Gay Marriage declared legal across the USA!

First topic message reminder :

So, the Supreme Court of the United States just legalized same sex marriages across the whole of the USA. They have declared the bans on it as 'unconstitutional'. Great news America! Though was this ever really in doubt longterm?  

Gonna be a fair few weeping conservatives tonight I imagine, might want to be careful they don't cause the Mississippi to flood there  

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court

Yeah, I wonder why someone who doesn't let their sexuality define who they are would use so many anti-gay images, like, Idunno ...



Or worry that gay peoples' marriages somehow undermined his own. Seems like a very insecure thing to do, maybe like how somebody flipping a coin to make a decision wouldn't show a lot of confidence in either heads or tails ...

why would that happen Ben what a stupid thing to say .

I'm happy all this is happening because it is showing bible scripture coming true ,keep the persecution of the Christian church coming

http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

Vicar of Dibley wrote:I'm happy all this is happening because it is showing bible scripture coming true ,keep the persecution of the Christian church coming

http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

It has always been on the gay agenda, as i say they don't want equality, they want their own way...

Movements for civil rights have always had to push back against those who oppress, for one reason or another. Blacks must push back against racists. Women must push back against sexists. Protestants have had to push back against the Roman Church. And now gays must push back against homophobes.

You can always tell it's a civil rights issue because the oppressors are inevitably reaching into someone else's life and meddling about. Racists have tried to deny blacks education, jobs and political rights...and they have tried to force them into criminality as wells as ghettos. Sexists have tried to deny women jobs, status and equal pay; best to keep them barefoot and pregnant. Keep the Hispanics in the field. Keep the Chinese in the laundry.

Today--this week--we deal with the civil rights of gays. Homophobes try to arrange marriages for gays. Not in the ancient sense, but in a new way. They don't tell you whom to marry, but they announce the standards for the matches...must be male or female.


What is the difference between telling someone they must marry Mary Jane, and describing Mary Jane to a 'T'? Or, demanding that Mary Jane must be a Jew or a Catholic? Or that she have blue eyes and blond hair? Or what gender she must be? Whatever...it's people telling other people how to live their lives. Arranged marriages have always been deemed a form of oppression.

It still go on in Muslim countries; we even criticize it as a form of sexism. In the final wish, tho, civil rights are not sexism or religion or racism or homophobia. It's all of those things: It's someone trying to run another person's life.

Whenever you see someone trying to reach over and meddle in someone else's life, you have a civil rights issue.

forcing churches that do not want to marry gays in their church to do so.... would you vote that they must marry the gays...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote: forcing churches that do not want to marry gays in their church to do so.... would you vote that they must marry the gays...

No, I would vote that they can be married and that's all.

In this country we don't legislate on churches or religion. The First Amendment says that the church and the state must be kept separate. The Constitution has a freedom of religion component, and a prohibition of religion component in matters of state or law.

Unfortunately, Britain has a state religion. So y'all think like that...and ask questions like that. If I had my sympathies, I'd champion the rights of gays, and flush religion altogether.

Talking about misinterpreting the bible

I am 100 percent for this ruling. I don't go to bed with any of them and they are only what their maker made them. I am totally convinced no one chooses to be gay.

I wander though, if a gay couple wants to go into mosque will they be forced to let them in like the cake baking deal?? What is your take on that?

Great news is, this surely opens the door for phase two of our marriage laws, " Polyamorous Rights."  If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, Then surely a man should be able to have 7 wives.  One for each day. Eliminates all the problems associated with the once a week sex syndrome.
And for those stay at homes moms and hard working home makers, they too should be able to have a wide selection of choices.

And as phase three, we should let those who are into bestiality marry the animal of their choice too. If your going to change the rules it should apply to everyone and everything, don't you agree?

Hotwired wrote:I am 100 percent for this ruling. I don't go to bed with any of them and they are only what their maker made them. I am totally convinced no one chooses to be gay.

I wander though, if a gay couple wants to go into mosque will they be forced to let them in like the cake baking deal?? What is your take on that?

Great news is, this surely opens the door for phase two of our marriage laws, " Polyamorous Rights."  If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, Then surely a man should be able to have 7 wives.  One for each day. Eliminates all the problems associated with the once a week sex syndrome.
And for those stay at homes moms and hard working home makers, they too should be able to have a wide selection of choices.

And as phase three, we should let those who are into bestiality marry the animal of their choice too. If your going to change the rules it should apply to everyone and everything,    don't you agree?

Here we go again:

1) An animal cannot consent or even communicate that it consents or wants to marry let alone even understand what marriage is.

2) As to Polygamy is it really mutual equal love?
Also:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html

Hotwired wrote:I am 100 percent for this ruling. I don't go to bed with any of them and they are only what their maker made them. I am totally convinced no one chooses to be gay.

I wander though, if a gay couple wants to go into mosque will they be forced to let them in like the cake baking deal?? What is your take on that?

Great news is, this surely opens the door for phase two of our marriage laws, " Polyamorous Rights."  If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, Then surely a man should be able to have 7 wives.  One for each day. Eliminates all the problems associated with the once a week sex syndrome.
And for those stay at homes moms and hard working home makers, they too should be able to have a wide selection of choices.

And as phase three, we should let those who are into bestiality marry the animal of their choice too. If your going to change the rules it should apply to everyone and everything,    don't you agree?

The animal can't consent, adult human beings can.

Hotwired wrote:Great news is, this surely opens the door for phase two of our marriage laws, " Polyamorous Rights." If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, Then surely a man should be able to have 7 wives. One for each day. Eliminates all the problems associated with the once a week sex syndrome. tongue
And for those stay at homes moms and hard working home makers, they too should be able to have a wide selection of choices.

Indeed, throughout history polygamy has been more the accepted pattern than monogamy.

Yes, even women in certain societies. The Trobriand Islanders follow a tradition of female polygamy.

Good point, so did a number of old European tribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry#Europe

The animal can't consent, adult human beings can. wrote:

I would have never guessed. I am speaking on a human level. The animal has no idea the person is sheeping around the barn yard. The point I am making is once you change the rule the door opens for more changes. Personally I don't care if they allow people to marry and animal nor do I care if we change the laws so one can have multiple wives or husbands. But there are those who live those life styles and they do care. So my take is, if you bend for one then you should bend for them all. So do you think they will force the the entry into the Mosque like they did with the cake baking deal?

Well, there is at least one transgender Imam that I've heard of. Do you know what an Imam is?

Hotwired wrote:

I would have never guessed. I am speaking on a human level. The animal has no idea the person is sheeping around the barn yard.  The point I am making is once you change the rule the door opens for more changes.  Personally I don't care if they allow people to marry and animal nor do I care if we change the laws so one can have multiple wives or husbands. But there are those who live those life styles and they do care. So my take is, if you bend for one then you should bend for them all. So do you think they will force the the entry into the Mosque like they did with the cake baking deal?

But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality. You are just saying well lets change it because something else has changed. That is not a reason
Its not a case of bending any rules, there is no reason to deny gay marriage between two consenting adults.
What has in fact happened is that society has once caught up again with how societies once were when homosexuals could marry as they once did before. It was the intervention of religious ideals that banned gay marriage in the first place.

Nope don't know a darn thing about the Shiites and who they regard as a descendant of Mohammed. What I do know is the Muslim religion like most are against gay people. It is my understanding they go one step further and gays are put to death of the other side of the world.

The question you avoided was simple. Let me reword it. Do you think they (the government)will force any Mosque to allow Gay people to enter like they forced the people on the shake and bake deal. And if they refuse will they go after them like the Pizza shop caper? It is a simple yes or no answer. I am not here for lessons on who Imam is and I really don't care.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Good point, so did a number of old European tribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry#Europe

Even today, people seem to follow a pattern of serial polygamy. That is, they take multiple spouses, not at once, but one after the other.

So, one man and one woman monogamy is not even the accepted pattern in our own society today.

