Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

But hey... in your defense, as a Relativist, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

Keyes, you're well known as the most relativist poster on this board. Citing your opinion as 'universal, infallible law', while you talk to yourself in the form of your imaginary 'reader', while giving yourself 'concessions', with all of your sources being yourself.

You're the avatar of relativism.

 

[Skylar]

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive

The Religion is objective, the religious are subjective.

Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective. As its gloriously interpretive. Even within the same faith, the same general culture, over time. Take....the puritans, the founders, and modern Christians.

The Puritans executed gays and adulterers.

The founders just gays.

Modern Christians, neither.

Did god 'change his mind'......or did the Christian faith change and adapt with the times, subject to culture, history, society and the personal context of any given Christian?

Pick which. Either God is inconsistent.....or Christianity is relativistic and subjective. Either proves my point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.

And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there. Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.

Well let's see...

You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.

When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin. Try walking into church drunk and disorderly. You'll be shown the door el pronto.

Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God. But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.

I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.

But at the end of the day it's not the church's job to make someone turn from their sin... its the church's job to provide a place for people who believe in God, thus who respect God's law, to come to fellowship together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_r_my_Keys: Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

JakeStarkey: So says St. Keys the Relativist. And as fact, as opposed to Keys' relativism, it is immaterial to American jurisprudence.

 

[Skylar]

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.

And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there. Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.

Well let's see...

You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.

When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin. Try walking into church drunk and disorderly. You'll be shown the door el pronto.

Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God. But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.

I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being....religion isn't objective. Its hopelessly interpretive and subjective. Changing with the times, with history, with society, with the personal context of any given Christian.

Many Christian faiths are embracing gays. Some are making them pastors. And that's perfectly fine. As there is no Leviathan to tell them which interpretation is right and which is wrong. That's for the individual to decide. Which is how there are so many religions, so many sects, so many interpretations within each sect.

With nothing mandating that any of them got it right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where_r_my_Keys: Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

JakeStarkey: So says St. Keys the Relativist. And as fact, as opposed to Keys' relativism, it is immaterial to American jurisprudence.

Well that fucks Jesus big time, he hung out with every sinner around plus his own sins. He wouldn't be at Key's Church of the Sinless either, blocked at the door.

Found a church for Keys, no drunks: Fearing Same-Sex Marriage Louisiana Church Kicks Out Alcoholics Anonymous Group ThinkProgress

Didn't say if they kicked out the other sinners yet, like divorced people and other God's Law breakers...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective.

ROFL! Skylar you're so pitifully subjective, you can't find a distinction from the religious and the religion.

That such is subject to interpretation is IRRELEVANT... .

Your own favorite example, wherein Christians once executed homosexuals... and do not today, only shows that the subjective nature of the RELIGIOUS... has caused a EXPLOSION in sexual deviancy.

You want to claim that executing the homosexual was wrong... but to do so you have to ignore that homosexuals have for the entirety of human history come out of the closest right on the heels of cultural collapse, whereupon they've run right back into the closet.

There's a reason that they executed homosexuals and the Supreme Court being weeks away from DECIDING if two men can marry one another... is the best example that comes to mind at this late hour.

Without regard to what the SCOTUS decides, history tells us all that its only a matter of time before you're back int he closet and having allowed you out of the cloest has given us all a chance to re-learn WHY you were in there, in the first place.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty

Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law? Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news. There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful. And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags. You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...

Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.

And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there. Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.

Well let's see...

You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.

When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin. Try walking into church drunk and disorderly. You'll be shown the door el pronto.

Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God. But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.

I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.

But at the end of the day it's not the church's job to make someone turn from their sin... its the church's job to provide a place for people who believe in God, thus who respect God's law, to come to fellowship together.

A church with no sinners is a,..............................................wait for it,...............................................storage unit. Learn your own damn faith. Jesus walked away from asswipes, not sinners.

"Jesus often ate at the same table with “sinners”, and when he did, the Pharisees questioned why He did so. Jesus responded by saying “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” (Matthew 9:12)"
The Church is for Sinners not Saints Power to Change

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective.

ROFL! Skylar you're so pitifully subjective, you can't find a distinction from the religious and the religion.

The religion is whatever the religious say it is. Note how Christianity has changed so dramatically over the years. You can't argue that Christiainty is 'objective' when its that inconsistent and malleable. Christianity is clearly subjective and relativistic.

Remember, there's no Leviathan to break ties. If you declare you have the God given right to 'eradicate homosexuals' while another Christian faith makes a lesbian their pastor.....God doesn't come down to break the tie. Its all just subjective, interpretative relativism.

Its how every faith is practiced. How ever religion exists: in a state of perpetual interpretative relativism. Changing as the times change, changing as society changes, changing as history changes, changing with the personal context of any given Christian.

That such is subject to interpretation is IRRELEVANT... .

Its obviously relevant, as it defines how every faith is practiced.

Your own favorite example, wherein Christians once executed homosexuals... and do not today, only shows that the subjective nature of the RELIGIOUS... has caused a EXPLOSION in sexual deviancy.

It shows that Christianity changes over time. Making any claim that religion is 'objective' obvious nonsense.

You can't get around that. All you can try to do is excuse the subjective, interpretative , changing and relativistic nature of religion. With every excuse being an admission of that subjective, relativistic nature.

See how that works?

 

[dblack]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Well, next time don't think, you're a moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

St Keys the Relativist meanders along.

 

[Skylar]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

 

[Skylar]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.

 

[dblack]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

 

[dblack]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.

No, you're letting your bias against libertarian views run amok. The point I'm making here is that it was a mistake to interpret the first amendment as an excuse for religious people to ignore laws they don't like.

 

[Skylar]

Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

 

[rcfieldz]

I googled gay church and got this:
Google
Which led me to this:
Florida Church Opposes Gay Scout Leaders Equates Them To Pedophiles VIDEO Gay News Towleroad
And here's the real link and video:
Nokomis pastor s anti-gay messsage sparks anger

 

[Skylar]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.

No, you're letting your bias against libertarian views run amok. The point I'm making here is that it was a mistake to interpret the first amendment as an excuse for religious people to ignore laws they don't like.

Yet you've argued that the PA laws shouldn't exist. Can you get to the fucking point please.

Its not libertarianism I have an issue with. Its bullshit proxy issues I have a problem with. We've already debated this. You're wasting my time. Get to the point please.