Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Kosh]

No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".

SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.

You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.

i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

 

[Kosh]

You can believe whatever you wan, Androw. So can you, Yurt.

But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.

Oh my the racist far left Obama drones are reaching down deep now and posting things not even connected to reality.

 

[Andylusion]

You can believe whatever you wan, Androw. So can you, Yurt.

But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.

That's nice. I still don't care.

I'm not trying to change your belief system.

I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is. G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.

That's all there is to it. And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with. We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law. When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d. Sucks to be you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can believe whatever you wan, Androw. So can you, Yurt.

But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.

That's nice. I still don't care.

I'm not trying to change your belief system.

I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is. G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.

That's all there is to it. And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with. We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law. When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d. Sucks to be you.

God's law was invented, like God.

Do you know why the first commandment reads as it does, because the Jews had some many gods before that, and you don't even pray to that one, you went them one better and choose Jesus, the son of a god...

 

[Andylusion]

You can believe whatever you wan, Androw. So can you, Yurt.

But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.

That's nice. I still don't care.

I'm not trying to change your belief system.

I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is. G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.

That's all there is to it. And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with. We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law. When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d. Sucks to be you.

God's law was invented, like God.

Do you know why the first commandment reads as it does, because the Jews had some many gods before that, and you don't even pray to that one, you went them one better and choose Jesus, the son of a god...

Thank you for submitting your opinion. It has been properly filed away in the Oval Cabinet, for permanent storage. Thanks for sharing.

When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know. Until then, you can assume that I am a Christian. A Bible believing, G-d fearing Christian.

You can also feel free to assume I will remain that way until I die, which is also the point where I'll stop opposing Homosexuality being anywhere near my family, my church, and my faith.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Still don't care. You don't get it do you? I don't care what you think the law of the land is. I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.

I'm a Christian. As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life. Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.

So you're against the 13th amendment then?

Pretty dumb question.

Who led the fight against slavery? Oh right... Christians.... not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians.

That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)

And does the Bible support racism of any type? Nope.

Did I not already post, even on this very thread, Acts 10:34:

Then Peter began to speak: "Now I understand that God shows no partiality."

What does that say? There is no racism. The fact all men came from Adam, suggest there is only one race.

We Christians, who believed there was a higher authority than man's law, are the very ones who ended slavery sir.

And now you ask me if I'm against the 13th amendment?

Do you not see what a dumb question that was?

The Bible supports slavery. So you should opposed the 13th amendment.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Not sure what the 13th amendment has to do with racism. You must be confusing it with the 14th.

 

[Yurt]

SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.

You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.

i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

according to scotus it is a fundamental right

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Marriage was always white people and white people or black people and black people...until it wasn't. Women used to not be able to own property in the marriage...until they could.

Know what they told those interracial couples that wanted to marry? That they weren't being discriminated against because they could marry someone of the same race...just like you are telling me I'm not discriminated against because I can marry someone of the opposite gender. Same discrimination, different day.

Now, if you don't like that civil marriages are called civil marriages, the onus is on you and others that don't want gays to say "married" to change the name of ALL civil marriages to civil unions...not just for the gays.

By the way, marriage is a pagan tradition. The wedding ring? Pagan to it's roots.

Nothing of what you said changed anything of what I said. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

The race issue.... is a RACE issue. Not a redefining of marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, I am well aware of where the wedding ring came from. So what? Does that change what it stand for between a man and woman today? No. Does it change what it means to me? No. Does it matter at all to anything we're talking about in this coversation? No.

Moving on.

You were ranting about pagans...sorry, just thought you should know.

Marriage isn't anymore. Marriage is now also between two men or two women. Moving on.

 

[Kosh]

i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

according to scotus it is a fundamental right

It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".

 

[1776]

I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....

 

[emilynghiem]

Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.

You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...

[MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]

"Majority of citizens" I know are tolerant of Christianity, Crosses, Christmas, and Bibles.

But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.

 

[Seawytch]

The Bible supports slavery. So you should opposed the 13th amendment.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Yes, the bible was used by both sides of the slavery debate...and modern day Christians are finding that the bible is a lot less anti gay than they were led to believe.

There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here's What They Really Say.

Why the New Testament Doesn't Condemn Gay People

 

[Seawytch]

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

according to scotus it is a fundamental right

It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".

Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....

We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.

 

[emilynghiem]

SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.

You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.

i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)

people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't

These are EQUAL BELIEFS
whether it is one person's political belief versus another

Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
if people don't have the same political beliefs
that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people

how can you possible say that the ruling
by the Court is valid law or not?

Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
* if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
* if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied
equal protection and representation

There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place

I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt

so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed

 

[Kosh]

according to scotus it is a fundamental right

It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".

Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
over forcing them to provide services against their faith

YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions

I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....

We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.

 

[1776]

Uh idiot....there are plenty of liberals pushing for group think.

I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....

We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.

 

[Kosh]

i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar

And "marriage" is not a "right"..

Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)

people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't

These are EQUAL BELIEFS
whether it is one person's political belief versus another

Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
if people don't have the same political beliefs
that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people

how can you possible say that the ruling
by the Court is valid law or not?

Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
* if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
* if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied
equal protection and representation

There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place

I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt

so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed

"Marriage" is not a "right". If the racist far left Obama drones could accept fact, then we would not have these problems.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.

That's usually because it's in a place where it doesn't belong. I have no problem with all faiths sharing the public square, as long as all of them can, not just the majority faith as in the past.