Author Topic: This week is just the beginning of a civil rights movement for marriage equality  (Read 6871 times)

I eat shellfish all the freaking time as well as all types of pork.
HECK, I am eating bacon wrapped beef cutlets right now and had shrimp last night.

pork and other pig products are prohibited by islam and not the OT iirc

in judaism, you cant have pork or shellfish

fair enough
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 04:34:36 PM by Kearn »

I eat shellfish all the freaking time as well as all types of pork.
HECK, I am eating bacon wrapped beef cutlets right now and had shrimp last night.

Read Blocko's post
There is nothing wrong with this. I enjoy a good piece of bacon myself. I don't like shrimp though, just as a personal preference.

pork and other pig products are prohibited by islam and not the OT iirc

in judaism, you cant have pork or shellfish

I eat shellfish all the freaking time as well as all types of pork.
HECK, I am eating bacon wrapped beef cutlets right now and had shrimp last night.
in judaism, you cant have pork or shellfish
If you consider yourself atheist, even if you're considered Jewish, why would it matter if you ate that?

Look at what happened to Chik-Fil-A for example. They said they don't believe gay people should marry, and you know what happened. A bunch of people get mad at Chik-Fil-A and do their best to offend them.
It was a lot more than just saying it, they also donate money to groups that work against it, and they don't want to give them there money.

Not requiring, just forcing on churches if the couple wants to marry in a church.
Neither should the government be allowed to say who can't marry.

So our country should decide what religions do and do not? That doesn't sound very free.
The forget? Did you just skip reading and assume I was saying something against you? I said that church and state are supposed to be seperate, so no, laws making churches required to marry same love coupled should not exist. I was agreeing with what you said. Laws should not be passed requiring churchs to allow it. I was agreeingwith you.

It says that when Jesus arrived, the more strict laws like what to eat and how to dress were lifted.
The last time I was dragged to a church, the pastor said that the only thing Jesus changed was that you no longer have to sacrifice animals to be forgiven for your sins, you just get it automatically through Jesus
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 04:38:07 PM by Headcrab Zombie »

Take it like this
A lot of species have homoloveuals but we're the only ones who have people that push those who are away.
Take that for a difference!

The last time I was dragged to a church, the pastor said that the only thing Jesus changed was that you no longer have to sacrifice animals to be forgiven for your sins, you just get it automatically through Jesus

I don't whole agree with the pastor there. Yes, we are no longer required to kill animals as a sacrifice, but a lot more than just that changed.

With the topic of gay rights and such it really pisses me off when people go "its not natural" you know why? Because there are alot of things that are okay that isn't natural.
Cloths
Cars
Guns
Weapons of mass destruction
Backpacks
Ect ect


A few, but not as many compared to the 60s and 70s. It's mainly just for them to have the right to use birth control, and have the entitlement to have abortions.
They don't have every right us men do.
When a woman is tough or strong or even brave, people call them a lesbian or they don't like them (I'm not saying this is a right or anything, this is totally irrelevant what I'm saying, but just throwing it out there).
And when a man is feminine, they get called gay. And lesbians tend to be more accepted than gay men.

Feminists say women are superior to men.
That would be the "feminational socialists", most feminists want actual gender equality, which I fully support.

What if a gay person really wanted to get married in a church? It seems pretty unfair if they would be refused service just because of the personal opinion of the people there.

What if a gay person really wanted to get married in a church? It seems pretty unfair if they would be refused service just because of the personal opinion of the people there.

Its a belief

You wouldn't force people to do something against their belief, and if they don't think gay marrge is right, then don't force them to marry them.

It was a lot more than just saying it, they also donate money to groups that work against it, and they don't want to give them there money.
Well, the gay people could've just stopped going there. They didn't have to do things to make the company go insane.
Neither should the government be allowed to say who can't marry.
I never said I'm against them marrying. I only said I'm against them marrying in our churches.
The forget? Did you just skip reading and assume I was saying something against you? I said that church and state are supposed to be seperate, so no, laws making churches required to marry same love coupled should not exist. I was agreeing with what you said. Laws should not be passed requiring churchs to allow it. I was agreeingwith you.
Then I have no need to argue over that. :)
The last time I was dragged to a church, the pastor said that the only thing Jesus changed was that you no longer have to sacrifice animals to be forgiven for your sins, you just get it automatically through Jesus
That's not entirely true, as Captn said, the pastor is wrong because many other things were lifted, but not everything.

Its a belief

You wouldn't force people to do something against their belief, and if they don't think gay marrge is right, then don't force them to marry them.
But why do they have the right to deny them that just because they believe that homoloveuality is a sin for no other reason than the fact it was the idea of some guys thousands of years ago and everyone else is doing it so i guess i have to too!

Besides, what if it was the belief of those people that they should get married? Wouldn't the same thing apply?

But why do they have the right to deny them that just because they believe that homoloveuality is a sin for no other reason than the fact it was the idea of some guys thousands of years ago and everyone else is doing it so i guess i have to too!

Besides, what if it was the belief of those people that they should get married? Wouldn't the same thing apply?

They can go get their own building, if they want =)

Now in the case where a church is meeting in a building they do not own, and a gay couple wants to marry in the building, it should be up to the owner of the building. But as a Church, I do not think the pastor would marry them. Its one thing to have the Church marry them, but another to just marry in a building. It should be up to the owner of the building.

They can go get their own building, if they want =)

Now in the case where a church is meeting in a building they do not own, and a gay couple wants to marry in the building, it should be up to the owner of the building. But as a Church, I do not think the pastor would marry them. Its one thing to have the Church marry them, but another to just marry in a building. It should be up to the owner of the building.
I know, but I'm just saying it seems kind of unfair.