The Real Way to Protect Marriage

[loco]

I would say that Christians who don't stone homosexuals to death aren't exercising their religious freedom either.

Deicide, when did Jesus tell his followers to stone homosexuals to death? 

In the Bible adultery is as much sexual immorality as homosexuality is, but when the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Jesus and were ready to stone her to death, Jesus told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."  So they all left the woman alone.  Jesus asked the woman "Has no one condemned you?" and the woman replied "No one, sir".  Jesus told her "Then neither do I condemn you.  Go now and leave your life of sin."

[Deicide]

Deicide, when did Jesus tell his followers to stone homosexuals to death? 

In the Bible adultery is as much sexual immorality as homosexuality is, but when the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Jesus and were ready to stone her to death, Jesus told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."  So they all left the woman alone.  Jesus asked the woman "Has no one condemned you?" and the woman replied "No one, sir".  Jesus told her "Then neither do I condemn you.  Go now and leave your life of sin."

First off, Jebus also said to uphold the OT laws. Second off, Bart Ehrman, the extremely noted NT scholar has shown that that story was a later insertion because it wasn't found in the oldest of manuscripts we have on record. I know you don't care about real biblical scholarship or anything that contradicts your fundamentalist beliefs so you can just ignore it. However here is a link so you can listen to him.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

[loco]

First off, Jebus also said to uphold the OT laws. Second off, Bart Ehrman, the extremely noted NT scholar has shown that that story was a later insertion because it wasn't found in the oldest of manuscripts we have on record. I know you don't care about real biblical scholarship or anything that contradicts your fundamentalist beliefs so you can just ignore it. However here is a link so you can listen to him.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

First off, upholding the law and the punishment for disobeying it are two different things. 

Second off, I know that story does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, but how does that matter?  We are talking about Christian people's beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe those are the words of Jesus. 

Christians are not going around killing homosexuals, but here you are trying to convince Christians that we should start.  Is that what you want, Deicide, for Christians to listen to you and start going around killing homosexuals?  You could start your own cult this way.

[Straw Man]

Here's some bible justice that I'm sure all fundie's can agree with:

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." 

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

[Deicide]

First off, upholding the law and the punishment for disobeying it are two different things. 

Second off, I know that story does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, but how does that matter?  We are talking about Christian people's beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe those are the words of Jesus. 
Christians are not going around killing homosexuals, but here you are trying to convince Christians that we should start.  Is that what you want, Deicide, for Christians to listen to you and start going around killing homosexuals?  You could start your own cult this way.

No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.

It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.

[loco]

No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.

When?  According to who?  Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.

Yes they are different.  In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.

In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc.  There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time living with a boyfriend.  She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.

It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.

For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals. 

Besides, how and to whom is this evidence that they are not the words of Jesus?  The earliest copies of Josephus works, in fact all copies of Josephus works mention Jesus and James, "the brother of Jesus", but you still don't see this as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Dos Equis]

I like the idea of mandatory marriage counseling before marriage.  Doesn't have to be religious counseling.  And maybe we should revisit no fault divorce?  People might be more deliberative about marriage if divorce wasn't so easy. 

[MCWAY]

When?  According to who?  Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.

Exactly!! Grand theft auto and shoplifting carried different penalties, too. But, both are forms of theft, which is wrong, regardless of the penalty for the specific types.

Yes they are different.  In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.

From what I've read, this appears to be a maximum sentence. Keep in mind that David and Bathsheba weren't sentenced to death for their adulterous affair. And in the Gospels, Joseph, who suspects Mary of adultery (due to her pregnancy), opted to send her away quietly, instead of calling for capital punishment.

In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc.  There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time leaving with a boyfriend.  She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.

For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals. 

No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.

It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.

Jesus had the Divine authority to pardon people from sin. It's called MERCY!!! If you're speeding and a cop pulls you over and lets you go with just a warning, THAT DOES NOT MAKE speeding right.

You broke the law; the fact that you didn't suffer the maximum penalty has no bearing on the matter.

[Deicide]

When?  According to who?  Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.

Yes they are different.  In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.

In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc.  There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time leaving with a boyfriend.  She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.

For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals. 

Besides, how and to whom is this evidence that they are not the words of Jesus?  The earliest copies of Josephus works, in fact all copies of Josephus works mention Jesus and James, "the brother of Jesus", but you still don't see this as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Actually, it isn’t difficult at all to dismiss this reference (known as the Jamesian reference)
Here is the complete passage that contains the “Jamesian reference”:

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now, remove the spurious insertion, “who is called Christ” and read the entire passage. You can easily see that Josephus was originally referring to Jesus the son of Damneus, not to Jesus who is called Christ! Although opinion is divided on the authenticity of the “Jamesian reference”, the majority of scholars accept it as spurious, for the very reason that I pointed out.

