Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...

Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate? They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?

I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home. I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.

 

[Andylusion]

So you're against the 13th amendment then?

Pretty dumb question.

Who led the fight against slavery? Oh right... Christians.... not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians.

That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)

Slavery has existed for thousands on thousands of years, long long before Christianity even existed. Sorry, you are wrong.

The Bible supports slavery. (lie) So you should opposed the 13th amendment.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Not sure what the 13th amendment has to do with racism. You must be confusing it with the 14th.

I already said on this thread, that I'm not going to debate the Bible on this this.

Why? Because I don't care what your private interpretation of the Bible is. Not being insulting... just transparent.

The name on this thread is:
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

Not "What is your view of verses that discuss slavery in the Bible?"

Now if you want to start a thread on slavery in the Bible, and how it relates to the 18th century version of slavery, start a thread on that, and start with Exodus 21:16. Go look that one up.

But for me, here, now... I don't give a crap. Figure it out yourself if you know the Bible so well.

Still don't care... still not accommodating homosexuality in the church, because the Bible says clearly, it's a sin. That is it.

 

[Andylusion]

Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...

Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate? They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?

I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home. I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.

Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.

Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?

How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality

Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.

Married and Widowed, only 16%. Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.

Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?

This isn't rocket science.

Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....

63 percent of teen suicides.
90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
71 percent of high school dropouts.
75 percent of all drug users.
85 percent of behavioral disorders.

"well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"

Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.

"But but! That single person had a stable home!"

Doesn't matter. I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz. Parenting a child is not a solo sport. It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do. Single, it's nearly impossible. Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.

That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not. Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection. But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine. Why? Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.

The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong. Billy can handle that. It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.

Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate? They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?

I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home. I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.

Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.

Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?

How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality

Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.

Married and Widowed, only 16%. Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.

Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?

This isn't rocket science.

Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....

63 percent of teen suicides.
90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
71 percent of high school dropouts.
75 percent of all drug users.
85 percent of behavioral disorders.

"well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"

Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.

"But but! That single person had a stable home!"

Doesn't matter. I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz. Parenting a child is not a solo sport. It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do. Single, it's nearly impossible. Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.

That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not. Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection. But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine. Why? Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.

The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong. Billy can handle that. It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.

Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.

How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?

 

[Andylusion]

Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.

Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?

How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality

Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.

Married and Widowed, only 16%. Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.

Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?

This isn't rocket science.

Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....

63 percent of teen suicides.
90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
71 percent of high school dropouts.
75 percent of all drug users.
85 percent of behavioral disorders.

"well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"

Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.

"But but! That single person had a stable home!"

Doesn't matter. I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz. Parenting a child is not a solo sport. It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do. Single, it's nearly impossible. Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.

That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not. Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection. But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine. Why? Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.

The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong. Billy can handle that. It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.

Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.

How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.

Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?

How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality

Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.

Married and Widowed, only 16%. Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.

Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?

This isn't rocket science.

Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....

63 percent of teen suicides.
90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
71 percent of high school dropouts.
75 percent of all drug users.
85 percent of behavioral disorders.

"well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"

Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.

"But but! That single person had a stable home!"

Doesn't matter. I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz. Parenting a child is not a solo sport. It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do. Single, it's nearly impossible. Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.

That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not. Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection. But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine. Why? Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.

The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong. Billy can handle that. It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.

Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.

How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?

Who said uninsured people are broken?

 

[Andylusion]

How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?

Who said uninsured people are broken?

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix the problem of uninsured people?

 

[Unkotare]

Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...

Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate? They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?

I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."

 

[Unkotare]

Almost no couples with children who stay unmarried stay together, study claims - Telegraph


The Communitarian Network


Report Finds More Unmarried Couples Are Having Babies | TIME.com

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."

That certainly is what Utah is arguing. And now that they also have a religious edge to lever their objections to gay marriage with [Hobby Lobby verdict], and the real concerns for orphans placed in the state's care and trust: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html Utah has even more of a case for the Supreme Court.

That and 86% of pollers here saying they don't think gay marriage should be forced on people's convictions against it.. That would include voters.

 

[BillyP]

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

 

[Silhouette]

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so. The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.

 

[Andylusion]

I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."

That certainly is what Utah is arguing. And now that they also have a religious edge to lever their objections to gay marriage with [Hobby Lobby verdict], and the real concerns for orphans placed in the state's care and trust: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html Utah has even more of a case for the Supreme Court.

That and 86% of pollers here saying they don't think gay marriage should be forced on people's convictions against it.. That would include voters.

I'm not yelling at you, I just hate the way the Hobby Lobby verdict is portrayed.

Gah.... The Hobby Lobby verdict was simply to avoid forcing companies to pay for things that are not health illnesses issues. Being pregnant is not a 'health illness'. It's not a religious issues. It's a "pull your head out of your butt" issue.

Worse, it's not even an important issue. Have you been the to drug store? Contraception is not that expensive. Unless your monthly budget is $200, contraception if you choose to use it, shouldn't even be a budget item (not that completely idiotic Americans ever budget anymore).

Making health care cover contraception, would drive up health care premiums by hundreds of dollars.. It would be like demanding that they cover Aspirin, and Sudafed.

Do American's not understand 'math', that you want insurance to cover trillions of dollars in non-health-care needs, and yet think this won't increase premiums? What is wrong with you people?

And by the way..... the research routinely shows that women who get pregnant are often more healthy, and have less health problems, than women who don't. Just like women who do not breast feed, have a higher chance of cancer than those who don't.

So now you want premium payers, to pay for something, that will cause more health costs later on. I thought you idiots on the left favored preventing health problems. Apparently not. Or only when it requires the public to pay more money.

 

[Andylusion]

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way. I don't care. They would be wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way. I don't care. They would be wrong.

Race and sexual behavior are not even in the same ballpark. If I were black I'd be heatedly-offended by the constant erroneous comparison. I know they want the 14th sooooooo badly to apply to their cult. But insulting black people as a rung in the ladder of misplaced hopes is not acceptable at all.

 

[Tuatara]

Forced upon Churches. Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?

I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry? I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry? I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.

That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.

That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.

 

[Tuatara]

Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry? I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.

That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.

That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.

I did not say any of that. Also, where exactly is this dodge?

 

[Silhouette]

The original flow of conversation:

I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry? I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?

Followed by:

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so. The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.

Followed by:

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way. I don't care. They would be wrong.

Followed by:

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.

That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.

That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.

I did not say any of that. Also, where exactly is this dodge?

Either you missed my point on purpose or by accident. In either event, I cleared up the lack of clarity for you here:

That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.

That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.

You're welcome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)
How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.

Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool. That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.