Has your leadership started planning ...

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#102 Jun 29, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
No way! Why wouldn't L, B and T be included? They are victims of sexual discrimination just as gay men are. The DOMA law was overturned based on the specific example of a lesbian couple, gay married in Canada but a resident of NY where gay marriage is recognized. The issue was that NY recognized the marriage but the federal government wanted to charge a large tax to the surviving spouse's inheritance, as if the two people were in no way related. Did you know that an inheritance from an immediate family member is far less taxed than an inheritance from a stranger? It is. Those women were legally family members - and now that their union is federally recognized, the taxes have been reduced - reduced like they will be if you receive an inheritance from your spouse. How fair is that!(answer: totally)
I think that trans-gendered people are the most innocent of those who will be affected by all of this law changing. It is a fact of life that some people are born not specific to either gender. This is as rare as being born albino - but it happens! Parents are encouraged to designate a gender for their child - the child is an infant - they would have no choice but to guess the gender. "Deformities" such as being born with both male and female sex organs are encouraged to be "corrected" surgically - I think this is bad advice! The children are born trans-gendered - they cannot help it - allow them to decide later in life if they want their own "deformity" surgically corrected or if they choose to live with the body that has always been their own. Do not assign them a gender when you don't even know what their gender is! Hormones and human development determine gender - not necessarily sex organs. Do not force gender stereotypes on children. Allow all people to determine their own gender. Do not allow or dis-allow legal documents based on a person's gender. Their gender is their own and not your business.
Why do you think L, B, and T are different from gay?
You have to be a Lesbian. Lipstick or butch? Nobody else could possibly be this dizzy. Gay men and Lesbians are mutually exclusive. Bisexuals are lying to themselves and are almost always hiding from a spouse. What rights are they lacking? The right to sit on a fence? Transgendered, transsexuals, drag queens, and cross dressers have done untold damage to the image of Gay men and by their very public and stereotypical behavior have managed to convince society at large they represent all Gay men. Every city and state in America seems to have its own Miss Gay drag queen contest. Make it LBT and let the men continue to do all the heavy lifting for rights while the rest of you play. Are you one who thinks a man dressed as a woman should be allowed to use women's restrooms?

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#103 Jun 29, 2013
Dave P wrote:
ASM- why do you just flatly blame Christians and community intolerance for gay and non-Christian employees leaving quickly and not wanting to return? Could it be perhaps THEIR intolerance of Godly persons? Rejection of the lifestyle and message those people present?

We are not guaranteed the right to not be offended nor have to deal with others we disagree with. Many would rather just be offended and complain against those evil Christians that bother them so much.
I blamed society because I saw it with my own eyes.

Gay people recognize that I support gay rights - turns out, I run off at the mouth about it a lot - its hard to miss. I suspect that I work with some gay people who have rejected homosexual acts and lifestyles and so, I do not know for sure that those people are gay. Society has not run those people off because they have learned to live within the beliefs of our society - they have willingly rejected a gay life - we call them "single men".

The gay people that I am referring to are the ones who pulled me aside and told me their deepest secrets - their homosexuality that they struggle to keep hidden. I say: I understand why you want to hide your sexuality, but there are many reasons why being honest to everyone about it would improve your psyche. Don't hide who you are to please other people. They say: I don't like being treated badly. I say: it comes with the territory, accept it or stay hidden.

I have convinced more than one person to "come out" publicly and handle the consequences of it. I have been told by more than one person that its just not worth it! I have known young gay men who work very hard to convince everyone that they have a strong interest in women - they are terrified of being found out. They like the idea of not being physically beaten because of their sexuality and more than one "fag" has been "taught a lesson" here in these backwoods mountains. I heard the rumors that one of our employees was in a video online that included bestiality - not at all true! There was no video to back up the rumor, only mean people who told lies to hurt the reputation of a person that they hated. They hated him because he was queer. The gays felt drawn to confide in me because they understood beforehand that I would not judge them poorly for being gay. They were all relieved at being able to be honest - ah, they understood how good it felt to tell the truth after years and multitudes of lies. Lies that satisfied other people, never themselves.

