Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[THE LIGHT]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.

True, but...

Theocracy as defined by Wiki. (and I don't usually like wiki)

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

So, even if the laws follow a Biblical/moral background, that doesn't mean that America is a Theocracy.

 

[eagleseven]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible.

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

 

[bodecea]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible. I propose that marriage in the Bible was the joining together of a man and a woman. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible about in any way the marriage of two people of the same gender. However, there are many places where one can find principles that would indicate that a marriage between two of the same gender would not be recognized by God.

There werer legal contracts of marriage in the Bible, and the ones mentioned in the video above were certainly there. However, these laws are no longer followed because God has moved into a new era with mankind. God has a beginning plan, and it is no different from the plan He still has. How He teaches His people does change, and His laws do change based upon where His people are in relation to the world.

According to the NT the marriage that is acceptible is with one man and one woman.

Since it appears that marriage began in the Bible, and the laws surrounding it did evolve over those years, I suggest that the institution of marriage is still as it was all through the NT and OT, one man and one woman, while the laws around how those marriages worked did change, I propose that marriage is a one man and one woman institution, and should stay that way.

So, do you think Atheists and those other religions besides Biblical religions should or should not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

 

[logical4u]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

Aren't you the ones pretending you have authority over sin? You are declaring an action the Lord declared sinful, not. What authority do you have to do that? Who gave it to you?
Aren't you leading anyone that listens to your 'intellectual' aurguements straight into sin, either by committing the sin or by supporting those that are sinning? What 'virtuous' behavior are YOU using? No, you are not demons, but if you thought it would help you gain control over other people, you would 'lay' with them too. If you are not telling the truth, then what are you spreading?
Churches have no power. Only the holy ones of G*d have power. If a 'church' appears to have power, it is because the followers are looking for leadership. A few will follow the leader, blindly. Most will follow the leader as long as they think the leader is not leading them into eternal damnation (what homosexuals are doing that are "falsely" stating the act is not a sin). A few are extremely particular about the leader and want one that will motivate them to live closer to Yeshua.
For someone that pretends to know Christianity, your words appear totally false and misleading, but maybe that is part of 'your lifestyle'.

 

[logical4u]

The NJ Church association changed it's policies so it can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

THE CHURCH WON IMMIE.

No, it did not. It lost the case and then changed its by-laws to protect itself in the future.

I don't consider having to change its by-laws to be a win.

The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with winning or losing. The whole thing is a lose/lose situation for the church, if you ask me. Christ's church should not be in this position in the first place.

Let me put it this way, Christ ate with sinners. He didn't go looking for the righteous. I realize Biblical reference mean little to you, but Christ did not go to be with the self-righteous in the temples. He came to bring the Gospel to those people who needed it... sinners.

Being allowed to discriminate is not a win.

Finally, as I have stated several times in this thread, conservatives and conservative churches may "win" early battles because of the Separation of Church and State, but that is not a guarantee that they will win them all... and this case proves that.

Immie

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

The church is a place of worship. If a group of people make a church and vote to buy property, why shouldn't the 'church' be allowed to permit actions that are approved by the 'church'?
If you own your house and kids gather in your yard to visit with your children and everything is good, then some kids that don't want to behave or follow your rules, visit under false pretence, wouldn't you ask them to leave?
Many homosexuals want to force their choices onto others as ACCEPTABLE; tolerance is no longer good enough (the original spoken public intent). Where will it stop? Already, some homosexuals are claiming they have 'a right' to marry; where is that written (millions of people are not married, sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes a person doesn't find a suitable spouse)?
Deception in the smallest form is still: DECEPTION.

 

[logical4u]

Read about the couple. They aren't extremists. The church owned property had agreed to rent the faciliies to the public equally. They reneged on their agreeement when the lesbian couple tried to rent the facility.

You hate this couple? I don't. The lesbian couple being discussed, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are NOT attempting to sue a church. They have merely filed a civil rights complaint against an association that governs a public accommodation with church ties. What happened is the ladies attempted to book the boardwalk pavilion of Ocean Grove, NJ, a popular spot for weddings and ceremonies in the Garden State. The public boardwalk pavilion is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. However, the pavilion is completely open to the public, and to participate in ceremonies on the pavilion, one does not have to be a Methodist. In fact, many locals have no clue about the church ties

They were hurt and surprised when they weren't allowed to rent the public facility.

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

Immie, there is a very long line of decisions holding that a "public accommodation" business cannot discriminate. Some rely on the 14th Amendment, others on the Interstate Commerce Clause. What the church in NJ did was wrong, or at least they did it wrong. So they got tagged. Big deal.

