Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can believe whatever I want just as long as I keep my mouth shut about it, right? It's not really religious freedom anymore when a person has to fear real life consequences for expressing those beliefs. If your side truly didn't care, why so many seemly angry riled up replies whenever these gay threads get created?
Can you please explain how gays having the right to marry equates to you fearing real life consequences for expressing your beliefs?
There are 31 states allowing gay marriage now, correct? Are you still able to express your beliefs?
So where is your evidence that gays believe equal rights and benefits aren't good enough? I'm betting you cannot post a single bit of evidence --from the GLBT community--that they want MORE than you do.
Smoke and mirrors to protect prejudice and bigotry.
I already did yesterday. But here is a reminder:
Quote:
On the modern campus, this system is considered rational. Bowdoin College in Maine has just disenfranchised its Christian Fellowship, a campus presence of more than 40 years, denying recognition to the group, disabling key cards of longtime volunteer advisers, and forbidding use of campus space and even bulletin boards by the group. Responding to pressure from gay students, the college insists that the Christian group allow candidacy of gay leaders. The group says it will gladly allow gay members but not leaders, because leaders must uphold the group’s religious doctrine. In effect, Bowdoin is insisting that the Christian group either get off campus or accept a system under which the beliefs of the group could be distorted or overthrown by non-believers
Another win for gays. This group has to fold because gay membership simply wasn't good enough. No, they demanded to be leaders. Why couldn't gay students just start their own gay Christians fellowship?
And please spare me the typical federal funds gotta follow the laws/rule response. I am talking about the moral social aspect of this situation.
Another win for gays. This group has to fold because gay membership simply wasn't good enough. No, they demanded to be leaders. Why couldn't gay students just start their own gay Christians fellowship?
And please spare me the typical federal funds gotta follow the laws/rule response. I am talking about the moral social aspect of this situation.
Your article says they demanded candidacy. You know, the same right to run for office that other members enjoy.
Another win for gays. This group has to fold because gay membership simply wasn't good enough. No, they demanded to be leaders. Why couldn't gay students just start their own gay Christians fellowship?
And please spare me the typical federal funds gotta follow the laws/rule response. I am talking about the moral social aspect of this situation.
Another win for gays. This group has to fold because gay membership simply wasn't good enough. No, they demanded to be leaders. Why couldn't gay students just start their own gay Christians fellowship?
And please spare me the typical federal funds gotta follow the laws/rule response. I am talking about the moral social aspect of this situation.
I was talking about morals, too. The morals that treat people unlike us decently and unselfishly. Your morals are self-serving.
And I do understand, you are promoting the idea of "separate but equal." And the answer is, under a government where everyone's taxes are pooled, separate is NOT equal.
I was talking about morals, too. The morals that treat people unlike us decently and unselfishly. Your morals are self-serving.
And I do understand, you are promoting the idea of "separate but equal." And the answer is, under a government where everyone's taxes are pooled, separate is NOT equal.
And your comments again completely glaze over this particular story. I now feel like I'm talking to a robot with canned responses. Beep "separate but equal" or Beep "you're a bigot" or Beep "you're not like Jesus".
Separate but equal doesn't universally exist for any of us. Do you honestly think it is immoral if we don't have complete 100% access to everything that everyone has? With that logic, it is immoral that I can not be a member of the Masons or I wasn't invited to join a college fraternity or get in West Point.
When you own a for profit business, but you are a minister, do you get some kind of tax break?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
