AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

actually it is highly relevant but you miss the point. If you rent to the public as they do then they must obey the laws. There are places that can be bent certainly but in this case a place I can rent for a whiffle ball game should not have the right to discriminate in a place with anti-discrimination laws. What they can do is create a membership and have only members rent the place but that might cut into their non-profit profits. Trust me I know how these things work. And you are wrong about the name. I was quoting their website.

 

No you can't have it both ways. According to your interpretation a church that rents their church out for a wedding of a couple who is not part of their congregation should be forced to also rent to the homosexual couple for their wedding. Right?

And I'm not wrong about their name.

http://oceangrove.org/pages/short_history

In December of 1869, an organization was formed under the name, “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” The following year, a charter was obtained from the New Jersey State Legislature that set this land aside as a place for the perpetual worship of Jesus Christ. More than a century later, we are still about that same business!

 

If they are a public accommodation then too bad. They need to serve everyone or get out of the business. What if it where a Jewish, or African American group? This has nothing to do with homosexuality it has everything to do with equal access to services. As a gay man and atheist I don't want to have anything to do with Christians. I don't want to have to serve them in my business. I don't even want the deluded people on my business property but I have too under the law. So you believe that religion, which is clearly a choice, should be able to discriminate against people? What you see as an attack is people standing up to religious bigotry and demanding equality. Religious freedom is not a license to discriminate against people. Since 2004 religious people have written their religion into the constitutions many of the states that force the law upon the lifestyles of gay people.

 

They acted ignorantly because they are ignorant.

 

Absolutely and if you don't want to serve religious people you shouldn't. Of course when you go out of business because 90% of the population is religious... that's your fault.

 

What does Christian whiffle-ball look like? Or even the ordinary kind?

 

BTW there's nothing in the constitution that says you have to serve them.

 

For the record, Hutchinson, KS attempted to institute legislation forcing churches to rent to homosexuals if they rent to anyone else who is not in their congregation. I believe this one was voted down. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ould-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

And there was also one in Washington State. I'm not sure what the outcome of that one was/is.

 

Exactly what is being dictated to you that affects your heterosexual privileged life?

 

We're forced to support homosexual marriage with our tax dollars. They increase our healthcare costs. They spread an absurd amount of STD's specifically AIDS. They're attempting to force churches to rent their facilities to them. There is an absurd level of male on male child molestation. They're forcing their homosexual ideology upon our children at school. And that's just off the top of my head.

 

I am saddened (disgusted actually), that religion thinks it needs to give "Preferential Treatment" to who people love.

 

Really? So religion should be compelled to marry a polygamous group right? Because they love each other. They should be compelled to marry an adult incestuous couple as well, because I mean they love each other.

Hell if the only requirement is love that opens up all sorts of stuff.

 

A red herring! Join the club. We gay people forced to support heterosexual marriage with our tax dollars. Heterosexuals spread an absurd amount of STD's. Heterosexual are forcing their heterosexual ideology upon our children at school. The majority of child molestation is done by heterosexuals. We are forced to pay property taxes to support schools were the majority of us do not have children. I could go on and on. Under religious intolerance of the past my people were institutionalized, executed, lobotomized, and imprisoned. The world is a heterosexist place. It makes my skin crawl to be mistaken for a heterosexual, which is default position in a heterosexist society.

 

So the church is CHIKEN----?? Did anyone ask them to hold a 'homosexuals anonymous' meeting?? Did this church get a request to MARRY a couple
of gays whom they turned away? Were any of the AA members GAY?? Anticipatory CHICKEN----. Gollee gee, next people won't open a coffee shop because gays MIGHT walk in? A restaurant? A church won't be built because gays MIGHT wish to pray there?

Give me a break.

 

Don't use terms that you don't understand.

Gay people are forced to support heterosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage actually provides a benefit to society and the economy and is not a detriment like homosexual marriage is to the economy.

Homosexuals are 44x (that's FORTY FOUR TIMES) more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have HIV.

Heterosexuals talk about sex in school because at some point children need to understand the act of procreation. The point of homosexual sex talk in school is to discuss how homosexuals get off. There's a big difference.

Of course the majority of child molestation is performed by heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are 95% of the population. LGBT are ~5% of the population. We would expect male on male child molestation to be ~5%. But it's closer to 27%. Whereas male on female child molestation is only around 73% so they're UNDER-represented whereas homosexuals are vastly over-represented.

I'm with you, we shouldn't have to pay for public schools. None of us.

