Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Kondor3]

So, have we figured out yet, that churches should not be forced to commit sinful acts, by marrying homosexuals - whom many churches consider to be unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent individuals, practicing unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent sexual behaviors, and manifesting an unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent lifestyle - aberrations in the sight of God, Nature and Man?

As long as churches do not hold out publicly their fee-drivn wedding services. If they do, then contempt of court, loss of tax-exempt status, and massive fines will do the trick.

Reliance upon the Private Club model, with all its discretionary trappings, should hold them in good stead...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosh's silliness is easily rebutted below.

So far here are the high lights based on the far left comments:

1) They believe "Marriage" is a Constitutional right - Of curse it is not. SCOTUS rulings opine differently.

2) They believe Marriage is not connected to religion. - Marriage is a product of religion now matter how they want t spin it. Your opinion is immaterial to the court.

3) They believe that the churches should be forced into marrying same sex couples. So much for the whole "separation of church and state". As long as the churches conduct private and not fee-driven commercial weddings, no court in the land will breach the 1st Amendment protections.

4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic. No one wants the churches money, and any church can donate all it wants if it gives up its tax-exempt status.

Once again the far left does not deserve to be in power and should never be in power. It's not and your conclusion is anti-American.[/QUOTE]

 

[Seawytch]

Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...

That's inevitable.

Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...

The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...

One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...

And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...

Q.E.D.

Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts" (your view)? So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this. Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.

Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of anyone, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.

 

[Katzndogz]

No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

 

[Kondor3]

Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...

That's inevitable.

Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...

The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...

One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...

And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...

Q.E.D.

Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts" (your view)? So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this. Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.

Then we're done here...

 

[Seawytch]

No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, very strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.

 

[bendog]

That's inevitable.

Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...

The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...

One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...

And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...

Q.E.D.

Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts" (your view)? So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this. Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.

Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of anyone, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.

Well, that's true. I suppose a church could put up a sign that says "we rent to anybody but gays." I never considered that. LOL But, it's possible. As more that one episcopal priest said "God has a sense of humor, but it's ironic."

Are we actually debating that pedophiles are primarily gay because pedophiles prefer raping boys to girls by a 2-1 margin? Again, the priest quote.

 

[bendog]

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, very strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.

well, with all respect, I think one can get too caught up in literally applying Jesus's commentary to today's society. Jesus's primary ministry was to the 90-95% of Jews who were near destitute. The Jewish Priests took money for service. The poor could barely afford an animal to sacrifice, which the Priests said was necessary to gain God's attention. Jesus set out to put an end to that. Divorce was simply not an option for Jesus's congregation. In the end, the whole thing got Jesus nailed to a tree.

But, yeah, love your neighbor as you'd love god. Don't dump a wife to let her live in poverty.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts" (your view)? So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this. Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.

Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of anyone, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.

Well, that's true. I suppose a church could put up a sign that says "we rent to anybody but gays." I never considered that. LOL But, it's possible. As more that one episcopal priest said "God has a sense of humor, but it's ironic."

They can in some places, not in others. Some localities have laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. If they rent to the public in those places, they rent to ALL the public, gays included.

It is ironic because Jesus would have refused service to nobody...and I mean nobody.

Are we actually debating that pedophiles are primarily gay because pedophiles prefer raping boys to girls by a 2-1 margin? Again, the priest quote.

Pedophiles don't prefer raping boys by a 2-1 margin. Over 85% of molestations are of girls by men...usually a friend or family member. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children and their targets are usually about access, not gender.

As for the Catholic priest scandal, the root of that whole thing is in their ridiculous and archaic celibacy rule.

 

[Silhouette]

The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be. It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches. If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".

But they're not.

And that's a very telling revelation.

86% here. Wow.

 

[Kondor3]

The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be. It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches. If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".

But they're not.

And that's a very telling revelation.

86% here. Wow.

It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.

Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.

An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.

Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.

There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.

Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.

 

[Seawytch]

The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be. It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches. If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".

But they're not.

And that's a very telling revelation.

86% here. Wow.

It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.

Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.

An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.

Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.

There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.

Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.

Actually it's because most people understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage. Churches are and always have been free to discriminate. My government cannot.

 

[Kondor3]

Actually it's because most people understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage...

Given that most people in this country are religious, I wonder if you're right.

...Churches are and always have been free to discriminate. My government cannot.

Unless legal interpretations and rulings are revisited and recast to portray homosexuality as dangerous and detrimental, in which case such discrimination once again becomes legal, and pitched as for the good of the nation and its people.

That will be the challenge, as we transition from a Liberal to a Conservative government once again.

And, given just how badly Obumble has screwed the pooch over the past several years, and how weary people have become of Liberal autocracy, that next round of Conservative political dominance is probably just around the corner.

In the context of a Conservative revisiting of such recent developments, some folks would call that prospect 'the light at the end of the tunnel'.

In any event, we'll know soon enough.

 

[Katzndogz]

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, very strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.

Why does any religion have their particular beliefs. If someone wants to start a gay church where gay sex is mandated to belong, they can do that. They should. They can rewrite their own Bible that says Jesus and all the apostles were gay.

Catholics do not permit divorce. A Catholic church will not marry someone who was previously divorced.

 

[Ibentoken]

The left can't figure out why Christians dont evolve.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christians aren't supposed to evolve. If they evolve they aren't Christians any more.

 

[bendog]

The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be. It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches. If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".

But they're not.

And that's a very telling revelation.

86% here. Wow.

It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.

Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.

An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.

Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.

There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.

Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.

Where did I hear this "the polls are wrong" before? Actually, what you have is an issue that just isn't very important to most of us. Most don't give a rat's ass what religious haters want nor do they care if gays and lesbians can't marry. At least we're not motivated to get out in the street or to vote. In California, the Mormons energized their base.

What changes that is the perception that one side is unfairly beating up on the other side. I suspect the vote in calif would be a bit different today.

And, as to gays and pedophiles, note that the law has distinctly different provisions for statutory rape and some bastard raping a three year old. And statutory rape is often basically decriminalized if the age difference is minimal.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, very strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.

You quoting a fictional character that you don't even believe in is quite comical

 

[GreenBean]

And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others? More of Satan's work?

To Catholics it is.

Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, very strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.

Oh really - not trying to challenge your assertion - I'm just curious where you pulled that from [And - I hope you didn't pull it out of "There"]

 

[Ibentoken]

There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.