Each of those gay people (all male, I will add) who were found out to be gay, left our establishment shortly after being found out. They could not handle the stress and pressure of the rejection that comes with "choosing" homosexuality - they were surrounded by people who make no secret that they consider homosexuality to be an ABOMINATION. The had to get away from those people! They each literally left town in search of some place where being gay was OK. If it was OK to be gay here, perhaps they would have stayed.

I suspect that there are a few young girls on our staff who claim bisexuality - it is easily hidden when they seem to be having heterosexual relationships - affection between women is often mistaken for "friendship" - I know better. Truth is: young girls can get away with anything. Our society doesn't want to "teach them a lesson", they'd rather take them home and exploit them. These girls stay quiet about their sexuality, however it doesn't seem to bother them, they take delight in fooling people.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#104 Jun 29, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I was thinking similar to you, but we also need to consider the artist need to make a living. We have in the past paid for the use of some songs. We have a good music team who write their own songs. Since they are paid staff there is no extra charge for using theirs. This is just the way it is in our society, we don't have to like it but it is the law.
Well, I agree that artists should be compensated for their art - it is how artists are able to earn a wage for themselves. But this is in conflict with the Bible and I would think that Christians would go out of their way to honor the Bible. They do any other time.

Since I am a trained musician, I have been interested in music all my life. As a child, the only music available to me was what I heard on the radio or what I heard at church. I knew the difference - radio music benefited artists - church music had only ONE purpose, to praise God. I was taught to reject secular music because it did not praise God and the Bible says: all music should praise God. Once, the congregation applauded after a particularly moving performance - our director was outraged. He explained that the selection was an offering to God, not the congregation. This is not a "show", it is a serious ceremony - a ceremony for God, not people.

So why are Christians peddling God's songs? I know why - because they are in business just like everyone else. They have decided that their efforts are only as worthwhile as they are profitable. God would not agree - as a matter of fact, wouldn't he be angry that Christians are profiting from what is his? If they are true Christians, they would donate their profit to their church because that's who should benefit from God's inspiration.

I like the idea of having original music written and preformed by your own members for no extra charge. That music is more honest than any music you could purchase. That music is truly God's, uncontaminated by man.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#105 Jun 29, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
So do you work for free or live off the government?
I work very hard for a very low wage - I made a deliberate decision to do so when I settled in this area. There are no available employment opportunities here for people who want to draw 6 figures - those people move away to where the jobs are. I am only able to survive on such a low wage because I inherited a house, free and clear. Also, my husband works and we take care for my disabled father-in-law, a blind stroke victim who does, in fact, receive federal income in the form of "disability". None of this personal income information is anyone's business except for those in my household - I'm only sharing it because I choose to.

"Welfare" is a serious topic where I live since it is common to see it being abused and used to support a drug habit. I may qualify for benefits, but I choose not to apply for them since I don't want my finances judged or analyzed by a federal agency. I suspect that the government is anxious to have all of us dependent on them so they can better control us all. It is a real possibility that I may purchase government sponsored health insurance - my income is not enough to continue paying for private insurance. It is my responsibility to live within my income.

