performing weddings as a business.



Either you support religion as an excuse to break laws or you don't.

Once a pastor offers to do the wedding of the public (ie the jewish couple) it's going to be called a public service that must be offered to all - unless the pastor was doing it as a favor.


Yes; in some cases I do support religion as an excuse to break laws

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Lmao!!

10/10

 

[TheBox]

Once a pastor offers to do the wedding of the public (ie the jewish couple) it's going to be called a public service that must be offered to all - unless the pastor was doing it as a favor.

I was talking about a favor.

If the church starts operating as a *business* (which this quickie chapel is), rather than a private religious organization, then, yeah...it has to obey business laws.

Yes; in some cases I do support religion as an excuse to break laws

In which cases?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Here we go again with "traditional". When did "traditional" mean better, or pure, or holy. And also, Pain, form your own CHURCH and you can perform all the weddings you want under the cloak of Christianity. Have at it. This is America. But don't try to force those beliefs on me. As a citizen I am protected by the constitution. Have you read it lately?

I didn't say better, pure, or holy.

It's clear that most ordained ministers don't believe in ss-marriage and it's not really an inconvenience to find someone else to do the service.

 

[m52nickerson]

I was talking about a favor.

If the church starts operating as a *business* (which this quickie chapel is), rather than a private religious organization, then, yeah...it has to obey business laws.

This is why Pastor's ask for donations when preforming ceremonies and don't charge fees.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Looks like that was just a legal smokescreen.

Prior to the legal issue, their website said the quickie wedding package could be catered to other faiths.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/20/3581733/idaho-marriage-chapel-adf/

In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In which cases?

The ones that force a person to violate their faith

 

[TheBox]

In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month.

Yup.

MONEY MONEY MONEY BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS GIVE US MONEY WE'LL HAVE WHATEVER CEREMONY YOU WANT RELIGIOUS, CIVIL, ATHEIST, MUSLIM WHATEVER

"How about a ceremony with a gay couple?"

HOW DARE YOU THIS IS A HIGHLY RELIGIOUS STRICTLY CHRISTIAN CHAPEL ORDAINED BY JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR WE WILL NOT HAVE OUR CHURCH TAINTED

 

[TheBox]

The ones that force a person to violate their faith

...couldn't that literally be anything?

 

[UpaLoompa]

In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month.

But it still isn't a church run business, it is a for profit business offering public services.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Will somebody please show Logical Insanity some attention?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

But it still isn't a church run business, it is a for profit business offering public services.

I don't know what their new incorporation states - just that the article that Box linked said that they submitted a new business.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yup.

MONEY MONEY MONEY BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS GIVE US MONEY WE'LL HAVE WHATEVER CEREMONY YOU WANT RELIGIOUS, CIVIL, ATHEIST, MUSLIM WHATEVER

"How about a ceremony with a gay couple?"

HOW DARE YOU THIS IS A HIGHLY RELIGIOUS STRICTLY CHRISTIAN CHAPEL ORDAINED BY JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR WE WILL NOT HAVE OUR CHURCH TAINTED

It seems that they chose faith of money...

...couldn't that literally be anything?

I don't think so; I can clearly think of dozens of laws that don't interfere with my faith and only 1 that does , possibly 2 depending on your profession.

Have an example?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

You mean like the last one in which you stayed away for about the time it takes to get a drink?

You're getting called out and simply don't like it. The truth is you are not for SSM marriage. You say you are, but only through a vote, which at this point you know is not how it is going to become legal in all 50 states. You have simply positioned yourself in a place that you can argue against SSM in every way you can think of, but not be against it. Perhaps it is to keep people from labeling you, or so you can throw out your "stance" when they do. Perhaps you know that those opposed to SSM are going to go down in history as being on the wrong side of the argument. Whatever your reason saying you are for SSM is you being dishonest.

Check and Mate. This sums TCk's posts on SSM to a perfect T.

It has become comical, after spending thousands of posts demonstrating his opposition to SSM, he follows it all up with, "oh...I'm pro gay marriage ..."

Like I said earlier...at least Ripskater is honest as to why he's against SSM.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I wonder if they would marry an incestuous couple?

Well since incest is okay in the bible, probably.

 

[spamking]

So your answer is we create something new because these groups have "Boy" and "Girl" in the names? It not like there is going to be a flood of boys entering the Girl Scouts. I think people are smart enough that to undertand without changing the names of organisations.

You just don't have a good reason.

I was working on a response to this at work and got interrupted. I thought I hit submit, but guess I didn't get that far.

Changing the name of the group or organization wouldn't necessarily creating something new. If the group is expected to handle adding a kid of the opposite sex and not miss a beat I think they could handle a name change (although it would be expensive to change flyers, websites, signs, etc. so maybe it wouldn't be the best idea).

Regardless, I fail to see a valid reason to even consider encouraging a boy to join the girl scouts or a girl to join the boy scouts. Heck, we can't even use the term congressman any more without some feminist or PC group pitching a fit. Groups have got to make up their mind. Do you want to be included or do you want some great form of separate recognition.

I may not have all of the answers, but the reasons I'm using are valid to me and many others.

 

[spamking]

Well since incest is okay in the bible, probably.

Many of the instances you're probably thinking of occurred under different periods of law. Early marriages that you're considering incestuous that were not prevented early in the Old Testament were eventually frowned upon with the implementation of the Mosaic Code and later the New Covenant.

This type of behavior appears throughout our early history and in the majority of societies it wasn't frowned upon. I can see where many would argue that the bible condones it due to the belief that Adam and Eve were the only two people on earth and that everyone descended from them and their children.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that the overall message of the bible is that incest is "okay". But I don't have all the answers. :wink: