Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (rituals, history)
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.
You keep telling me where it's is heading but how am i to know when you will not be forthright .
What facts? That the US has a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and laws and does not use the literal interpretation of the Bible as the final authority for its laws. That the First Amendment is subject to your approval and one cannot argue with you.
And what is an annex in your use of the term here?
So what facts have I ignored?
That the Supreme Court ruled that outlawing SSM was unconstitutional?
That Kim Davis had been ordered by a judge to either issue SSM certificates or allow someone else in her office to do so?
That Kim Davis refused and when taken to Court she again refused?
That the Judge is a Christian, Catholic I believe?
That Davis went to jail on contempt of court charges?
That she was released when she finally agreed to allow someone else in her office to issue the certificate, the same thing she originally would not comply with?
That the couple had sued to access their legal right for the said certificate that was granted to them by the federal and state governments and ordered by the State Attorney?
That the USA us not a theocracy?
That you have implied several times that the judge is crooked and took bribes or kickbacks?
That you believe that how you interpret the Bible should be legally binding on all citizens of your country?
What other facts have I ignored and where is this heading?
By the way no church is required to conduct SSM services but some Christian churches do.
You are not focusing.
Discipline in understanding a foundation of truth first.
Marriage is between a man and woman.
You are not focusing.
Discipline in understanding a foundation of truth first.
Marriage is between a man and woman.
So why was same sex union even considered?
You actually mean I am not obeying you. You said I was ignoring the facts and when I asked what facts I was ignoring you came up the one statement that is not a fact. SSM have been around for a long time and in many cultures. If you stated that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the Bible believing Christians that would be a fact.
It was considered because the USA is not a theocracy. Period. If it was then due to the first commandment it could be illegal to be a Hindu or a First Nations religion in your country.
Maybe it is you that should focus and have the discipline to understand that your religious beliefs, no matter how strongly you believe and how important they are to you, are not the law of the land. That is the truth.
You actually mean I am not obeying you. You said I was ignoring the facts and when I asked what facts I was ignoring you came up the one statement that is not a fact. SSM have been around for a long time and in many cultures. If you stated that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the Bible believing Christians that would be a fact.
It was considered because the USA is not a theocracy. Period. If it was then due to the first commandment it could be illegal to be a Hindu or a First Nations religion in your country.
Maybe it is you that should focus and have the discipline to understand that your religious beliefs, no matter how strongly you believe and how important they are to you, are not the law of the land. That is the truth.
So, you're arguing that other civilizations have had same sex unions recorded in legal documentation?
"Sealed" by a governing authority?
What do you mean by "decorated it as a gay cake"? Lol. A cake has no sexual orientation. The couple did not order a "gay cake", they ordered a wedding cake. The same cake being sold to other customers. The issue was not that the cake would be offensive; the issue was that the customers are gay.
Btw, Jesus' command to love everyone and not judge others was given to his followers. Its hilarious that your excuse for not following Jesus' commands is that the world judges Christians. So what? If you love Jesus, keep His commandments. (Maybe youve read that someplace?)
Read the actual article, I included it in another thread.
The cake was custom ordered. As in "can you make this cake show us doing this..." Thet were also from Massachussetts, holding the reception there for some reason. Thgey literally did not know how things worked and were trying to stir up trouble. Oh btw, at thge time, gay marriage wasnt even legal in Colorado, COINCIDENTALLY the very next year it was. So what they were doing may have been to break a law, they ruined his business, destroyed his reputation, all for what seemed to be a vendetta against Christian businesses (reference again the fact that they were about 20+ states away) .
Why do they accept adulterer's weddings? Besides the fact that they dont advertise the fact like a badge of honor so they dont know? Its because adulterers dont ask for custom cakes.
You actually mean I am not obeying you. You said I was ignoring the facts and when I asked what facts I was ignoring you came up the one statement that is not a fact. SSM have been around for a long time and in many cultures. If you stated that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the Bible believing Christians that would be a fact.
It was considered because the USA is not a theocracy. Period. If it was then due to the first commandment it could be illegal to be a Hindu or a First Nations religion in your country.
Maybe it is you that should focus and have the discipline to understand that your religious beliefs, no matter how strongly you believe and how important they are to you, are not the law of the land. That is the truth.
Discipline
this is a legal discussion.
patiently waiting here for a valid argument for instituting an annex for same sex union?
This is the question that arises all suspect actions against civil rights.
Marriage is between a man and woman.
And is the foundation of the framework of all subsequent Laws pertaining to the governing system.
Meaning the Definition was already established within the framework of the U.S governing Laws.
So with the established framework already in place defining marriage as between a man and woman, a well placed and firm foundation gives credence to what the judicial rulings should rest on. The constitution being already established also in describing Treason is a well established foundation and has a framework for prosecuting. The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The supreme justices 9 siting judges are given the duty to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.
And if a said judge attempted to strip one amendment from the constitution this would be an act of treason.
A perversion of justice of the highest for a Nations liberty.
Discipline
this is a legal discussion.
patiently waiting here for a valid argument for instituting an annex for same sex union?
You would have a long wait as I do not remember you even asking for that. Nor have you answered what an annex is. You did claim that I was ignoring the facts so I listed all the facts that i was aware of in this case and your response was to bring up a religious belief.
For an argument I am going to paraphrase the former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin back in 2005 when our Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prohibit ssm.
As a devout Catholic I was adamantly opposed to SSM on religious grounds but then I viewed it as a human rights issue and how can one be against human rights.
To me that is by far a better argument than
My religious beliefs are against it so everyone must follow what I believe.
There is a nice book with a title something like the secret life or the history of same sex marriage. It is a book based on scholarship and research. As thete are SSM in Christian churches you may wish to take the religious debate up with them, I point out the legal points which you have for some reason declared your Supreme Court as making an unlawful decision and have implied that the judge in the case took a bribe. So if it was a legal discussion why bring your religion into play? Even if this forum is about Christianity the law of the land is not.
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.
