Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,337 times
Reputation: 3814
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
You would not believe us even if we were standing in line fighting along side you and took a bullet for you. Kim Davis went to jail because she told a judge that she did not have to obey a court order. As you well know she had been offered to simply let one of her govenment employees to do the job and at least one of them had agreed to do so. She told a Christian judge that she was not only not going to obey the law but that she was not going to obey him either or his court order.
Don't like a law change it. One way is to protest it. Thousands of people have been jailed for protesting a law they think is unjust. None of them were not arrested simply because they were Christians. Kim Davis was attempting to use her personal religious beliefs to ignore the law and to have an entire department in one county ignore the law. She could have been protesting in the streets instead of forcing others to break the law.
It certainly is a US versus THEM with you isn't it. It does not matter what we say to you because we are not Fundametalist Christians you will not only never belief a thing we say but will never trust us on anything. We are not enemies trying to distroy your church. Almost every single elected politican you have is some kind of Christian, do you think they are going to attack your church? Do you think they would ever be re-elected if they did so.
Southern bored said the same thing that many of us have told you in the past and you threw the support back into his/her face with insults based only on a different religious worldview. That is neither respect nor any sort of love coming from you. I too would be against any form of the governemnt forcing all churches to perform same sex marraiges. The civil rights era is now 50 years old and the government has yet to step in and force a church to marry two people from opposite races, or even two blacks in a white church.
The Danish church is funded by the goverment. It would be like your govenment ordering the Department of Agriculture to obey anti discrimination laws. That you look for cases that can be twisted and taken out of context (is the Bible the only thing that context matters) to support you case and always refuse to even an attempt to understand the facts of the matter.
Southern bored, I too would support your position as opposing any law like Jeff is afraid of . Jeff's reaction to you is so full of lack of love.
That is certainly a distinguishing point. Thank you for the facts.
I don't buy that for a second. If the government created a new law forcing churches to host SSM weddings tomorrow (and it could probably be done on some loose interpretation of discrimination laws), you would be right here saying, hey it's the law. Don't like it? Don't be a pastor anymore. That's exactly how you react to Christian businesses. That's exactly the reaction to Kim Davis. Didn't matter if it was unethical or morally wrong to throw her in jail huh? No, she should have followed the rules.
If history is our guide, then take a look at the first country in the world to legalize SSM.
Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to get married in a church that doesn't want them.
Then again, I'm to religious.
Maybe it's for the decor? LOL
No same-sex couple is going to ruin the happiest day of their lives by making some frowny-faced preacher who thinks they're going to hell marry them.
The people who believe gays will be banging on the door of churches that aren't gay-accepting, demanding to be married are full of themselves. They make themselves more important than they actually are. There are plenty of churches, and pastors, who will happily marry same-sex couple.
No same-sex couple is going to ruin the happiest day of their lives by making some frowny-faced preacher who thinks they're going to hell marry them.
The people who believe gays will be banging on the door of churches that aren't gay-accepting, demanding to be married are full of themselves. They make themselves more important than they actually are. There are plenty of churches, and pastors, who will happily marry same-sex couple.
Exactly.
If I was gay and wanted to marry in a church, I sure as shinola wouldn't pick a fundamentalist one.
The same fear-mongering from fundies was apparent here in the Great White North when SSM was legalized over 10 years ago -- none of which actually occurred.
Many churches here will be happy to marry same-sex couples. Many do not.
NONE has ever, or will ever, be forced to if it's against their doctrine.
That is certainly a distinguishing point. Thank you for the facts.
Thank you for the compliment. Judging from below it was ignored by the intended target.
There are too many spokepeople of some groups that spread false information. We see that about Muslims, refugees, taxes, unions, governments, corporations , gays etc. We should all be able to look at an event , law or situation and judge it on its own merits based on all the facts that we have at our disposal rather than judging everything based simply on is it on my side or the other's side and disregard the facts.
I don't buy that for a second. If the government created a new law forcing churches to host SSM weddings tomorrow (and it could probably be done on some loose interpretation of discrimination laws), you would be right here saying, hey it's the law. Don't like it? Don't be a pastor anymore. That's exactly how you react to Christian businesses. That's exactly the reaction to Kim Davis. Didn't matter if it was unethical or morally wrong to throw her in jail huh? No, she should have followed the rules.
If history is our guide, then take a look at the first country in the world to legalize SSM.
Historic indeed. I have no doubt that the same can happen here 10 years from now.
Do you not even read the articles you link to? In the article it is clearly stated that it was published in 2012 and that marriages could be held as early as June. That is June 2012 .. long after many other countries have had same sex marriage, in 2005 for example in Canada.
May I ask where you got your link from? To have gotten the year, the country and who had SSM first certainly did not come from Google search of history of SSM. I would assume it was one of your religious sites though
If I was gay and wanted to marry in a church, I sure as shinola wouldn't pick a fundamentalist one.
I would...just to jack them off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
All liberal countries look alike .
Damn pinko socialists!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
