Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.

Mathew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Oh goody

I love Bible quotes!

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"

 

[Syriusly]

Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.

Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.

No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.

So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.

Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.

If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?

Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.

If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive,.

And if horses were zebras, there would be shortage of horses.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do

 

[Steinlight]

No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.

So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.

Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.

There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.

Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?

That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?

You didn't answer my questions, and now you are putting words in my mouth.

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?

 

[Liminal]

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?

I would say yes, only if the same law requires all gay people to convert to either Islam or Mormonism, as a condition for marriage.

 

[Steinlight]

No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.

So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.

Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.

If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?

Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.

If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive,.

And if horses were zebras, there would be shortage of horses.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do

That is true, there would be a shortage of horses, how astute.

I don't care if gay marriage doesn't harm me directly, as I said before, I reject your notion of "harm based morality" as narrow minded and autistic and reject the premise of equality as established moral dogma. As I established through my example of what would happen if everyone adopted homosexuality, the "orientations are inherently different and unequal. One of my primary objections with homosexual marriage is that the normalization and promotion of homosexual relations through gay marriage feeds the persisting condition of Anomie that plagues Western society. That is that moral relativism and secularism begets moral nihilism and atomization, which has social costs, that the narrow sighted "harm based morality" doesn't capture.

 

[Steinlight]

Mathew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Oh goody

I love Bible quotes!

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"

Women are allowed to think, but not to lead the Church. If you don't like it, you can go to one of the several heretical choices that ignore scripture here, or not go to Church at all.

 

[Steinlight]

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.

And thankfully so.

Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.

Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.

They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh goody

I love Bible quotes!

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

Tsk, tsk...try 1 Timothy 2:12

What about Timothy 2:12?

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

[beagle9]

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

Tsk, tsk...try 1 Timothy 2:12

What about Timothy 2:12?

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

And?

 

[Paperman299]

Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.

There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.

Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?

That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?

You didn't answer my questions, and now you are putting words in my mouth.

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?

Putting words in your mouth?? You know what, you should be so lucky to have my words in your mouth, it'd be the first coherent thing you've said.

Stubbornly insisting someone pick one of two childishly simple and absolute views isn't debate, it's just stubborn, and a transparent attempt at distraction to boot. You've asserted over and over that homosexuality has deleterious effects for society, without once explaining what those are. Now that we're asking to hear about those effects, you try and start playing logic games on my views like some bargain bin Socrates.

You've made an assertion that homosexuality harms society. Back it up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?

ROFLMNAO! Have you READ the title of this thread? Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?

They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL! The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: DELETERIOUS.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?

You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.

Tsk, tsk...try 1 Timothy 2:12

What about Timothy 2:12?

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Point?

 

[Paperman299]

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?

ROFLMNAO! Have you READ the title of this thread? Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?

They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL! The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: DELETERIOUS.

The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?

 

[Silhouette]

The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?

Paperman here is trying to pretend as if the OP in this thread doesn't exist: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Pretty much every medical entity takes its psychological talking points from the APA. But when the apex of all knowledge is a cult, then all the lower entities who used to take orders from a bone fide scientific organization that was overtaken silently and insidiously by that cult, would have no way really to know that this new flow of information was completely bogus and sullied with a political agenda.

But lucky for you dear readers, I've provided links and excerpts showing that the American medical community is proceeding on biased information that may or may not have anything to do with the facts. Areas of particular suspect are any areas having to do with homosexuals or so-called "transexuals".

The APA has adopted using surveys of small numbers, clouded with a new priority of audited group-consensus in preference to actual numbers in studies. For those of you laypeople, that means that the APA has discarded science in favor of dogma for all positions it takes for public consumption "as fact". This is the type of situation that George Orwell warned about.

 

[beagle9]

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?

ROFLMNAO! Have you READ the title of this thread? Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?

They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL! The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: DELETERIOUS.

The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?

Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?

OH! A fallacious appeal to misleading authority?

Who in the class would like to formally identify this specific fatally flawed construct and explain why it represents a perversion of human reasoning, thus why discourse representing such is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people?

In point of fact, there is no denying that Homosexuality, not only deviates from the physiological human norm, it deviates AS FAR FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL HUMAN NORM AS IS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE SUBJECTS BOTH REMAIN: HUMAN!

And this without regard to how many degrees in higher education one may have obtained... .

It's not even a remotely debatable point.

 

[beagle9]

The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?

Paperman here is trying to pretend as if the OP in this thread doesn't exist: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Pretty much every medical entity takes its psychological talking points from the APA. But when the apex of all knowledge is a cult, then all the lower entities who used to take orders from a bone fide scientific organization that was overtaken silently and insidiously by that cult, would have no way really to know that this new flow of information was completely bogus and sullied with a political agenda.

But lucky for you dear readers, I've provided links and excerpts showing that the American medical community is proceeding on biased information that may or may not have anything to do with the facts. Areas of particular suspect are any areas having to do with homosexuals or so-called "transexuals".

The APA has adopted using surveys of small numbers, clouded with a new priority of audited group-consensus in preference to actual numbers in studies. For those of you laypeople, that means that the APA has discarded science in favor of dogma for all positions it takes for public consumption "as fact". This is the type of situation that George Orwell warned about.

Reminds us of climate gate...I mean who can believe anything much these days right?

 

[Silhouette]

Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.

No, see you go introducing strawmen like that and you allow a loophole for middle voters to leave this platform. What is wrong with you? There is no comparison between the fact of the 1st Amendment and your tinfoil allegations that "climate change experts ....all 700 accredited experts...are lying to the public about climate change".

Why do you self-dilute your arguments that way?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reminds us of climate gate...I mean who can believe anything much these days right?

Indeed... 'trust' is a very difficult these days. But that's because of the rise of evil, which uses a perversion of human reasoning OKA: Relativism, to advance deceit, through fraudulence, as a means to influence the willful ignorant..

Such is the foundational species of reasoning of that which is known as Left-Think... or the addled intellectual soup on which "Liberalism, Progressivism (fascism), socialism, communism and Islam... rests.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

So now that we understand the addled processes, we can see why suddenly, we're hearing idiots proclaim that THAT WHICH IS ABNORMAL... is perfectly normal.

 

[Steinlight]

...