Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Paperman299]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Jeremiah, they have no choice legally.

Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith. What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?

Nothing.

Are we talking about "the Hitching Post" again?

 

[Silhouette]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

 

[Skylar]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Selling cake isn't mentioned anywhere in Jude 1. Simply destroying your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith. What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?

The fact that churches and religious corporations are specifically exempted.

You can ignore this fact. But you can't make us ignore it. Or the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, churches ARE religious corporations...made up of individual christians...who have already been successfully sued and forced as a matter of secular law to abdicate core mandates of their faith (Jude 1).

 

[Skylar]

Yes, churches ARE religious corporations...made up of individual christians...who have already been successfully sued and forced as a matter of secular law to abdicate core mandates of their faith (Jude 1).

And an individual Christian is not a church anymore than a hub cap is a car. Your argument that any individual is a church is pseudo-legal gibberish.

And Jude 1 makes no mention of cake or the selling of it. Your religious argument is pseudo-religious gibberish.

 

[Steinlight]

To the original poster, change your profile picture you fucking faggot.

 

[Paperman299]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

 

[Skylar]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

Silo quite regularly accuses others of what he's doing. I suspect its so when someone accuses him of say, spamming (posted the Trust study 131 times over the last 2 weeks), he can claim they're just copying his accusation.

On the plus side, its a wonderful telegraph of what he plans on doing more of.

 

[Steinlight]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?

 

[Paperman299]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?

My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

 

[Steinlight]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?

My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

I don't think the Bible's opposition to homosexuality is bizarre at all. Disapproval of and revulsion towards homosexuality is pretty universal throughout the world, minus the more secular element of western societies in very recent times. Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction. In reality, you are the one with a bizarre point of view on the matter. You are really going to have to come up with a better argument than somehow calling me the bizarre one, which is actually hilarious.

 

[Paperman299]

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?

My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

I don't think the Bible's opposition to homosexuality is bizarre at all. Disapproval of and revulsion towards homosexuality is pretty universal throughout the world, minus the more secular element of western societies in very recent times. Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction. In reality, you are the one with a bizarre point of view on the matter. You are really going to have to come up with a better argument than somehow calling me the bizarre one, which is actually hilarious.

Universal? Hardly. In fact, throughout history, outside of Christianity and Islam, homosexual practices were pretty common.

But if you want to insist on justifying your prejudicial attitude by relativizing it, well, let's talk about some other attitudes that, throughout history, have been common. Slavery has been pretty abundant. Cruel and unusual punishments (ie stoning adulterers). Racism. Sexism. All if this is A-OK in the Bible, but attempting to apply Biblical strictures in these areas to modern life would seem pretty bizarre now.

 

[Syriusly]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Yet Christian ministers are marrying same gender couples and 'he' still calls himself a Christian minister.

I don't think that "he' cares what you think.

 

[Syriusly]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!

I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.

A person is not a church
A church is not a person

A person pays taxes
A church doesn't pay taxes.

 

[Syriusly]

And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right? Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today? I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?

My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

. Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction..

To bigots.

To anyone not raised in an atmosphere of bigotry- no it isn't.

My child has no revulsion towards homosexuals- her revulsion is towards bigots like yourself.

She and her peers find your attitudes no different than those who argued that African Americans were not equal to European Americans- or that a black man should not be able to marry a white woman.

And she is right.

 

[beagle9]

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument? If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

 

[Seawytch]

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a divorced couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a couple with a child has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a fat couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a couple who eat shellfish has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it. He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister. It is one or the other.

And on and on and on

 

[Seawytch]

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!

Get on it!

 

[Steinlight]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The