Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?

So when Kennedy was speaking of the harm caused by to children of same sex parents when same sex marriage isn't recognized.....what he ACTUALLY meant was that children are harmed when their parents aren't allowed to marry....

.....themselves?

Is there some sort of mercy rule in USMB debate? Because I'm starting to feel like a grown man kicking a puppy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.

Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.

Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread. It has never served a practical or useful purpose.

 

[Syriusly]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

 

[beagle9]

You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior is either believed or isn't- which is it?

It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?

That is not what you said before:

The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.

According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.

I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior. I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior. I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.

You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.

No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL

So when you said that the whole book is either believed or it isn't....you didn't mean to be interpreted as meaning that the whole book is either believed or it isn't?

Laughing.....it seems you don't take your claims much more seriously than we do.

You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is. There are many conversational attachments but still they are on point, and sometimes the changing context when people speak about the bigger picture on these things makes all the sense in the world, but you must shoot it down while in your protect at all cost mode you seem to stay in.

So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ? What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ? Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward. It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..

 

[Silhouette]

Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.

Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.

Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread. It has never served a practical or useful purpose.

You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers are suddenly going to fantasize that this legal-steamroller known as the LGBT cult Agenda is suddenly going to put on the brakes when it comes to the congregation of the faithful if they morph "marriage" from its current status as a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right?

You been smokin' a crackpipe Brah..?

Nobody is that stupid.

And hence the reason the poll sits as it does at the top with 82% of voters on the largest most popular topic ever at USMB saying to gay marriage "this far and no farther" or just flat out "NO"...

Yeah, I bet you want this thread closed. Don't want the Justices taking a peek at those numbers at the top, do you?

 

[beagle9]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

 

[Skylar]

You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is.

Then when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't.

That was easy.

So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ?

What things are you referring to? Are you misinterpreting me again?

What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ?

What 'such things' are you referring to? And just because you're confused doesn't mean the masses are.

Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward. It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..

And when have I said you're always wrong in life? Perhaps you're misinterpreting.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skylar]

Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.

Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.

Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread. It has never served a practical or useful purpose.

You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers are suddenly going to fantasize that this legal-steamroller known as the LGBT cult Agenda is suddenly going to put on the brakes when it comes to the congregation of the faithful if they morph "marriage" from its current status as a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right?

Save of course that marriage is already a right. And you're just straight up clueless.

Nobody is that stupid.

0 + 0 - 0 = 0.

No church is required to perform a gay wedding. Nor ever has been.

And hence the reason the poll sits as it does at the top with 82% of voters on the largest most popular topic ever at USMB saying to gay marriage "this far and no farther" or just flat out "NO"...

Yeah, I bet you want this thread closed. Don't want the Justices taking a peek at those numbers at the top, do you?

I'd bet you know you've lost the gay marriage debate. And so you're doubling down on personal fantasy as a coping mechanism.

 

[Skylar]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.

 

[beagle9]

You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is.

Then when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't.

That was easy.

So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ?

What things are you referring to? Are you misinterpreting me again?

What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ?

What 'such things' are you referring to? And just because you're confused doesn't mean the masses are.

Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward. It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..

And when have I said you're always wrong in life? Perhaps you're misinterpreting.

[/QUOTE]
I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ? You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are. It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.

 

[beagle9]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.

Now see there you go again..I mean you just can't help yourself can you ?.. I said that adults who teach children to sin will get it bad on judgement day, and not the children for they were innocent when bad things become a normal thing to come into their lives, and this because bad adults made it that away for them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

 

[Silhouette]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

 

[Paperman299]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

 

[Silhouette]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

I don't. I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc. A "church" is merely a congregation of christians. It is no more special or different from an individual christian. Just the numbers of them together in one place.

The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.

Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts. You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is". You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".

Y'all's bag of tricks is deep and wide. I'll give you that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Extrapolate" to Sil simply means he can make moonbeams out of honey.

Those visits to the thread is 98% laughter at him and his position.

 

[Syriusly]

You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior is either believed or isn't- which is it?

It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?

That is not what you said before:

The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.

According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.

I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior. I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior. I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.

You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.

No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL

So when you said that the whole book is either believed or it isn't....you didn't mean to be interpreted as meaning that the whole book is either believed or it isn't?

Laughing.....it seems you don't take your claims much more seriously than we do.

You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak..

Beagle- you do not speak concisely, or directly- we are just trying to figure out what you are saying.

You seemed to have posted that either the entire Bible is to be believed or it isn't- and since you seem to claim you believe in the Bible it would seem that you should be believing in the entire book.

And especially when you delve into the Old Testament, there are many, many 'bad behaviors' that I bet you don't consider bad behavior- my favorite is women wearing men's clothing.

I really don't care what you believe- but I would wish you would try to post concisely and with some attempt at brevity.

Tell us specifically what you object to- with 1 or 2 examples- rather than overly broad sweeping statements "Christians are under attack".

 

[Syriusly]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

I don't. I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc. A "church" is merely a congregation of christians. It is no more special or different from an individual christian. .

A church is tax exempt.
An individual Christian is not.

Really not hard for most rational persons to understand the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

That 82% includes almost every person here who supports gay marriage.

Which is why your 'poll' not only is statistically meaningless, but doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

I believe gay couples should be treated legally the exact same way as my wife and I are.

Which also means that I don't believe that any church should or could be forced to marry them- no more than my wife and I could force a church to marry us.

 

[Syriusly]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

Lets talk about that one a little bit- shall we?

A Gay couple has children- but is not married. The 'sin' those children would be learning, I think you would say, is that homosexuality is okay, but those children would also be learning about 'adultery' in the same way(sex outside of marriage)

A Gay couple has children- and then gets married- the children would then be observing only the 'sin' of homosexuality- but no longer adultery.

The only difference between the two is that in the second instance the children now have married parents. Why specifically are you opposed to that?