If gay marriage was legalized...

Ruskies don't report. They poison.

 

Gotcha. they poison with their breath breathing alcohol around. And there is a computer virus which makes letter R radioactive if you hit with you middlefinger of the left arm. Kaspersky laboratory made it under KGB and it's the most guarded secret of Rus..... Wh? Oh. You won't believe me anyway. But for your own sake it's better to be careful.

 

You were misinformed as usual. This guy was of no harm for Russia and he drank enough to poison half of London. The thing is that a pocket he was receiving the money wasn't big enough.

Our special forces work this way. Although they don't have any live report and there is no funeral from a carrier. sting operation and the top Alqayeda guy goes to check if he is met in the another by a number of virgins or that are a number of homosexuals with big big... sense of pride.

Btw posting this photo in this thread you assumed that this traaitor was a f/\g or what?
+ Ah. Yeah. You are right. Alexandr could have pressed letter R with a middle finger. He for sure has had lots of viruses in his information bulletin.

 

Then gays will get married.

 

No offense??? Virtually every word you type is offensive. I will be so glad when people who think as you do have gone the way of the dinosaur.

 

I don't know if we're even talking about the same thing here. By all indications the subject is transgenderism, correct? What part of western culture does society or the law encourage them not to transition? It's quite the opposite. Transgender people are given all the help and encouragement they can get, including access to surgery. They are not persuaded not to. Not sure what you mean.

I don't understand you at all. Are you telling us that transitioning, changing your gender; is okay with you as long they are doing it because they GENUINELY feel they are born in the wrong body, instead of doing it for money? Who goes through the process of making themselves look like the opposite sex to make money, when the very process of surgically transitioning costs thousands upon thousands? And how does changing someone's external appearance cure mental illness, if that's what you truly believe it to be? You make no sense... (unless we're getting stuck with language again?)

If you're calling someone a pervert because they wish to make changes to their external appearance simply for kicks, well.. that's up to you. I think whatever motivation people have it's their own choice to do as they please. Not something I'd personally do, or even understand, but I won't put them down for exercising their free will. The real "condition" is called gender dysmorphia - where one feels they are born into the wrong body, and like gay people, usually feel that way from childhood. I respect the choice of anyone at any age to pay their own money to alter their appearance with surgery so that they can feel comfortable in their lives. In this modern and diverse world we live in they shouldn't have to explain their reasons, and shouldn't be subjected to words like "pervert". Live and let live for god's sake. Gender roles are so overrated...

We appear to agree on transgender people then as far as I can tell, apart from the "pervert" label you would apply to some who you think do it solely for pleasure/money. I've never heard of anyone doing that.

Ridiculous points here. A cloned child is still a thinking, feeling human being. Currently such a person would be cloned, inseminated, and born a baby like any other. It would be no different to any other child - a citizen of its country protected by the law. Sexually abusing it would still be abusing a conscious human being. Killing it would still be murder. The closest thing a pedophile could hope for would be a robot resembling a child, but even that carries ethical problems... such as would giving them robotic likenesses of children increase the likelihood of them abusing real ones?

Unless children somehow mentally mature at an accelerated rate, pedophilia in it's truest sense (aboslutely no age of consent) will NEVER exist. No society in the history of the world throughout all its trials and tribulations has ever looked favourably upon the sexual abuse of babies for example. Some ancient societies went pretty low (10 or so), but there was still a limit - because despite some outrageous laws, they recognised that the fact that children are vulnerable and need protecting from predatory behavior. As it stands today some laws around the world say kids are able to have sex at 12... some 13, some 14, some 15, many 16 (like the UK and Russia), and many 18, and even some as high as 20 (Tunisia). So the idea of what constitutes a "pedophile", "hebophile" or "statutory rapist" are different place to place. Some nations view the UK and Russia's law as pedophilic in nature. Some nations think it's silly to think a person who has reached puberty shouldn't be able to have sex. It's all subjective... and yes the age of consent has trended downwards in many western nations over the past few decades. But one thing every nation of the world can agree on and HAS always agreed on is that babies, toddlers and pre-pubescent children need protecting. Period. To say that we will begin to abolish any and all age of consent laws when pedophiles gain more acceptance and money is simply asinine.

