Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.

They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

Links to curriculum.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?

Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.

Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".

Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.

In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup just as we do eat pork these days... it won't be long before folks figure out that monogamous gay relationships are not the great and evil sin that their parents told them it was.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry, wytchey. But sexual orientation and race are not analogous. Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.

They were wrong but you're right...right?

Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.

You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right? Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?

You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "right", just as justified in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Links to curriculum.




Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.

Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".

Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.

In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".

That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.

Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.

 

[Kondor3]

They were wrong but you're right...right?

Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.

You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right? Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?

You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "right", just as justified in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.

Only if the rest of us allow the Homosexual Mafia to continue to dominate American politics to an extent far beyond its demographic reach...

With any luck, that begins to end, on January 20, 2017...

 

[Andylusion]

Links to curriculum.




Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.

Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.

Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".

Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.

In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".

Nifty. Still don't care. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Andylusion]

They were wrong but you're right...right?

Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.

You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right? Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?

You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "right", just as justified in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.

Nice. Still don't care. Thanks for stopping by.

BTW, when have I *EVER* cared if others think I'm stupid? Oh... right... never. Still don't.

 

[Crystalclear]

What part of "we don't care what the rest of you think", did you not get?



I'm not here to debate the Bible with you. I could not possibly even try to care less about your views on what the Bible says.



What I believe about the Bible is between me.... the Bible... and G-d.



You want to start a thread on whether we should eat pork, that's fine. I still don't care, and I wouldn't respond to that thread.



This thread is about Homosexuality and the Church.



My Bible says Homosexuality is a sin. You want to debate that?



In my book... the Bible... it's a sin. Period.



My church will not support homosexuality. We won't have a homosexual wedding. We won't allow homosexuals in any position in our church. If we find out you are, you're gone. Just like if we find out you are cheating on your wife, you're gone.



So to recap the bottom line..... all your blaw blaw blaw old testement... balw blaw blaw pork blaw blaw blaw shell fish blaw blaw blaw blaw.....



I DO NOT CARE. You opinion on this matter, has zero value to me. Not trying to be insulting... I am trying to be transparent. What you think about the Bible is immaterial to this topic. I don't care.



Homosexuality is a sin, and my church, will not be a part of it. Period. End of story.



And all of you people have NO SAY in the matter. None.

That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.

The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.

You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it? Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.



As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care. It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.

No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue

 

[Andylusion]

That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.

The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.

You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it? Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.



As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care. It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.

No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue

No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.

There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time. But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.

This, IS.

It's not going to change. Period. Not going to happen. Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.

The rest of us, are not going to. I'm not going to. My church isn't going to.

Sorry. Have a nice day.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue

The entire reason religion was given to men is so that it stands as a solid mooring over the pushes and pulls of time and human trends to degradation. So if religion changes its base foundations [like the mortal sins outlined in Jude 1 below], it has died by definition.

And of course, famous homosexual activists have declared that this is the end game of all their efforts.

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

 

[1776]

Liberals want to control everyone's thoughts, except themselves....

 

[LittleNipper]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Absolutely

 

[LittleNipper]

Can the Church require all schools to open with a reading from the Bible? If a separation exists between Church and State, how can the State require anything from the Church? They do not rule over each other.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's not the least bit adorable to me that you're ignorant enough to not know the history of the Church, and to think your piddling little disapproval will make any more difference than anyone else's has throughout time.

Christianity came to life during the time of the Roman Empire. History records ten specific Roman persecutions of Christians:

4) Trajan - In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished.

Hmm...any that converted were freed? Well, that is considerably LESS than what the Church did for centuries! Those who converted were often still killed (or died from the forced "conversion"), just not quite so horribly.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it? Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.



As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care. It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.

No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue

No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.

There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time. But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.

This, IS.

It's not going to change. Period. Not going to happen. Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.

The rest of us, are not going to. I'm not going to. My church isn't going to.

Sorry. Have a nice day.

Then in thirty years...maybe I'll order a pizza or buy motorcycle boots from what was once your church!

 

[Kosh]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Absolutely

And this proves why "Marriage" is not a "right"...

 

[Andylusion]

No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue

No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.

There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time. But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.

This, IS.

It's not going to change. Period. Not going to happen. Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.

The rest of us, are not going to. I'm not going to. My church isn't going to.

Sorry. Have a nice day.

Then in thirty years...maybe I'll order a pizza or buy motorcycle boots from what was once your church!

That's fine. I'll be at another church with the same Biblical views. But I'm not changing my views, and neither will the church I'm at.

Remember, before Constantine, Rome believed in homosexuality too, and they slaughtered Christians.... almost 2,000 years later, we're still here, and homosexuality is still wrong.

We'll see who outlasts who.

 

[Pheonixops]

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

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

No.


But there's nothing wrong with people creating their own religion to that accepts gay marriage and heterosexual marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

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

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

No.


But there's nothing wrong with people creating their own religion to that accepts gay marriage and heterosexual marriages.

Exactly! And since LGBT is a cult anyway, they should apply for federal-recognition [and probably get it with Obama's blessings] and then the issue of the 14th would be laid to rest.

 

[GreenBean]

Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
Fun game for a betting man like you.

So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?

Come on "Bombs away" - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it . Put up or shut up

Greenbean, you are a 'blow hard' (yeah, pun intended) with your silly statement.

You make a silly statement about what churches will or will not do in a given situation without evidence, you get called out on it, and then you demand the other guy refute your non-evidenced affirmation.

That is not how it works, and you know it.

And, yup, my opinion is Gadawag is right and you are not.

Jakey Boy- I'm telling you the same thing I just told that cigar coddling cum lord winter born - Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth or misquoting me - I did not make a statement about what churches will or won't do , I simply challenged Gadawg to prove his "cock-sure" assertion. So far the only repy I got is not worth responding to , because he loaded it with his fantasy "personal experiences" which he seems to have in great abundance.