• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama has considered forcing curches to marry gays

I missed something. He says this applies to civil unions and churches are unaffected.

I don't like the man but this has been a voiced concern that's occurred to me and I've never entertained that churches should be coerced.
 
Last edited:
I missed something. He says this applies to civil unions and churches are unaffected.

I don't like the man but this has been a voiced concern that's occurred to me and I've never entertained that churches should be coerced.

They will be just give it time.

The same logic will be used 'discrimination'. Churches can't prevent blacks from marrying, so why should they prevent gays.

and like I said. The only reason for him to bring it up, is because he's considered pushing te issue.
 
They will be just give it time.

The same logic will be used 'discrimination'. Churches can't prevent blacks from marrying, so why should they prevent gays.

and like I said. The only reason for him to bring it up, is because he's considered pushing te issue.

I'm just quoting this for others to see. A Freudian slip, perhaps? :biggrin:
 
Lets see.

Liberals insist that gay marriage will not affect straight people. Less than 6 months after legalization the Washingtion AG goes after an old woman's livelihood for refusing to support it.

Liberals insist that churches will not be forced to perform to perform gay marriage...:hmm:
 
He said the opposite of what you claim. You have zero basis for making your assumptions. It's just empty headed partisanship.
 
Lets see.

Liberals insist that gay marriage will not affect straight people. Less than 6 months after legalization the Washingtion AG goes after an old woman's livelihood for refusing to support it.

Liberals insist that churches will not be forced to perform to perform gay marriage...:hmm:

Keep fucking spinning! Only your fellow idiots buy into your lies and revisionist history.
 
Government couldn't stop gays from marrying in a church before I don't see why they can force churches to marry them now.

Isn't nice that we have a wall between church and state?
 
Lets see.

Liberals insist that gay marriage will not affect straight people. Less than 6 months after legalization the Washingtion AG goes after an old woman's livelihood for refusing to support it.

Liberals insist that churches will not be forced to perform to perform gay marriage...:hmm:

You were already corrected of this disinformation earlier, and here you are, just repeating it again. YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHEN OWNING A BUSINESS. It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage you fucking tool.
 
You were already corrected of this disinformation earlier, and here you are, just repeating it again. YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHEN OWNING A BUSINESS. It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage you fucking tool.

You are right of course, unless what Nehelm is trying to say is Churches are actually businesses which would be subject to the same state laws and would have to marry gays!

Hmm I kind of agree with him on that!
 
I think that this will turn out like abortion has... abortion is funded by the tax payer, so churches will be forced to marry gay people.

What we have is a left wing tyranny. Under mitt Romney we would've had a right-wing tyranny where gay marriage would be prohibited and that would've been just as shitty.
 
How does:

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal — and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

Turn into:

I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

Which the OP then interprets as:

Obama has considered forcing curches to marry gays

The conservative mind at work.
 
WHAT A FUC@KING case of homophobia thread.
I the first place, what in the FUCK makes you believe any "gay" couple would want to have a ceremony in a church that they do not feel welcome in?
Duh...!

Is anyone suggesting that gays take the right to marry so unimportant and flakey as to use it to simply rub people the wrong way?

When the FUCK was the last time ANY TWO PEOPLE simply married JUST AND ONLY to piss off someone else?

Well, maybe with the exception of Newt Gingrich.

Here is your lesson for today, so pay attention...

If a gay person belongs to a gay friendly accepting church, the couple would feel comfortable with asking for permission to marry in that church.
If the same gay couple happens to belong to a hard line Babtist church, which is not going to happen, then that gay couple would have no reason or desire to turn a happy marriage day for them, into some world war III episode or KKK rally.

So let me get this straight, some people here are dumb enough to think a gay couple would marry simply and just to piss off people or to pull off some stunt using their right to marry?
Is that why YOU got married?
Well was it ????
Was it ???
Is that what your telling us?
Your saying that your marriage had nothing to do with love and desire for your spouse, but instead was only done to piss off people?

Give me a fucking break......

Any two same sex couple wanting to marry will have plenty of gay friendly churches to chose from for the ceremony.
And if not, there are civil ceremonies available.
Actually, I expect we will see a lot of SS marriages performed at sea, on a cruise, by a ships captian. There is the way to do a SS marriage up right.
Not in some fucking homophobia church with the congregation glearing at you the whole time.

God... Are some people here THAT mentally anal?
And you not believe gay people do not take the right to marry to heart in all sincerity?
Just like.... Straight people do?
 
