Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Cecilie1200]

Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.

When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion year.

Tell me you did not just suggest that allowing people to pay less tax, is us "subsidizing" them?

You say that like you didn't know that all money and income in the world actually belongs to the government, which generously distributes some of it to us and allows us to use it, provided we do so in a way deemed acceptable by the leftists slavishly sucking government's dick.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Get government out of the business of "Marriage".

It's too late for that not, way too late.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!

I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.

If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....

The definition of "marriage" is:

'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'

Husband.... and wife. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.

You could have multiple females. But it was still between a man, and a woman.

Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married". They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".

Marriage was between a man and woman. If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.

So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law. Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership.... I would be ok with that. I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book. If that's what they want, knock themselves out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But they are not married. Marriage is between a man and woman. Two men, can't be married. Don't care what the law says. They are not married. No bit of paper changes that.

You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.

NO!!! Society is moving backwards to sodom and we have already been there=not a good place!!!

The rock group Boston can help you out, Don't Look Back...

 

[Howey]

But they are not married. Marriage is between a man and woman. Two men, can't be married. Don't care what the law says. They are not married. No bit of paper changes that.

You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.

NO!!! Society is moving backwards to sodom and we have already been there=not a good place!!!

You were there????????????

 

[GISMYS]

GOD'S PLAN FOR MARRAGE OF MAN TO WOMAN=====And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:21-24

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.

Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.

Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​

A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues

Here's an opinion from a Millennial:

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.

We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.

You can’t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We’re not leaving the church because we don’t find the cool factor there; we’re leaving the church because we don’t find Jesus there.​

This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.

"How dare you not address my points as though they're valid, instead of pointing out that they're based on a fallacy, and therefore not worth noticing?! Look, Huffington Post! I win!"

Sounds like someone is a sandy twat. Grab some Vagisil. Then say something that A) demonstrates that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and B) cite a source that isn't even more laughable than your ignorant, fallacy-based "points". Huffington Post? Fucktard, please.

You're not even the ashheap of history. You're the ashheap of short-term memory.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be forced to allow same gender marriage; it is to be hoped, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.

Bingo. More and more people are "hoping" for their churches to be inclusive of their gay loved ones and fewer will attend the churches they don't find that inclusiveness in.

Yes, some will find faiths that accept all as children of God(.)

No one said you weren't a child of God, dear. We said your behavior sucks. This isn't public school, where you get applauded for how well you breathe in and out. If you want to live your whole life like a Special Ed student, knock yourself out. Just understand that the rest of us aren't "haters" for not living like we're "handi-capable".

God, I am so tired of this "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh, really? And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?

And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD! Nothing is bad except Christians! I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!" Topic? What topic? You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.

I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate hypocrisy!

Oh, spare me. You're such a kneejerk anti-religious bigot, they'd use you on recruiting posters, if they had any. You're a walking cliche.

Yes, I "hate" Christians so much that I entirely SUPPORT the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I hate them so much that I entirely support the photographer who refuses to photograph a gay wedding.

You'll blow an ACL if you keep jerking your knee like that, sweetie!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's get back on-topic. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you. I don't even have to prove that they ARE my beliefs. The question is, should the government be able to force me and the other members of my church to behave against our beliefs in order to accommodate what someone else wants? The answer is "NO." It remains "NO" whether you agree with our beliefs, whether you think we're "practicing them wrong; this is what the Bible REALLY says", whether you think we're bad people for believing them, whether whatever-the-fuck-else you want to divert the topic over to. There is nothing you can say about churches and their beliefs that is going to make it okay for you to use the government to violate people's fundamental right to act in accordance with their own consciences. There is nothing you are going to say that is not going to make you any less of a morally repugnant tyrant. Period.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Translation: "I concede!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Translation: "I concede!"

Translation: "Anything you say will be viewed as my win, because that's the only way I CAN win! Bonus that I don't have to address your points!"

Not even a good try. Take your spanked ass and move along.

 

[Andylusion]

Translation: "I concede!"