Your "fear of extremists" regretfully reminds me of the plea to moderate blacks to "wait, don't try and change things so fast" back in the day. I'm sorry, but it does seem as if it is a plea to GLBT people -- please don't intrude.

And here's the problem. You have no right that does not impair your neighbor's. None. The only way GLBT people can "avoid intruding" is to disappear...back into the closet. Since that will never happen, and the days in which it did saw so much terrible suffering, seems to me it is time to man up and adapt, Immie.

It ain't heterosexual-only world in the US anymore. People who want to raise children, watch tv, listen to music, use public facilities, etc. without ever once being reminded that some folks are GLBT are shit outta luck.

Is it impairing your neighbor to take their child (no matter what age) against their wishes for your own physical satisfaction? Is corrupting a neighbor's child, impairing on their plans for grandchildren (from green methods)? Is deceiving your neighbor to seduce their child, acceptable?

 

[CurveLight]

They were denied access to that property on religious grounds and they forced compliance against church property. To be honest with you it doesn't matter whether it was church property or owned by an atheist that was grossed out by the idea of gay marriage. This couple did not have the right... does not have the right, to force any business to rent a location to them. Neither do I! For any reason!

That is one of the things that I have a problem with liberals. They believe that the consumer has all the rights in the world and businesses have no rights at all. I had a major disagreement with Anguille over the issue of forcing bars to become non-smoking facilities. She supports those laws. I believe them to be an invasion of the property owners rights.

In my humble opinion, it does not even matter that the pavilion was owned by a church. What counts is that this couple felt that they had the right to force a business owner to provide services. Unless, a consumer is in a protected class, and being discriminated upon because of that protected status, then I do not believe that any consumer has the right to insist that a business provide its services to them.

Immie

Immie, there is a very long line of decisions holding that a "public accommodation" business cannot discriminate. Some rely on the 14th Amendment, others on the Interstate Commerce Clause. What the church in NJ did was wrong, or at least they did it wrong. So they got tagged. Big deal.

Your "fear of extremists" regretfully reminds me of the plea to moderate blacks to "wait, don't try and change things so fast" back in the day. I'm sorry, but it does seem as if it is a plea to GLBT people -- please don't intrude.

And here's the problem. You have no right that does not impair your neighbor's. None. The only way GLBT people can "avoid intruding" is to disappear...back into the closet. Since that will never happen, and the days in which it did saw so much terrible suffering, seems to me it is time to man up and adapt, Immie.

It ain't heterosexual-only world in the US anymore. People who want to raise children, watch tv, listen to music, use public facilities, etc. without ever once being reminded that some folks are GLBT are shit outta luck.

Is it impairing your neighbor to take their child (no matter what age) against their wishes for your own physical satisfaction? Is corrupting a neighbor's child, impairing on their plans for grandchildren (from green methods)? Is deceiving your neighbor to seduce their child, acceptable?

Why do you keep openly fantasizing about seducing children you sick **** dick whack?

 

[CurveLight]

It's not that complicated really...What claim did he change, pray tell...?

Did you miss it because you have a bad habit of abusing the bold function to compensate for your lack of brain function? It's in the post you quoted.

Yeah I missed the part where he changed his CLAIM at all. You keep trying to insist that his posts focus on YOU and your "challenge"

No I've not said his posts focus on my challenge. All I did was point out he claimed he responded to the challenge with proof and he never did but with dishonest cheerleaders like you it doesn't matter. I'm sick of repeating it just so ***** like you can ignore it.

 

[CurveLight]

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The church rented the pavillion to the public therefore it fell within the public anti-discrimination laws.

Basically, you don't have anything to justify your position of bigotry so you whine, toss out red herrings, change your claims, backtrack your own statements, then have the audacity to accuse others of being dishonest. Thank God there are honest people out there who don't let fantasy based future concerns trample the Rights of people living in the here and now. Know what pisses me off the most about people like you Immie? You like to dress up in Sunday school clothes but you never actually take them anywhere.

So are you of the belief that anyone can force a business to sell to them?

Why must you continue to be dishonest? I have not changed a thing about my stance in this entire discussion, but you continue to lie about that as well. Hypocrite.

I have offered a solution that I believe is fair. That being civil unions for every couple and marriage in the church for all couples as long as they find a church that will marry them.

Not only that, but I only presented it as something that I believe to be a solution and I have given my reasons for wanting the word to be something other than marriage. You simply can't handle people not agreeing with you. What a damned cry baby you are! This is your typical fall back position. In every thread you have ever participated in, when you don't succeed in getting people to admit you are right when you are wrong, you start with you ***** name calling shit.

