Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[CurveLight]

Yeah I missed the part where he changed his CLAIM at all. You keep trying to insist that his posts focus on YOU and your "challenge"

No I've not said his posts focus on my challenge. All I did was point out he claimed he responded to the challenge with proof and he never did but with dishonest cheerleaders like you it doesn't matter. I'm sick of repeating it just so ***** like you can ignore it.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "fucking bigot" like a disturbed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

Lol! "Rabidly badgered" Holy shit you are a joke. His whole position of denying gays the title of Marriage is based on pure bullshit. He cannot be honest with himself or others and simply admit he views Marriage as a sacred right and gays, for being gay, do not qualify. I've seen through his smoke screen and called him on it and now he's scrambling and frankly, with your dishonesty and ignoring the fact he cannot suppport his claim shows you are imbalanced which is why I laugh at you.

 

[Madeline]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible.

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Not familiar with Ancient Egypt, are ya?

 

[Madeline]

No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.

I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.

The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.

Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.

Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.

Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.

Immie

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

The church is a place of worship. If a group of people make a church and vote to buy property, why shouldn't the 'church' be allowed to permit actions that are approved by the 'church'?
If you own your house and kids gather in your yard to visit with your children and everything is good, then some kids that don't want to behave or follow your rules, visit under false pretence, wouldn't you ask them to leave?
Many homosexuals want to force their choices onto others as ACCEPTABLE; tolerance is no longer good enough (the original spoken public intent). Where will it stop? Already, some homosexuals are claiming they have 'a right' to marry; where is that written (millions of people are not married, sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes a person doesn't find a suitable spouse)?
Deception in the smallest form is still: DECEPTION.

Your house is PRIVATE property. The NJ church had a side business, renting out a PUBLIC accommodation. Kinda sorta like the difference between who you must serve at your dinner table vs. who you must serve in your restaurant.

 

[CurveLight]

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Not familiar with Ancient Egypt, are ya?

Or Mesopotamia. Want to have some fun with it? Ask about Abraham pimping out his wife not once but twice and David having 700 wives. Yep, the OT sure is a solid source on the "sacred" anchor of what it means to be married.

 

[CurveLight]

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

The church is a place of worship. If a group of people make a church and vote to buy property, why shouldn't the 'church' be allowed to permit actions that are approved by the 'church'?
If you own your house and kids gather in your yard to visit with your children and everything is good, then some kids that don't want to behave or follow your rules, visit under false pretence, wouldn't you ask them to leave?
Many homosexuals want to force their choices onto others as ACCEPTABLE; tolerance is no longer good enough (the original spoken public intent). Where will it stop? Already, some homosexuals are claiming they have 'a right' to marry; where is that written (millions of people are not married, sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes a person doesn't find a suitable spouse)?
Deception in the smallest form is still: DECEPTION.

Your house is PRIVATE property. The NJ church had a side business, renting out a PUBLIC accommodation. Kinda sorta like the difference between who you must serve at your dinner table vs. who you must serve in your restaurant.

It's been explained several times and he refuses to admit it.

 

[Valerie]

minutia fucking BIGOT!

His whole position of denying gays the title of Marriage is based on pure bullshit.


He cannot be honest with himself or others and simply admit he views Marriage as a sacred right and gays, for being gay, do not qualify.

I've seen through his smoke screen and called him on it and now he's scrambling


and frankly, with your dishonesty and ignoring the fact he cannot suppport his claim shows you are imbalanced which is why I laugh at you.

ppp wa?











I bolded and underlined all sorts of stuff for your better COMPREHENSION.

Atheist marry too. They could care less about religious blessings.

There are over a thousand federal and state rights and privileges that go along with legal marriage.

I want those just like every other married person.

Exactly!!

And I want you to have those privileges too.

...


I realized that ... the homosexual community was excluded from many privileges of marriage and that despite my religious convictions, it was not right that the government play favorites.

It was after that that I began to think that civil unions were the fairest way to handle this issue. If a gay couple gets married in a church, then I am in full support of that couple and the institution that married them.

>>

...

my entire point in this discussion has been that I believe the state should license all couples as civil unions regardless of sexual orientation giving exactly the same rights and privileges to all couples.

It is not up to the state to discriminate.

So, I have to ask why have you been giving me a rash of shit for several days about this?

Immie

I agree with you, both, homosexual couples are treated unfairly and that needs to change. It is not right for the government to play favorites.

I simply make the statement that marriage is and has always been a Rite of the Church and make the rather decent request that the state not be in the marriage business at all, but issue civil contracts to all couples, gay or straight, that provide the legal benefits that today's married couples enjoy to all, yet leaves the church out of the civil aspects of relationships. I have not once stated that churches should not be allowed to provide marriage ceremonies to homosexual couples and a couple of times, I made the statement that I hoped my church would change its ways in such a regard, but I seem to be the bad guy for saying all of that.

If a gay couple gets married in a church, then I am in full support of that couple and the institution that married them. What I am not in support of is the activists using the term "marriage" to insist that all churches provide their facilities for their weddings.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Serious? You are serious here?

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "fucking bigot" like a distrubed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

Immie is not a bigot. Immie is stuck on a point that I disagree with. He thinks the Churches have a lot to fear from gays and lesbians if marriage equality is the law of the land.

I disagree.

I think some people who are tolerant of gays and lesbians still fear us, unnecessarily IMO.

He is a bigot because he doesn't want gays to publicly hold the title of "Marriage" because they are gay. If that isn't bigotry then what do you call it?

Marriage traditionalist?

 

[hortysir]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

I know preachers/churches that have refused to marry 'straight' couples because they didn't pass their pre-marriage counseling.
I had a preacher refuse to marry my wife and I because we weren't members of his church.
I don't see why a preacher shouldn't be able to refuse whoever they want.

To the poster that said to be against using the word "marriage" is a "conservative" thing:
Tell that to my gay assistant manager that is president of our local democratic party headquarters, a heavy donor to Obama et.al, who knows that the definition of the word marriage is one man and one woman. He knows that you can't put an eraser on the end of a crayon and call it a pencil. he doesn't want to to redefine a word to have a legal union with his partner. Just the rights.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Right now the rights are only conferred on those with the title of 'married'.

Domestic partners don't have the same rights and priveleges as married people. Domestic partner sounds like roommate.

My wife isn't my roommate.

 

[Againsheila]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

I know preachers/churches that have refused to marry 'straight' couples because they didn't pass their pre-marriage counseling.
I had a preacher refuse to marry my wife and I because we weren't members of his church.
I don't see why a preacher shouldn't be able to refuse whoever they want.

To the poster that said to be against using the word "marriage" is a "conservative" thing:
Tell that to my gay assistant manager that is president of our local democratic party headquarters, a heavy donor to Obama et.al, who knows that the definition of the word marriage is one man and one woman. He knows that you can't put an eraser on the end of a crayon and call it a pencil. he doesn't want to to redefine a word to have a legal union with his partner. Just the rights.

My friend grew up in a Lutheran Church. He decided to marry a Buddhist. It was all arranged, no problem until the church hired a new preacher and that preacher not only refused to marry them but refused to allow the marriage to take place in that church. Thankfully, I know people and was able to get him a beautiful wedding at another church with only two weeks notice. The retired preacher came out of retirement to counsel them in several sessions over the two weeks and the wedding was beautiful. At least that's what I'm told. I was too busy downstairs preparing the reception to even see the wedding. We were also lucky that that church was available because it's usually booked up for weddings in the summer, it's a beautiful old church in downtown Tacoma. My Aunt was a deacon for awhile and she put in a good word so that we could get the church.

 

[CurveLight]

Hey Val, you're so damn busy with the bold feature you totally missed how you simply proved my point he does not want gays to have the public title of Marriage. Thank you! Lol......

 

[CurveLight]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

I know preachers/churches that have refused to marry 'straight' couples because they didn't pass their pre-marriage counseling.
I had a preacher refuse to marry my wife and I because we weren't members of his church.
I don't see why a preacher shouldn't be able to refuse whoever they want.

To the poster that said to be against using the word "marriage" is a "conservative" thing:
Tell that to my gay assistant manager that is president of our local democratic party headquarters, a heavy donor to Obama et.al, who knows that the definition of the word marriage is one man and one woman. He knows that you can't put an eraser on the end of a crayon and call it a pencil. he doesn't want to to redefine a word to have a legal union with his partner. Just the rights.

Exactly! Churches are allowed to discriminate at their leisure and there is no threat rising to the level of denying the title of Marriage to gays. As for your co-worker.....I don't know what that has to do with the discussion because even in the US the definition of Marriage has never been one man and one woman.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hey Val, you're so damn busy with the bold feature you totally missed how you simply proved my point he does not want gays to have the public title of Marriage. Thank you! Lol......

Actually, if you're talking about Immie, he's ok with some of us using that title in our social circles if our own faith groups have married us.

