Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
danielost

msnbc compares obama phone call

55 posts in this topic

Msnbc, compares the obama calling a gay right advocate to the moon landing this is wrong in my opinion. The moon landings gave us hope to the future. The only thing I see coming in california is law suits against any church that refuses to perform the marriages. Yes, I know that isdn't what they wanted. But really is, besides if you can get rich why not.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, gay marriage doesn't have crap on space exploration and technology.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's your link to the story? It may not compare to the moon landing in many ways but it is still a milestone in American history.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me the two are of comparable importance, one in technology and the other in humanity. By the way, the idea that churches will be liable for refusing to perform such weddings is stupid nonsense

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Msnbc, compares the obama calling a gay right advocate to the moon landing this is wrong in my opinion.

Nothing against gay marriage, but that is complete and utter BS...

So glad my Grandpa, isn't alive to see this. He actually, worked at NASA, and was instrumental along with many other engineers, who helped put a man on the moon...He worked on the Apollo, Mercury, and Gemini Programs. I bet he's up in heaven yelling about this... :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me the two are of comparable importance, one in technology and the other in humanity. By the way, the idea that churches will be liable for refusing to perform such weddings is stupid nonsense

I hope you are correct, Frank. But from what I can deduce from this whole saga it has been about EXACTLY the refusal of religious entities to solemnize homosexual unions. If not then why all the fuss? My understanding (limited) is that legal agreements between partners have made it possible in most states for the rights normally associated with marriage to be conferred without an actual marriage license. If this has been about legal issues related to government protections, the gay lobby should gladly be willing ti "immunize" all clergy from prosecutions for refusal to go against their specific religious doctrines on this issue - I bet you they will never agree to this. It WILL become an issue of force - at least for awhile.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about you guys, but to me it seems like legal gay marriage is "a small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind." ;)

I value rights to the people higher than space exploration. It's cool, yes, but it does very little for me personally.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get married many ways; it doesn't have to be in church. The very idea of forcing a church to do that would be a violation of the First Amendment and so would get absolutely nowhere in the States.

There are Buddhist temples here in Vietnam who "solemnize" same-sex marriages, but so far the government doesn't recognize them. It seems this is likely to be changed this Fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can get the same benefits with civil unions. The only reason to get the right to marry is to force churchs to do them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can get the same benefits with civil unions. The only reason to get the right to marry is to force churchs to do them.

Is this the mormon line now? because it both statements above are complete BS.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the government legalizing same sex marriage would make it illegal for religious institutions to refuse a marriage. Wouldn't the whole idea of separation of church and state make that impossible? To be quite honest, I don't even think gays would want to be married in a hardcore anti-gay church to begin with. But as far as what the O.P. says, link please, from MSNBC, and not the blaze or foxnews!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't last year a town tried to make a church take down its manger scene on its front lawn because somebody complained about it. I think it was last year, it could have been two years ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the mormon line now? because it both statements above are complete BS.

First I didn't say it was the mormon line.

Second it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please provide the link for your OP danielost...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't do links with this tablet. Besides I heard it on tv. I doubt there is a link to it. It was a comment from the host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't last year a town tried to make a church take down its manger scene on its front lawn because somebody complained about it. I think it was last year, it could have been two years ago.

In the USA anybody can "try" to "make a church" or a private citizen do anything; just like any fool can sue anybody over anything--if frivolous, the lawsuit will be tossed. Nobody, including the government, can make a church or private citizen remove religious paraphernalia from their property (unless a person has signed some homeowners' etiquette policy, some of which have actually banned Old Glory; then you sue!). Poppycock and balderdash.

You really should type out some citations for this dreck (as in www.craplola.com/nativitysceneban/kansas.). It doesn't matter what tablet you're using--you can type.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems to me the two are of comparable importance, one in technology and the other in humanity. By the way, the idea that churches will be liable for refusing to perform such weddings is stupid nonsense

Absolutely true.

As someone with a "dog in this hunt," having already dealt with a frustrated unmarried gay couple, infuriated parents and a vacillating, indecisive and frightened congregation, I concur. Church bodies/denominations/congregations of course "may be sued" for not doing some private citizen's personal bidding; but the plaintiff will be laughed out of the court clerk's office; the suit will be tossed out on its ear, with federal and state statutes protecting religious freedom through and through. Of course the First Amendment would trump it all if some foolhardy judge entertained the possibility of such litigation. Even within denominations which already permit gay marriage/civil unions, no minister can be forced against conscience to officiate at such (yes, some Christians still respect conscience--a deep value among Lutherans, traditional-not Southern-Baptists, Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and many others).