I am an artist, but I do that for free after work. Art is not really useful - it is our society who has put a price-tag on it.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#106 Jun 29, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I agree that artists should be compensated for their art - it is how artists are able to earn a wage for themselves. But this is in conflict with the Bible and I would think that Christians would go out of their way to honor the Bible. They do any other time.
Since I am a trained musician, I have been interested in music all my life. As a child, the only music available to me was what I heard on the radio or what I heard at church. I knew the difference - radio music benefited artists - church music had only ONE purpose, to praise God. I was taught to reject secular music because it did not praise God and the Bible says: all music should praise God. Once, the congregation applauded after a particularly moving performance - our director was outraged. He explained that the selection was an offering to God, not the congregation. This is not a "show", it is a serious ceremony - a ceremony for God, not people.
So why are Christians peddling God's songs? I know why - because they are in business just like everyone else. They have decided that their efforts are only as worthwhile as they are profitable. God would not agree - as a matter of fact, wouldn't he be angry that Christians are profiting from what is his? If they are true Christians, they would donate their profit to their church because that's who should benefit from God's inspiration.
I like the idea of having original music written and preformed by your own members for no extra charge. That music is more honest than any music you could purchase. That music is truly God's, uncontaminated by man.
You must have been in a legalistic church which may be why you don't go anymore. There is nothing wrong with having fun in church, I enjoy being there. I will spend about half the day there tomorrow and then have a home group dinner and fellowship tomorrow night.

If the church wants me to remodel their building, I might give them a lower price, but if I were working for a living I would have to charge them because of the great expense and my own need to pay my bills. Having said that, most of the work in our church is done by volunteers like me and my wife. There is nothing un christian about charging other christians for your services-that is biblical. Now, in the old testament Jews were not supposed to charge interest to each other, but could charge for their work.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#107 Jun 29, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
It would not surprise me at all if there are some gays in our church, we do not do a door check on a persons sexual preferences all are welcome. However I do not think we have any gay members unless they have chosen to keep it quiet.
It is likely that you do have some gay people in your church - a gay Christian is likely to keep his sexuality hidden and refrain from homosexual behavior - if your gay members are doing that, then he/she is doing God's will, yes? If you are unable to tell if a person is gay, assuredly, you have no business knowing. If a Christian confides in you that he is gay - you should be prepared to counsel him about what the Bible says he should do about it. Hidden gay people have great skills in hiding - they have been doing it their whole lives.

What if: a gay married couple visits your church? If they are gay married, they are public about their sexuality - the information is available to anyone. Heterosexual people will not be getting gay married, only gay people. It will be a clear indication that they support a gay lifestyle since they are living one. You won't have to ask.

You do the same thing you would do when ANY person visits your church - teach them what the Bible says. If they are moved to join your church by dedicating their lives to Christ - I cannot fathom any way that they COULD while still being gay married. They should be counseled to terminate their marriage so that they might be able to live by God's law. I don't know how anyone could have it both ways. You think they will somehow FORCE you to allow them to join and also be gay married. I think that being gay married PREVENTS them from joining your church.

There ARE churches that do not believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral or spoken against in the Bible. They can join THOSE churches and stay gay married, since those churches would WILLINGLY allow it.

No church is being forced to do anything.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#108 Jun 29, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be a Lesbian. Lipstick or butch? Nobody else could possibly be this dizzy. Gay men and Lesbians are mutually exclusive. Bisexuals are lying to themselves and are almost always hiding from a spouse. What rights are they lacking? The right to sit on a fence? Transgendered, transsexuals, drag queens, and cross dressers have done untold damage to the image of Gay men and by their very public and stereotypical behavior have managed to convince society at large they represent all Gay men. Every city and state in America seems to have its own Miss Gay drag queen contest. Make it LBT and let the men continue to do all the heavy lifting for rights while the rest of you play. Are you one who thinks a man dressed as a woman should be allowed to use women's restrooms?
This is nothing but an ignorant response. About one births out of one thousands have ambiguous genitalia. About one in five hundred births {considered male} have an extra x chromosome.
Gender is not always black and white.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#109 Jun 29, 2013
There is the interesting case of Thomas/Thomasine Hall, 1629, Virginia ,who as an intersexual lived at times as a woman and at other times as a man. Through legal prosecution, he/she was found to be both male and female. The court ordered for the rest of his/her life to wear both male and female attire so as not to fool anyone. It has since gone from a legal community deciding if an intersex person is male or female to the medical community forcing the parents of an intersexual child to decide right after birth whether they want a male or female child, not giving the other option of letting the intersexual come to terms with his or her own reality.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#110 Jun 29, 2013
Why is this a current issue NOW instead of before now?

