Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Soooo....

The above post I made I was in the process of making when I received a "error 520" message for this whole website. But before the refresh could bump me I'd copied the post and pasted it to wordpad. Then I see that it was a data redactor with a shunt to a fake http address.

Interesting. I wonder if it was a general attack on the website or just this topic? 82% is pretty compelling. I'll give you that at least.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You'll have to use another ad hominem. Race has nothing to do with butt sex.

Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?

Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage". Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.

Where did I say anything about race?

Might have been a misquote. Sometimes the function gets screwed up when I delete a bunch of irrelevant text to the topic I want to address.

The post you quoted was word for word what I wrote nothing in it mention race.
But it's ok

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?

I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State

Has no one a response to this?

No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief

 

[Ropey]

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?

I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State

Has no one a response to this?

No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief

So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.

If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.

As they did with Roe v Wade.

Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.

(imho)

 

[JakeStarkey]

"people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed" is a lie, Sil.

Folks support gay marriage as well as the right of churches to guard their rights.

Can't you tell the truth?

 

[RKMBrown]

See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best

No that's not what the poll says. You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.

 

[Silhouette]

See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best

No that's not what the poll says. You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.

It speaks for itself. You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.

 

[RKMBrown]

See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best

No that's not what the poll says. You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.

It speaks for itself. You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.

You're just a lying POS it does not say that. You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.

The poll states "Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA."

 

[Silhouette]

See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best

No that's not what the poll says. You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.

It speaks for itself. You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.

You're just a lying POS it does not say that. You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.

No, I don't claim to be religious at all. Search my posts. What you will find is me saying I don't have religion in my life. I just understand some things about christianity because I was raised in that church but no longer officially affiliate with it for reasons of my own.

And in fact that is what the poll does say. At the very least 82% of responders say "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". There is no other way to boil it down.

 

[RKMBrown]

See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best

No that's not what the poll says. You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.

It speaks for itself. You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.

You're just a lying POS it does not say that. You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.

No, I don't claim to be religious at all. Search my posts. What you will find is me saying I don't have religion in my life. I just understand some things about christianity because I was raised in that church but no longer officially affiliate with it for reasons of my own.

And in fact that is what the poll does say. At the very least 82% of responders say "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage". There is no other way to boil it down.

Wrong again you LYING POS. It does not say what you say it says. Your just a POS homophobic bigot.

The poll states "Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA."

FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong again you LYING POS. It does not say what you say it says. Your just a POS homophobic bigot.

The poll states "Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA."

FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.

Well, Silly's summation is correct in that a church should never be required to perform any religious ceremony against the tenants of their faith. They never have nor will they ever...after all, this IS America.

 

[NLT]

You are attempting and failing at mind fuck central. I am sorry for what happened to you. Hetero predators are awful and there are far more of them as well. But if we use your reasoning, then we have to give up all marriage, and that will still not keep bad adults away from children. Don't you get that?

Nah...since the overwhelming majority of predators are MEN..,only women should be allowed to marry each other and bear children. Nothing but stud services for you Jake!!!!

you sound just like bodey, do you wear a kilt too?

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong again you LYING POS. It does not say what you say it says. Your just a POS homophobic bigot.

The poll states "Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA."

FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.

Well, Silly's summation is correct in that a church should never be required to perform any religious ceremony against the tenants of their faith. They never have nor will they ever...after all, this IS America.

Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll. Silly did'nt say that. Silly changed it to mean something completely different.

 

[Seawytch]

you sound just like bodey, do you wear a kilt too?

No, although I do have enough Scot in me to warrant one.

It's still true that, overwhelmingly, the perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are men.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll. Silly did'nt say that. Silly changed it to mean something completely different.

She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".

That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Someone shoot this stupid thread and give it an indignant burial.

 

[mdk]

Absolutely not. The church has every right to marry or not marry anyone they wish. Besides, there are a number of churches where gays can have a marriage service preformed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?

I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State

Has no one a response to this?

No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief

So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.

If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.

As they did with Roe v Wade.

Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.

(imho)

I don't make the rules it is what it is you either accept the government over reach or tell the government to go fuck itself. I choice the go fuck itself.

 

[Ropey]

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?

I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State

Has no one a response to this?

No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief

So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.

If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.

As they did with Roe v Wade.

Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.

(imho)

I don't make the rules it is what it is you either accept the government over reach or tell the government to go fuck itself. I choice the go fuck itself.

It's that the Supreme Court now legislates (act) their opinion in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State.

That's the problem I see.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's that the Supreme Court now legislates (act) their opinion in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State.

That's the problem I see.

Wouldn't that also be government over reach?