Enough entertaining silly ideas... (although probably not). Onwards I go....

So homosexual is included in your idea of what makes an illness? ...We got there eventually. That's all I wanted to know you said, not go off on a tangent about transgender people. You think all gay people are ill, including myself, despite having no evidence for that, and think that's not offensive? Are you aware some people propose Christians/religious people are "ill" for their "delusions" about.. "speaking to god". Has anyone brought that up? No. In fact I didn't see any Christian bashing anywhere. You were exaggerating weren't you?

But going back to your beliefs for a second, how to you propose a gay person "be cured"?

Russia's alcoholism rates are high. Deaths from it are very high. Let's just leave it at that. People saw you had an anti-gay anuimus and make a few jokes about you being a drunk. Generalising? Unfair? Yes... but how do you expect people will respond when you throw around terms like "ill" & "perverts" and make faulty comparisons between gays and pedophiles/animal abusers? If you generalise and use offensive terminology, so will we. You don't have the moral high ground I assure you.

That's crap. Gay people aren't asking for establishment or approval for what they do behind closed doors, they are asking people to accept their families and relationships - which isn't based solely around sex. Gay pride was and is still hugely important to strengthen community spirit and draw attention to laws that still either persecute or deny us our equality - equality important not just to ourselves but the children we raise. To reduce all that commitment and love to say it's simply about getting acceptance for where we stick our genitals is revealing the sheer depths of your anti-gay bias.

 

Bearing with you on this one (...it's getting harder and harder not to loose it! ), I'd imagine you are comparing gay people and gay animals because of their willingness to procreate, correct? Rather than actually calling us animals... (although you never know)? I'm going to go with that and hope that's what you meant.

And the rights are needed because it's a matter of basic fairness... Gay people do no harm to anyone. They pay their taxes. Most people have a gay friend or family member and know them not to be "perverted" or "ill". All WE are asking for is to be able to hold down a job, not have to face discrimination on a day to day basis, and be allowed the 1000s of rights and responsibilities that come with the institution of marriage. A place at the table. It's not a radical request. It's not an unfair request. Just to marry and not be chastised for loving someone. How would you react if you were told you couldn't marry the one you wanted to spend the rest of your life with, and you will ONLY ever be legal strangers to one another? THAT makes no sense.

So actually what you were saying was that all gay people by mere virtue of being attracted to the same-sex are "pervasive", and only a MINORITY of heterosexuals are. Okay, so here was me thinking you were at least trying to be er.. "fair" by painting heterosexuals in the same light, when in fact you were generalising gays completely, and mostly giving your fellow heterosexuals a free pass. That's great - more proof of your anti-gay animus and total lack of respect for other people here.

You're an absolute hypocrite for whining about people mocking your national origin/religion. If this were a competition for who can throw the most insults and show people the least respect, you'd have the gold... and the car.

So your main gripe with us is because we don't contribute toward the population?? That's demonstrably false because many gay people can and do. Elton John has just had his second child born. Not to mention those who adopt. I intend to adopt or use a surrogate mother. But not for your respect. If I had that, I'd probably be concerned more than anything

Well anyway I'm talking about that basic level of civility to enable decent conversation to take place. If you start saying we are "pervasive", "perverted", "ill", no different to "homosexual animals" and "pedophiles", and no more deserving of your respect than a thief or prostitute... and that's your level of respect towards me, then we're done I think.... I have no interest in entertaining someone who thinks so little of me.

 

He knows it, he just doesn't care. He said it himself.

 

I also love you. My offenses are the least dangerous thing which can happen to you actually. In the very first case of danger politicians would need a group of people which will be a good to blave for different mistakes and irresponsibilities of the government. And at that time guess who will be blamed and pointed as an aim for a furious crowd? At that time I promise to do my best to protect of being slaughtered and you will be able to find shelter and food at my house (but no sex, I mean it. You will have to survive somehow without it)...
But for now you can wish me to be dead. Christians are treated like that ever since and it is very good. (for those who read Bible not for fun of course).

 

Maybe he's funnier in Russian....

