Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[bripat9643]

Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.

Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.

Translation: I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears, sing "La la la!", and ignore the facts.

Translation: you're a moron who doesn't have anything relevant or intelligent to respond with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No social experiments in school. Teach.

Agreed. When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things. I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.

 

[bripat9643]

I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."

You realize that pretty much every State has a Public Accommodation law, are you saying States don't have the power under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce inside the State?



>>>>

States have the authority do pass such laws. The federal government doesn't. I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.

True, which is why supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good thing as it supports monogamy for those that are married.


Good point.



>>>>

You're extremely gullible if you believe marriage terminates homosexual promiscuity.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.

True, which is why supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good thing as it supports monogamy for those that are married.


Good point.



>>>>

You're extremely gullible if you believe marriage terminates homosexual promiscuity.

It sure as hell don't "terminate" hetero promiscuity!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not gonna worry about gay kids. I'm talking about the agenda. That crap doesn't belong in public schools. If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.

If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.

If your kid calls some other kid abnormal, that's a discipline problem for your kid, not an excuse to brainwash all the other kids in school.

Apparently, our society has completely lost the ability to understand when their personal opinions are irrelevant and unwanted, and to mind their own business. God forbid anyone teach their children to wait until they're asked what they think of someone else's life before sharing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.

Those churches will not be Christian. There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...

Ahh, yes. "You are practicing your beliefs wrong, because someone posted THIS on the Internet. Therefore, I have the right to force you by law to practice your beliefs the way I have determined is correct!" One of my personal favorite arguments.

Let me draw you a picture, Punkin, since I don't think you have the brain wattage to read the previous paragraph and understand how fucking stupid you sound without a detailed Crayola diagram to explain it.

1) No one gives a fuck what you can and can't find posted on the Internet. Doesn't make it correct or factual.

2) Even if it WERE proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it has no bearing whatsoever on what other people believe, or whether or not you, in the guise of the state, have or should have any control over what they believe. You do not "allow" people's beliefs, you do not define them, and however wrongheaded people are, they could never match the level of immorality implicit in EVER allowing others to control the dictates of an individual's conscience.

3) If you actually have to have the morality of freedom of conscience explained to you, you are by definition incapable of understanding it, and I pity you for your incurable state of mental slavery.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Interweebs: very, very important.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, you mean just the opposite.

The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.

By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?

Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church

He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?

You will notice, however, that when He accepted people despite their sins, He did still include the caveat, "Go and sin no more." He accepted THEM, not their behaviors.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state. I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.

I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status. The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights. This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.

The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.

I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course. Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo. Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime? I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.

If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,

why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?

Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?

It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.

What a ridiculous notion. Human beings also eat and shit by nature, but they control THOSE natural functions. Why do leftists always have so much trouble understanding the concept of self-control and personal responsibility?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?

There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.

They don't want to be married by a religion that believes they're wrong. What they want is to use the law to bludgeon those religions into silence and agreement.

 

[Kondor3]

Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?

There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.

They don't want to be married by a religion that believes they're wrong. What they want is to use the law to bludgeon those religions into silence and agreement.

 

[Papageorgio]

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?

That's the libturd modus operandi. "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.

Sadly, the intolerance of the left is all about banning or making laws against differing opinions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't hold itself out as a public service, adult diaper lord. Even if it did, where does the Constitution say they are forced to perform weddings for whoever asks them to?

Such a tall tiny human intellect for a anarcho-commie

You understand public accommodation law, and you don't like it.

No one cares.

I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."

Did you find a good source for your diapers yet?

You understand no such thing, just merely believe it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.

There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.

There is. It's called "purchasing and signing a marriage license in front of witnesses and filing it with the appropriate legal authorities." What, you thought it was the pretty words that made you married? Hell, the officiator at a wedding doesn't have to do anything but sign the license. The words are just for emotional effect.

A pastor, or anyone with the legal power to act as officiator at a legally-recognized wedding, must follow legally-prescribed procedures and meet legal requirements in order to gain that ability. Not just anyone has the ability to perform weddings.

And no, for you crazed leftists in the audience, meeting those legal requirements and gaining the legally-recognized authority to officiate at weddings does NOT make pastors "civil servants", any more than gaining a license to practice medicine makes a doctor a "civil servant".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus said marriage is a man and woman. Was Jesus judgmental?

I doubt it. Not His style.

Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.

And The Bible is not The Constitution.

The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.

Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.

I don't care what you doubt. Post your points.

Iben, no one cares here what you think. You have no points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

babies born with social diseases .. a sure sign of homosexuality


Syphillis is spread between homos as well.

And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
Deadliest diseases:
Syphillis is #10
Aids is #2

And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.

Stop the silliness, please.

Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.

No proof, so I will simply note that if true, the number of incidents makes those of the homosexuals insignificant.

Heterosexual fuck like rabbits. You know that.

 

[Ibentoken]

America has to be destroyed before Utopia can be erected. Kinda like Hitler's Thousand years III Reich.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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, of course not. All they have to do is give up their non-profit status and start paying taxes like any other business.

Sock.

Pretty sure being a non-profit organization does not convey control of one's mission statement, beliefs, or behavior to the government. I feel certain I'd have heard if that clause was included anywhere in the paperwork. Of course, I don't suffer from the apparent autophobia that all leftists seem to have, so freedom of conscience doesn't frighten me.