Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[emilynghiem]

So, should we reverse all these changes?

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
If you keep Marriage out of the state altogether,
you don't have to fight any of these battles.

It equally contradicts "separation of church and state"
to impose EITHER "belief in marriage equality including same sex"
OR "belief in traditional marriage between one man and one woman"

What the liberals need to decide is
A. if we BELIEVE in separating beliefs from govt, then shouldn't we apply that equally to OUR own beliefs other people don't believe in so we don't impose on others
B. if we BELIEVE in legislating based on one set of beliefs
shouldn't ALL groups have the right to impose THEIR beliefs by majority or political lobby

Which way is it?

If BOTH parties can only function by imposing their members' beliefs on the public by majority rule, they should both be censured or banned for religious abuse of authority.

There is nothing wrong with defending and practicing one's own beliefs,
but imposing on other people who believe differently is unconstitutional
where govt laws, authority or process is used to discriminate against others.

 

[emilynghiem]

YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??

OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
I do believe Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice embodied as divine authority over all laws.
Yes, this includes secular gentiles under natural and civil laws
"Equal Justice Under Law" Equal Protections of the laws
and Consent of the Governed as the Spirit of natural laws for the Gentiles under Christ.

Do you believe in Christ Jesus
as bringing Universal Salvation to all people
Jews and Gentiles included together?

I believe this, and believe that Jews are addressed using Jewish laws,
Gentiles are addressed using natural laws, Buddhists are addressing using Buddhist laws,
and all these laws are under the SAME authority of Jesus as "Equal Justice Under Law"

Do you believe Jesus addresses all people using their own native laws and tongues?

 

[GISMYS]

YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??

OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
I do believe Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice embodied as divine authority over all laws.
Yes, this includes secular gentiles under natural and civil laws
"Equal Justice Under Law" Equal Protections of the laws
and Consent of the Governed as the Spirit of natural laws for the Gentiles under Christ.

Do you believe in Christ Jesus
as bringing Universal Salvation to all people
Jews and Gentiles included together?

I believe this, and believe that Jews are addressed using Jewish laws,
Gentiles are addressed using natural laws, Buddhists are addressing using Buddhist laws,
and all these laws are under the SAME authority of Jesus as "Equal Justice Under Law"

Do you believe Jesus addresses all people using their own native laws and tongues?

NO 10000% NO!!! THERE IS NO Universal Salvation to all people,THAT IS A DEMONN INSPIRED LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL. BILLIONS have and will choose to reject JESUS AS LORD AND AS THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOR.
.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll here is impressive. 85% of the over 100 people who voted believe gay marriage shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to participate in promoting it. It just about matches the number of people who can't stand Dick Cheney.

It's just an interesting number in light of all those stories you hear about "American's support gay marriage". Where? In the 15%?

 

[KNB]

Do any of you undestand that gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states? Does anyone realize that yet?

Gay marriage is legal because gay marriage is not illegal. Does everyone understand this? It really isn't complicated. Since America can't outlaw gay marriage based on religious scripture (unless the First Amendment to the US Constitution is abolished), gay marriage is therefore legal and open to every couple, regardless of the Bible.

Get used to it, America. Your only chance to ban gay marriage is to trash the First Amendment so that religious dogma can become public law. Is that what Christian Conservatives want?

 

[RKMBrown]

The poll here is impressive. 85% of the over 100 people who voted believe gay marriage shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to participate in promoting it. It just about matches the number of people who can't stand Dick Cheney.

It's just an interesting number in light of all those stories you hear about "American's support gay marriage". Where? In the 15%?

What the poll says, retard, is that people don't agree that we should force a church to marry a couple against their religion. It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney. And nothing to do with support or not of gay marriage. What a retard you are.

 

[BillyP]

YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??

No they're not, Jesus paid everyone's sin debt by dying on the cross, so actually, that makes hell empty.

 

[Andylusion]

So, should we reverse all these changes?

We've been over those. The entire pict is wrong. So are you.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.

Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.

I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.

No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.

 

[candycorn]

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
if the conflict in beliefs
is between the "authority who signed the agreement"
and the other members/owners/leaders or others associated with that church,
shouldn't they resolve their issues first BEFORE signing a rental agreement with
same sex couples?

If that church or authority was "misled" to sign an agreement they didn't really agree to,
I don't think it is fair to force them to uphold it.

For example, if I didn't know the couple was an older person and an underaged minor who does not have parental consent either, if I found out later I would ask to void the agreement.

Well, you're talking about illegalities where as they wouldn't have been granted a license and no court would enforce such a contract. So yes, I would ask to void the contract as well.

I just happen to respect consent of people and would not force people to uphold contracts they don't agree to, but support mediation to fix the problem where all people agree to the new solution. I don't believe in forced revocation or forcing a change to a contract, but any changes should be by consensus of the people affected.

