Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage! Ready...go to it!

OK, playing dumb I see. Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:

"If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"

Better? Now answer.

Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?

My point is well taken. Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic strongly important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it. So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.

So for dem strategists, what that means in real votes is that for every state where gay marriage is forced on the voters [yea! victory!...?] by a single person or small panel of people....add to that a Harvey Milk style October surprise.... & you have a real democrat crisis on your hands...

Gays..with the help from "some republicans"... have shoved the democratic party [& all our good/productive/sane platforms..like heathcare & green energy] straight into political checkmate.

 

[Silhouette]

Well RKM...Jar-Jar?...

...that's what I thought

 

[Silhouette]

Gotta hand it to RW heathengamer.. this thread is very illuminating...

 

[Seawytch]

Paul was talking about sin, period. Homosexual acts are a sin, period. Nowhere in the Bible is a city destroyed for condoning interracial relations, but, two were destroyed for condoning homosexual acts. Spin that any way you like, sin is still sin.

There you go again, focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the points. Yes, we get it, you believe the bible is gay=bad. A lot of people don't. Some people think the bible says interracial=bad. Both are wrong.



No city was destroyed because of loving consensual same sex relations. In-hospitality was their undoing.



“As I live, saith the LORD GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, [Inhospitality] neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination(homosexual acts) before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” -Ezekiel 16:48-50

Fixed that for you! Thank you for making my point.

Are you editing someone else's posts? The "abominable act" was the attempt at angel rape, not loving consensual same sex relations.

Still ignoring the point and focusing on the irrelevant, I noticed.

 

[Seawytch]

I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'



As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.

I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.

Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.

And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.

"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.



Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.

How is the "sin" of being gay "pushed" on you, exactly?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?

Look at the turnout Jake...impressive...

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage! Ready...go to it!

OK, playing dumb I see. Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:

"If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"

Better? Now answer.

One more time for the slow kid: supporting gay marriage does NOT mean someone supports FORCING a church to perform one!

 

[Jarlaxle]

OK, playing dumb I see. Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:

"If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"

Better? Now answer.

Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?

My point is well taken. Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic strongly important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it. So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.

No, Silly, you're lying again!

 

[bendog]

Thinking bible bangers don't lose their 2nd amendment rights when GLBT get equal protection is evidence of "tepid" support of gay marriage!!! No one disputes this! LOL

 

[Gadawg73]

I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'

As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.

I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.

"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.

Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

 

[GISMYS]

I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.

"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.

Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

Marrage is between a man and a woman not same sex. DUH!!!! SAME SEX IS AN SICK MINDED ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION = A LOWLIFE subhuman act of sin.

 

[kaz]

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege. If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone. Something you are not offering either. Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination. You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.

 

[kaz]

"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.

Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

Marrage is between a man and a woman not same sex. DUH!!!! SAME SEX IS AN SICK MINDED ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION = A LOWLIFE subhuman act of sin.

So you think it's government's job to punish sinners? Wouldn't teaching sinners to stop sinning when there are no victims be a job for the church? I see your argument as being reasonable that you don't want your church marrying gays. But we are talking about government marriage here, not church marriage. So why is it a job for government to make choices on who gets it based on what the church thinks is and isn't a "sin?"

 

[Seawytch]

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege. If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone. Something you are not offering either. Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination. You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.

It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.

 

[kaz]

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege. If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone. Something you are not offering either. Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination. You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.

It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.

When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me. In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.

 

[GISMYS]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

 

[Seawytch]

There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege. If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone. Something you are not offering either. Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination. You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.

It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.

When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me. In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.

What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

 

[Seawytch]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

 

[Andylusion]

I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.

"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.

Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

G-d did judge. He created marriage. Man and woman. Not man and man, or woman and woman.

G-d doesn't care what you think. Neither do I. We're not going to support this, no matter what you say.

And by the way, when we look at what the Bible says is sin, and then determine that someone is committing that sin.... we're not determining who is, and who is not a sinner. The Bible determines that.

You just don't like us pointing out that the Bible says what someone is doing is sin. That's not our fault. We're just messengers. We didn't write this book. It's not our rules, and that's a really good think for you, because if it was up to us to make the rules, you'd be in a far worse place than you are now.

Again, us saying that X action is sin, because the Bible calls it sin, is not us determining what is or is not sin. It's us telling you what G-d calls sin.

Don't like it? Tough. We're not changing the Bible to fit your personal opinion. Thanks.

 

[GISMYS]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!! PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created "church"!!!

 

[kaz]

It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.

When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me. In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.

What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.

You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?