I think that this will turn out like abortion has... abortion is funded by the tax payer, so churches will be forced to marry gay people.

What we have is a left wing tyranny. Under mitt Romney we would've had a right-wing tyranny where gay marriage would be prohibited and that would've been just as shitty.

Getting rid of slavery= "left wing tyranny"
Allowing women to vote= "left wing tyranny"
Allowing women into the workplace= "left wing tyranny"
Desegregation= "left wing tyranny"
Interracial marriage= "left wing tyranny"

Obama is middle/right btw... left wing isn't even on his radar.

Also, this was decided by an extreme right supreme court, not obama.
 
Troll troll troll your boat... :whiste:

The article states the exact opposite of what the OP claims. Furthermore, anyone with half of a brain and even a cursory exposure to both civil law and basic theology can tell you that the civil contract of marriage is a completely seperate institution from the sacrament of marriage. The first amendment still applies here. No church will be forced to marry gays. Period.
 
You were already corrected of this disinformation earlier, and here you are, just repeating it again. YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHEN OWNING A BUSINESS. It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage you fucking tool.

You absolutely can discriminate when owning a business. UNLESS the government puts the discrimination on the no-no list.

So lets recap:

(1) Liberals put sexual orientation on the no-no list
(2) Liberals make SSM legal
(3) A same-sex couple tries to buy flowers for a wedding
(4) A liberal AG interprets sexual orientation to mean same-sex marriage, instead of saying being restricted to something like employment of gay people

But at the end all of that is irrelevant. Saying a small business cannot discriminate is just making an excuse for why it was okay for the woman to be affected.

She undeniably was affected.

You are right of course, unless what Nehelm is trying to say is Churches are actually businesses which would be subject to the same state laws and would have to marry gays!

Hmm I kind of agree with him on that!

I am saying that if liberals pass and interpret laws to force businesses to service SS weddings they very well could pass laws to force churches to perform SS weddings.

Of course they would probably be more circumspect. Probably something like revoking tax-exempt status from churches that refuse to perform them.
 
You absolutely can discriminate when owning a business. UNLESS the government puts the discrimination on the no-no list.

So lets recap:

(1) Liberals put sexual orientation on the no-no list
(2) Liberals make SSM legal
(3) A same-sex couple tries to buy flowers for a wedding
(4) A liberal AG interprets sexual orientation to mean same-sex marriage, instead of saying being restricted to something like employment of gay people

But at the end all of that is irrelevant. Saying a small business cannot discriminate is just making an excuse for why it was okay for the woman to be affected.

She undeniably was affected.



I am saying that if liberals pass and interpret laws to force businesses to service SS weddings they very well could pass laws to force churches to perform SS weddings.

Of course they would probably be more circumspect. Probably something like revoking tax-exempt status from churches that refuse to perform them.
HmeFd3H.jpg
 
How does:



Turn into:



Which the OP then interprets as:



The conservative mind at work.

You don't understand his logic? It works like this. If he says he *won't* do it, it means he's at least considered doing it, which means of course he'll definitely do it.

On the other hand, if he doesn't say he won't do it, then we also know he'll do it because he never said he wouldn't. Every track of logic leads to the same end conclusion: he'll do it.

Makes perfect sense to me.

If you still aren't convinced, smoke a little crack and you'll be in just the right frame of mind to understand. I smoked some just now, which is why I understand it perfectly well.
 
As with anything and everything to do with Obama (or any politician in general) it is not what he says that matters but what he does in the end.

I agree that until he moves to act on any supposed claim of forcing churches to marry gay couples this view is nothing more than baseless and pointless conjecture. However once he does move to act, even if it is done in the simplest and smallest manner possible by pushing to lay out future legal framework, then one can move to criticize.

As for the the ruling I'll hold to the view that it should not be up to government to dismiss or to grant a person the right/permission to join in a civil union with another consenting adult. It is in my view an inalienable right for all individuals to be able to join together with their chosen partners in society rather than an action that can or cannot be approved (i.e. can be easily overturned if the winds of popular political sentiment reverse) by government.
 
Last edited:
I hope you are proud that your representing every sterotype of a typical republican voter who thinks obama is trying to destroy every aspect of their life. I would call you retarded but frankly that would be an insult to mentally disabled.

Have you ever seen him post? This is actually a step up for him. And sadly he's still miles better than nehalem when it comes to this subject.
 
Back
Top