We Must Reject LGBTQ Craziness Becoming America's Accepted Nor

[OldBrownsFan]

11 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Sure civil unions are fine. As long as the government recognizes the partnership between you and your wife as a civil union. 

Civil unions were the best solution IMO. Since you and others think of that as being similar to separate but equal laws of the old south the next best solution would be to have everyone be civilly unioned in the eyes of the government for legal purposes and then a couple has the choice to get married recognized by their church or not. I think that would at least be better than what a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision has given us now.

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Sure civil unions are fine. As long as the government recognizes the partnership between you and your wife as a civil union. 

then go marry a guy and try to birth children. THEN you will know the difference. But your way, you get a big political win, you still "rule" over Christians you hate so much.

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

Only problem are the differences in civil unions at the federal level in regards to certain protections and benefits. And that some states don't allow civil unions - So which would be easier,  correcting ALL of that or simply allowing gay marriage?  

Exactly.  Let us turn to the pragmatic solution when possible. 

civil unions do not involved birthed children, for one. and I thought you wanted less gov interference? It's okay with the left with a patchwork of gun control laws on the different levels of gov, but that is cumbersome when it involves what they WANT to be completely accepted.

It's their feelings, what makes THEM happy, "should be the law"

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Civil unions were the best solution IMO. Since you and others think of that as being similar to separate but equal laws of the old south the next best solution would be to have everyone be civilly unioned in the eyes of the government for legal purposes and then a couple has the choice to get married recognized by their church or not. I think that would at least be better than what a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision has given us now.

Civil unions would have treated both sides fairly, given both sides equal legal rights, except that gay couples cannot birth children.

But the left doesn't want both sides respected. Look how the left doesn't respect Christian's beliefs at all - no, they ridicule them.

But ridicule gay couples, for example, and all hell would break loose. The left determines that only THEY are victims. The right can shove it, they are deserving of ridicule.

yep. That's because they FEEL happy when THEY are respected.

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, calfoxwc said:

Civil unions would have treated both sides fairly, given both sides equal legal rights, except that gay couples cannot birth children.

But the left doesn't want both sides respected. Look how the left doesn't respect Christian's beliefs at all - no, they ridicule them.

But ridicule gay couples, for example, and all hell would break loose. The left determines that only THEY are victims. The right can shove it, they are deserving of ridicule.

yep. That's because they FEEL happy when THEY are respected.

Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Denounces City’s Message on Same-Sex Marriage

 

WASHINGTON – Christians who publicly state their belief that a marriage should be between a man and woman are unfit to serve in public office: That’s the message former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran believes the city sent in 2015, when he was fired.

Cochran, an African-American Christian, self-published a Christian book for a Bible study in 2014 that included his faith-based views on marriage. The book caught the attention of Atlanta’s openly gay City Council Member Alex Wan, who then complained to Mayor Kasim Reed. Reed suspended Cochran for 30 days without pay, and then offered him the option to resign before firing him.

“What that means is children in the United States who have that same belief, who want to be a firefighter when they grow up, who don’t want to be poor when they grow up, you can cancel that dream because you may have everything else right, but if you publicly disclose your belief within marriage as being between a man and a women, then you’re not fit for just a firefighter but any public office,” Cochran said at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. “And I don’t believe any American, no matter what side of the debate you’re on on this issue, wants that to happen in our country.”

Cochran’s comments come as the Supreme Court weighs the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, a Christian who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs. Ryan T. Anderson, a Heritage fellow and outspoken opponent of gay marriage, argued on Tuesday that anti-discrimination laws around the country are being used as “swords” to impose sexual orthodoxy on an entire nation, rather than as “shields” against discrimination.

“As far as we know, (Phillips’) Masterpiece (Cakeshop) is the only bakery in the entire state of Colorado that has turned down a request to do a same-sex wedding cake, so it’s not like the Deep South during racism, during Jim Crow, where you had people locked out of entire markets,” Anderson said.

Phillips’ case is expected to have major implications for Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist who refused to sell flowers to a longtime customer for his same-sex wedding.

Cochran noted the irony that his career has been upended by an interpretation of Constitution he so vehemently defended and served while in office for more than 30 years.