But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

Hotwired wrote:Nope don't know a darn thing about the Shiites and who they regard as a descendant of Mohammed. What I do know is the Muslim religion like most are against gay people. It is my understanding they go one step further and gays are put to death of the other side of the world.

The question you avoided was simple. Let me reword it. Do you think they (the government)will force any Mosque to allow Gay people to enter like they forced the people on the shake and bake deal. And if they refuse will they go after them like the Pizza shop caper? It is a simple yes or no answer. I am not here for lessons on who Imam is and I really don't care.

Why would they force them?
Now you are going off tangent to your original point.
Baking a cake is far removed from actually marrying someone.
You do realise that do you not?

Hotwired wrote:Nope don't know a darn thing about the Shiites and who they regard as a descendant of Mohammed. What I do know is the Muslim religion like most are against gay people. It is my understanding they go one step further and gays are put to death of the other side of the world.

The question you avoided was simple. Let me reword it. Do you think they (the government)will force any Mosque to allow Gay people to enter like they forced the people on the shake and bake deal. And if they refuse will they go after them like the Pizza shop caper? It is a simple yes or no answer. I am not here for lessons on who Imam is and I really don't care.

You lack the knowledge to engage in this debate. I say this from my own empathy.

Just FYI, an Imam is the leader of a Muslim congregation (think priest or pastor). There are as many different attitudes toward all things in Islam as there are in Christianity. You need to realize that the world is more complex than either of us can hold in our heads.

Hotwired wrote:But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

The problem is that the animal (as the other half of the equation) is unable to give informed consent.

Hotwired wrote:But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

Hilarious drivel.
The animal cannot consent or even understand what marriage is.
Its not a consenting marriage but more making that animal a sex slave to the person who wants to marry the animal.
In other words you are talking Gobbldygook

Cuchulain wrote:

Hotwired wrote:But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

Hilarious drivel.
The animal cannot consent or even understand what marriage is.
Its not a consenting marriage but more making that animal a sex slave to the person who wants to marry the animal.
In other words you are talking Gobbldygook

Hey Cuch. Congratulations, you've had an encounter with the American version of HF ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Hilarious drivel.
The animal cannot consent or even understand what marriage is.
Its not a consenting marriage but more making that animal a sex slave to the person who wants to marry the animal.
In other words you are talking Gobbldygook

Hey Cuch. Congratulations, you've had an encounter with the American version of HF ...

Indeed it seems so.
I am off to work, so enjoy Ben...

Cuchulain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Hilarious drivel.
The animal cannot consent or even understand what marriage is.
Its not a consenting marriage but more making that animal a sex slave to the person who wants to marry the animal.
In other words you are talking Gobbldygook

Hey Cuch. Congratulations, you've had an encounter with the American version of HF ...

Indeed it seems so.
I am off to work, so enjoy Ben...

Gee, thanks

OK, Hotwired. When we learn to communicate with animals ala Dr. Doolittle, and they tell us they want to marry human beings, then we'll allow bestial marriage, all right? Because we wouldn't want to deny sentient dogs and horses the same rights we enjoy.

Hotwired wrote:The question you avoided was simple. Let me reword it. Do you think they (the government)will force any Mosque to allow Gay people to enter like they forced the people on the shake and bake deal. And if they refuse will they go after them like the Pizza shop caper? It is a simple yes or no answer.

No it isn’t. It’s a compound question. But why is it relevant? Religion has nothing to do with either gays or marriage.

The primary reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision are personal and economic. The nation needs a uniform law so that the states will honor each other under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the US Constitution. Marriage is a status issue. Speed limits and parking regulations may change, but status should not change just because you crossed a state boundary.

Religion has nothing to do with either gays or marriage. wrote:

Really, Then there shouldn't be any reason they can't enter a Mosque right?

Hotwired wrote:

Really, Then there shouldn't be any reason they can't enter a Mosque right?

Your logic has gone astray.  A Mosque is a religious institution.  Religion has to do with religion.  