 

What is that you couldn't understand in an unanswered question?
Should we call a person that has an inborn psycology and mentality of another in the body which is in belongs to the other sex ill people or not?
If You call these people transgender - transgender they be. If you call such person Harry - let them be Harries. The question is of yes or no type and I did my best to make it clear.
As for transgender people which I consider perverts I mean this kind (watch for exposed, naked and ugly photos which often go together with prostitutes web-site). I mean transsexuals who do half of the surgery to make money on their body. It's quite a traight now. For once I refused of a prostitute 2 years ago I was offered a boy only before my business really understood that I just don't like sex for money. Last year transsexual goes as a required option before the understanding comes.
I am afraid it is also offensive. But that's how it is...

I think it was clear from the very beginning but just for a case.
There is a surgery operation as it is. The surgery operation cannot be blamed for something. It is not good or evil. It is a surgery.
There is a person who wants to change his gender for some reason. A reason can be good or evil. If the reason is to cure of the abnormalty - it is good reason. If the reason is any other - it is bad. For instance the other reason can be making money on your body because of different level of payment for transgender prostitutes.

Again? Haven't you noticed that more than a half of my complaints on my poor knowledge of the language is pure irony?
So again, the third time for now. If a personal consciousness is put into the wrong body, i.e. that a naturall guy who always considered him to be a guy have a vagina and breasts, which makes him feel terrible and almost on the verge of suicide - he should be treated and the gender should be changed to restore peace inside this person. But first mental part need to be well-diagnosed of course, because change of gender is difficult and long and it cannot be done every day. I didn't call this nature's mistake a mental illness.
A mental illness is when a male wants a sex with a male being a male. That's just a pervertion and it should be cured any psycologycally way or this person should be sent wherever he wants to or to Siberia. Away from the society, which he poses a threat to.

"I think whatever motivation people have it's their own choice to do as they please."
Why? Just because it is so convinient for perverts to have a good access to modified people's flesh to entertain themselves? Any other reason?

"The real "condition" is called gender dysmorphia - where one feels they are born into the wrong body, and like gay people, usually feel that way from childhood" Fine. We found the right word. Dismorphia. These are the people who have the right to change their gender. This is illness that needs to be cured. And there are these people who after the operation make good husbands and perfect wifes. If someone has any prejudicies about these people - I will rip them myself.
But others are mere perverts and nothing else.
Btw you forgot to answer the question, which is not a good sign for a conversation. It is more like your monologue after some of my text quoted. This you can do without me. I would rather listen to answers on my questions and give answers to yours. That's more like a conversation to me.
So here is the question you forgot to answer: What is offensive in calling pervert a pervert? I want to hear basically if a person is truely a pervert. I don't imply by this question that homosexuals are perverts. So I want to hear from you just an agreement that if a person is a pervert than calling him so is fine or to listen to some philosophy on why it is impolite to call a pervert its name. The question is also easy. After that I will drive to a connection of homosexuality, perversion and my teriibly offensive remarks which seem as offensive to some people for a reason they cannot explain.

You had a possibility to have a good look I hope. I tend not to believe... Have You ever been to Thailand? Can you check what sexual tourism is and who is most likely to find as a prostitute in the streets of Petaya? I bet you know the answer. It's just difficult for you to admit being a pervert. But it is just difficult to start. I have almost the same torture before every confession. So cheer up - noone dies of it. It's not that offensive. Just recognize yourself as you are. Nothing else is needed for now.

Agree. But it would suit your criteria for what is required to make sex. You don't have an age modifier in your criteria of living and breathing creature. So cloning and bringing a child up as a sex toy is quite possible. He can be even genetically altered (if that's the aim) to be able of withstanding lots of sexual contacts. It can be brought up as a sex-machine which readily brings peace and happiness to dozens of pedophils from all over the world. With your approach of necessity to respect for sexual perversion it is needed. With your criteria for sex it is possible even now. Why am really surprised that you step back from such decent people as pedophils. Why? Do you consider yourself to be any better?