“It never crossed my mind that in the United States of America the same faith and the same Constitution and the same living it out through patriotism that caused me to have such a wonderful life and career has now cost me my career, and that’s the biggest challenge associated with this conversation today,” Cochran said.

Tuesday’s discussion touched on the contrasts between the fight for civil rights for African-Americans and the LGBT community. Ryan Bomberger, the African-American founder of The Radiance Foundation, said he rejects some of the comparisons between the LGBT fight for equality and the fight for civil rights.

“The LGBT movement that co-ops the black civil rights movement has to understand that there is a stark contrast. LGBT individuals were never enslaved. They never have separate and unequal schools. They never had to pay poll taxes. They never had to take these ridiculous literacy tests. They were never denied the right to vote, denied the right to sit anywhere on the bus,” he said. “They never had to face the inexplicable and violent racial discrimination, so when they try to compare the LGBT plight with the civil rights fight here in America, I do reject it outright.”

Bomberger said there is a way to extend dignity to all by applying the Constitution fairly and evenly to all groups. He said that in the case of Phillips and others, the government has let emotional semantics dictate the outcome.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/13/fired-atlanta-fire-chief-denounces-citys-message-sex-marriage/

 

[OldBrownsFan]

And when the Supreme Court gave us the 5-4 ruling the majority stated that rights of conscience would be protected...well we see how well that is going.........

 

"Reacting to the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the majority of justices seemed to reassure the public in the closing sentences that "rights of conscience" will be protected despite the landmark ruling. 

"We will soon see whether this proves to be true," Alito predicted, which is an interesting observation since the court ruled narrowly for Colorado baker Jack Phillips three years later in what was expected to be a landmark ruling on religious freedom. 

The high court announced this month it was not taking up the case of Oregon florist Barronelle Stutzman and sent it back to a lower court. 

"I assume," Alito wrote four years ago, "that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

[calfoxwc]

political power to the left - gays get a chance at launching a frivolous lawsuit at ever chance, to try to "win the lottery".

[MLD Woody]

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not Freedom From Consequence. How many times does this have to be said?

 

If your answer is that gay marriage personally attacks your religious beliefs because you will now more likely face consequences for your discrimination then tough shit. Making it harder to hide behind your religion while discriminating against gays is not an attack on your religion.

[The Cysko Kid]

2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Civil unions were the best solution IMO. Since you and others think of that as being similar to separate but equal laws of the old south the next best solution would be to have everyone be civilly unioned in the eyes of the government for legal purposes and then a couple has the choice to get married recognized by their church or not. I think that would at least be better than what a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision has given us now.

I would be ok with that. At least you're starting to see the point that it is not like, but exactly the same, as separate but equal laws. 

[OldBrownsFan]

5 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not Freedom From Consequence. How many times does this have to be said?

 

If your answer is that gay marriage personally attacks your religious beliefs because you will now more likely face consequences for your discrimination then tough shit. Making it harder to hide behind your religion while discriminating against gays is not an attack on your religion.

Baloney Woody...I am talking about the right to have a differing view on gay marriage without being penalized for that view.

[OldBrownsFan]

9 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

I would be ok with that. At least you're starting to see the point that it is not like, but exactly the same, as separate but equal laws. 

And marriage between the same sexes is not exactly the same as marriage between heterosexual couples in that one group cannot produce children. 

[tiamat63]

29 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And marriage between the same sexes is not exactly the same as marriage between heterosexual couples in that one group cannot produce children. 

And those hetero couples whom cannot have children?  I know one.  Shall I pass on the message?  

[OldBrownsFan]

2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

And those hetero couples whom cannot have children?  I know one.  Shall I pass on the message?  

There are some married couples who cannot produce children...but all same sex marriages are not capable of producing children. That distinction is not ever going to change. 

[tiamat63]

4 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

There are some married couples who cannot produce children...but all same sex marriages are not capable of producing children. That distinction is not ever going to change. 

You haven't answered my question. And some ignores the fact that word translates to thousands.  Thousands of married couples cannot bear children.  Do we have anything special in mind for them? 

[The Cysko Kid]

1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Baloney Woody...I am talking about the right to have a differing view on gay marriage without being penalized for the view.

