Now what?

[Ravenshire]

Then you are apparently unaware of the marching orders issued by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry Randy, but you're the one with the authority figure that demands it's orders be followed.

[Ravenshire]

And again drippy, the court is NOT forcing your pastors, preachers or any other member of clergy to perform said marriages.

In a survey just released, 25% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

An how is that in any way representative of the courts? You know. The ones who actually enforce the laws.

[Longhorn]

And again drippy, the court is NOT forcing your pastors, preachers or any other member of clergy to perform said marriages.

In a survey just released, 25% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

and that's relevant how? The SCOTUS is not forcing them to perform same sex marriages, period. A survey has fuck all to do with it.

[Cato]

In a survey just released, 19% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

That's stupid. These people are invited to complete and submit a hurt-feelings report. As much as I disagree, I'd be the first in line to defend a church's right not to preside over a gay wedding if they so choose.

[Cyberman]

Then you are apparently unaware of the marching orders issued by Richard Dawkins.

Yes, because as any fule kno our atheist popes have the authority to issue orders which must be obeyed.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I didn't bother to check to see if anyone else replied to this, but here is my viewpoint on it:
I think you missed the point entirely when SCOTUS made its ruling last week. For starters, religion does not get to have a monopoly on marriage.

---

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion. Now if their were a True separation between Church and state, the state would not be able to dictate who is to be married. Which does not mean the state could not sanction state approved cival unions. which would given anyone the same rights as a Married couple. It's when the state demands that a church acknoweledge or perform said wedding (as per the article I posted) that I take issue.

---

Marriage, under the color of law is a Legal Binding Contract Between Two Consenting Adults. It is not in any way shape or form tied solely to any one religion. In fact, it does not have anything to do with religion whatsoever. Religion did not create the concept of marriage. Religion does not own the concept of marriage.

Actually it kinda does, however I will concede that those outside of the church have also adopted the concept.

To quote a friend of mine, with permission: "Everyone is talking about the Supreme Courts decision about gay marriage. Gays are not trying to redefine the definition of marriage. We do not need the courts to say we are exactly the same as straight people. What we fought for and what was won yesterday was the ABILITY to stand up everywhere in this country and pledge our love to our partners in a LEGAL ceremony.

which could have been done with a state sponcered civil union, with out all the fuss.

What was won yesterday was a hospital NOT BEING ABLE to kick me out of an ICU that my wife is in because I am technically not her "FAMILY", what we fought for and won yesterday was the PROTECTION afforded to every straight marriage in this country.

Which could be done with 'a big gay protest' against hospital policies, because no where in the vow of marriage is it declared we should be the only ones with access to the sick people we love. No, that issue lies with in that very specific institution.

What was fought for and won yesterday was the RIGHT to leave our property and possessions to our LEGAL SPOUSE

.

again civil union would allow for the same thing

It is not about redefining the word marriage, it is about EQUALITY for all people.

b]
it's about taking something from the church/A deeply held religious belief and allowing anyone to basterdize is such a way as to thumb their nose at those beliefs.

It was not about going against GOD or throwing anything in the face of Christians anywhere[/b].

If this were remotely true then why not change the word marriage to civil union? why does your term have to be the same as ours? Why force Churches to be used, Pastors be threaten with Jail if we do not respect your 'Marriage?'

It is not about Gays against Christians, it is about LOVE and being able to profess that love and have that LOVE be RECOGNIZED by the people that make the RULES in this country.

Then you do not understand the word love. Love is to include the respect of our beliefs and not assoceiate what we believe to be as sexual sin, with a covenant that frees us from sexual sin.

It is not a WHIMSICAL idea that we came up with just to piss off Christians in this country...this decision means that Gay men and women no longer have to be scared of what happens if their partners family don't like it that their sister is gay and decide they are going to keep them out of a hospital room, this decision means that the house that a gay couple buys together does not get fought over by a family that has had ZERO contact with their gay relative since they came out.

This is BS. If this was about a hospital rooms or 'stuff' after one dies, then their are a lot easier ways to have met those ends without a 30 year battle with society, and involving the SCOTUS for a final ruling. The reason the SC had to be involved is because a section of the population wanted to remove a religious right from another part of the population and repurpose that right in a offensive way. Why? Because it brings or trys and force acceptance into a religion that forbids a given act. You and your friend are lying to yourself if you tell yourself anything different.

I DO NOT NEED people to agree with my lifestyle, I need people to leave me alone to make my own decisions about MY LIFE and WHO I LOVE.

Again another lie. You just said you needed the right to go to a hospital bedside or to leave stuff in a will without tax. That is acceptance/agreement with your life style.

All gay people want are the same rights that everyone has, those rights afforded to us all in the first words of our Constitution..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——"

Final a bit of truth. you want to be endowed/blessed by your creator, but on your terms (ironically using His) by forcing the church to recognize and accept what God has identified as sexual sin.

Im sure this speech plays well with a like minded crowd, but for those who seek truth can see through the pomp and pageantry to the agenda that lies beneth thinly veiled words. This is and always has been about the children/next generation and who gets to program them. That is why gay people seek the legitimacy of marriage verse a civil union. You need to start the propaganda young inorder to push what the OP identifies as "What's next." And a marriage puts a gay couple on par with a proper Mother and Father.

---

I doubt that you will ever get to heaven but if you do you won't be married.  There are no marriages in heaven.  So you won't need any sexual organs.

[Joods]

And again drippy, the court is NOT forcing your pastors, preachers or any other member of clergy to perform said marriages.

In a survey just released, 19% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

Source.

*emphasis by me.
Sorry Randy, but a survey of opinions taken by people does not make it law. It only makes it the opinion of the 19% of the people surveyed. You fail miserably to make a point and only further prove my argument for me.

[Joods]

Interesting to note that Randy Carson can't keep his facts straight. He says in post #70 that it's 19% and then in posts 72 and 73 it's 25%. Well which is it? 19% or 25%?

Oh wait.. it doesn't matter because it's bullshit anyway and proves nothing about what the law says vs. what a bunch of people THINK in some stupid survey.

[Esquilax]

In a survey just released, 19% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

Source.

Then it follows that 81% of respondents either didn't care or were against such action; what are you worried about? You can find a number of people willing to be wrong about lots of things- and they are wrong on this issue. But if your fear is that churches will be forced to do so in reality- and I can only surmise that to be the case given what you were responding to here- then your citation doesn't really help you: not only is the majority still on your side among the respondents, but the results of a poll don't reflect upon the laws we'll be given in future.

Maybe it sounds strange for me to say this, but have a little faith in your legislative process; any law attempting to enforce the opinions of this less-than-a-fifth of poll people would be blatantly unconstitutional, and you'd be mad to think that all those religious organizations, with all their money and political sway, would not fight it all the way up to the supreme court. Hell, you'd probably have a bunch of secular organizations lining up behind them on that score too.

It's a long shot, man. Way too much of one to seriously consider.