Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.

Or apparently to even post a coherent response.

Like I said, just because you don't understand English doesn't mean a thing to me.

Nothing gets through the chatter in your head. It's sad, but common amongst your type.

You have nothing to offer but hate- it is what rattles around your head.

 

[Syriusly]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

 

[beagle9]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

With this speak you are trying to paint religious people and churches as these bigots in every way that you can in your speak, and you expect people to not pick up on what you are doing because you figure that people are to dumb to see what you are doing, and you think that they think that you are protecting the churches rights in which you are giving to them a pass on in your speak, but really you are getting away with calling them bigots under the guise that they are not going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to as you keep shouting from the roof top.

Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

Race isn't lifestyle. Try again. Since a church = religion and religion is in the heart of a man, and because religious men have already been sued by the cult of LGBT to force them to violate their faith to promote LGBT cult values, then we can conclude that we will in fact see LGBT lawsuits against "churches" (and all that they are) forcing them to marry gays if the fed overturns Windsor and reverts the power of the states back to the fed on the question of "lifestyle-marriages" that the states have rejected by consensus..

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

Race isn't lifestyle. Try again. .

Sexual attraction is not a lifestyle either.


And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

 

[Syriusly]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because

• they are mixed race
• they are gay
• they are Jewish
• they are Puerto Rican
• they are fat
• they are divorced

Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.

 

[Skylar]

This thing that you keep saying about the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you...

That's not a hypothetical analysis. The use of religion as the justification for all sorts of silly, silly shit is a matter of historical fact. Just look at the steaming rhetorical pile used by Judge Leon Bazile when he convicted Richard and Mildred Loving of 'interracial marriage'.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Bazile

And even this ignorance is protected under freedom of religion. If your church wants to argue that interracial marriage should never be performed and won't perform one.....they're free to do so. There is no one forcing religions to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Not now. Not 50 or so years ago when interracial marriage bans were overturned.

And what's so amusing in all this? You're offering us the very thing you just denounced: hypothetical analysis. As no church is being required to perform any gay wedding. But that doesn't stop you from railing against the hypothetical, does it?

 

[Skylar]

Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

Race isn't lifestyle. Try again. Since a church = religion and religion is in the heart of a man, and because religious men have already been sued by the cult of LGBT to force them to violate their faith to promote LGBT cult values, then we can conclude that we will in fact see LGBT lawsuits against "churches" (and all that they are) forcing them to marry gays if the fed overturns Windsor and reverts the power of the states back to the fed on the question of "lifestyle-marriages" that the states have rejected by consensus..

No religious person has been forced to marry anyone they don't want to. No one. Even the rather public case of a pair of professional ministers falling under public accommodation laws turned out to be a steaming pile of horse shit. As the city never charged them with anything, nor indicated that they would. The city instead pointed out that the very law that the ministers were citing as forcing them to marry gays........has an explicit exemption for religious corporations.

They were fear mongering. Just as you are now. Or as Beagle would call it 'hypothetical analysis'.

No one is forcing churches to perform gay weddings. And I defy you to cite a single example. You can't. As there is none.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.

Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night? She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement....

...and in so doing, she inadvertently colored her network's ramping up of the "racial hysteria" shootings, chokeholds/cop killings etc." with a nefarious hue..

I suspect and long have that the LGBT fallback will be to incite racial tensions, tag on their lifestyle BS onto "civil rights" in general and using that greased skid, slide right into all sorts of federal mandates on who can say yes or no to the cult of deviant sexuality..churches will not be immune..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.

Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious. I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.

Your lies keep tripping you up.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.

Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious. I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.

Your lies keep tripping you up.

Watch the program. Why doubt? Clear up the mystery.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.

Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night? She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement......

You mean like homophobes equate homosexuals(all of them) to pedophiles?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.

Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night? She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement....

...and in so doing, she inadvertently colored her network's ramping up of the "racial hysteria" shootings, chokeholds/cop killings etc." with a nefarious hue..

I suspect and long have that the LGBT fallback will be to incite racial tensions, tag on their lifestyle BS onto "civil rights" in general and using that greased skid, slide right into all sorts of federal mandates on who can say yes or no to the cult of deviant sexuality..churches will not be immune..

Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding.

So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing.

So riddle me this: if 'civil rights' are a valid basis to force churches to perform weddings they don't want, can you show us any application of any PA law where a church was forced to perform an interracial wedding against its will?

Ever......? I mean, if its as inevitable as you claim, then the roughly 50 years since the Loving ruling will have provided you with a plethora of examples. Show us one.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.

Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious. I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.

Your lies keep tripping you up.

Watch the program. Why doubt? Clear up the mystery.

Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.

Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious. I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.

Your lies keep tripping you up.

Watch the program. Why doubt? Clear up the mystery.

You posted- which means the greatest likelihood is that you are lying.

I don't watch Fox and I don't watch MSNBC- not going to bother now just to catch you at another lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil says all sorts of things that are false or made up or absurd.

As does Where R My Keys.

 

[Skylar]

Sil says all sorts of things that are false or made up or absurd.

As does Where R My Keys.

Keyes will make shit up and then abandon it. Silo will make shit up and then cling to it tenaciously. He's still arguing that this thread's poll shows that the majority of Americans don't approve of gay marriage. And is more reliable than any poll done by any polling agency. Despite the fact that the thread poll doesn't ask anything about the approval of gay marriage.

That's a special kind of stupid.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding.

So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing..

10 years ago I couldn't find any examples of christian bakers, photographers or caterers being sued for not participating in gay marriages.

You act as if time + momentum does not = results?

 

[Skylar]

Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding.

So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing..

10 years ago I couldn't find any examples of christian bakers, photographers or caterers being sued for not participating in gay marriages.

You act as if time + momentum does not = results?

And can you find a single example of a church being forced to conduct a gay wedding by PA laws? Ever? Its been a decade now. Surely there have been several hundred. Unless you're talking out of your ass.....

Then you'll be able to find exactly none.

And can you find a single example of a church being forced to conduct a interracial wedding by PA laws? Ever? Its been nearly 50 years since the Loving decision overturned interracial marriage bans. And those clearly had a strong religious element to them. So if your logic were valid, there would be thousands of such instances.

But you can't find one, can you? Not in nearly 50 years.

And what 'momentum' is there to force churches to conduct gay weddings? I've seen no significant support for that anywhere. Even among gay marriage proponents, like myself. Even your 'poll' shows overwhelming opposition to this idea.

So.....more empty fearmongering? Remember, Silo......you don't know what you're talking about. Because we'll certainly remember this fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She cannot find any example of a church being forced to marry gays or lesbians. That undermines its clumsy poll.

 

[Skylar]

She cannot find any example of a church being forced to marry gays or lesbians. That undermines its clumsy poll.

I disagree. It supports the poll. As WHO is claiming that churches should be forced to perform ceremonies for gays or lesbians against their will?

No one. No one on this thread, in 600 pages has taken such a position. With virtually everyone to comment on it rejecting the idea. And the poll demonstrating that there's no momentum for such a position. At least among those participating in the thread.

Every single one of Silo's assertions are either speculative nonsense, or explicitly contradicted by his own sources.