You can have any views you want. White supremacists are the left's top Boogeyman at the moment. If you believed them you'd think that Nazis and kkk were parading up and down every street in America daily. 

And yet they can't arrest them and send them to the gulag. But if you're expecting anyone to celebrate your anti-gay views you're going to be waiting a long long time. Not only are they not going to be celebrated they're going to be mercilessly mocked and scorned and if you're really going to tie yourself to them you're going to have to accept what comes with it. 

[The Cysko Kid]

46 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And marriage between the same sexes is not exactly the same as marriage between heterosexual couples in that one group cannot produce children. 

So what about infertile couples of different biological sexes? Are their marriages not equal to yours?

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, tiamat63 said:

You haven't answered my question. And some ignores the fact that word translates to thousands.  Thousands of married couples cannot bear children.  Do we have anything special in mind for them? 

The only need to re-define marriage was for gay couples...there was never a need before that.

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The only need to re-define marriage was for gay couples...there was never a need before that.

Then why the need to bring the matter of child birth in?  It applies only against the gays? Or perhaps in a world that is becoming more and more overpopulated that it is a detail that simply means nothing compared to what it may have at one time.. .?  

What about those that choose not to have children? Is that in direct convention of marriage then? 

 

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, tiamat63 said:

Then why the need to bring the matter of child birth in?  It applies only against the gays? Or perhaps in a world that is becoming more and more overpopulated that it is a detail that simply means nothing compared to what it may have at one time.. .?  

What about those that choose not to have children? Is that in direct convention of marriage then? 

 

The matter of child birth was a distinction. Most married couples produce children. Zero same sex couples produce children.  The definition of marriage did not have to be changed for infertile couples but it had to be changed for gay marriage.

[The Cysko Kid]

Also, you know, since we're living in the end times only a moment out from jesus nuking the joint, why would sane Christians choose to have children?

[tiamat63]

Just now, OldBrownsFan said:

The matter of child birth was a distinction. Most married couples produce children. Zero same sex couples produce children.  The definition of marriage did not have to be changed for infertile couples but it had to be changed for gay marriage.

You keep repeating yourself but you're not furthering the point.  If you're using it as a distinction - should said distinction not be applied evenly for all non bearing couples?     Clearly it's an important matter to you. 

 

I'm still waiting to hear,  in your own words with zero links, quotes, passages or paraphrasing - how anyone's marriage,  regardless of gay or not, directly impacts yours.   

 

We'll proceed after you address that. 

[OldBrownsFan]

18 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

You keep repeating yourself but you're not furthering the point.  If you're using it as a distinction - should said distinction not be applied evenly for all non bearing couples?     Clearly it's an important matter to you. 

 

I'm still waiting to hear,  in your own words with zero links, quotes, passages or paraphrasing - how anyone's marriage,  regardless of gay or not, directly impacts yours.   

 

We'll proceed after you address that. 

"We'll proceed after you address that."

LOL..........well thank you 

We have 24 pages on this thread so just go back and read and you will know where I stand. The whole issue is one of trying to force someone to believe something that goes against their beliefs. In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision the definition of marriage was re-defined. Those justices who voted for gay marriage noted that those with views of conscience against gay marriage would have nothing to worry about. In fact we have seen those with a different view of marriage have a lot to be worried about such as losing your job or your business with a lawsuit.

[Clevfan4life]

On 6/25/2019 at 12:18 PM, The Cysko Kid said:

 

Its really like talking to a mildly Retarded child. 

u sure about that "mild" part?

[calfoxwc]

11 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not Freedom From Consequence. How many times does this have to be said?

 

If your answer is that gay marriage personally attacks your religious beliefs because you will now more likely face consequences for your discrimination then tough shit. Making it harder to hide behind your religion while discriminating against gays is not an attack on your religion.

woodypeckerhead - you just can't stop creating narratives you can bitch about - but aren't there. Gays should not have the freedom to intimidate the vast majority of people who designed a legal framework of responsibility - between a man and a woman.

    You can take your fake bitching and go ruffle your feathers up and grow up at least a little.

With FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY. Responsibility for your own actions, and responsibility to not step on other's RIGHTS.

