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 am against pedophiles as much as any straight person. What makes you think that anybody with any senses would even let it get to the point where the abuse of children is allowed. Why even think that because gays want to get married that something that SICK would be allowed. AGAIN THE CHILDREN ARE VICTIMS. Please drop the pedophelia part, that is just plain old tired. Only the losing side uses that as an effort to hit a hot spot. And you seem to forget that most pedophiles are straight married men.
I am against same sex marriage as I find it disgusting as it serves no purpose for continuation of life etc. Pedophiles are a real disgusting breed of people, and I wouldnt put it past society here to eventually persue getting age restrictions lifted so NAMBLA can be progressed.
Granted, I understand that this chapel is a for-profit business, but isn't a business owner's refusal to serve gays a civil matter?
I also read a comment that came up with a interesting point: if liberals get their way and churches are stripped of their non-profit status, does that mean churches will be forced to marry gays? At that point they become a for-profit entity no? I can see that as a slippery slope
It is a for-profit business, not a church, therefore it has to follow business laws.
If churches somehow were stripped of their non-profit status (I doubt that will ever happen,) then yes they might be required to marry anyone who wishes to get married there, especially if the churches get classified as a business.
The "slippery slope" you see isn't there because the article you have in your link points out that this is a for-profit business and not a church.
It is a for-profit business, not a church, therefore it has to follow business laws.
If churches somehow were stripped of their non-profit status (I doubt that will ever happen,) then yes they might be required to marry anyone who wishes to get married there, especially if the churches get classified as a business.
The "slippery slope" you see isn't there because the article you have in your link points out that this is a for-profit business and not a church.
I don't even want to think about the fall out from that. It would range from non-compliant Christian denominations being forced to worship under ground to a civil war.
I don't even want to think about the fall out from that. It would range from non-compliant Christian denominations being forced to worship under ground to a civil war.
You mean the fall out that isn't going to happen because churches won't be losing their non-profit religious status?
I would pay to see what would unfold if this wasn't a christian couple, but an Imam. I'm sure many on the left would look the other way.
To match the scenario we're seeing unfold, your hypothetical would have an imam suing the government in order to be able to run his business according to Muslim faith, and asking for compensation in the process. You're still sure you want to pursue this line of argumentation?
So does that mean I can marry my car, my plane, my income. If I can marry those things then they are not able to be ganished in court.
You can undergo a wedding ceremony with any animate or inanimate object you please. If you want the legal protection of marriage, you must get a marriage license from the relevant government authority. Which can only be issued to two consenting adult humans.
I bet this couple would have NO issues with marrying a man and woman that met a week ago in Vegas .... BUT they can't marry two men or two women that have been together for years ....
As an ordained minister of a small, strange, California denomination, I would be glad to perform the rites for a homosexual marriage.
I would have ONE, and ONLY one, service for the homosexuals. No, I would not allow anyone to write their own vows. They would accept the vows I would read, or go elsewhere. There would be NO Biblical reference of any kind.
Something on the order of; "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of Zeus and Odin to join these two people in wedlock, as mandated and authorized by the Supreme Court..."
My way or the highway. Yes, I can and will perform the ceremony. BUT, it will be done the way I want it done, or you can go away!
I am against same sex marriage as I find it disgusting as it serves no purpose for continuation of life etc. Pedophiles are a real disgusting breed of people, and I wouldnt put it past society here to eventually persue getting age restrictions lifted so NAMBLA can be progressed.
What? Why is same sex marriage disgusting? Are marriages of senior citizens disgusting or sterile couples? They don't lead to life either. Procreating is not a reason to deny anyone the right to marriage. Gays are not NAMBLA and who in society is going to pursue those restrictions lifted? Not us gays, we are just seeking marriage rights for us. Again, most pedophiles are adult married heterosexual men with no attraction to men.
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.