India. They have parriah caste. Within this lowest caste no girl at the age of 6 is a virgin. So your guessing about world history was not right. French monarchs had the whole of kindergardens for sexul purposes. Just in order to have a virgin-baby girl when they need it. So all the technics have already been invented and tried. And it is already happening here and now all around us. There is only one thing that sexual perverts want for now. They want to remain perverts but to have respect from the society. That's why you were grown till the point when you sincerely wonder I that russian bigot is not admiring you knowing that you are just homosexuals...

"Some ancient societies went pretty low (10 or so), but there was still a limit - because despite some outrageous laws, they recognised that the fact that children are vulnerable and need protecting from predatory behavior."
Parriah were not subject to a law. So it was a merit to kill one. But it's strange that you don't set a limit yourself. Have you come of age yourself?

No. It's just a perversion. Dismorphia is an illness. Homosexuality is a perversion.

No. Cause ill people sufere from their illness and you don't. So this is a perversion. Like mazohist. There is no cure for mazohism. Of course there are some mind changing pills but they want help I think.
I heard that a pair of homosexuals was cured with a homosexual sex in Saudi Arabia. It was said that a couple locked inside the hotel and just started a thing when a crowd ran in and took homosexuals to the biggest place. Once the crowd gathered around this couple was 'made' to have sex to each other for people could watch such a funny event for free. It was said that one of the guys after such treatment felt a disgust towards homosexuality and decided to become heterosexual... But I think it is more of a joke.
No, I didn't call all the gays ill. Only those who are ill should be cured. And words are not just enough, becuase at the age when a decision start to be felt by a child there is a desire to be special to be unlike the others. And it is hard to see if a child is really ill or it is just an obsession which might pass with years.

Check the latest research of WHO. Not the 2010 But 2011 or 2012. The alcohol consumption is already near the US and Europe. And what is more important that apart from these countries the consumption goes down. We already are terrorised by Putin that there will be an alcohol ban. But it really doesn't have anything to deal with the topic. Alcohol is bad. And any consumption of it is bad.

I don't need to be saint in order to name pervert as a pervert. And perversion will not be any better if it is revealed by an angel-like guy comparing to the same sin told of by a sinner.

 

Isn't it like nearly 7am in Russia??

 

I think it's unimportant what to call it. There's your answer. And know that it's not proven to be an "illness" in the general sense. I support fully transgender rights and would never go around calling them "ill". Because a) it's not known for sure and b) it's offensive to them. Unlike you I don't feel the need to arbitrarily insult people and upset them.

Because I am not doing something "perverted", perhaps? Just because you feel that way doesn't make it so. You can put your point across and explain why you feel it's wrong without scoring cheap points by dismissing people you are talking to as mere "perverts". And if you can't, I don't see why I should waste my time responding to you in full.

 

OK. Then goes another simple question which I ask you to answer. What makes homosexual a homosexual if not a sex to the same gender? If You fail to tell what is this something than any gay parade will be just exposing pride of making sex to the same gender to public. If there is something else I will beg for pardon and after every person who feel offended with my manner of conversation will give me his pardon I will leave this side of the forum with an obligation to tell that homosexuals are right... But if there is no such a thing you'd rather take the 'crap'-sticker from my statement to someone elses who participates in our discussion.

Applouds! And even more applouds! ... Enough for now.
That was a great speech but I would rather remain simple. If an army goes on a parade I might tell that they are going to rise up the spirits and to fight for peace in the world blah-blah, but in fact it's just a show of weapon's might to potential agressors. It is exposing army to a public. And homosexual parade is esposing homosexuals to the public whatever these parades make higher in your society. If homosexual is different from another person only by the way he makes sex - than a parade is exposing their way to have sex... in public. As for philosophy... You know average russian and american consume 13 liters of alcohol per year. We don't drink so other guys have even more, coz they have to drink our share. And try to understand that most of these people will never see any philosophy behind a simple fact. Never.