You on the hard core left want the freedom to intimidate and control, and you demand to overrun other's rights to disagree.

In this case, it's REAL MARRIAGE. Gay couples could have had a civil union. That would have respected the rights of the vast majority of humanity that knows REAL MARRIAGE is between a MAN AND A WOMAN. And, it would have granted a legal status that would just gay couples the same rights.

    Pretend all you want, but gay "marriage" is a farce, is a perversion, is ABNORMAL, and you gay couples are so unnatural as you can NOT birth children.

  Marriage was created to establish a legal protection for the children a couple had - to protect them and ensure their survival, and to protect the man and woman by establishing legal responsibilities to each other, special rights towards each other, and to establish the responsibilities of the man and woman to care for their birthed children.

   Nothing to do with marrying a sheep, like a woodpecker might do? or a tree, or a bridge, like the woman in England who married a bridge.

  a civil union would have been the correct solution. But the gay left demanded a huge slap in the face victory over all Christians, and all folks who know that REAL MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

  and there are only two genders. male/female. It's science.

[Clevfan4life]

11 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"We'll proceed after you address that."

LOL..........well thank you 

We have 24 pages on this thread so just go back and read and you will know where I stand. The whole issue is one of trying to force someone to believe something that goes against their beliefs. In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision the definition of marriage was re-defined. Those justices who voted for gay marriage noted that those with views of conscience against gay marriage would have nothing to worry about. In fact we have seen those with a different view of marriage have a lot to be worried about such as losing your job or your business with a lawsuit.

answer tiamats question u old dotard. Tell us how 2 dudes or 2 women living with each other next door to u and minding their own fucking business......affects ur tired old ass. 

[Clevfan4life]

1 minute ago, calfoxwc said:

 

  Marriage was created to establish a legal protection for the children a couple had - to protect them and ensure their survival, and to protect the man and woman by establishing legal responsibilities to each other, special rights towards each other, and to establish the responsibilities of the man and woman to care for their birthed children.

 

with the exception of giving birth theres nothing there that precludes a gay couple.

[calfoxwc]

51 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

And those hetero couples whom cannot have children?  I know one.  Shall I pass on the message?  

that is common, but not the majority. You find one anomaly and you want to define a principle based on it?

That's just either smart ass or not smart. Not having children still means a MAN and a WOMAN define REAL MARRIAGE, and the REAL MARRIAGE ascribes legal responsibility for each other, and rights for each other.

your defense is still not valid.

[tiamat63]

25 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"We'll proceed after you address that."

LOL..........well thank you 

We have 24 pages on this thread so just go back and read and you will know where I stand. The whole issue is one of trying to force someone to believe something that goes against their beliefs. In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision the definition of marriage was re-defined. Those justices who voted for gay marriage noted that those with views of conscience against gay marriage would have nothing to worry about. In fact we have seen those with a different view of marriage have a lot to be worried about such as losing your job or your business with a lawsuit.

The word belief is a misnomer.   It's like someone saying they don't 'believe' in tipping - which I've run into before.  

Believe; to have the opinion of; suppose of; hold something as real 

Much like tipping, gay marriage is real.  This isn't the Easter Bunny, Santa or Aliens.  You don't have the option to believe in this case.  And saying you dont "believe in" is grammatically incorrect, on top of washing your hands of the ownership of the faults in ones opinion.  Again, much like the last jackass I heard say he didn't "believe in" tipping ( I covered it and politely told his wife to never bring him with our group again) 

 

Now, what you mean to say is you don't "agree" With gay marriage. Which is perfectly fine. However you're not marrying another dude last I checked, so nobody is asking you to violate your conscience or beliefs.   Affording someone the same right as you doesn't do that provided you aren't taking part in the action and arguing with any attempt at a parallel demonstrates the logical absurdiry of your stance. 

I hate beets. They're disgusting and I don't see how anyone enjoys them.  If I were to ever start my own religion, one of the pillars of said faith would be banning the eating, imbibing or growing of beets.    For realsies, they're that bad. 

 

However my neighbor being legally allowed to put some beet plants in his small victory garden is not only none of my MF bidness,  it's certainly does not force me to compromise my deeply held beliefs. 

