Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

In Utah for example to set up encouragement for two people of the natural breeding arrangement to create a household in which children will likely come to them. To set that as the "brass ring" for their discreet community, using the perks of marriage as "incentive to strive" for that ideal they want for themselves. As is their "unquestioned authority" and right [Windsor 2013] to craft their own discreet social norms in behaviors and icons of those sought behaviors.

It isn't the "heterosexual agenda". It's the agenda of the majority and their civil rights to self-rule on questions of what human behaviors to encourage; and which to discourage with local penal, civil and family laws..

 

[RKMBrown]

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals. Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?

In Utah for example to set up encouragement for two people of the natural breeding arrangement to create a household in which children will likely come to them. To set that as the "brass ring" for their discreet community, using the perks of marriage as "incentive to strive" for that ideal they want for themselves. As is their "unquestioned authority" and right [Windsor 2013] to craft their own discreet social norms in behaviors and icons of those sought behaviors.

It isn't the "heterosexual agenda". It's the agenda of the majority and their civil rights to self-rule on questions of what human behaviors to encourage; and which to discourage with local penal, civil and family laws..

Can anyone translate this gibberish to English?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

What's wrong with having morals?

 

[Silhouette]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

What's wrong with having morals?

There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids. It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice. In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching. The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...

It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture. Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

What's wrong with having morals?

There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids. It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice. In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching. The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...

It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture. Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.

There is no way to improve gay lifestyles, but there is still hope for the church yet, and forcing gay marriages would be a big step backwards.

 

[RKMBrown]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

What's wrong with having morals?

There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids. It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice. In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching. The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...

It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture. Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.

You're a lying POS.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

NO, but any church which has a tax excempt status and engages in political activities should forever lose that benefit.

 

[mdk]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.

No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision. Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?

Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax. Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).

 

[mdk]

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status

Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.

No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision. Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?

Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax. Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).

I couldn't disagree more with your post. They should keep their tax exempt status because they are making the decision based off their faith and scripture. Whether you agree with that decision or not doesn't matter. I am not saying I agree with their position but they shouldn't be forced to marry people against their wishes. Removing their tax status sends a clear message from the government, follow our will or we will punish you for it. The power to tax is the power to destroy. That is wrong and a gross overreach by the government. If you support having the church not interfere in matters of the state then you must also support the government not interfering in matters of the church. When it comes to whom they marry or not that is most certainly a matter of the church.

Is WBC even a church? I am not sure? Do they pay taxes? They are not considered Baptists by the Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

[deltex1]

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

The poll asks whether Churches should be required to perform religious ceremonies (apparently) by force of government.

The vast majority of respondents said "No", basically the performance of religious ceremonies by Churches should be up to them.





At least one poster has dishonestly tried to claim that because respondents to the poll don't think the government should force Churches to perform a religious ceremony - that that means there is vast support for not having government recognize Civil Marriages for same-sex couples.

Something the poll does not do.





Does that help?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision. Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?

Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax. Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).

...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches. The subcultural takeover is almost complete. All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant. Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..

Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!

 

[Silhouette]

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic. Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page. Oh wait, let me guess. You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".

What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign? Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic. Sorry that bothers you. Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...

 

[RKMBrown]

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic. Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page. Oh wait, let me guess. You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".

What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign? Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic. Sorry that bothers you. Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...

Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.

 

[deltex1]

I could put up a post on why LIBTARDS should demand that all shit be brown and it would get 3000 responses.

 

[Silhouette]

82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic. Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page. Oh wait, let me guess. You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".

What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign? Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic. Sorry that bothers you. Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...

Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.

Weak recovery bro. Want to try again?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision. Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?

It is a moral decision to the degree that personal beliefs and adherence to faith factors in. But in no way is a political decision. It is a religious decision, and religion is not politics, two different things entirely. Should we merge the Politics and Religious sections of USMB?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

 

[RKMBrown]

82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic. Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page. Oh wait, let me guess. You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".

What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign? Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic. Sorry that bothers you. Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...

Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.

Weak recovery bro. Want to try again?

huh?