By the way I have not said a word about you calling me a bigot. More dishonesty on your part.

Immie

You are the type of dishonest Christian that makes all non-Christians do nothing but laugh at your self righteous soap boxing bowlshit. How did you change your claim? You were claiming gays will sue churches to force them to marry them and you've never providing a ******* shred of evidence to justify your position. When you are proven to be wrong you then claim you were concerned about Christian "businesses" to try and wiggle out of it.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again: you're a ******* bigot and your own words prove it. The worst part is you are a dishonest bigot. What you have not admitted is you think "marriage" is a sacred term and you don't want gays to have that title in public because you view gays in a poor light next to heteros. Your deception lies in trying to offer a "compromise" which is nothing more than a sneaky way to try and hide your homophobia.

Let's look at your dishonest again:

(in reference to your accusation gays would sue churches to force them to marry them you say)

Post 556

"The point is that I was told... IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
Yet, there is proof that it has happened at least once,
probably more and I am convinced that phrasing the law,
"gay marriage" will help the case against the church.
Immie"

What is the "proof" you are talking about? It's the mother ******* publicly rented Pavillion. All you have provided are two cases of public facilities and in your bigot bashing Jesus-hating twisted mind that somehow translates into forcing churches to marry them. Neither place was a church you dishonest ******.

While others disagree with my use of profanity what they can see is your bigotry being exposed. Do you know what discernment is? I have it. Sucks for you.

 

[Smartt33]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.

I did not say that everyone is a Christian. I did not say that America is a theocracy.

All I said was that marriage was derived from the Bible, and that it was for one man and one woman.

So, if gays want some kind of union, go for it, but marriage is not that union.

However, as I have said many times, if there becomes a law legalizing and recognizing gay marriage, so be it. That will be America's loss.

Just leave the principles of the Bible alone.

I know some gay people, and I love them just as I love anyone else. this is not about anyone's relationship with gay people, it is about a Biblical principle.\

 

[Smartt33]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible.

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

 

[CurveLight]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.

I did not say that everyone is a Christian. I did not say that America is a theocracy.

All I said was that marriage was derived from the Bible, and that it was for one man and one woman.

So, if gays want some kind of union, go for it, but marriage is not that union.

However, as I have said many times, if there becomes a law legalizing and recognizing gay marriage, so be it. That will be America's loss.

Just leave the principles of the Bible alone.

I know some gay people, and I love them just as I love anyone else. this is not about anyone's relationship with gay people, it is about a Biblical principle.\

Marriage is derived from the Bible? Rotfl! Who the hell makes such a ridiculous claim?

 

[Smartt33]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible. I propose that marriage in the Bible was the joining together of a man and a woman. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible about in any way the marriage of two people of the same gender. However, there are many places where one can find principles that would indicate that a marriage between two of the same gender would not be recognized by God.

There werer legal contracts of marriage in the Bible, and the ones mentioned in the video above were certainly there. However, these laws are no longer followed because God has moved into a new era with mankind. God has a beginning plan, and it is no different from the plan He still has. How He teaches His people does change, and His laws do change based upon where His people are in relation to the world.

According to the NT the marriage that is acceptible is with one man and one woman.

Since it appears that marriage began in the Bible, and the laws surrounding it did evolve over those years, I suggest that the institution of marriage is still as it was all through the NT and OT, one man and one woman, while the laws around how those marriages worked did change, I propose that marriage is a one man and one woman institution, and should stay that way.

So, do you think Atheists and those other religions besides Biblical religions should or should not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

I believe this is all about the concept of marriage and not a word. However, there seems to be some tossing of words like unions, and such. Legally, I suppose people can have a marriage contract, and not be in the bounds of the Biblical concept of marriage. That would be a secular marriage, and God would not be in it.

 

[CurveLight]

Wake up, Smartt. Not everyone is a christian, and this country is not a theocracy.

I did not say that everyone is a Christian. I did not say that America is a theocracy.

All I said was that marriage was derived from the Bible, and that it was for one man and one woman.

So, if gays want some kind of union, go for it, but marriage is not that union.

However, as I have said many times, if there becomes a law legalizing and recognizing gay marriage, so be it. That will be America's loss.

Just leave the principles of the Bible alone.

I know some gay people, and I love them just as I love anyone else. this is not about anyone's relationship with gay people, it is about a Biblical principle.\

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible. I propose that marriage in the Bible was the joining together of a man and a woman. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible about in any way the marriage of two people of the same gender. However, there are many places where one can find principles that would indicate that a marriage between two of the same gender would not be recognized by God.