If you are saying that a separate authority can rent out a church separately from the congregation members and their beliefs, I would still recommend an agreement with those members before doing anything controversial.

Well, I was talking about the Senior Pastor or someone in the church hierarchy. Not someone "outside the congregation unless you think that the church officers are "outside". I would argue that the congregation has no say in the matter since they are not being injured by such an event.

 

[JoeB131]

In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.

 

[Andylusion]

In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.

Funny... Romans said that about Christians too. In fact, they slaughtered and killed them.

Nearly 2000 years later... hmmm... we're still here, and still won't accept homosexuality.

No, I don't think so Joe. Just don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Andylusion]

A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.

Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.

I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.

No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.

Exactly. I go to a large church of just under 1,000 people, and we are in the same boat. We will *never* do gay weddings. It won't happen. Period. I'll sit on a folding chair, on an empty lot, before doing a gay wedding.

 

[BillyP]

A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.

Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.

I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.

No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.

Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?

 

[Seawytch]

We've been over those. The entire pict is wrong. So are you.

The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is. Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.

 

[Andylusion]

A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.

Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.

I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.

No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.

Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?

Well you can call it whatever you like. If homophobic makes you feel better or whatever, that's fine with us.

Here's the bottom line.... The Christian Bible, the book which is the fundamental basis for all Christian belief, and which we consider to be the very word of G-d of the Universe, says that Homosexuality is a sin.

Sin, meaning that is wrong in the eyes of G-d.

Therefore, our church will not accommodate, accept, provide services to, do weddings for, or allow anyone within our church to engage in, homosexual acts.

If we find out a member of the church is practicing homosexuality, whether it is a person who just sits in a pew, or is a pastor, they will be removed.

Equally, we will not marry them. Period.

Now you can slap whatever label on us that you wish... I don't care. Homosexuality is against our beliefs, and we will not accommodate it.

 

[Andylusion]

We've been over those. The entire pict is wrong. So are you.

The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is. Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.

I already addressed each of the claims before. You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies. I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.

 

[Seawytch]

We've been over those. The entire pict is wrong. So are you.

The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is. Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.

I already addressed each of the claims before. You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies. I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.

Yes, we all saw your deflection on them.


Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

• "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage
  
• This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
  
• State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
  
• “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

Be sure to let us know how you scored.

 

[Seawytch]

If you keep Marriage out of the state altogether,
you don't have to fight any of these battles.

It equally contradicts "separation of church and state"
to impose EITHER "belief in marriage equality including same sex"
OR "belief in traditional marriage between one man and one woman"

What the liberals need to decide is
A. if we BELIEVE in separating beliefs from govt, then shouldn't we apply that equally to OUR own beliefs other people don't believe in so we don't impose on others
B. if we BELIEVE in legislating based on one set of beliefs
shouldn't ALL groups have the right to impose THEIR beliefs by majority or political lobby

Which way is it?

If BOTH parties can only function by imposing their members' beliefs on the public by majority rule, they should both be censured or banned for religious abuse of authority.

There is nothing wrong with defending and practicing one's own beliefs,
but imposing on other people who believe differently is unconstitutional
where govt laws, authority or process is used to discriminate against others.

Really? After all this discussion and you still don't understand the difference between civil and religious marriage? A civil marriage imposes "beliefs" on no one. Religious marriage imposes beliefs only on those that want to be imposed upon.

The separation is already there, I'm sorry you can't see it.

 

[Andylusion]

The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is. Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.

I already addressed each of the claims before. You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies. I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.

Yes, we all saw your deflection on them.


Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

• "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage
  
• This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
  
• State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
  
• “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

Be sure to let us know how you scored.

I don't care how I scored. Have I not told you people enough times that I don't give a crap what you think of me, or my views?

You have the right to be wrong. You are still wrong. Repeating wrong over and over, just solidifies the fact you are wrong, and consistently wrong.

The two topics of slavery / race, and homosexuality, are not the same. And never will be no matter what crap you spew, what picts you post, or what comparisons you make.

There is no race. We all started from Adam and Eve. Even if you are ignorant enough to believe "boom there it is" evolutionary THEORY.... even under that ignorance, you still have all of us starting from a common origin, which indicates there is no such thing as race.

Having us fighting against arbitrary distinctions between one group of humans and another group of humans, is against Biblical doctrine, and the reason Christians led the fight against it.

Trying to compare that with changing the fundamental definition of marriage, between a man and a woman, which has been true throughout the ages, is not a valid comparison.

You are wrong. You are consistently wrong. And I really couldn't care less what a person who pushes wrong comparisons, thinks about me or my views.

I don't care what you think. It's that simple.