*Because throughout history until now homosexuality was universally regarded as wrong, punishable by death, an abomination, etc. Only difference now is that standards have been lowered, restraints on morality are being lifted, and living life in open rebellion is in style now.

We, the people, have every right to pursue changes in state and federal law - it happens everyday and has been happening since our state and federal laws were established. Christians and any other people are allowed to politically oppose these changes in law - they are doing it right now - but since their efforts are unconstitutional, they will be defeated by the very system of laws they are challenging.

*As Mark pointed out, a democrat president just a few years ago signed DOMA into law. He saw no problem with consitutionality then. It has often been said that marriage is a state's rights issue. Yet in a state that decided the issue for themselves activist judges took away the will of the people. I thought the franchise to vote was one of our most prized possessions as citizens- but now activist courts see no problem with disregarding we the people for me and my agenda.

The truth is: your vote pales against the constitution and regardless of votes, the constitution is required to be upheld by the law. You are correct that your vote will be disregarded.

*Think back to the Obamacare garbage. The constitution is required to be upheld by the law? Wrong. The constitution is disregarded all the time, even more these days. The leader in charge of enforcing prohibition back in the day was the owner of the largest distillery in the US at the time I believe. Think he enforced prohibition?

Obama himself has said specifically some laws would not be enforced by him. Watch the news. Very few politicians care one iota of the constitution.

Gay marriage is constitutionally correct. You can't help it. Do you disagree with that statement?

*Yes I do. The founders roll over in their graves thinking gay couples would even exist, let alone be married. They had no inkling of such an idea. It isn't constitutionally correct nor morally correct; and there is no real political will to resist it except by voters in the majority of individual states. Slavery, discrimination vs people of color was morally wrong. People saw it, here we are. Morally, civil rights and gay rights aren't in the same ballpark. Why do you think so many African-Americans are AGAINST gay marriage? The majority don't see it as a civil rights issue.

ASM, do you believe gays will try to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies? Yes or no?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#111 Jun 29, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
It is likely that you do have some gay people in your church - a gay Christian is likely to keep his sexuality hidden and refrain from homosexual behavior - if your gay members are doing that, then he/she is doing God's will, yes? If you are unable to tell if a person is gay, assuredly, you have no business knowing. If a Christian confides in you that he is gay - you should be prepared to counsel him about what the Bible says he should do about it. Hidden gay people have great skills in hiding - they have been doing it their whole lives.
What if: a gay married couple visits your church? If they are gay married, they are public about their sexuality - the information is available to anyone. Heterosexual people will not be getting gay married, only gay people. It will be a clear indication that they support a gay lifestyle since they are living one. You won't have to ask.
You do the same thing you would do when ANY person visits your church - teach them what the Bible says. If they are moved to join your church by dedicating their lives to Christ - I cannot fathom any way that they COULD while still being gay married. They should be counseled to terminate their marriage so that they might be able to live by God's law. I don't know how anyone could have it both ways. You think they will somehow FORCE you to allow them to join and also be gay married. I think that being gay married PREVENTS them from joining your church.
There ARE churches that do not believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral or spoken against in the Bible. They can join THOSE churches and stay gay married, since those churches would WILLINGLY allow it.
No church is being forced to do anything.
All people sin, so the sin of illicit sex is a sin that God can and will forgive, but the person must want to do what is right in God's eyes. If they admit that it is a sin and want to obey God in the matter, then the church will accept them and work with them. We do that all the time for alcoholics. If they decide to continue in that sin because they do not believe it is sin, that becomes a matter of faith. We cannot change what God says in the bible just to accommodate their lifestyle. If we did, that would be opening the door for any and all sin including murder to be ok and pretty soon we would be in danger of being no different from those who do not know Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