There werer legal contracts of marriage in the Bible, and the ones mentioned in the video above were certainly there. However, these laws are no longer followed because God has moved into a new era with mankind. God has a beginning plan, and it is no different from the plan He still has. How He teaches His people does change, and His laws do change based upon where His people are in relation to the world.

According to the NT the marriage that is acceptible is with one man and one woman.

Since it appears that marriage began in the Bible, and the laws surrounding it did evolve over those years, I suggest that the institution of marriage is still as it was all through the NT and OT, one man and one woman, while the laws around how those marriages worked did change, I propose that marriage is a one man and one woman institution, and should stay that way.

So, do you think Atheists and those other religions besides Biblical religions should or should not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

I believe this is all about the concept of marriage and not a word. However, there seems to be some tossing of words like unions, and such. Legally, I suppose people can have a marriage contract, and not be in the bounds of the Biblical concept of marriage. That would be a secular marriage, and God would not be in it.

Nobody gives a shit if you think your idea of god is in their marriage.

 

[Valerie]

Did you miss it because you have a bad habit of abusing the bold function to compensate for your lack of brain function? It's in the post you quoted.

Yeah I missed the part where he changed his CLAIM at all. You keep trying to insist that his posts focus on YOU and your "challenge"

No I've not said his posts focus on my challenge. All I did was point out he claimed he responded to the challenge with proof and he never did but with dishonest cheerleaders like you it doesn't matter. I'm sick of repeating it just so ***** like you can ignore it.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "******* bigot" like a disturbed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yeah I missed the part where he changed his CLAIM at all. You keep trying to insist that his posts focus on YOU and your "challenge"

No I've not said his posts focus on my challenge. All I did was point out he claimed he responded to the challenge with proof and he never did but with dishonest cheerleaders like you it doesn't matter. I'm sick of repeating it just so ***** like you can ignore it.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "******* bigot" like a distrubed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

Immie is not a bigot. Immie is stuck on a point that I disagree with. He thinks the Churches have a lot to fear from gays and lesbians if marriage equality is the law of the land.

I disagree.

I think some people who are tolerant of gays and lesbians still fear us, unnecessarily IMO.

 

[bodecea]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible.

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Serious? You are serious here?

 

[bodecea]

I propose that the best anyone can come up with is that marriage itself was from the Bible. I propose that marriage in the Bible was the joining together of a man and a woman. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible about in any way the marriage of two people of the same gender. However, there are many places where one can find principles that would indicate that a marriage between two of the same gender would not be recognized by God.

There werer legal contracts of marriage in the Bible, and the ones mentioned in the video above were certainly there. However, these laws are no longer followed because God has moved into a new era with mankind. God has a beginning plan, and it is no different from the plan He still has. How He teaches His people does change, and His laws do change based upon where His people are in relation to the world.

According to the NT the marriage that is acceptible is with one man and one woman.

Since it appears that marriage began in the Bible, and the laws surrounding it did evolve over those years, I suggest that the institution of marriage is still as it was all through the NT and OT, one man and one woman, while the laws around how those marriages worked did change, I propose that marriage is a one man and one woman institution, and should stay that way.

So, do you think Atheists and those other religions besides Biblical religions should or should not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

I believe this is all about the concept of marriage and not a word. However, there seems to be some tossing of words like unions, and such. Legally, I suppose people can have a marriage contract, and not be in the bounds of the Biblical concept of marriage. That would be a secular marriage, and God would not be in it.

So...you admit that the term "marriage" can be used secularly...for example...secularly by gay couples getting a secular marriage license.

 

[Sky Dancer]

People were getting married long before the Old Testament was written.

Fail.

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Serious? You are serious here?

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

 

[CurveLight]

Some documentation please. until then, "fail."

Serious? You are serious here?

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

No I've not said his posts focus on my challenge. All I did was point out he claimed he responded to the challenge with proof and he never did but with dishonest cheerleaders like you it doesn't matter. I'm sick of repeating it just so ***** like you can ignore it.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "******* bigot" like a distrubed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

Immie is not a bigot. Immie is stuck on a point that I disagree with. He thinks the Churches have a lot to fear from gays and lesbians if marriage equality is the law of the land.

I disagree.

I think some people who are tolerant of gays and lesbians still fear us, unnecessarily IMO.

He is a bigot because he doesn't want gays to publicly hold the title of "Marriage" because they are gay. If that isn't bigotry then what do you call it?