Churches continue to support marriage equality

If heterosexuality and procreation are the criteria then we've always had equality.


Procreation has never been a criteria for entry into Civil Marriage. As a mater of fact some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage.


>>>>
 
If heterosexuality and procreation are the criteria then we've always had equality.


Procreation has never been a criteria for entry into Civil Marriage. As a mater of fact some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage.


>>>>
Procreation was alway the given,,understood reason for legal marriage. They just didn't expect that would have to be defined and that weirdos would someday rationalize that away. Like blind people not being granted drivers licenses.
 
If heterosexuality and procreation are the criteria then we've always had equality.


Procreation has never been a criteria for entry into Civil Marriage. As a mater of fact some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage.


>>>>
Where is legal marriage defined by the inability to procreate? More anecdotal bullshit rationalization.
 
If heterosexuality and procreation are the criteria then we've always had equality.


Procreation has never been a criteria for entry into Civil Marriage. As a mater of fact some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage.


>>>>
Where is legal marriage defined by the inability to procreate? More anecdotal bullshit rationalization.


I didn't say the legal definition of marriage was based on the inability to procreate. I said "some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage." I didn't say all couples have to be unable to procreate.


Like blind people not being granted drivers licenses.

False statement there. You are saying that procreation is an assumption about Civil Marriage. However every state has specific laws that require, in writing, certain vision capabilities to be able to drive. One is an assumption, one is a specified required written into the law.

They are not the same.



>>>>
 
Churches can support anything they want. They can change. The Bible doesn't change. If churches believe they can make more money by incorporating sinfulness they have the liberty to make that decision. These false prophets are directly addressed in the Bible.
 
Any Christian who relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible in order to make decisions is a heretic and spiritually impaired, in my opinion.
 
If heterosexuality and procreation are the criteria then we've always had equality.


Procreation has never been a criteria for entry into Civil Marriage. As a mater of fact some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage.


>>>>
Where is legal marriage defined by the inability to procreate? More anecdotal bullshit rationalization.


I didn't say the legal definition of marriage was based on the inability to procreate. I said "some couples in some places are required to not be able to procreate (together) to be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage." I didn't say all couples have to be unable to procreate.



>>>>
I didn't either. I just asked you to list where that was a requirement. What's more, even if you can list that, the anecdotal is not justification. It's an excuse. Like George Burns smoking cigars daily and living to 100 is not proof that smoking is good for you.
 
Churches can support anything they want. They can change. The Bible doesn't change. If churches believe they can make more money by incorporating sinfulness they have the liberty to make that decision. These false prophets are directly addressed in the Bible.
One of those denominations was referring to a 'rendering unto Caesar' in that it deferred to state law. The magazine used the story as more promotion of an agenda.
 
Churches continue to slip into apostasy as prophesied. Had a church here where preacher declared his support for this, most of church left that day.
 
Churches continue to slip into apostasy as prophesied. Had a church here where preacher declared his support for this, most of church left that day.
That's what's happening. Churches become more welcoming of sin to attract more congregants. They invariably lose more people than they get. The only churches showing growth are the evangelicals.
 
Churches continue to slip into apostasy as prophesied. Had a church here where preacher declared his support for this, most of church left that day.
That's what's happening. Churches become more welcoming of sin to attract more congregants. They invariably lose more people than they get. The only churches showing growth are the evangelicals.


"Muslims saw the greatest growth rate among the five main religious groups studied. Their numbers increased by 66.7 percent in the 2010 census from a decade earlier. Latter-day Saints saw the next highest growth at 45.5 percent, followed by evangelical Protestants at only 1.7 percent. The number of Catholics decreased by five percent and the number of mainline Protestants decreased by 12.8 percent."

Religion Census Increase in Evangelicals Mormons Muslims Decrease in Catholics Mainline Protestants



>>>>
 

Forum List

Back
Top