I said gay and marriage have nothing to do with religion,

YOu never change. You still never answered the question. Same old Liberal shit. This really wasn't about the animals or polygamy it was sarcastic joke on how far this country goes once a door is open. The rebel flag is now leading to wanting to change the names on the buildings. And Im sure some goodie two shoe will want even more once that is done. I know a lot of gay people and one is a family member, they personally could give a rats ass about the marriage law or the cake deal. And the rainbow lighting of the white house does not sway them to vote for Hillary. They are smart enough to know when they are being DICKED!!! Have a nice night. This is boring.

Hotwired wrote:YOu never change. You still never answered the question. Same old Liberal shit.  This really wasn't about the animals or polygamy it was sarcastic joke on how far this country goes once a door is open. The rebel flag is now leading to wanting to change the names on the buildings. And Im sure some goodie two shoe will want even more once that is done. I know a lot of gay people and one is a family member, they personally could give a rats ass about the marriage law or the cake deal. And the rainbow lighting of the white house does not sway them to vote for Hillary. They are smart enough to know when they are being DICKED!!! Have a nice night. This is boring.  

I guess my main question is, why do you equate gay marriage with bestiality or anything non-consensual -- i.e., rape -- in the first place?

Do you think heterosexual marriage is akin to rape?

No my logic hasn't gone astray. From the looks of things you just pretend to have some.  They forced person who's RELIGIOUS belief is homosexuality is wrong to entertain gay people with a cake. All I asked is do you think they will force the allowance of gay people into a Mosque. Religion is not church  nor Mosque bound. It is part of a lot of peoples every day life no matter where they are. When those people were being forced to bake that cake it was an infringement on their religious belief. No different then allowing gays to enter a mosque. Nothing compond about my question. It was asking you and anyone who read it, their opinion on whether or not they will force any Mosque to allow gays to enter if a gay person chooses to do so. It is simple.

Hotwired wrote:YOu never change. You still never answered the question. Same old Liberal shit.  This really wasn't about the animals or polygamy it was sarcastic joke on how far this country goes once a door is open. The rebel flag is now leading to wanting to change the names on the buildings. And Im sure some goodie two shoe will want even more once that is done. I know a lot of gay people and one is a family member, they personally could give a rats ass about the marriage law or the cake deal. And the rainbow lighting of the white house does not sway them to vote for Hillary. They are smart enough to know when they are being DICKED!!! Have a nice night. This is boring.  

Oh, and if your gay family member votes for someone who isn't in favor of this, he or she is an idiot.

Hotwired wrote:YOu never change. You still never answered the question. Same old Liberal shit.  This really wasn't about the animals or polygamy it was sarcastic joke on how far this country goes once a door is open. The rebel flag is now leading to wanting to change the names on the buildings. And Im sure some goodie two shoe will want even more once that is done. I know a lot of gay people and one is a family member, they personally could give a rats ass about the marriage law or the cake deal. And the rainbow lighting of the white house does not sway them to vote for Hillary. They are smart enough to know when they are being DICKED!!! Have a nice night. This is boring.  

It's telling that your "sarcastic jokes" are neither sarcastic nor jokes. When they can be answered quite literally, you are left with no point.

If you are friends with so many gay people, why are you asking questions about gay rights over here?

Hotwired wrote:No my logic hasn't gone astray. From the looks of things you just pretend to have some.  They forced person who's RELIGIOUS belief is homosexuality is wrong to entertain gay people with a cake. All I asked is do you think they will force the allowance of gay people into a Mosque. Religion is not church  nor Mosque bound. It is part of a lot of peoples every day life no matter where they are. When those people were being forced to bake that cake it was an infringement on their religious belief. No different then allowing gays to enter a mosque. Nothing compond about my question. It was asking you and anyone who read it, their opinion on whether or not they will force any Mosque to allow gays to enter if a gay person chooses to do so. It is simple.

Your question was compound because it was really two questions.

If you are serious about Mosques, the reason why it is irrelevant is because here in the US we have separation of church and state under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. A Mosque is not a state institution or government.

