Your reading comprehension needs work. You can't decipher what is written here or in the first amendment.
Interesting Morning At Church
- Thread starter TennesseeWaltz1
- Start date
Perhaps you should read the majorityopinion of the SCOTUS. Then read the arguments put forward by liberals. Then you would realize no one has tried to tell churches they can't be bigots anymore.
Just curious mwa, do you know the %age of homosexuals that have taken on one or more children? Also, does a homosexual couple need to be married in order to adopt?
And my position does not justify sex out of wedlock. Could you point out to me where I condoned that?
I do t know the percentage but one of the plant ifs was a couple who had been married and adopted children. The state would recognize the marriage and hence would not let both people be listed on the adoption forms.
You suggest that gays could have a marital type relationship with out the marriage. That pretty much says you think gays should accept living in sin with regard to sex out of wedlock.
Sounds like a man with principles hard to find now days. Our priest today gave a similar sermon.
Yes I suggested gays could have an intimate relationship without the marriage, but didn't suggest that it's not a sin, and never said they should accept living in sin.
Since God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, I'm not sure God sees the "marriage" as a marriage. At that point it seems to me that the "marriage" is just a way of man bonding the sinful relationship.
I'd suggest the number of homosexuals adopting children is pretty few and far between. Feel free to correct me on that. Also, do you feel that a marriage status has a measurable impact on adoption between same sex couples?
I'm not sure why a low number means it's an injustice that doesn't deserve remedy. I do think not having your father legally recognized as your father impacts adoption for the kid and adult.
A man with moral principles is hard to come by these days do whatever you can to keep that minister.
I'm going to re-post this article/blog that gives a more exact translation and interpretation of the original Greek Text of the OT and NT to clarify that homosexuality is not a biblical sin.
Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing
The last paragraph is:
"In summary of my look at the Christian Church’s use of the clobber verses, if you want to call homosexuality a sin, go ahead. But you are going to have to admit that it is not biblically a sin. Which means you are also going to have to admit that you are calling it a sin simply because that’s what you want to do. Because of that, you are going to have to admit that you are a sinner for using God’s name for false pretenses (it’s a little thing we like to call using God’s name in vain). And then, Paul has something to tell you, “…you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” (Romans 2:1).
Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing
The last paragraph is:
"In summary of my look at the Christian Church’s use of the clobber verses, if you want to call homosexuality a sin, go ahead. But you are going to have to admit that it is not biblically a sin. Which means you are also going to have to admit that you are calling it a sin simply because that’s what you want to do. Because of that, you are going to have to admit that you are a sinner for using God’s name for false pretenses (it’s a little thing we like to call using God’s name in vain). And then, Paul has something to tell you, “…you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” (Romans 2:1).
We were talking societal benefit, so number absolutely comes into play.
So do you feel that more gay couples will decide to adopt because they have a "married" in the status slot?
I tend to view most churches outside of the ELCA or Catholic Churches to be somewhat weird. Especially those weirdo Gospel Hall or Baptist types that really don't have roots in Europe. They're always the poors that stop in at the local Sunday buffets around noon with their ill-fitting cheap suits and homemade dresses
Last edited:
Ridiculous statement...and made from an obvious religious bigot. Baptists only "baptize" those who have made a profession of faith and accepted Christ...
You're a fvcking commie....I'm pro gay marriage, but you are worshipping the state.....fellating the feds even. Wipe the government spunk off your chin and think logically.
I saw something interesting on my way to church this morning. I was on Market Street just before Dubuque and this young blonde was walking down the sidewalk laughing away to someone on her cell phone. Her hair was disheveled, her blouse was rumpled and tucked in crooked. She was wearing a very short leopard print skirt, and black stockings. The stockings had multiple holes and tears in them. Must have been one helluva night for her.
Yet, if she freshens up a tiny bit the OP's pastor would have performed a marriage for her without a care.
Yet, if she freshens up a tiny bit the OP's pastor would have performed a marriage for her without a care.
Your first paragraph makes the argument that marriage is beneficial because it provides stability, and is better for child rearing.
In your second paragraph you say gays should just be happy with living together. Thereby totally neutering your prior argument about the societal benefits of a marriage between a loving couple.
I disagree that numbers plays a role in the value of justice to society. Yes I think there will be more gays who marry and adopt kids now.
No, re-read what I said. God's design for a marriage is osm, not ssm. I said spcifically that God's plan for marriage is the foundation for successful child rearing.
