Has your leadership started planning ...
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#243 Jul 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
This may not be popular, but I agree with you. Hispanics, Mexicans come into our country. That's a fact. We cannot and will not send them back, nor do we need to. Many Hispanics are God fearing individuals, most of them are probably catholic, and the vast majority are hard working people trying to feed their families.
Morally and spiritually speaking, we are better off with a country full of catholics than a nation full of people with no moral anchor.
And the sad part is the Republican Party cannot see this and they are losing the Hispanic vote and they will become dependent on the Democrats and government tit.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#244 Jul 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Back to the subject of this thread...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forc...

Nah, that'll never happen. They just want the paperwork right?
AGRH! OK, Dave - you get 2 points. BUT, your theory has flaws.

First - this is taking place in Denmark - can we be agreeable that things DO happen in other countries that do not necessarily happen here in the US? When I said: this will not happen - I actually did mean: to us, here in the US.

Also - the Danish parliament VOTED and the decision was supported by about 80%. If 80% of our law-makers support forcing churches to preform gay marriage - I guess they could just make a law and force people to do it. That's not the case here in the US - if 80% of our law-makers supported gay rights, gay marriage would be legal in all of our states already. Do you really expect our law-makers to pass a law such as this one?

And - this law is specific to The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark that is Denmark’s official state church. Which one is our official church?

Apparently, gays have been using these churches to perform ceremonies since 1997.

"The bill’s prime sponsor – Denmark’s church minister Manu Sareen, who is an agnostic – called the vote “historic.”

“I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” he said."

Does that mean that gays are members of the church? Seems that way. If you're going to allow them to join the church, seems like you ought to let them marry there - you would already be approving of their behavior by allowing them to join.

Judging by this article, I think that Denmark's government has a lot more authority over church government that ours does. Does Denmark guarantee their citizens religious freedom? If they did, how is it they could pass such a law?

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#245 Jul 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
http://www.redstatereport.com/ 2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on -churchs/
Two more points, Dave - you are frightening me.

Still, I do not see how these court cases would lead to forcing churches to perform gay weddings.

If a church rents their building or land - that is NOT religion, that is business. Businesses are not allowed to serve just the people they like - if you open up a business, you are discriminatory if you pick and choose who you serve. I don't think any judge is "out of control" by forcing businesses to refrain from discrimination.

The same theory could be applied to all of the cases listed - you cannot dismiss people from school because they are gay - you cannot adopt out kids to couples while excluding gay couples - you cannot advertise to photograph weddings and then refuse to do it because the wedding is gay.

These are all businesses, not churches.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#246 Jul 2, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Two more points, Dave - you are frightening me.
Still, I do not see how these court cases would lead to forcing churches to perform gay weddings.
If a church rents their building or land - that is NOT religion, that is business. Businesses are not allowed to serve just the people they like - if you open up a business, you are discriminatory if you pick and choose who you serve. I don't think any judge is "out of control" by forcing businesses to refrain from discrimination.
The same theory could be applied to all of the cases listed - you cannot dismiss people from school because they are gay - you cannot adopt out kids to couples while excluding gay couples - you cannot advertise to photograph weddings and then refuse to do it because the wedding is gay.
These are all businesses, not churches.
They can take try and take away the Church's tax exempt status by if they refuse to .

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#247 Jul 2, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
They can take try and take away the Church's tax exempt status by if they refuse to .
That's not the same as forcing churches to perform gay weddings.

Explain to me what ELSE the government is FORCING churches to do.

If any church is offering services to the PUBLIC - you DON'T get to excluded gay people - they ARE part of the public.

However, churches are run and funded by the members of it's organization - as you mentioned, they don't even pay taxes. Churches serve their members - but if they offer services (like a food pantry or adoptive services)to EVERYONE - gays are included in EVERYONE.

This is why the government did not FORCE the Boy Scouts to accept gays - they didn't HAVE to because they are a private organization (even though they get federal funding). They chose to allow gay youth - no one MADE them.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#248 Jul 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Abortion is an "ethical" way of performing eugenics, purging the undesirables of society.
YES! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT! That's why the government is funding abortions.

