Weddings Ending wedding business due to the new MD same sex marriage law

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
SoftJock Rick said:
I believe you are being PC again Steve...

Not that I really give a hoot, but the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

How are two dudes sucking each other's winkies, gonna conceive a child...?


You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Agree .. just not in the Adam and Eve story and not until it was written. And many "early" marriages weren't necessarily for children. Family fortune, land, war and even peace were often higher on the priority list.

Not saying the bible doesn't overall focus on marriage between man and women .. was only refuting Canute's premise that the bible was the first to create it.
 
SoftJock Rick said:
I believe you are being PC again Steve...

Not that I really give a hoot, but the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

How are two dudes sucking each other's winkies, gonna conceive a child...?


You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Can you give us the scripture reference please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I'm just gonna say this and then get my popcorn.

The Bible was written by man, who is falable; therefore, The Bible cannot be assumed to be the end all be all because man could have made a mistake. Not to mention the numerous times it has been translated and with each translation, syntax can be lost which would increase the chance for errors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
DJ J Mac said:
I'm just gonna say this and then get my popcorn.

The Bible was written by man, who is falable; therefore, The Bible cannot be assumed to be the end all be all because man could have made a mistake. Not to mention the numerous times it has been translated and with each translation, syntax can be lost which would increase the chance for errors.
Click to expand...
They used to kill Heretics you know! LOL :cheers:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
DJCC said:
Can you give us the scripture reference please.
Click to expand...


Sure, there are plenty -- here are a few... :)


Genesis 2:22-24

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Proverbs 5:18

18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

Deuteronomy 24:

5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
SoftJock Rick said:
Sure, there are plenty -- here are a few... :)


Genesis 2:22-24

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Proverbs 5:18

18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

Deuteronomy 24:

5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

Well, not quite what it says. From the King James Version, [SUP]5 [/SUP]When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
Click to expand...

Here is verses 1-5

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

Kinda calls into question that whole "whatsoever god joined together" thing, dosen't it.
 
DJCC said:
Kinda calls into question that whole "whatsoever god joined together" thing, dosen't it.
Click to expand...


Nah, I don't see it that way.

I think it's pretty clear that marriage was for procreation. If we look at that logically, two dudes can't make a baby, and two chicks can't make a baby.

So, guys and chicks get together, and make babies.

There's also the companionship factor. I mean, do you want to spend your time with a guy watching TV or whatever, or a chick with some nice hooters...?
 
SoftJock Rick said:
Nah, I don't see it that way.

I think it's pretty clear that marriage was for procreation. If we look at that logically, two dudes can't make a baby, and two chicks can't make a baby.

So, guys and chicks get together, and make babies.

There's also the companionship factor. I mean, do you want to spend your time with a guy watching TV or whatever, or a chick with some nice hooters...?
Click to expand...

ummmm, I was talking about verses 1-4.
 
I say what should be done is to put all what I call the fruit loops into rocket ships and send them ito outer space forever. I know that will never happen but I say they are mixed up and crazy to me. With that being said I've never done a gay wedding but certainly would do one if the price was right. Their money spends like anyone else money.

Like I said I don't agree with the whole gay thing but as long as they don't approach me with that stupid stuff then I'm doing fine.
 
I think it was a smart decision in the face of a bad law. I'm not terribly religious yet, I also would not choose to place such a big red bulls-eye on my business in the form of law suits waiting to happen. You don't actually have to discriminate ...there just has to be an appearance - and you may well become a target for sting operations by activist groups.

Gay "marriage" is a bad law. Now, I see no reason a gay couple can't get hitched and be granted the same bundle of legal rights that come with marriage. But let's not be STUPID - it needs to have it's own legal name.

"Marriage" already has a legal, common law, cultural, historical, and religious definition that pre-dates modern government and to pass laws that say you can now define it to be whatever you want is BAD LAW. There is now no rational legal distinction upon which to bar you from bigamy (marriage to multiple partners) - for, if marriage can not be limited to define a man-woman relationship then why is it now ARBITRARILY limited to just 2 same or opposite-sex people? If we can remake marriage once we can remake it a thousand times - and that is a bad legal precedent.