When you're talking about overall societal benefit, you can't deny that numbers and maybe specifically %ages are important.
Can you explain your thinking process for your last sentence?
Legality tends to increase the participation rate in most things. As in the example from the resent case, adoption was bared or difficult before. Now it will be easier I assume.
The value of justice isn't something you can quantify as a numeric benefit IMO. Its an immutable good. So it doesn't matter if the number of gay people and their children being denied justice was 100 or 100,000+. Now society is more just and thats a benefit to all.
Or were you talking about the number of kids gays might raise as the good? I could see that action as quantifiable. It looks like this impacts more than 200k in 2012 which is about double what it was in 2000. This website has the following info: http://www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics
As reported on the 2000 Census, about 65,000 children lived with same sex parents. In 2012, 110,000 live with gay parents.
Households with Children in the US
Same-Sex Couples
Households with children 94,627
Biological only 72.80%
Step only or adopted only 21.20%
Combination 6%
Is it? I don't think you've asked him personally.
People were successfully raising children long before a few guys wrote the Bible. And many more raise successful children without the hocus pocus of religion as well.
I apologize, I didn't realize how poor your initial argument actually was. Trust me, I won't make that mistake again.
The church I attend, and I would guess most others, require couples wanting to marry to attend marriage courses prior to marriage. As part of the church marrying a couple, they must first attest that they plan to uphold the covenant of marriage as it is described within the Bible. Do some couples not take this seriously and never intend to uphold those values? I'm sure they are -- but it's not the Church's job to judge who is being honest and who is not -- that's a job left for God. But I would also guess that there are plenty of instances where Church's uncover facts in which they would also deny that right to OSM.
In the case of SSM -- it's pretty obvious that these couples do not intend to uphold the convent of marriage as described within the Bible and therefore the Church can choose to not perform the ceremony of marriage for these couples.
There is absolutely no doubt that adoption by 'married' same-sex couples is less restrictive than if they are unmarried. The same is true for different-sex couples. Many states have a priority protocol in place that gives priority to married couples.
So, the bottom line is that with fewer restrictions given a 'married' status, I firmly believe more same-sex couples will adopt than previously with more restrictions.
The Bible was written by man and translated numerous times. It's completely open to interpretation.
What sayeth you about churches that choose to interpret the Bible in such a way that they believe same-sex couples in fact do uphold the convent of marriage as different-sex couples do? How do you know their interpretation is not the correct one?
A child born out of wedlock being baptized does not violate church precepts. The sin of fornication does not attach to the child, just the parents. In the Methodist church the baptism ritual provides that the parents, the sponsors and the entire congregation will help the child to learn the precepts of the church. Churches were involved in the abolition of slavery, which was certainly a moral issue. Religious freedom should allow each church to decide whether to allow homosexual marriages in their churches. Individual members will then have the right to decide to stay with their church or change to a denomination which comports with their beliefs. The Methodist church as a whole will be deciding whether to allow clergy to marry homosexuals, which is currently prohibited. I predict that if the vote is positive there will be some further attrition in the national membership.
Our pastor reasserted he will not perform same sex marriages. To do so would be at odds with scripture contained within the Holy Bible. As an Elder and Administrative Board member of our church, I agree and support his stance 100%.
Personally, I have no problem with clergy or churches as a whole not performing same-sex marriage. However, something that needs to be pointed out is that the highlighted phrase is not entirely correct.
It should read: "...at odds with my interpretation of scripture contained within the Holy Bible."
Its important to remember that all this fuss is over some rather imprecise verses that never directly deal with gays or SSM.
If that happens, I hope they lose the lawsuit.
I find it extremely comical that people actually think God spoke to people in the past and laid out all the rules for Humanity. Psst, its God let's talk. If someone said God spoke to them today and he wanted to lay out rules for Humanity, they would be locked up in a mental facility. Back in the day people would believe and not question.
IMO, man spoke on God's behalf and made him a scapegoat in many circumstances.
Where do I go to donate 10% of my cumin? *gigity*
Thanks for the numbers mwa. They're a little confusing, but aside from that the question is are these numbers going to increase because the gay community can now fill in "married" in the status slot. If we now see orphanages and society's other unwanted children numbers drop because now the gay community can now put "married" in the status blank, then I would say we might have a measureable benefit to society and then you would probably have a point. My point is that the married status won't matter, so there really is no societal benefit for the marriage status.
As far as your last sentence, break it down for me. Tell me where God went wrong on His design for marriage, as it is recorded in the bible that is.
Similar threads