Again, I HATE abortions (and capitol punishment and war). I can vote with all my might at every given opportunity and all 3 of these horrible actions will still be funded and supported by the government. I can vote for democrats and then for republicans and maybe also some independents, maybe the Green Party or the Libertarians - I even voted for Ross Perot!! I can vote and vote and vote and no matter WHO wins any election, the government will still support abortion, capitol punishment, and war. It is in the government's best interest to do so.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#249 Jul 2, 2013
ASM- read the articles in full. One case in NJ. Another in Hutchinson, Kansas. Another in Jacksonville, Florida. Those were last year. That train will only get longer.

Where are MOST wedding ceremonies performed?
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#250 Jul 2, 2013
http://www.charlesmphipps.com/2012/04/gay-mar...

Particularly read the section about the law that was in discussion in Washington state.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#251 Jul 2, 2013
First - this is taking place in Denmark - can we be agreeable that things DO happen in other countries that do not necessarily happen here in the US? When I said: this will not happen - I actually did mean: to us, here in the US.

American judges are more open now to observing and taking international law into account. Plus, homosexuals in America see and pay attention to what goes on in other countries.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#252 Jul 3, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the same as forcing churches to perform gay weddings.
Explain to me what ELSE the government is FORCING churches to do.
If any church is offering services to the PUBLIC - you DON'T get to excluded gay people - they ARE part of the public.
However, churches are run and funded by the members of it's organization - as you mentioned, they don't even pay taxes. Churches serve their members - but if they offer services (like a food pantry or adoptive services)to EVERYONE - gays are included in EVERYONE.
This is why the government did not FORCE the Boy Scouts to accept gays - they didn't HAVE to because they are a private organization (even though they get federal funding). They chose to allow gay youth - no one MADE them.
Sure it is. You are talking about the government taxing all Sunday collections from all Churchs who refuse to do gay marriages. That would be considered income. Then donations to religious charities will go to zero because you can no longer get a tax deduction.

Then your taxes will have to go up for the government to support those who were being helped by religious organizations.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#253 Jul 3, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
YES! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT! That's why the government is funding abortions.
Again, I HATE abortions (and capitol punishment and war). I can vote with all my might at every given opportunity and all 3 of these horrible actions will still be funded and supported by the government. I can vote for democrats and then for republicans and maybe also some independents, maybe the Green Party or the Libertarians - I even voted for Ross Perot!! I can vote and vote and vote and no matter WHO wins any election, the government will still support abortion, capitol punishment, and war. It is in the government's best interest to do so.
Really? In their best interests? Or in their enablers best interests?

Washington is run by money. Whoever has the most, gives the most, promises the most wins. Politicians are bought and paid for by special interests. If I gave Mitch McConnell $50 million a week every week he'd do exactly what I wanted him to do. Doing what's right for the country is out of style. Doing what's right for their bank account and power is in style.

If enough people with REAL money stood up tomorrow against gay rights, the movement is over. If George Soros and some of his friends decided that homosexuality was a no-no, that'd be end of story.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#254 Jul 3, 2013
Dave P wrote:
ASM- read the articles in full. One case in NJ. Another in Hutchinson, Kansas. Another in Jacksonville, Florida. Those were last year. That train will only get longer.
Where are MOST wedding ceremonies performed?
OK, Dave, I'll admit that perhaps your concerns are more valid than I at first assessed them.

I still stand by my opinion: it is unconstitutional to force churches to perform gay marriages. However, I admit that I cannot predict the future and unconstitutional laws have and will be enforced by judges - that is why there is an appeal process.

I will correct you about the specific articles about past court cases - those were written in 2008. Were those cases appealed? Why isn't the list of court cases a mile long?

And there STILL weren't any cases of churches being forced to perform gay marriages - only to allow their facilities to be used for a gay wedding ceremony. If those facilities are able to be used by the PUBLIC - gay people are part of the public. Living a gay lifestyle and having a legal gay marriage is not against the law. These people should be treated like the rest of the public - it is discriminatory to offer services to the public and exclude gay people.