That activists on this issue insist on the term "marriage" indicates to me that this is not about equality, not about building a better society - it is about tearing down other people, mocking their values, destroying institutions that comfort, and taking away from others those virtues which gay partners so deeply resent. It is false pretense of denial by society where their true denial is inherent in the very state of their sexual orientation. It is people who so can not tolerate the state of their own existence that they must diminish that of others.

There are gay couples, and there should be legal gay unions - but "marriage" ?? I say to the gay community - "get over yourself already."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Actually Bob, I believe "separate but equal" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. Therefore, it could actually be construed as discriminatory to have a distinct (separate) but legally equal term for a gay marriage.
 
DJ J Mac said:
Actually Bob, I believe "separate but equal" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. Therefore, it could actually be construed as discriminatory to have a distinct (separate) but legally equal term for a gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That kind of bigotry accusation is for mental lightweights. "Separate but equal" plays no role here because there is only a bureaucratic recording of the coupling (license), therefore the distinction is no different than registering businesses as: sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation. This separates nothing and simply identifies the type of entity being registered. There is no legal provision that bars my wholesale business from refusing sales to a sole proprietorship. Likewise, people should be able to taylor wedding services to unions that do not violate the tenants of their religion (a constitutionally granted right).

Not convinced? Then consider the stupidity of applying your "separate but equal" theory to persons working in states where prostitution is legal. At what point do you draw the line at compelling people to provide "equal" services?

As you make clear - your position on this issue is not about equality it is BAD law designed to subvert other constitutional tenants such as the freedom of religion.

Now to my business. How will you enforce your "equality?" Do I actively have to pursue gay weddings and meet an affirmative action quota? Does discriminating mean the same things as not pursuing? If my religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality or the endorsement thereof must I leave my career field to support your notion of fairness?

When you start expanding human rights to include such things as a specific human behavior - have you not now left behind any real notion of equality in favor of advancing your own socio-political and religious preferences?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Proformance said:
That kind of bigotry accusation is for mental lightweights. "Separate but equal" plays no role here because there is only a bureaucratic recording of the coupling (license), therefore the distinction is no different than registering businesses as: sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation. This separates nothing and simply identifies the type of entity being registered. There is no legal provision that bars my wholesale business from refusing sales to a sole proprietorship. Likewise, people should be able to taylor wedding services to unions that do not violate the tenants of their religion (a constitutionally granted right)
Click to expand...

Actually, there are legal differences between those types of business structures, which makes them not equal. You even said have a separate term for gay marriage that holds ALL of the same legal benefits as a heterosexual marriage.


Mental lightweight...really? Do you have to get personal whenever someone disagrees or brings a concept forth that you haven't even considered as being potentially valid? It's often noted that during the course of a discussion/debate/etc, if one has to resort to personal attacks then one has no real ground to base their arguments upon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
DJ J Mac said:
Actually, there are legal differences between those types of business structures, which makes them not equal. You even said have a separate term for gay marriage that holds ALL of the same legal benefits as a heterosexual marriage.


Mental lightweight...really? Do you have to get personal whenever someone disagrees or brings a concept forth that you haven't even considered as being potentially valid? It's often noted that during the course of a discussion/debate/etc, if one has to resort to personal attacks then one has no real ground to base their arguments upon.
Click to expand...
J Mac, he was generalizing. I do not believe he called you a "Mental Lightweight". I did not view it as such. It like saying to one person "I am going to set my Moving Head Light on top of my Speaker on the tripod". The other person answers "That would be crazy because unless you secure it maybe it will fall off and hit someone". The first person cannot accuse the second of calling the other "crazy" or being personal. ;)
 
All I can say is

facepalm.jpg
 
Dennis get penalized for posting the same photo thrice. He must now read through each of Mix's posts again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
steve149 said:
Dennis get penalized for posting the same photo thrice. He must now read through each of Mix's posts again.
Click to expand...



That's cruel Steve -- I would not wish that on any sane human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back