No. It's simple. It's up to the question in bold which I have just asked (don't confuse with the questions in bold that you forgot to answer and I needed to repeat them). There are human homosexuals. There are homosexual animals. animals are different between themselves. There are big dogs and small. Black and white, hairy or bold, silent or barking, calm or biting - differrent. But does homosexuality with these different dogs imply anything else but a from time to time sex aith a same gender? If it doesn't have anything else but sex - then please admit that there is nothing for me to respect you. If you told that you pay the taxes - I would respect you (not really but). OK. You pay taxes! It's great (maybe)! But these are not homosexuals who pay taxes. These are taxpayers. In order to be a taxpayer you don't need to have sexuality, cox police would come to you and put you in jail not regarding if you make sex to a corpse or to a tree. If you avoid taxes - you are welcome to have your bit of a jail... You have families and friends - that's great! But frankly speaking you don't need to be homosexual to have that. So this virtue doesn't stick with homosexual in particular. I mean it. If you want to be respected for smth being a homosexual show smth else because being homosexual is not just enough.
Let's take a bigot like me for instance. I pay taxes. I have a family and friends and they don't think bad of me because I try to help them always. Does it give me the right to claim respect from anyone? Of course not. If I was making something worthy of respect - that would be another story. However it is also by itself not a reason for disrespect. Disrespect comes from an action which is done wrong to society. So it's just the opposite to respect. And you know what - homosexuals DO things the wrong way. Just the things which makes them call themselves homosexuals!
So try to be easier and you will understand an easy person having an easy and explained attitude towards your group. Motivated disrespect btw!

Excuse me do you refer it to my words when I am proud of being insulted for my nationality and region? Or was it someone else that you are talking about?

Not really. The question in bold as it reads sounds as:
Why should I respect a homosexual?
But it seems that it is a tradition with you to ignore questions and to spread the used to structured conversation into a heap of constantly repeated statements.

This is a self-deceivement. They CAN do. But it costs a fortune which Elton John and some of his like may afford. Besides a surrogate mother is an actual mother of a baby and even by law she has the first right for it if she decides to keep it. Leaving some genetical material at the counter doesn't mean to becaome a parent. And gay-family is not a family as long as only union of a man and woman is a family whatever your illusions are. But we are too far from our questions now.

I tell you what. If a conversation is split into commenting-commenting-commenting-commenting - there is no conversation but... commenting. So I make another attempt to structure it all up. And hopefully this time you will try to keep up to the stucture.

So.
1. In my opinion people who have dysmorphia are ill and need to be cured. And there is no blame in their illness. And they need to have a chance for a decent normal life.
So the question is if we should call a person with dysmorphia smth else but an ill person?
The question is needed to answer.
2. (This is the only paragraph that adds on to the previous structure)
A homosexual dog is a dog which has sex with the same-sex dog. It doesn't have human rights. Job problems. Maturing difficulties and society acceptedness. None of the problems makes a homosexual dog marching on a gay parade. But still we call it homosexual and indeed homosexual it is. There is a big difference between dog and man in many aspects. And I as a russian am different from a dog with the same number of differences as a homosexual human. In every aspects of these difference we are different. But if we take hte only aspect of homosexuality I cannot see any difference in what makes a normal dog homosexual or what makes a normal human homosexual.
A question needed to answer: What makes a homosexual to be homosexual if not just a sex to the same gender and nothing else?

3. No person is sinless. Sometimes a person stinks. But if I heard from someone that I stink I would rather say "I am sorry" and "Thank you" and go and wash myself. But I will never feel offended because of a truth and find it natural and logic. so
A question needed an answer: What is wrong in calling pervert a pervert?

4. And the last question and statement refers to my so-called "offense" and "lack of respect". Respect to me is (according to Webster which owes a Russian alcoholic at least a beer for increase of their audience) high or special regard. Which means that there are some people who need to be lower than high and easier than special. So I don't find any reasons of why this special attitude is deserved by homosexuals. I don't see that they areworthy of it. But I don't know their society spirits from inside. Maybe they fight Dart Weider with their seven colored laser swords while I snore being absolutely drunk and unaware of their sacrifices. So please anser
the question that needs an answer: Why should I respect a homosexual knowing him as just a homosexual?

If you answer only these four questions - the conversation has a chance to established. Otherwise we will repeat the once made comments (and twice made and sometimes more than ten times made) on comments on comments...
Feel free to ask any question from me, which would be absolutely fair under the circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

Insomnia, mr DevilMay... It is.