I'd guess that MOST weddings take place in churches - even though I know of many that did not - but the majority at least. Of course, I have never witnessed any wedding other than a heterosexual one - but I suspect that ANY gay wedding that has been performed until this point was NOT in a church performed by a priest or pastor against their will. I expect it to stay this way.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#255 Jul 3, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? In their best interests? Or in their enablers best interests?

Washington is run by money. Whoever has the most, gives the most, promises the most wins. Politicians are bought and paid for by special interests. If I gave Mitch McConnell $50 million a week every week he'd do exactly what I wanted him to do. Doing what's right for the country is out of style. Doing what's right for their bank account and power is in style.

If enough people with REAL money stood up tomorrow against gay rights, the movement is over. If George Soros and some of his friends decided that homosexuality was a no-no, that'd be end of story.
Yes - in the government's best interest. Our government whose interest is in money and not people. Our government that is being run like a business by Big Business. We're on the same page about who is in control. Money runs our government.

For example - which is the logical business decision? Imprison a person for the rest of his life OR just kill that person. Well, which is cheaper? A person in need of complete rehabilitation is too expensive. Sure, let them kill the criminal if they want to. The government has already over-extended themselves, they need to cut costs.

The same applies for abortion - let them kill their babies so we don't have to support them.

I don't want to murder - the government is OK with it though. They don't mind promoting it and they don't mind paying for it. Letting the most unsavory people kill each other is a way to get rid of unsavory people.

Another example: our town has many drug junkies. One solution (currently in use) is to sit back and wait for the drug junkies to OD - then they are not a problem. It is sometimes suggested that we just let them have all the drugs they want, so they'll hurry up.

I'm not for that, Dave! I want to save and change the drug junkies and raise all the un-aborted babies. Do you know why I don't do it? I can't afford to! It's an incredibly unprofitable thing to do. My goals are unrealistic money pits.

The government has money and it COULD save the junkies and the babies - some people would claim that the government is saving junkies and babies left and right. BUT - the unfortunates could do the government a little favor by keeping their own numbers down. It is in the government's best interest to allow it.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#256 Jul 3, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, Dave, I'll admit that perhaps your concerns are more valid than I at first assessed them.
I still stand by my opinion: it is unconstitutional to force churches to perform gay marriages. However, I admit that I cannot predict the future and unconstitutional laws have and will be enforced by judges - that is why there is an appeal process.
I will correct you about the specific articles about past court cases - those were written in 2008. Were those cases appealed? Why isn't the list of court cases a mile long?
And there STILL weren't any cases of churches being forced to perform gay marriages - only to allow their facilities to be used for a gay wedding ceremony. If those facilities are able to be used by the PUBLIC - gay people are part of the public. Living a gay lifestyle and having a legal gay marriage is not against the law. These people should be treated like the rest of the public - it is discriminatory to offer services to the public and exclude gay people.
I'd guess that MOST weddings take place in churches - even though I know of many that did not - but the majority at least. Of course, I have never witnessed any wedding other than a heterosexual one - but I suspect that ANY gay wedding that has been performed until this point was NOT in a church performed by a priest or pastor against their will. I expect it to stay this way.
Do most churches really "offer their services to the public"? Most churches that I know of generally perform ceremonies for members, or family of members. Very rarely if ever have I seen a total unknown couple walk into a church building and ask to be married.

Why haven't there been more lawsuits, etc? Well, things have greatly changed in the last two weeks haven't they? Business is about to pick up on this front.

I'm going to be perfectly honest here. My feeling is this- today churches should not be in the marriage business. I am not bonded in KY to perform marriage ceremonies, and unless personally asked it will stay that way. No one can force me to marry anyone, nor can they blame me if things go wrong.

