Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

NYcarbineer has the right take on this.

Good.

Unsubscribe.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.

And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.

I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.

So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.

I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.

 

[Seawytch]

I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.

So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.

I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.

You'd like the passages used by anti miscegenationists? Sure (already posted)

Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."

Leviticus 19 "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."

Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Deuteronomy 22: 9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

Deuteronomy 23 :2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sil, you are right. Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.

If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?

85% is a large number muchacho. Spin away.

Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are right. Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.

If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?

85% is a large number muchacho. Spin away.

Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?

Uh, yeah. Too bad you're the only one who missed it..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sigh. Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding. Period.

Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible. But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.

race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming. A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101

Incorrect.

They are analogous in that the Constitution prohibits the state from violating or interfering with the liberty of citizens motivated either by race or sexual orientation:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.
[…]
When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Race is not the sole criterion by which one might sustain discrimination from the state, as to seek to deny gay Americans their civil liberties as a consequence of their sexual orientation – whether that orientation manifests as a result of choice or birth – is just as repugnant to the Constitution as to seek to deny an American his civil liberties as a consequence of this race.

And the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government and public policy-making entities, not to the private sector, is further confirmation of the idiocy and ignorance of the premise of this thread, where no one seeks to 'compel' religious organizations to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage rituals, as no government is indeed authorized to do so.

Last, and as proven to you and others on the right scores of times, the ability to procreate or not is not a 'prerequisite' for entering into the marriage contract, where 'biology 101' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Gadawg73]

Clinton was caught witness tampering, bribing, obstructing justice, lying under oath, selling weapons technology to China for a donation, and Al Gore was recorded on the phone, calling businesses and private citizens, soliciting donations from inside the office of the vice president.

Absolutely nothing..... NOTHING.... was done to either of them. And by the way, that's just the short short short list of the laws Clinton broke, not including the laws Hilliary broke then, and since.

You need a district attorney or US attorney to get a grand jury to indict folks my man.
Called the judicial process.
First you need solid evidence.
Please specifically show me who caught them and where the evidence is.
I am no fan of Clinton as personally I can not stand the bastard but something about the rules of evidence always applies.

You kidding right? Our current AG used US taxpayer funds to arm mexican drug and human traffickers with machine guns. Well documented fact. Did it on purpose. You do that and you go to jail. He gets away with it because he's above the law.

Our president killed American citizens with drone attacks, on purpose. Well documented. You do that and you go to jail. He gets away with it because he's above the law. No trial. No judge. No jury.

Our IRS is deleting subpoena'd emails. A private company does that and people go to jail. The IRS does it, well documented, and people are laughing. The IRS gets away with it because it is above the law.

Illegal immigrants are walking into the US, and our president is claiming our borders are secure. You walk into Mexico and you will go to jail in Mexico. Illegal immigrants are getting away with it because we are a lawless country where certain people, that are friends of the democrat party, have been designated as above the law. Our government is handing out EBT cards to illegals to go shopping at walmart.

Clinton pardoned convicted drug traffickers that were his friends. Again, they got away with it because we are country where the law is now lawless.

Hundreds of Billions of American tax payer dollars routed to "friends" of the Obama's. You do that and you go to jail. He does that and we get, whoops to bad that didn't work. Look at the evil rich moving stuff to china. Again, this administration is above the law. It's a farce.

OK, where are the checks and balances under the LAW to indict and prosecute Holder for sending those weapons to Mexico, the statute under the law to prosecute him and the US Attorney that would present that case to a grand jury?
Specifics please.
Congressional Legislation passed during the Bush Administration allowed that money to be passed to many bad entities be they partisan political cronies or not.
TARP by Bush administration and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 also signed by Bush.
Next.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Sigh. Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding. Period.

Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible. But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong. race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming. A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101

SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage. And parents can adopt. End of your argument.

Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.

Poor Jake, can't answer a question.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.

Tough to be you.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't believe it's fabricated. Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?

If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here? When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.

The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith, suggests to me this is a real issue. If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?

You have trouble talking straightly. Yes, churches being forced to marry folks they don't want to marry is a fabricated problem. There is no issue. I am debating a non-existent issue because you are falsely trying to make it one, and right thinking people here will not let you get away with it.

And you can't answer a question Jake.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I don't care what the SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith. Non-argument. Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage. The result of that is procreation. Adoption is not.

Courts discuss agree you, so move along. Your answer is wrong.

You are rude Jake, and you won't answer a simple yes or no question. So please leave the site.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

It's good to see the pharisees of the far right here on the run.

Says the man who paid his son to drop out of church. Answer the question Jake.

 

[Seawytch]

Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible. But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong. race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming. A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101

SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage. And parents can adopt. End of your argument.

Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.

Poor Jake, can't answer a question.

There was no question, but an opinion. The concepts of right and wrong are not the exclusive property of the judeo/christian religion.

As for procreation and civil marriage, that argument has already been destroyed...by a Republican appointed Federal Judge in Kentucky.

"These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''​

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.

So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.

I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.

There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.

However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.

 

[Seawytch]

So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.

I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.

There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.

However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.

YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, just as soon as gay marriage is ruled legal by the courts heterosexual males will be unable to get a hard on to fuck their wives.
Got it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible. But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong. race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming. A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101

SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage. And parents can adopt. End of your argument.

Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.

I don't care what the SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith. Non-argument.

Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage. The result of that is procreation. Adoption is not.

And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.

Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.

There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.

However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.

YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.

Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.



However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.

YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.

Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.

The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.

 

[Andylusion]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage. And parents can adopt. End of your argument.

Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.

I don't care what the SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith. Non-argument.

Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage. The result of that is procreation. Adoption is not.

And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.

Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.

That's fine. I'll ignore it. They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says. I won't treat them as married, because they are not. If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.

If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me. Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.

But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope. Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it. Period.

Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple. My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.

 

[Andylusion]

YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.

Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.

The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.

Proving only that you don't understand the Bible as much as you claim.