:):):):p:p;);)
:
Churches can continue to refuse to perform inter racial marriages and same sex marriages, and can continue to teach hate. The law protects them.
Well at least some places are trying to stop discrimination of sexual preferenceā¦
cuz this is 'MERICA, land of the free and home of the bigoted assholes.
Just because a church refuses same sex marriage does not mean they are teaching hate. Why should a religion change what they have believed for millenia just to satisfy todayās cultural norms?
Yeah, what is wrong with slavery anyway? I have always wanted a few Canadian slaves, but could never afford them. Fortunately, a literal reading of the bible supports my right to own (Canadian) slaves. 
Scott
Slavery is not the issue(funny this gets brought up all the time). The issue is saying a religion is promoting hate by not performing same sex marriages. It is their right to refuse to marry them. It has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, but rather religious beliefs. Do you think the law should force churches and pastors to marry same sex couples even if it against their beliefs?
Why is it against their belief?
I donāt think the law should force churches tp do thatā¦ but should churches or church goers be able to decide if a gay couple can get married or not?
Times change, it isnāt the middle ages anymore. The church has to learn to deal with it.
They already do decide. Some churches allow it and some donāt, but none are forced to as of yet.
If I come to New York can I marry a donkey?
What does this have to do with anything?
Allowing same-sex marriage does not lead to bestiality.
I think I feel badly about that. No, Iām mistaken. That was just some residual cramping from the flu.
As far as Iām concerned you should be able to.
Citizens have so, so many rights; the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to own fire armsā¦ but when it comes to something that really, truly doesnāt matter all that much, the government and the church is so quick to deny people of it.
Itās not like gay marriage will maliciously destroy the economy, or give rise to anarchy. Itās not even harmful to kids.
I think that people see it as unnatural, and are therefore instinctually against it.
āAnd so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!ā
To āsave timeā, refer to our previous 60 page* discussion of gay marriage in California from three years ago.
Note that the first 12 pages took place in a single day ā thatās back when Just Conversation was a busy place.
-
- assuming default forum display settings
Thatās a bummer. I still hold hope that we will find our way to anarchy. With anarchy, you wouldnāt have to ask permission from a State whether you can enter into a contract with another person. Harper may even be able to get some ass, if he can prove consent.
Wow!
You have a way with words. 
I can usually only prove resent.
Well, itās alive and well here in jc! 