Edited by szentgyorgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't do links with this tablet. Besides I heard it on tv. I doubt there is a link to it. It was a comment from the host.

So a msnbc commentator made a comment that Obama making a phone call was akin to the moon landing? Or Obama backing up a gay advocate was akin to the moon landing? Or a step forward in gay rights is akin to the moon landing?

Sorry if I seem dense, but without a clip or direct quote of what was said I'm just not sure what your OP is supposed to mean.. or what the commentator meant without a reference.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hope you are correct, Frank. But from what I can deduce from this whole saga it has been about EXACTLY the refusal of religious entities to solemnize homosexual unions. If not then why all the fuss? My understanding (limited) is that legal agreements between partners have made it possible in most states for the rights normally associated with marriage to be conferred without an actual marriage license. If this has been about legal issues related to government protections, the gay lobby should gladly be willing ti "immunize" all clergy from prosecutions for refusal to go against their specific religious doctrines on this issue - I bet you they will never agree to this. It WILL become an issue of force - at least for awhile.

Mostly wrong.

In the states where gay marriage is legal, parties have an absolute right to marriage--not necessarily in church, though. Nobody does: If Joe Hetero and Sally Straight want to get married in a church, they are subject to the policies and practices of that church and pastor/priest. If Sally (or Joe) comes in with a black eye saying their fiance did it with a frying pan, that pastor/priest is under no legal obligation to marry them. He or she is, however, ethically bound to refer them to appropriate counseling intervention. Or they have the option of good make-up and a visit to the justice of the peace, or the Elvis Wedding Chapel in Vegas. (See post #17).

Pay attention to the reality of this situation. FoxNews or MSNCB fear-mongering is a canard, a red herring.

Edited by szentgyorgy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hope you are correct, Frank. But from what I can deduce from this whole saga it has been about EXACTLY the refusal of religious entities to solemnize homosexual unions. If not then why all the fuss? My understanding (limited) is that legal agreements between partners have made it possible in most states for the rights normally associated with marriage to be conferred without an actual marriage license. If this has been about legal issues related to government protections, the gay lobby should gladly be willing ti "immunize" all clergy from prosecutions for refusal to go against their specific religious doctrines on this issue - I bet you they will never agree to this. It WILL become an issue of force - at least for awhile.

In the US all legal marriages require a license, period. The notion of 'common law' marriage is another matter altogether. It is a legal concept codified variously in different states. If you are thinking of civil unions, which are not marriages, states which recognize them also require a license.

Edited by szentgyorgy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First N's aren't can't be married cause they're our property, then women can't vote cause they're not our equals, now homosexuals can't marry cause we don't want to be the ones marrying them?

Are we even in the same century?

Listen, I can agree with any Christian saying that their bible prohibits homosexuality, I can even agree with them not performing homosexual marriages within their own religious temples.. What's just plain ridiculous is them saying that homosexuals can't marry at all, in any temple, by any means. Then just saying "they have civil union is that not enough" is even adding insult to injury. Would civil union to your wife or husband be enough or would you want to actually be married? What people do with their lives is none of our business, unless they're hurting us directly, let's keep it that way.

Oh and by the way, let's not pull this "marriage is a sacred ceremony and homosexuals marrying ruins it for me" card, long before the idea of your marriage there was already people making relations between themselves official in their own ways, and in some cases they were between homosexuals. There is also a little thing called relativity. If marriaged is sacred to you, it is because you believe your marriage is sacred. What others do, seeing as how it is none of your concern, should have no affect on the sacredness of your marriage.

Edited by xFelix
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn we have some level headed posters on this issue finally lol. We live in the United States, why shouldn't the rights you take for granted not be taken for granted across the board. Why do we distinguish by race, sex, creed, sexual orientation?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And you can get the same benefits with civil unions. The only reason to get the right to marry is to force churchs to do them.

False. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. No church, synagogue or mosque can be "forced to do" same-sex marriage. To think so is uneducated and possibly delusional; to write it is idiocy.

(see posts 16, 17 & 19)

Edited by szentgyorgy
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Gay marriage is no where close to the moon landing.

The moon landing gave everybody hope for the future. No matter how short that hope lasted. We would be on mars now if the liberals hadn't decided the small amount of nasa's funds were better being sent to egypt or china or throwing it away on entitlements.

Not talking about medicare/cade or social security, these were supposed to pay for themseslves.

Gay marriage although it affects everyone, it only benefits a few.

As for civil unions, the government considers them marriage you can even get a devorce from them.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil Unions remind me of the old segregation excuse, separate but equal In the end they end up very unequal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.