Again, it's fine if you don't agree with gay marriage.   To each his own.  But it is un-American to deny the same right to my fellow citizens based on a simple dislike.  As we demonstrate, it does not violate yours or my beliefs. If that were so then we would have a HUGE problem with a great many other things. 

[calfoxwc]

1 minute ago, tiamat63 said:

Again, it's fine if you don't agree with gay marriage.   To each his own.  But it is un-American to deny the same right to my fellow citizens based on a simple dislike.  As we demonstrate, it does not violate yours or my beliefs. If that were so then we would have a HUGE problem with a great many other things. 

totally wrong. Being forced to have a correctly defined definition of REAL MARRIAGE, is intimidation/oppression. Being forced to bake a cake, in direct affront to your religion, violates your freedom of religion. Being forced to have your kids accept perversion as normal in schools, in violation of your teachings to your own children, is a violation of your Freedom of Religion, and pursuit of happiness.

   you defend a perverse farse because it's a political win for your politics. It will be more and more known as a complete perverted farce, the more gay activists demand more and more of the right to intimidate churches, schools, bakeries, flower shops, civic groups, preachers/pastors, etc etc etc etc etc etc, and sue them for a perverse manufactured "offense" of an institution that didn't allow them to pervert it.

  

[OldBrownsFan]

4 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

The word belief is a misnomer.   It's like someone saying they don't 'believe' in tipping - which I've run into before.  

Believe; to have the opinion of; suppose of; hold something as real 

Much like tipping, gay marriage is real.  This isn't the Easter Bunny, Santa or Aliens.  You don't have the option to believe in this case.  And saying you dont "believe in" is grammatically incorrect, on top of washing your hands of the ownership of the faults in ones opinion.  Again, much like the last jackass I heard say he didn't "believe in" tipping ( I covered it and politely told his wife to never bring him with our group again) 

 

Now, what you mean to say is you don't "agree" With gay marriage. Which is perfectly fine. However you're not marrying another dude last I checked, so nobody is asking you to violate your conscience or beliefs.   Affording someone the same right as you doesn't do that provided you aren't taking part in the action and arguing with any attempt at a parallel demonstrates the logical absurdiry of your stance. 

I hate beets. They're disgusting and I don't see how anyone enjoys them.  If I were to ever start my own religion, one of the pillars of said faith would be banning the eating, imbibing or growing of beets.    For realsies, they're that bad. 

 

However my neighbor being legally allowed to put some best plants in his small victory garden is not only none of my MF bidness,  it's certainly does not force me to compromise my deeply held beliefs. 

Again, it's fine if you don't agree with gay marriage.   To each his own.  But it is un-American to deny the same right to my fellow citizens based on a simple dislike.  As we demonstrate, it does not violate yours or my beliefs. If that were so then we would have a HUGE problem with a great many other things. 

Gay marriage passed by a 5-4 vote with Kennedy the deciding vote joining with the 4 liberal justices. Kennedy is gone now and if that vote were today the odds are it would have lost by a 5-4 decision. So this is not such a clear cut and dry issue but it is the law of the land now. Those 5 judges on the Supremes who made gay marriage the law of the land said those who are opposed to gay marriage as a matter of conscience have nothing to worry about. Justice Alito in his dissent questioned that and said we'll soon find out and he was right. Those same justices who said those who oppose gay marriage as a matter of conscience have nothing to worry about ruled against the Christian baker's conscience. The Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case with the Christian florist. In both these cases these people did not hate gays but they felt (as I would also) being involved with gay marriage is participating and condoning it. The clerk in Kentucky who refused gay marriage licenses only wanted her name removed from the certificate as that bothered her conscience .

"I hate beets. They're disgusting and I don't see how anyone enjoys them.  If I were to ever start my own religion, one of the pillars of said faith would be banning the eating, imbibing or growing of beets.    For realsies, they're that bad. 

 

However my neighbor being legally allowed to put some best plants in his small victory garden is not only none of my MF bidness,  it's certainly does not force me to compromise my deeply held beliefs."

************************

What if said neighbor asked you to water his beets while he was on vacation...you might tell him your feelings about beets and ask him to find someone else?