 

[hortysir]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

I know preachers/churches that have refused to marry 'straight' couples because they didn't pass their pre-marriage counseling.
I had a preacher refuse to marry my wife and I because we weren't members of his church.
I don't see why a preacher shouldn't be able to refuse whoever they want.

To the poster that said to be against using the word "marriage" is a "conservative" thing:
Tell that to my gay assistant manager that is president of our local democratic party headquarters, a heavy donor to Obama et.al, who knows that the definition of the word marriage is one man and one woman. He knows that you can't put an eraser on the end of a crayon and call it a pencil. he doesn't want to to redefine a word to have a legal union with his partner. Just the rights.

Exactly! Churches are allowed to discriminate at their leisure and there is no threat rising to the level of denying the title of Marriage to gays. As for your co-worker.....I don't know what that has to do with the discussion because even in the US the definition of Marriage has never been one man and one woman.

Just that most that are against it, are against it because of the word.
He said he doesn't want to take the word a way....just call it a civil union or whatever, but still have the same rights as a married couple.
And, BTW,

Marriage: The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of man and woman for life.

 

[Valerie]

Hey Val, you're so damn busy with the bold feature you totally missed how you simply proved my point he does not want gays to have the public title of Marriage. Thank you! Lol......

Keep dreamin'

 

[Smartt33]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.

I did not say that everyone is a Christian. I did not say that America is a theocracy.

All I said was that marriage was derived from the Bible, and that it was for one man and one woman.

So, if gays want some kind of union, go for it, but marriage is not that union.

However, as I have said many times, if there becomes a law legalizing and recognizing gay marriage, so be it. That will be America's loss.

Just leave the principles of the Bible alone.

I know some gay people, and I love them just as I love anyone else. this is not about anyone's relationship with gay people, it is about a Biblical principle.\

Marriage is derived from the Bible? Rotfl! Who the hell makes such a ridiculous claim?

Your only correct response would be the source and documentation of that source. Unless you do that, you have said nothing.

 

[Smartt33]

So, do you think Atheists and those other religions besides Biblical religions should or should not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

I believe this is all about the concept of marriage and not a word. However, there seems to be some tossing of words like unions, and such. Legally, I suppose people can have a marriage contract, and not be in the bounds of the Biblical concept of marriage. That would be a secular marriage, and God would not be in it.

So...you admit that the term "marriage" can be used secularly...for example...secularly by gay couples getting a secular marriage license.

Sure. God is not in their union anyway, let them get a license under the law, get their benefits, and such. It is meaningless anyway. It is not about getting married for them. It is about getting benefits.

God is not in their relationships, and that is their sad state.

However, I am against gay marriage and will vote against it because I believe it will be an endorcement by America if that becoems the legal trend, and then America is indeed sunk.

 

[Smartt33]

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Serious? You are serious here?

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

But, where did their concept of marriage come from?

 

[logical4u]

Immie, there is a very long line of decisions holding that a "public accommodation" business cannot discriminate. Some rely on the 14th Amendment, others on the Interstate Commerce Clause. What the church in NJ did was wrong, or at least they did it wrong. So they got tagged. Big deal.

Your "fear of extremists" regretfully reminds me of the plea to moderate blacks to "wait, don't try and change things so fast" back in the day. I'm sorry, but it does seem as if it is a plea to GLBT people -- please don't intrude.

And here's the problem. You have no right that does not impair your neighbor's. None. The only way GLBT people can "avoid intruding" is to disappear...back into the closet. Since that will never happen, and the days in which it did saw so much terrible suffering, seems to me it is time to man up and adapt, Immie.

It ain't heterosexual-only world in the US anymore. People who want to raise children, watch tv, listen to music, use public facilities, etc. without ever once being reminded that some folks are GLBT are shit outta luck.

Is it impairing your neighbor to take their child (no matter what age) against their wishes for your own physical satisfaction? Is corrupting a neighbor's child, impairing on their plans for grandchildren (from green methods)? Is deceiving your neighbor to seduce their child, acceptable?

Why do you keep openly fantasizing about seducing children you sick fuck dick whack?

If you are seducing another person, is that someone else's child? I added that the age was not the point (void your above statement). You are taking someone else's hopes and plans for "their" family's future and twisting it into something that can never be "normal" (and according to the homosexuals posting: a life of misery and discrimmination). Why would you do that to another family or for that matter, your own parents?

 

[Smartt33]

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Not familiar with Ancient Egypt, are ya?

Not too much up on the Bible are you. The first five books were written after many years of oral transmission. These books tell of all of the time, including ancient Egypt. The concept od the union of a man and a woman (marriage) was iniriated in the Bible. even Egypt and their unions come from that beginning.