― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (nineteen years ago) link
x-post
― Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (nineteen years ago) link
God, I hate that idiot.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (nineteen years ago) link
I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (nineteen years ago) link
However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.
But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (nineteen years ago) link
This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
i'd rather not be KILLED
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)
― don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (nineteen years ago) link
But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (nineteen years ago) link
It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:43 (nineteen years ago) link
Ridiculous.
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:47 (nineteen years ago) link
I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (nineteen years ago) link
You don't know this because you are a moron.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:02 (nineteen years ago) link
X-posts I don't want to force churches to hold gay services - none the less many would and want to, and saying that what happens in a Church is between a man and a woman and what happens outside is a civil union doesn;t help gay Christians.
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:02 (nineteen years ago) link
I do know enough about the way that homosexuals are treated in Islamic societies to know that what happens to gays in Islamic societies is wrong.
You are still a gigantic, oxygen-stealing idiot.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:08 (nineteen years ago) link
lol
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (eight years ago) link
is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 21 September 2015 23:27 (eight years ago) link
Harris Wofford, eh?
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 25 April 2016 12:00 (eight years ago) link
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb
FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
― j., Friday, 23 December 2016 02:51 (seven years ago) link
still taking applications btw
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:43 (seven years ago) link
tough call, i don't get screeners anymore...
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:46 (seven years ago) link
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to step into a case over a Texas high court ruling that says gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits.
― Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Monday, 4 December 2017 21:33 (six years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GsyAoWXScA
― mookieproof, Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:23 (three years ago) link
Four months without dick -- well.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:38 (three years ago) link
i'd need to see a financial portfolio
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 27 June 2020 13:46 (three years ago) link
dark times
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 27 June 2020 15:21 (three years ago) link