Results 61 to 70 of 81
-
11-10-2012, 08:16 PM #61
Simple its against all religions. Read the bible and it is mentioned many times. One verse that comes to mind " Fruit from the womb Jesus Chirst" Which a man does not have I just checked to make sure I didnt have one LOL
They can go to the JP but then he will slam the bible if he has any reigious character at all. If I was a preacher or priest I would not insult my god by something he said was wrong. I know there are some members of the cloth here maybe they can lighten us on the exact Chapter(s) and versus
-
-
11-10-2012, 08:45 PM #62
Just to point this out, but the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and Quakers(and other religous sects) allow gay ceremonies. Please do not start the no true Christian thing. No church will have to perform the ceremonies and I would fight for their right to deny the ceremonies. Although to keep up membership, might they relax their stance?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1663291.htmlLast edited by drtom2005; 11-10-2012 at 08:56 PM.
-
11-10-2012, 09:05 PM #63
I know the verses and don't care to post them again. I'm the first to admit that, according to both the Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is a sin. I'm also the first to admit that Jesus himself actually said nothing of homosexuality but probably was/is against it. What he did speak of is love, kindness and understanding. He was against prostitution as well. Did he hate prostitutes? No. He fairly regularly hung around them and treated them as people.
He also spoke of something else. About how the Kingdom of God is far higher than any kingdom of earth could ever hope to be. He spoke of how he was above this world, not a part of it. He spoke not of changing this world to reflect his kingdom, but of living by his word and waiting for him to return. God does not want anyone forced to live by his laws, he wants us to follow them for ourselves while not judging those who do not. Judgement is his job, not ours.
Instead we are to conduct ourselves with love kindness and understanding. That means equal rights, regardless of God's law. To try to force people into living God's law, even if your idea of it wasn't misguided, is to go against that law, for the law is to be followed out of love for him, not fear of law, or it is false.
-
-
11-11-2012, 01:03 PM #64
wickabee, great post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you guys are going by the words of the apostles, mainly Paul (who never was taught directly from Jesus) and a book put together by men who were racists and thought they were superior to women. if you are going by Christian teachings, there is only one source that is true, the rest are ideas of man. show me where Jesus says gays can't marry in church or believers in Jesus shouldn't marry gays.
the fact is, look at the state laws, and tell me how anyone can aquire a license from the state but not have to follow state laws, if they do not have to follow state laws, how can they have a license from the state.
this is no different than the pharmasist who denied the morning after pill to women based on religion, he should have his license stripped away, but did not because of his religion and ethic laws, this is crap.
how can two groups get state license and not follow state laws do to religion? where is the separation of church and state?
but a cheerleader can't have a Jesus sign because they are in school?
so equality of gays is ok as long as it doesn't mess with religious rights?
-
11-11-2012, 01:30 PM #65
Thanks, Jay. The way I see it keep church out of state laws and state out of church laws. The only connection they should have is the legal recognition of church status. Other than that, leave it alone. Forcing a church h to marry gays when it goes against their interpretation is just as bad as denying gays marriage at the court house. It's a tense relationship between church and state, but it is a two away street and thus thoughts, feelings and beliefs of both need to be considered.
As far as the doctor goes, that's a bad analogy since there is no separation of medicine and state. The pharmacist you mentioned should be barred from practicing medicine. Religion should never come into play with a doctor. Patient or parents of for certain, but a doctor is there to serve to help the body, not preach morality. Same thing for teachers. They should be teaching curriculum, not religious or political beliefs.
As far as the cheerleader goes, either allow text from any and all religions or none. I don't see what the big deal is.
Basically, and this is no attack, just observation, you seem to be creating problems with this by citing other, unrelated issues which have their own problems and need fixing. One at a time my friend. One flawed system does not mean all have to be flawed and trying to fix too much all at once is a bad idea that will lead to nothing.
-
-
11-11-2012, 01:40 PM #66
Do not approve of either pot or gay marriage. Pot makes people lazy, which that is the last thing this country needs. For true medicinal I do approve. As far as Gay marriage can not people be happy with the term civil union with the same rights as the married union. ?
This is where I stand.
-
11-11-2012, 01:50 PM #67
Fair enough. I wouldn't say pot "makes" one lazy. I know people who are anything but while high. It does make one okay with being bored though, which looks a lot like lazy. With that said it is a safer drug than alcohol for everyone. The way it is now is like banning bb guns but allowing assault rifles.
As for gay marriage, I don't see the need for them to be forced to tell people "We're civilly unionized" instead of married. I truly don't see the problem.
-
-
11-11-2012, 02:09 PM #68
wickabee, i am pointing out that any time a state issues a license it is based on state law, so the pharmisist and the minister both receive license from the state but do not have to follow state laws.
either the state needs to enforce the laws or get rid of the license.
people keep saying you don't need to go to a church to be married, but the church does have to have a license and submit the marriage to the state. so yes the church has to abide by state laws, but can pick and choose, just like the pharmisist and the school.
there is no difference between the two, they both are getting away with mixing religion and state law as they please, this is just wrong.
and i still would love someone to show me where Jesus says anything about gay marriage and church
-
11-11-2012, 02:17 PM #69
By not allowing gay marriage you're denying individual freedom. By forcing churches to marry gays you're denying religious freedom. A doctor and a priest are not comparable. I do see what you're saying, but feel that you're now taking it beyond. I'm all for gay marriage, but I'm not for forcing state law, other than what is absolutely necessary, on church any more than I am for forcing church law on state. Churches can already deny straight weddings if they see fit, despite their right to get married, so why can't they deny gay ones?
-
11-11-2012, 02:53 PM #70
I would say that the license and their submission of a marriage to the state should be done away with. they can still perform marriages, but with truly no ties to state laws, then they can pick and choose.
i would love to see someone step up and truly debate the bigotry of gays in Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus, but they won't because they have no leg to stand on.
-
Originally Posted by Wickabee 