So you actually don't dispute the fact that homosexuality is negatively impacting heterosexuals... you just claim it's justified because of the way that homosexuals were treated in the past. You should just say that instead of trying to hide behind the falsity that homosexuality doesn't negatively impact others.

 

The only thing that is hurt is your privilege. We are acting and demanding of heterosexuals exactly how heterosexuals have acted and have demanded of us. You sound like someone from the 1950's or 1960's when African Americans started challenging white privilege. Hiv out side the western world is a heterosexual disease.

 

That's because outside of the western world homosexuals are not allowed to practice their behavior freely... so they're not allowed to spread their disgusting diseases.

And you can claim the only thing that's hurt is our privilege until you turn purple. But you haven't addressed any of the points being made.

By the way... you know what the good thing about judicial activism is? The only thing that is required to reverse it, is more judicial activism from the other side. Enjoy it while it lasts

 

They did not have to do it. Why is that hard for you to understand?

 

The 3% aren't alone. They have huge support from the left and the especially the leftwing media. So, right or wrong, it's no surprise this "minority" wields such influence. Unfortunately, it doesn't take deep thinker to see where this "diversity" agenda is leading, either.

 

So equal rights for a gay couple to marry isn't equality?? The ONLY way that would be true was if THEIR MARRIAGE made them more special, conferred more rights than yours! Anyone know where that is happening?? Let's all turn gay and move THERE!

As for your ludicrous argument about 3% ruining it for the 97% is.......WHAAAAAAAT the F??? Someone explain to me why ANYONE gives a flying F about the (to use the poster's #) 3% of the population of 'consenting adults' who want to get married. I do NOT understand it.

I've heard my entire adult life that the older you get, the more CONSERVATIVE you get! Maybe we BOOMERs are gonna break that mold too!

 

No it's not equality because the heterosexuals provide a benefit that the homosexuals, in and of themselves, are incapable of providing. Procreation. So the heterosexuals are putting in and getting something back for it. The homosexuals are putting nothing in and wanting to get something for nothing.

 

Even conservative judges are ruling for SSM, the only dissenters have used religious reasoning that has been or will be overturned on appeal.
They are no legally acknowledged reasons to deny SSM - that is the issue your side keeps running into.

What exactly are the 40%+ [source][source][source] of marriages that never end in procreation "putting back in? How are they benefiting society? Or do they simply get to benefit (via my tax dollars) because they are heterosexual.

 

I can name multiple valid reasons. And we know they're valid because they're the EXACT same reasons that we use to discriminate against other behaviors.

That's correct. First of all let me state that I'm a capitalist. I don't believe we should be providing benefits or subsidies to anyone. However, if you're going to steal money out of my pocket, you better have a damn good reason for doing so.

The point of providing marriage benefits was the promotion of procreation. We faced a dilemma as it was an impossibility to test every few weeks if every couple in America was willing or able to have children. It would be too costly, inefficient and ultimately ineffective to attempt to do so. So either we were faced with the option of providing no one marriage benefits (which would be preferable) or we could provide marriage benefits to ALL of the people who had the POTENTIAL for procreation. The ONLY group that has the potential for procreation in and of themselves are heterosexual humans. So we chose to provide benefits to all of them who had the potential for procreation.

Unfortunately for homosexuals, they have chosen to engage in a behavior that precludes them from being capable of procreating in and of themselves and as such they are incapable of providing the benefit that we are paying for. Therefore, they do not qualify to receive those benefits.

 

Those few vocal people also seem to have many activist judges on their side and that is the problem. 31 states have amended their constitutions (not an easy thing) to say marriage is between a man and a woman....this is millions and millions of people, and a few judges have been overruling the people.

This will have an enormous backlash and all the gains the homosexual community have made over the years are endangered because they are overextending their political capital. As you said, they are a small minority and as such, they should not be nearly as vocal and powerful as they are. The majority will rise up against them and when majorities rise, especially in the US, they tend to overreact.

 

I believe the government should exit marriage entirely. I have no problem with child care credits but this current structure is discriminatory at its core. Your argument is that the only option we have is to support a program with a 50% fraud rate as every childless marriage is basically taking advantage of the system.

All conservatives (both my group the fiscal conservatives as well as the religious discriminating socal cons) would go insane if any other government program had the instances of misuse as marriage benefits present.

Unfortunately - the social cons see no reason for them to lose their benefits, they only want to stop others from enjoying the same.

The majority has already spoken - you are no longer a part of it