Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole. YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.

As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS." You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.

82% of the voters in the poll at the top of this page think that you are the asshole actually We live in a democracy where behaviors are regulated by the majority in penal and civil codes. As for homophobia, people have a right and a responsibility to fear a demographic/organization/cult that uses lawsuits, blackmail, threats, vitrole, tantrums and other means of force to claim "rights" that don't exist for them to access adoptable orphans....and which advocates having sex with the lower digestive tract, even when to do so means impressionable youth lured into their cult will predictably die of AIDS from it. Some fears are justified:

Fast Facts

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Lying POS

 

[Silhouette]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.

Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank]. It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Since gays cannot blend into society, how does anyone expect they can blend in with just any church?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.

Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank]. It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?

Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.

 

[Seawytch]

People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".

Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.

A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.

Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.

Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.

YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.

Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.

Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.

When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?

 

[Seawytch]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.

Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank]. It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?

Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.

What ******* century do you think we live in...seriously?

 

[Silhouette]

When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?

That isn't for you, nor the cult of LGBT behaviors to decide. You do not out number devout christians or even christian-supporting seculars...obviously...judging by the poll results on this thread at the top. Your "Johnny-come-lately" neo sex-fetish cult does not outweigh thousands of years of devotion to the principles and teachings in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran. They have time-tested lessons and recipes in them for human civilizations to get along and for people to strive towards. One of those lessons/warnings is to avoid the promotion or enabling the spread of a homosexual culture into any city, town or nation. Eternity in the pit of fire is the "reward" for failing to pay attention to that mortal warning.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".

Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.

A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.

Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.

Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.

YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.

Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.

Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.

When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?

I really don't think bigotry is something that religion ever justified.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.

Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank]. It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?

Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.

What ******* century do you think we live in...seriously?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Try to include some subject matter.

 

[Silhouette]

I really don't think bigotry is something that religion ever justified.

First you have to accept that the premise "behaviors = race" is wrong.

Then you have to move from there to understand that the Bible advises on a myriad of human behaviors as "OK" and "NOT OK". One of those behaviors is gay sexuals and the culture they almost always spring up around their behaviors. Ancient Greece & today come to mind. For anyone enabling the spread of that culture is reserved the worst type of Biblical punishment: eternal death/torture in the pit of fire.

Now we can speculate all day long why that is. I've spoken about it before but it's merely my opinion. Suffice to say it's there, in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament. And in Poets in the Koran. You cannot require people as a matter of secular law to defy their religion upon such a core commandment. It is one and the same as forcing them to abadon their religion altogether. I'd think the founding fathers would have a problem with that.

Why do we hear reference to the founding fathers so often in discussions like these? Because these men reflected, studied, debated, chiseled and tooled our democracy in such a way as to see it succeed. A society that no longer has ties to moral moorings is one that will soon be doomed. Don't believe me? Just check your history books.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

First you have to accept that the premise "behaviors = race" is wrong.

Then you have to move from there to understand that the Bible advises on a myriad of human behaviors as "OK" and "NOT OK". One of those behaviors is gay sexuals and the culture they almost always spring up around their behaviors. Ancient Greece & today come to mind. For anyone enabling the spread of that culture is reserved the worst type of Biblical punishment: eternal death/torture in the pit of fire.

Now we can speculate all day long why that is. I've spoken about it before but it's merely my opinion. Suffice to say it's there, in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament. And in Poets in the Koran. You cannot require people as a matter of secular law to defy their religion upon such a core commandment. It is one and the same as forcing them to abadon their religion altogether. I'd think the founding fathers would have a problem with that.

Why do we hear reference to the founding fathers so often in discussions like these? Because these men reflected, studied, debated, chiseled and tooled our democracy in such a way as to see it succeed. A society that no longer has ties to moral moorings is one that will soon be doomed. Don't believe me? Just check your history books.

Kind of like Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Silhouette]

Kind of like Sodom and Gomorrah.

That's what's referred to in Jude 1, yes. It says that any city/state/nation that enables the spread of a homosexual culture, like Sodom did, all inhabitants/enablers [both gay and straight] face eternal damnation in the pit of fire. It doesn't mince words. It's direct and clear with no compromise.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And AGAIN. The OP is a STRAWMAN. No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.

And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll. So apparently it's not exactly a strawman. And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all. I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do. That's what people do on forums. Don't like that? I don't care. Have a nice day.

Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.

Tough to be you.

How truly amazing that a STRAWMAN can elicit more than 3000 posts!

 

[Silhouette]

And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.

 

[RKMBrown]

And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.

I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.

 

[Silhouette]

And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.

I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.

It's interesting though that the question they responded to was phrased with conservative hyperbole. It wasn't a benign question. It said:

No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA. The only thing missing was an exclamation point!

So the 82% who voted in that column didn't think it was too strongly worded. They agreed with that emphasis. And hence the reason I described any support for gay marriage within the 82% as tepid at best.

 

[RKMBrown]

And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.

I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.

It's interesting though that the question they responded to was phrased with conservative hyperbole. It wasn't a benign question. It said:

No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA. The only thing missing was an exclamation point!

So the 82% who voted in that column didn't think it was too strongly worded. They agreed with that emphasis. And hence the reason I described any support for gay marriage within the 82% as tepid at best.

When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.

You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best. Not all, but yes probably a large portion. One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.

 

[Silhouette]

When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.

You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best. Not all, but yes probably a large portion. One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.

Well now that we're both on the same page with that one... the next question is, if any new information about the LGBT camp suddenly sprung up, how many of those 82% would chill from tepid to sub zero? I'd imagine most of them. And man are there some skeletons in that overstuffed closet. Those skeletons are dying to "come out"..

 

[RKMBrown]

When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.

You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best. Not all, but yes probably a large portion. One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.

Well now that we're both on the same page with that one... the next question is, if any new information about the LGBT camp suddenly sprung up, how many of those 82% would chill from tepid to sub zero? I'd imagine most of them. And man are there some skeletons in that overstuffed closet. Those skeletons are dying to "come out"..

nonsense...

 

[Silhouette]

Then how many of those 82% would you say are avide gay-marriage supporters RKMBrown?