The Supreme Court decision prohibits states from drafting laws against gay marriage. So...religion governs Churches and Mosques. The Supreme Court governs states.

Well Ben they are happy idiots.
Neither you nor professor quill are capable of answering a simple question using nothing but your opinions. That kind of makes you both morons. And Professor Quill I am not asking about gay rights I was asking about gay rights being forced on others. No one I knows wants to push their rights and their lifestyle on anyone that does not accept who and what they are. It doesn't mean that much to them to mean anything to people who do not accept them. When asked if they would have insisted on the cake. The answer was NO. they would go else where to someone who was willing to bake a cake. Their money spends good anywhere. They seem to think like many others all of this is staged. Sorta like the people who fainted when Obama spoke. They all must have died no one faints anymore when he speaks. They laugh but no fainting.. Have a nice night.

Hotwired wrote:Well Ben they are happy idiots.  
Neither you nor professor quill are capable of answering a simple question using nothing but your opinions.  That kind of makes you both morons. And Professor Quill I am not asking about gay rights I was asking about gay rights being forced on others. No one I knows wants to push their rights and their lifestyle on anyone that does not accept who and what they are. It doesn't mean that much to them to mean anything to people who do not accept them. When asked if they would have insisted on the cake. The answer was NO. they would go else where to someone who was willing to bake a cake. Their money spends good anywhere. They seem to think like many others all of this is staged. Sorta like the people who fainted when Obama spoke. They all must have died no one faints anymore when he speaks. They laugh but no fainting.. Have a nice night.  

Thanks, you too!

Oh Ben, HB case with the death of the grandson has now been postponed again. 4 1/2 years and it still hasn't went to trial. It was set for tomorrow but now its in November. The system is broken.

Hotwired wrote:Well Ben they are happy idiots.  
Neither you nor professor quill are capable of answering a simple question using nothing but your opinions.  That kind of makes you both morons. And Professor Quill I am not asking about gay rights I was asking about gay rights being forced on others. No one I knows wants to push their rights and their lifestyle on anyone that does not accept who and what they are. It doesn't mean that much to them to mean anything to people who do not accept them. When asked if they would have insisted on the cake. The answer was NO. they would go else where to someone who was willing to bake a cake. Their money spends good anywhere. They seem to think like many others all of this is staged. Sorta like the people who fainted when Obama spoke. They all must have died no one faints anymore when he speaks. They laugh but no fainting.. Have a nice night.  

Well, now all of your questions have been answered.

As for the cake, it is neither a state entity nor a religious entity. A cake is a product sold in a store. A store is governed by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. So the law can reach the cake...the First Amendment of the Constitution removes the Mosque from the question.

Damn sorry Ben thought that was a PM.. no matter

Quill ok whatever you say.

Hotwired wrote:No my logic hasn't gone astray. From the looks of things you just pretend to have some.  They forced person who's RELIGIOUS belief is homosexuality is wrong to entertain gay people with a cake. All I asked is do you think they will force the allowance of gay people into a Mosque. Religion is not church  nor Mosque bound. It is part of a lot of peoples every day life no matter where they are. When those people were being forced to bake that cake it was an infringement on their religious belief. No different then allowing gays to enter a mosque. Nothing compond about my question. It was asking you and anyone who read it, their opinion on whether or not they will force any Mosque to allow gays to enter if a gay person chooses to do so. It is simple.

You offer no reason why they would.
One is baking a cake
The other is performing an Islamic wedding
So where in their holy books does it state they are not allowed to bake a cake
Your points are far removed and a Mosque does not have to perform a marrige, where you mistakenlly believe it has to be religious.
It was Christians that created a ceremony for marriage centuries after the formation of Christianity
You cannot force a priest or Iman to marry people in a religious extablishment. You can however file discrmination where a baker which is not a religious establishment but a bakery denies you a cake due hypocritical beliefs. These same beliefs that do not stop them serving disobedient children, adulterers etc.

Hotwired wrote:Oh Ben, HB case with the death of the grandson has now been postponed again. 4 1/2 years and it still hasn't went to trial. It was set for tomorrow but now its in November. The system is broken.