PS- what's the difference between being forced to perform marriage ceremonies and being forced to allow their property to be used for it? Our congregation would not allow our building to be used for such purpose, and why should we be forced to?
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#257 Jul 3, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
For example - which is the logical business decision? Imprison a person for the rest of his life OR just kill that person. Well, which is cheaper? A person in need of complete rehabilitation is too expensive. Sure, let them kill the criminal if they want to. The government has already over-extended themselves, they need to cut costs.
The same applies for abortion - let them kill their babies so we don't have to support them.
I don't want to murder - the government is OK with it though. They don't mind promoting it and they don't mind paying for it. Letting the most unsavory people kill each other is a way to get rid of unsavory people.
Another example: our town has many drug junkies. One solution (currently in use) is to sit back and wait for the drug junkies to OD - then they are not a problem. It is sometimes suggested that we just let them have all the drugs they want, so they'll hurry up.
I'm not for that, Dave! I want to save and change the drug junkies and raise all the un-aborted babies. Do you know why I don't do it? I can't afford to! It's an incredibly unprofitable thing to do. My goals are unrealistic money pits.
The government has money and it COULD save the junkies and the babies - some people would claim that the government is saving junkies and babies left and right. BUT - the unfortunates could do the government a little favor by keeping their own numbers down. It is in the government's best interest to allow it.
Your first example really doesn't work, because we no longer execute criminals either. They either sit in jail or go free with serving little time.

Do you know why we let government take care of people today? Because progressives and social gospel people thought government was a way we could bring the kingdom of heaven down to earth. Instead of letting neighbors and family help out, they decided government should do it. Research the social gospel and progressive movements of the late 1800's-early 1900s.

President Cleveland (I think) once vetoed a farm aid bill to help struggling farmers. He didn't want people to depend on government; and he said (correctly) that the generosity of his fellow Americans would be more than the government aid.

Cleveland was a Democrat I believe. What would happen to a dem today for suggesting such a thing? Now when disaster happens we throw our hands in the air and say "Government help me"!
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#258 Jul 4, 2013
Bobby: " I'm going to be perfectly honest here. My feeling is this- today churches should not be in the marriage business."

Sad statement from a "Christian"
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#259 Jul 4, 2013
First of all it was Dave P, not Bobby that said this. Secondly, why is that a sad thing? A marriage is legal wherever it is performed; no one would then be forced to do anything against their will.

*No Biblical examples of being married "in church".
*No church, priest, etc recorded at the wedding Jesus attended in Cana (unless continued revelation by catholics says there was).
*No Biblical guides on who, how, when, where to perform marriages.
*Paul gave no instructions to Timothy or Titus concerning marriage ceremonies.

I am not suggesting that churches not counsel their members on marriage or marriage issues; simply that perhaps marriage ceremonies be done in a really more "traditional" way.

I have been to marriages on a beach, in the home, courthouse, etc. Lots of alternatives to church buildings. On private property, gay marriage is no issue at all.

What say ye topix friends?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#260 Jul 4, 2013
Dave P wrote:
First of all it was Dave P, not Bobby that said this. Secondly, why is that a sad thing? A marriage is legal wherever it is performed; no one would then be forced to do anything against their will.
*No Biblical examples of being married "in church".
*No church, priest, etc recorded at the wedding Jesus attended in Cana (unless continued revelation by catholics says there was).
*No Biblical guides on who, how, when, where to perform marriages.
*Paul gave no instructions to Timothy or Titus concerning marriage ceremonies.
I am not suggesting that churches not counsel their members on marriage or marriage issues; simply that perhaps marriage ceremonies be done in a really more "traditional" way.
I have been to marriages on a beach, in the home, courthouse, etc. Lots of alternatives to church buildings. On private property, gay marriage is no issue at all.
What say ye topix friends?
My wife and I were married in her parents home by a church of Christ preacher-a long time ago...
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#261 Jul 4, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
My wife and I were married in her parents home by a church of Christ preacher-a long time ago...
Congrats on a long, happy, and fruitful partnership sir. Question for others- look at Bobby's example. Would that not be a way to avoid the gay marriage issue? Have ceremonies in the home- just like they did it in the first century :)
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#262 Jul 4, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
My wife and I were married in her parents home by a church of Christ preacher-a long time ago...
Why a preacher? Dave said they shouldn't be in the business. Was God mentioned at all in the service?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun 18 Kevo8263 32
Catholics (Feb '14) Jun 17 mpetershat 3,338
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun 13 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
thomas jefferson edwards Apr '16 nuks67 2
Norm Fields – FORMER employee of Johnny Robertson (Feb '12) Apr '16 GunFighter 29
Stop erasing my comments! Apr '16 Truth teller 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages