Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Jarlaxle]

I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.

Hmmm...there was nothing in the poll to indicate they would never do it again.

Every straight guy I know want to stick their dick in a girls ass. This is a fact. The girls aren't as accommodating as the guys would like.

I do not see the appeal. I won't say it repulses me, but I have no particular interest in it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...

Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...

Would you be offended if I asked for photographic evidence?

*ducks and runs from Seawytch and my wife*

 

[JakeStarkey]

Judas holy Priest, I am tired of women telling men what men want from women.

That is as wrong as men telling women what they think.

Heteros and homos, you all grow up those of you who have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.

It's just a matter of time...

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and 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 the races to mix.”

- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.

 

[Seawytch]

You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...

Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...

Would you be offended if I asked for photographic evidence?

*ducks and runs from Seawytch and my wife*

You wanna see how some use their fingers and tongues? Okay...

 

[Seawytch]

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and 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 the races to mix.”

- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.

Look at you, trying to cover for their bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.

Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those of us who read the Bible daily realize it is for insight and guidance in our, not your, lives.

The Biblical literalist needs to be counseled for the sin of pride.

 

[Gadawg73]

True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic.

As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I fully support the policy now that is not and has never been challenged.
Churches can deny a marriage ceremony to anyone they want to.
Jews do not marry Muslim couples now and should not.
Same as no one is asking for any church now to marry gay couples.
The churches that WANT TO MARRY them now want them to legally get a marriage license.
Something that is no one's business.
If a church now wants to legally marry gay folk they should be able to.

I pretty much agree with that statement. If a church accepts homosexual marriage, they have every right to perform the ceremony.

In my faith, I don't believe in homosexuality, it's just immoral people doing disgusting acts. But, that is no different than someone claiming to be a Christian, endangering everyone on the road, by driving drunk. Both are sins, and God only sees sin one way. He does not differentiate between sin. From a little white lie, to murder, to God, they are all the same.

The key question in this thread is should churches be forced to perform gay weddings(marriage), and the answer is NO! Every religion should be free to practice however they believe. From snake handlers, to Muslims, to Jews and devil worshipers as well. With no restrictions from the government.

They are free now and nothing will change.
No one is out there wanting to force churches to change.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Founders were smart.
NO mention of God in the Constitution, no mention of a Supreme Being at all.
Because they did not want God in government, people are all different and the law is freedom of religion, any religion.
And there is NO religious test for public office written into the law.
Because of respect for those who do or do not practice religion.

 

[NLT]

You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...

Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...

Fists?

 

[RKMBrown]

The Founders were smart.
NO mention of God in the Constitution, no mention of a Supreme Being at all.
Because they did not want God in government, people are all different and the law is freedom of religion, any religion.
And there is NO religious test for public office written into the law.
Because of respect for those who do or do not practice religion.

Yes and no. The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests. More particularly it left that sort of decision to the states, well at least it did till after the civil war when the federalists changed the constitution through incorporation of the civil war amendments that the southern states were forced to sign up to or be killed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


>>>>

The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there, is the answer folks. It's that simple.

Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.

The difference, of course, is that you ladies are shitting your frillies, worrying what people think of you and how you can force them to think differently, while we don't give a rat's ass what you think. Which makes your constant pounding on the "homophobe! Homophobe! Look, I has given you a LABEL!" button really ******* amusing.

 

[Gadawg73]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there, is the answer folks. It's that simple.

Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.

The difference, of course, is that you ladies are shitting your frillies, worrying what people think of you and how you can force them to think differently, while we don't give a rat's ass what you think. Which makes your constant pounding on the "homophobe! Homophobe! Look, I has given you a LABEL!" button really ******* amusing.

"force them to think differently"



Explain what it was the last time someone forced you to do anything other than paying taxes?

 

[RKMBrown]

The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


>>>>

The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.

Define religious test... pretty vague.

 

[Silhouette]

"force them to think differently"



Explain what it was the last time someone forced you to do anything other than paying taxes?

Just this week millions of California voters were forced to have their vote not count in their own initiative system when legislators there voted to usurp the constitutional-provision of a man and a woman and change the language to gender-neutral on Prop 8. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html

Note, they did not remove Prop 8 as the case would be if the law wasn't binding. They're just gutting it from the inside out of its core meaning; a gender-specific definition of marriage.

And of course, by constitutional law, the legislature MAY NOT amend or repeal any initiative law without the permission of the voters. So that's two constitutional rights stripped in one week, forced upon millions in California.

Spearheading this overthrow of democratic rule is one man named Mark Leno: gay state senator from ground zero: San Francisco's gay district.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and 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 the races to mix.”

- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.

Look at you, trying to cover for their bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.

Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.

Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Note, they did not remove Prop 8 as the case would be if the law wasn't binding. They're just gutting it from the inside out of its core meaning; a gender-specific definition of marriage.

False, the legislature is not empowered to change the Constitution of California:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.​

#1 Prop 8 didn't include provisions for Legislative amendment or repeal, therefore the Legislature cannot remove it on their own. It would take a new initiative vote to actually remove the language.


#2 Yes, contrary to what you keep repeating, laws that are still on the books can be invalid and unenforceable. Many states still have Sodomy laws between consenting adults on the books, those laws are invalid and unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas. In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled that bans on interracial Civil Marriage were unconstitutional, Alabama didn't remove the language from their Constitution for 33 years (2000). During the period 1967-2000 interracial marriages were legal in Alabama even though the State Constitution (amended by a vote) contained invalid language.


#3 Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand in their decision as they only vacated the Circuit Courts ruling. If they had intended to over-rule the District Court they could have invalidated that decision - but they didn't.



>>>>

>>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

#3 Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand in their decision as they only vacated the Circuit Courts ruling. If they had intended to over-rule the District Court they could have invalidated that decision - but they didn't.

^ that