I'm really sorry, HW. I can't even imagine the pain of going through that, and you know I've gone through some tough situations.

Glad to see you posting here, and I hope you don't take my disagreement on political stuff personally.

Since churches aren't being forced to marry gay people, Imam's shouldn't either. No one here is advocating for that anyway.

Hotwired, allow gay couples to marry to celebrate their consensual and mutual love for each does not automatically open the door for polygamy or bestiality as you seem to imply it would.

Polygamy is not based on absolute devotion to one person, bestiality is not consensual and contains the serious possibility of disease or damage to the body.

You haven't provided even a single reason as to why exactly gay marriage could lead to this.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Hotwired wrote:But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

The problem is that the animal (as the other half of the equation) is unable to give informed consent.

And therein, lies the only difference you need!

Hotwired wrote:No my logic hasn't gone astray. From the looks of things you just pretend to have some.  They forced person who's RELIGIOUS belief is homosexuality is wrong to entertain gay people with a cake. All I asked is do you think they will force the allowance of gay people into a Mosque. Religion is not church  nor Mosque bound. It is part of a lot of peoples every day life no matter where they are. When those people were being forced to bake that cake it was an infringement on their religious belief. No different then allowing gays to enter a mosque. Nothing compond about my question. It was asking you and anyone who read it, their opinion on whether or not they will force any Mosque to allow gays to enter if a gay person chooses to do so. It is simple.

And that IS exactly why their belief is irrelevant in the eyes of the law
They were not forced in the free time to make a cake at all.

The Business that must operate according to the laws of the land, Failed to meet the laws of the land
Someones personal religions does not enter into it, that is literally against the US constitution.
No person was forced to make a cake AT ANY TIME that person breaking the law could have stopped they could quit
You do not have a right to run a business however you choose, and slavery is illegal so their employer would not be able to force them to stay.
No one was forced, Just the Religious Person MADE THE CHOICE to keep a job over their faith that was completely their decision. If for any reason you cannot meet the requirements of a job you should probably not have that job. Any Customer service employee (cake maker included) MUST be able to put customer service beyond their personal beliefs OR they are not suitable for the job.


You have no argument or point As Franklin and Jefferson Already laid down EXACTLY what the law was in this circumstance. So unless You hate America respect the Founding fathers

Cuchulain wrote:

Hotwired wrote:But you are not providing a justifiable reason to change the law on bestiality.

h please get a grip. The door is open. Ask someone in love with an animal what is justifiable. Who are you or me to decide what that is. The person loves the animal in the same way you love a person. So I guess LOVE would be the justification.

Hilarious drivel.
The animal cannot consent or even understand what marriage is.
Its not a consenting marriage but more making that animal a sex slave to the person who wants to marry the animal.
In other words you are talking Gobbldygook

Are we sure

korban dallas wrote:



Are we sure

They look so reluctant

Ben_Reilly wrote:

korban dallas wrote:



Are we sure

They look so reluctant

Yes i know the feeling but glad it all worked out in the end

Hotwired wrote:No my logic hasn't gone astray. From the looks of things you just pretend to have some.  They forced person who's RELIGIOUS belief is homosexuality is wrong to entertain gay people with a cake. All I asked is do you think they will force the allowance of gay people into a Mosque. Religion is not church  nor Mosque bound. It is part of a lot of peoples every day life no matter where they are. When those people were being forced to bake that cake it was an infringement on their religious belief. No different then allowing gays to enter a mosque. Nothing compond about my question. It was asking you and anyone who read it, their opinion on whether or not they will force any Mosque to allow gays to enter if a gay person chooses to do so. It is simple.

Meet America’s first openly gay imam

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/12/20/meet-america-s-firstopenlygayimam.html

Gay-friendly 'mosque' opens in Paris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20547335

New ‘Open Mosque’ in Cape Town welcomes openly gay Muslims

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-open-mosque-cape-town-welcomes-openly-gay-Muslims/