You really don't grasp that none of us who believe in G-d, have to justify ourselves to you.

Why is that so difficult for you? We don't care what you think about our belief system. That's it. Your opinion on the matter is not required for us to continue to believe whatever we will.

You hate gays!

Ok, so you think I hate gays. Whether I do or not, doesn't matter. I could care less what you think I hate, or don't hate.

Again, you are assuming that your opinion of my views matters to me.... um.... no.... no I don't think so. Not at all in fact.

So go ahead and say whatever you want. I don't care. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and we won't accommodate it..... ever... at any time. Period. End of discussion. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Andylusion]

So in your world..... you think the fact people gave their daughters away for goats and such, means that marriage wasn't defined as a man and woman..... really....

Do fairies and unicorns in your world also redefine marriage?

Thanks for the humor, but at least you are admitting the fact you are trying to change the fundamental definition of marriage. That is what I oppose. You have justified my entire position.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality.
The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. You opinion has been filed away in the oval bin of my mind.

So back to me and my church.... Homosexuality is a sin. We won't have homosexual weddings, and no homosexual will be on our staff. Period.

Have a nice day.

I support that and your right to do that.
And that will never change per the Constitution.
NO church now is forced to marry anyone.
So you do not oppose other churches marrying gay folks as that is not your church.
Got it.

Of course not. The only issue I have with those churches, is if they call themselves Christian. They are not Christian. Homosexuality violates Christian doctrine, and is defined as a sin. You can not be a Christian, and support homosexuality.

Now if they call themselves Scientologists, and or believe the mother ship is in the next comet that flies past, oh fine they can do whatever they want. But if they call themselves 'Christian', that's going to have me in an rage. They are NOT Christian.

I never rage at pagans who are homos. I will rage at fake Christians saying they support homosexuality, when it's a clear violation of Christian belief.

Beyond that, the only outstanding issue is that I will never recognize two men, or two women as married.

If those people have no problem with that, then we're good. But if they come to me and say "Here's my spouse"... I'm going to say... uh no... nope don't think so. Sorry. You are not married in my book. Marriage is between a man and women.

"Well I'll sue!!!" Don't care!. "The government will fine you!" Oh well. Still won't recognize homos as married. Marriage is between a man and women. It's not possible to be married to someone of the same sex.

"Well the law says! And we have a paper that says!" Don't care. It's not married in my book, and I'm not calling you married no matter what you do.

 

[Andylusion]

That's nice... but none of that changes the legal definition of marriage.

Women as property, is not a change in the definition of marriage. Daughters were property too, and it has nothing to do with marriage.

Polygamy and Monogamy, doesn't change the definition of marriage.
In both cases, it's a man and woman, and has been through history.

Women owning property has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

Nor does it have anything to do with blacks, race, credit, rape, or contraception.

So you use nine completely separate and unrelated issues, to justify same sex marriage, when none of them had anything to do with marriage.

Again.... I just posted the old dictionary definition of Marriage, as it was written in the dictionary for over a century or more.

'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'

Now which of the above mindless crap, violates anything in that definition of marriage?

Um... counting... er... ZERO! Got it. So nothing you just blabbered on about has anything to do with the definition of marriage. Moving on.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Do you include mosques in that sentiment?

All religions. Churches, mosques and synagogues. Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us. You find them in every culture.

Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky. They only kill each other over what name to call it. And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.

Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.

I'm beginning to think you might be an atheist.

 

[DriftingSand]

Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present. Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future. Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in. Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe God is and always has been and always be.

I care nothing for atheism, for it is a fool's dream without proof.

The Constitution is secular, and We the People through our legislatures and courts decide marriage law.

Twenty straight court decisions, the majority of American opinion, and the overwhelming supermajority of American opinion are clear indicators that marriage equality is inevitable.

And once again the far left Obama drones show that that they do want the state merged with religion. Get government out of the business of "Marriage".

The state mandates the laws for marriage: always have, which you were for before you were not.

You are losing the contest.

Tough