[MCWAY]

Actually, it isn’t difficult at all to dismiss this reference (known as the Jamesian reference)
Here is the complete passage that contains the “Jamesian reference”:
 

Now, remove the spurious insertion, “who is called Christ” and read the entire passage. You can easily see that Josephus was originally referring to Jesus the son of Damneus, not to Jesus who is called Christ! Although opinion is divided on the authenticity of the “Jamesian reference”, the majority of scholars accept it as spurious, for the very reason that I pointed out.

The heck they do!!!

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF. - Christopher Price, "A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum"

But, like Loco, I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want to continue your silliness on Josephus, bring up another thread (or dredge up one of your old ones).

This is about marriage. And, to that end, I will re-direct the topic to the subject at hand

[Straw Man]

I like the idea of mandatory marriage counseling before marriage.  Doesn't have to be religious counseling.  And maybe we should revisit no fault divorce?  People might be more deliberative about marriage if divorce wasn't so easy. 

great idea - let's insert the government into even more of our personal lives.

While we're at it let's establish a national morality police to roam to the streets to make sure everyone is wearing a flagpin and crucifix

[Decker]

great idea - let's insert the government into even more of our personal lives.

While we're at it let's establish a national morality police to roam to the streets to make sure everyone is wearing a flagpin and crucifix

Less freedom is more responsible freedom.

What a clarion call.

[Dos Equis]

We cannot get married or divorced without the government's consent. 

I didn't say anything about morality, but the paranoid anti-religious extremists often have trouble seeing past their nose.   

[Deedee]

Hi Deedee!  Are you sure about that?  How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies?  If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony.  But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony.  I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians, and other groups in America opposing the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.

You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.

What you say is nonsense, and what part of "freedom to practice religion" and separation of Church and State are lost on you? Churches are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish.  Some Churches won't marry divorced people, people of mixed faith, people who are mentally handicapped... an Orthodox schul would refuse to perform reform marriages, etc...

The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian. 

[Dos Equis]

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

[OzmO]

You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.

hehehehehehe

[Deedee]

What makes you think the pastor is a nerd or that he would be unable to provide such counsel?  Furthermore, if you look at that list I mentioned, I didn't limit such to pastors. As for pregnancy issues, one factor in many divorces is the "shotgun wedding" (i.e. marrying a girl, simply because you knocked her up). If you're weren't prepared for marriage beforehand, a baby isn't going to change things. Back in the day, people stuck it out, for the good of the family. That ain't happening in the "it's-all-about-me" generation that has dominate the late 20th/early21st century.

Besides, if a couple in such a situation still legitimately wanted to get hitched, they'd still benefit from marriage counseling.

Would you agree that marriage counseling should be facilitated to couples, whether the marriage occurs at a church or not?

No, I don't particularly believe in marriage counseling and think the money spent on it could be put to better use in a few sessions with a good financial planner.  Those types of counsellings are rudimentary and provide an overview that is only of use to the most naive people.  No pastor, no matter how modern or hot he is, is going to be teaching anyone the value of tantric pleasures. Those types of counseling usually start and end with "be accommodating of his desires" for her and "be more romantic and sensitive" for him.  You can get the same in any self-help book.

This thread points out how "soft" the religious right is on adulterers/divorcees and people who engage in every other manner of "sexual immorality" no matter what is written, because it's convenient for heterosexual christians, whereas you're harsh on homosexuals for reasons listed:  homophobia, fear of secularization. 

[Deedee]

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Nice try Beach!  Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?

Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.

[Deedee]

hehehehehehe

 

[loco]

hehehehehehe

Thanks OzmO, for your continued support!   

[loco]

You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.

Who am I oppressing, Deedee?  I neither have nor do I want to have the right to oppress anyone.

What you say is nonsense, and what part of "freedom to practice religion" and separation of Church and State are lost on you? Churches are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish.  Some Churches won't marry divorced people, people of mixed faith, people who are mentally handicapped... an Orthodox schul would refuse to perform reform marriages, etc...

See Beach Bum's post above.

The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian. 

I'm sure it is in many cases.  Why do you keep directing this at me, Deedee?  Who says I'm homophobic?  Who says I oppose same sex marriage?  You generalize and stereotype way too much.

[Deedee]

Calm down loco, you quoted me and asked a question.  I answered.  I don't direct anything at you alone, personally, oh persecuted one! 

Beach's article doesn't mention one single case of litigation against any Church.  That was your fear wasn't it?

If your concern is that businesses and the state are compelled to serve people then that's another matter. 

[OzmO]

Thanks OzmO, for your continued support!   

Are you mad becuase i thought that was a funny statement?

Is that where you sarcasm is coming from?

[Dos Equis]

Nice try Beach!  Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?

Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.

Actually businesses can discriminate if they are religious entities.  

Nice try about what?  I posted the story to show there can be conflicts between religious groups and the homosexual lobby.  

I just read a story about a wedding issue the other day.  I'll try and find it.    

[loco]

Are you mad becuase i thought that was a funny statement?

Is that where you sarcasm is coming from?

Mad?  No, I'm not mad.   

How have you been OzmO?