 

Try another time. It's too jewish IMHO.
It's yes or no. It's either you consider them ill or not. And it is indeed important to understand the nature of homosexuality. Because as you have said the stories of homosexuals are sooo alike the true stories of those who has dysmorphia, that it looks as if someone has copied someone elses feelings and claimed them to be his own.

You have never told that you are a doctor. I would rather trust a doctor on the matter but not a homosexual... A heterosexual opinion I will also not take for I would agree on doctor's.

I don't mind if a person is upset by truth. It's not my problems. My problem is what the truth is. But this is another question which I haven't asked so far.

Please don't make me look as racist. But a habbit to answer questions with questions or claimers is Jewish (in its worst sense)
I was not asking about yourself (this is something you can feel or see where the conversation drives, but I ask you just to answer the questions). I was not so far claiming that you personally are a pervert (although your confession looks terribly sweet to claim that). I just ask if the word pervert can be used to a person in case that a pervert he is. The question is more than simple, but I have a reason to ask for a yes or no answer.

 

Well the answers are easy to get, as many countries have legalised same sex marriage. So let's look at my own country for your answers:

1. Here it is not judges that marry people, but officials of the Department of Home Affairs. any marriage official has the right, if it is against their conscious, to write t the Minister of Home Affairs and ask to be excluded from ordaining same sex marriages. Thus there are towns where no official does it. In such a case it is the department's responsibility to transport an wiling official to the town a couple wants to get married in, or, like most of my friends do, just drive to the next town.

2. Your questions on divorce is irrelevant. Divorce should be against the religious beliefs of Christians anyway. So you should rephrase your question. Your question should be: Can a catholic police officer refuse to collect alimony from a divorced man as divorce is against his faith. As a police officer can not refuse that, why should they be able to refuse in this case?

3. Private property is still private property. So you can refuse who you want. But it is in the way you do it. A photgrapher can just say no, or he can kindly say, I am sorry, due to my beliefs I do not participate in same sex marriages, and I would just shrug and take my money elsewhere, his loss, not mine. But if he says something like 'I don't do (*)(*)(*) marriages' then yes, I will have a problem and give him hell.

Again I urge Amerians to look at countries and states where same sex marriage have been legalised, and see that NONE of their fears have come true.

AH

 

This is the big lie coming from gay marriage supporters. Gay marriage will affect religious people. They will be forced to support these marriages, or have their churches and businesses shut down for "discrimination".

Ontario Christian minister forced to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ or get sacked:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/on...ced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/canadian-bb-owes-gay-couple-fined-4500_n_1687757.html
http://www.traveltaboo.com/hotel-owners-fined-for-refusal-of-gay-couple-sharing-a-double-room/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ju...y-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

 

First link is about a civil officiator who also happens to be a Christian Minister. Civil servants don't get to pick and choose which couples and which people they want to have dealings with. She couldn't refuse an interracial couple if she didn't believe it in, or a non-Christian couple (who are living in "sin" just as much as the gay couple if not more).

Second and third are regarding Bed & Breakfast cases where a same-sex couple have been refused a double room for no other reason than their sexuality and has nothing to do with gay marriage. The fact is your home ceases to be "my home" and becomes "a business" first and foremost once you decide to use it as a hotel. As such, you are subject to a whole host of laws regarding safety, hygiene and discrimination. A Muslim couple cannot be refused. A black couple cannot be refused. Why shouldn't a same-sex couple receive the same protection? You can't pick and choose which laws to follow.

Fourth link talks about marriage being permitted in the church of Denmark - a decision supported by the church itself. Also any "state church" may also be subject to the law unless they fancy severing their direct ties to the government. It's amazing you know that here in Britain we actually have unelected CoE bishops in the upper chamber, who will get to vote on the same-sex marriage bill pending. They will naturally more than likely vote against as a block though - unlike Denmark our national church is against SSM but is also being "banned" from performing them. I think it's time we de-established them personally.

Fifth link about New Jersey, this is the only ruling I'd say is a little iffy, and they may have some measure of success if they appeal it. But this shows the problem with civil unions - lawmakers don't think to put in specific protections and exemptions for religious premises in them because it's purely a civil matter and churches do not have the power to perform them anyway. Same-sex marriage legislation has always included language to protect churches, and this may have been avoidable if Christie hadn't vetoed the SSM bill with religious protections.

But I'm a little confused as to the hall's status - if it's not considered a church then I don't see the problem. When you blur the line between houses of worship and for-profit businesses owned by members of the church you are walking a dangerous road. Should a religious hospital be able to refuse treating a gay person, for example?

- - - Updated - - -

First link is about a civil officiator who also happens to be a Christian Minister. Civil servants don't get to pick and choose which couples and which people they want to have dealings with. She couldn't refuse an interracial couple if she didn't believe it in, or a non-Christian couple (who are living in "sin" just as much as the gay couple if not more).

Second and third are regarding Bed & Breakfast cases where a same-sex couple have been refused a double room for no other reason than their sexuality and has nothing to do with gay marriage. The fact is your home ceases to be "my home" and becomes "a business" first and foremost once you decide to use it as a hotel. As such, you are subject to a whole host of laws regarding safety, hygiene and discrimination. A Muslim couple cannot be refused. A black couple cannot be refused. Why shouldn't a same-sex couple receive the same protection? You can't pick and choose which laws to follow.

Fourth link talks about marriage being permitted in the church of Denmark - a decision supported by the church itself. Also any "state church" may also be subject to the law unless they fancy severing their direct ties to the government. It's amazing you know that here in Britain we actually have unelected CoE bishops in the upper chamber, who will get to vote on the same-sex marriage bill pending. They will naturally more than likely vote against as a block though - unlike Denmark our national church is against SSM but is also being "banned" from performing them. I think it's time we de-established them personally.

Fifth link about New Jersey, this is the only ruling I'd say is a little iffy, and they may have some measure of success if they appeal it. But this shows the problem with civil unions - lawmakers don't think to put in specific protections and exemptions for religious premises in them because it's purely a civil matter and churches do not have the power to perform them anyway. Same-sex marriage legislation has always included language to protect churches, and this may have been avoidable if Christie hadn't vetoed the SSM bill with religious protections.

But I'm a little confused as to the hall's status - if it's not considered a church then I don't see the problem. When you blur the line between houses of worship and for-profit businesses owned by members of the church you are walking a dangerous road. Should a religious hospital be able to refuse treating a gay person, for example?

 

Good. The sooner, the better.

 

Completely and utterly wrong. U.S. government policy towards marriage has no effect on religious institutions. The government has no power to compel them to recognize a marriage they believe to be invalid. This is largely because a religious institution's recognition of a marriage is entirely meaningless, unless you're trying to get married at their church. If the church doesn't want you to get married there because they don't agree with it, I'm not sure why you'd want to get married there in the first place. Either way, the government passing a same-sex marriage law does not affect how private religious institutions recognize it.

 

I was under the impression that this case pre-dates Christie? It also has nothing to do with the civil unions law, but with the already existing anti-discrimination law.

Regardless, there's nothing iffy here. This is about a piece of property that the Church operated as a business interest open to the public, for which they received a special tax exemption. They were not asked or forced to provide the rites of holy matrimony. The ceremony was not going to take place in the church.

Bottom line: You don't get to suck on the government teat while practicing blatant discrimination against the public whose taxes fund that government. The church lost its special tax exemption for that piece of property operated as a business interest. They would have done so even without the civil unions law.

 

Good points.

 

Of course this is a true aim. And it is very good that these words have such a reaction.
Shutting down the church is the only thing their master wants of this small group of perverts.

Having noticed a position that these perverts are speaking of the money I suggest amercian christians to stop paying any taxes to their state. And they also can invite people of different religions and even unreligious people to live with them like they lived in the state before. USA is still a christian country.

As for current state it is already something else but tolerant and democratic. The f/\g dictatorship is already setting their plan for a group of people that is outnumbering them in quantities and in their share of state's wealth the way they will never cover in a thousand years.

 

Here we see the conspiracy theorist in its natural habitat ladies and gentlemen.