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.
If a gay couple doesn't think that it is the bakers business, then they don't have to make it known.
I'm sorry, but this conversation wasn't about gay people. It was about the business people choosing to discriminate against their immoral customers. If a business person argues that providing goods or services to their immoral customers goes against their religious beliefs, then don't they have an obligation to those religious beliefs to suss out which customers meet their moral standards and which don't?
Because they're public people, we're often aware of how many times they've been married and the circumstances surrounding their often multiple marriages. Larry King has been married 8 times (6 divorces, 1 annulment). Martin Scorsese has been married 5 times (as have Billy Bob Thornton and Geraldo Rivera). Christie Brinkley and Cheryl Tiegs have been married 4 times.
So why is it that Larry King should be able to marry wife #9 but a gay couple can't have marriage #1.
How is marriage "mocked" by marriage #1 but not by marriage #9?
Harrier doesn't think that government should be in the marriage business at all, so your question is moot.
Harrier doesn't support anyone divorcing and remarrying, however since it is his position that government should not sanction marriage, there is little that he can call to do about it.
Harrier doesn't think that government should be in the marriage business at all, so your question is moot.
Harrier doesn't support anyone divorcing and remarrying, however since it is his position that government should not sanction marriage, there is little that he can call to do about it.
Dancing around the issue.
You are the one who is arguing that you are morally consistent. The statements above are not morally consistent.
I'm sorry, but this conversation wasn't about gay people. It was about the business people choosing to discriminate against their immoral customers. If a business person argues that providing goods or services to their immoral customers goes against their religious beliefs, then don't they have an obligation to those religious beliefs to suss out which customers meet their moral standards and which don't?
Actually. the topic of the thread was about the sources of morality, but someone (probably a liberal) deflected it onto gay marriage.
Excuse Harrier for responding to posts that are placed in the thread.
If you would like to join Harrier in steering the thread back on topic, then lets do so.
You are the one who is arguing that you are morally consistent. The statements above are not morally consistent.
Of course they are.
Harrier believes that government should not sanction marriage. Therefore it really doesn't matter whether divorce and remarriage is allowed - it is wrong.
Government has no business sanctioning or regulating either marriage or divorce.
So long as they do, it is incumbent on people who value the moral underpinning of our society to uphold the institution of marriage.
Now, Harrier has to ask this question, as he has several times in the last couple of years. What is wrong with getting government entirely out of the marriage business? No marriage licenses, no special benefits, only contracts of commitment that the government would enforce through the court system. Marriage would have no legal meaning, but if someone wanted to call themselves married, they could do so.
Gay "marriages" could then be conducted, free of government sanction. The church could, of course continue to sanctify marriages conducted within the framework of religious doctrine. Harrier could marry his cat.
Every time Harrier proposes this, it is shot down by the gay army.
Why? Because it would provide equality.
They don't want equality - they want forced acceptance of homosexual relationships and gay sex.
You can't change terms because you don't like them.
I'm not changing the term I use. The term is "marriage equality". If I've ever called it "gay marriage" it was in a momentary lapse of ability to think straight. Which is usually brought on when someone says something idiotic in my presence. Examples would be: "Justin Bieber is a musical genius" or "Ronald Reagan should be put on Rushmore."
It was also Christians who led the abolitionist movement, Christians who spearheaded the women's suffrage movement, and Christians who were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement.
Are those facts too inconvenient for your religion bashing agenda?
They certainly don't seem to care about civil rights now. In fact, hasn't the Religious Right been at the forefront of preventing gays from having civil rights?
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union "spearheaded" the suffrage movement because they wanted to totally reform society according to their religious principles. They were also anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco, and wanted to ban golf from being played on Sundays. The "Christian" in the title was largely limited to those with an evangelical Protestant conviction. They sound a lot like missionaries to me.
The abolitionists did base their reasoning on the fact that slavery did not sync with Christian principles, but most of the "Christians" in the country did not buy that. Most Americans rejected such doctrines as heresy and condemned their dangerous political and social implications. Those who opposed the abolitionist idea of immediate emancipation claimed that they had the Bible and historical Christianity on their side. They pointed out that slavery existed among the Hebrews without God’s condemnation, and Jesus had admonished servants to obey their masters “in singleness of heart, fearing God.” Seems like most of the religious people in the South certainly did not believe that freedom was a Christian principle and found justifications for keeping human beings enslaved by other humans.
And, frankly, what Obama is attempting to do with the the ACA is to help people who need health insurance obtain it, while all the Christians in the Tea Party and the Religious Right fight against it. Very Christian-like behavior. And let's not even mention how Tea Party Christians want to make sure needy people don't get too many food stamps.
If Christians feel that they are being bashed because people point out the inherent hypocrisy of their social and political beliefs, it is their choice to take the role of victim.
You can't change terms because you don't like them.
that's kinda what America is all about.
unless you hate America.
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.
