Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[DigitalDrifter]

4 votes to force churches to marry gays.

Wonder if those individuals are serious, or just pranking the board for the hell of it ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present. Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future. Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in. Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.

And, yes, despite the century, DS, you are wrong.

Consent is the mountain you cannot get over.

 

[Yurt]

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties. the government has zero business in religious marriage.

that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But they are not married. Marriage is between a man and woman. Two men, can't be married. Don't care what the law says. They are not married. No bit of paper changes that.

If the law says they are married, what you and your church teach matters not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties. the government has zero business in religious marriage. that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.

That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

 

[DriftingSand]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Do you include mosques in that sentiment?

All religions. Churches, mosques and synagogues. Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us. You find them in every culture.

Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky. They only kill each other over what name to call it. And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.

Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.

Funny -- you took the topic from forcing a church to embrace homosexuality to "killing" in the name of God. I accepted Christ in 1988 and have never had the desire to kill anyone in His name. On the other hand, I reject the notion that homosexuality is "normal" and that I and my church should accept it as "normal" by law.

The Bible says that where two or three are gathered together in His name that He will be with us in our midst. Therefore, I can hold "church" while driving my car down the highway if I have one or more Christian passengers with me. We can talk about and believe whatever we want and the government will never have to know. Therefore, no amount of pro-gay laws will ever have any real affect on how I worship or how I believe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

4 votes to force churches to marry gays. wonder if those individuals are serious, or just pranking the board for the hell of it ?

No government will force a church to marry those it does not want to marry as long as it is not in the public business of weddings, facilities, and so forth.

The perfect model is the LDS church.

It stays out of the public marriage business, never has had a problem, never will.

 

[Andylusion]

Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present. Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future. Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in. Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.

And, yes, despite the century, DS, you are wrong.

Consent is the mountain you cannot get over.

I don't care. I'll fight it until I die. And if you have to kill me to win, so be it. I am most certainly not the first Christian to die for his faith, and I won't be the last.

There are things that are higher and more valuable than even life. G-d's law is one of them.

And by the way, I just don't care what other churches do. We are a Christian church, we conduct Christian weddings, we rent out our property for such purposes, and we will continue to do so. Don't care what other churches do.

It's none of my business what cults do, and none of your business what we do.

Don't care what you think. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Yurt]

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties. the government has zero business in religious marriage. that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.

That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

everything i said was 100% true jake. but i knew you would not discuss the issue and only proclaim yourself the winner.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=marrirriage+is+a+contract

^ read it and weep fakey

 

[DriftingSand]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

I hosted a Bible study in my home for several years. We "discriminated" against anyone who failed to accept the Bible as the Word of God. My Bible study was a "church" and it was by invitation. The two, main prerequisites was that the attendee had to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and had to believe that the Bible was the Word of God. Not all of us agreed on everything else but the group was made up of married couples who believed in the biblical and traditional definition of marriage. Practicing homosexuals would NOT have been invited.

We all "discriminate" every day of our lives. Have you ever heard of the term: discriminating palate? Everyone has one. We each have preferences where food is concerned. We make similar choices in everything we do. The clothes we wear; the car we drive; etc. I have every right to choose the company I keep as well and so do you.

 

[DriftingSand]

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties. the government has zero business in religious marriage. that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.

That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

Totally not true. The government does NOT rule in marriage. My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony. We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc. But guess what? We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited. We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."

 

[JakeStarkey]

"the government has zero business in religious marriage." t

That is not the truth. Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt. If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

"everything i said was 100% true jake"

Tough. You lie. Ever since the federal and state constitutions and their district court systems were created, the federal courts protected religion and the absence of religion, while the state courts created legal laws for marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DS recognizes that private association of religion is protected.

When it intrudes to the public square, then it is regulated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties. the government has zero business in religious marriage. that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.

That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

Totally not true. The government does NOT rule in marriage. My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony. We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc. But guess what? We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited. We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."

If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.

 

[Yurt]

That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

Totally not true. The government does NOT rule in marriage. My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony. We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc. But guess what? We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited. We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."

If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.

so you can't get married unless the government says so?

what a leftwing fascist

 

[JakeStarkey]

Totally not true. The government does NOT rule in marriage. My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony. We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc. But guess what? We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited. We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."

If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.

so you can't get married unless the government says so? what a leftwing fascist

It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.

The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.

 

[Yurt]

"the government has zero business in religious marriage." t

That is not the truth. Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt. If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

"everything i said was 100% true jake"

Tough. You lie. Ever since the federal and state constitutions and their district court systems were created, the federal courts protected religion and the absence of religion, while the state courts created legal laws for marriage.

you clearly cut out the part of my post with the link. i know why, because you don't want to see the truth and admit i'm right.

go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate. tell you what, since i know you will just ignore the link or claim i never gave it, here is this which you can't ignore:

here is wiki and here is their cite --

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses

Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-495-81178-7. "A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

poor jake, can't back up his own claim with anything but.....you're a liar, i'm right, you're wrong because i say so

immature troll

 

[Yurt]

If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.

so you can't get married unless the government says so? what a leftwing fascist

It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.

The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.

wrong, the law defines what are permissible legal contracts. you fail again.

 

[Yurt]

If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.

so you can't get married unless the government says so? what a leftwing fascist

It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.

The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.

using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws

 

[JakeStarkey]

"go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate."

MARRIAGE Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

DEFINITION

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are:
(1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other,
(2) mutual consent of the parties,
and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Shut the **** up until you have any idea about what you are talking.