We cannot compromise our faith to appease everyone, like the liberals do. There is a right and wrong and we know the difference.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#112 Jun 29, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Why is this a current issue NOW instead of before now?
*Because throughout history until now homosexuality was universally regarded as wrong, punishable by death, an abomination, etc. Only difference now is that standards have been lowered, restraints on morality are being lifted, and living life in open rebellion is in style now.
We, the people, have every right to pursue changes in state and federal law - it happens everyday and has been happening since our state and federal laws were established. Christians and any other people are allowed to politically oppose these changes in law - they are doing it right now - but since their efforts are unconstitutional, they will be defeated by the very system of laws they are challenging.
*As Mark pointed out, a democrat president just a few years ago signed DOMA into law. He saw no problem with consitutionality then. It has often been said that marriage is a state's rights issue. Yet in a state that decided the issue for themselves activist judges took away the will of the people. I thought the franchise to vote was one of our most prized possessions as citizens- but now activist courts see no problem with disregarding we the people for me and my agenda.
The truth is: your vote pales against the constitution and regardless of votes, the constitution is required to be upheld by the law. You are correct that your vote will be disregarded.
*Think back to the Obamacare garbage. The constitution is required to be upheld by the law? Wrong. The constitution is disregarded all the time, even more these days. The leader in charge of enforcing prohibition back in the day was the owner of the largest distillery in the US at the time I believe. Think he enforced prohibition?
Obama himself has said specifically some laws would not be enforced by him. Watch the news. Very few politicians care one iota of the constitution.
Gay marriage is constitutionally correct. You can't help it. Do you disagree with that statement?
*Yes I do. The founders roll over in their graves thinking gay couples would even exist, let alone be married. They had no inkling of such an idea. It isn't constitutionally correct nor morally correct; and there is no real political will to resist it except by voters in the majority of individual states. Slavery, discrimination vs people of color was morally wrong. People saw it, here we are. Morally, civil rights and gay rights aren't in the same ballpark. Why do you think so many African-Americans are AGAINST gay marriage? The majority don't see it as a civil rights issue.
ASM, do you believe gays will try to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies? Yes or no?
Not that it matters, but your founding fathers were not unworldy men. They surely knew of such things. Homosexuals have always been around, don't you claim it is addressed in The Bible? Do you think ole Jefferson or Madison weren't aware of what was in The Bible? Julius Ceaser was said to be "a husband to the all the wives and a wife to all the husbands." Your claim that your founding fathers had "no inkling" paints them as very uneducated men. Perhaps, you should think a little more before you post.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#113 Jun 29, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be a Lesbian. Lipstick or butch? Nobody else could possibly be this dizzy. Gay men and Lesbians are mutually exclusive. Bisexuals are lying to themselves and are almost always hiding from a spouse. What rights are they lacking? The right to sit on a fence? Transgendered, transsexuals, drag queens, and cross dressers have done untold damage to the image of Gay men and by their very public and stereotypical behavior have managed to convince society at large they represent all Gay men. Every city and state in America seems to have its own Miss Gay drag queen contest. Make it LBT and let the men continue to do all the heavy lifting for rights while the rest of you play. Are you one who thinks a man dressed as a woman should be allowed to use women's restrooms?
I may very well be dizzy, if that's how you'd like to describe me. Gay, I am not. It is common for me to be accused of being gay because many people cannot understand why anyone who ISN'T gay would support gay rights. In actuality, if not for heterosexual people, gay rights would not have come this far - 5% of the population cannot accomplish anything politically without support - it is how politics is designed.

Isn't every couple mutually exclusive? What do you mean that gay men and lesbians are mutually exclusive? They want the same kind of marriage - one that does not ask a person to reveal their gender. This sort of marriage is fair to ANY two people who want to marry. This needs to be the standard marriage.

Publicly bisexual people are being especially honest with themselves and with everyone else. Otherwise, they would just be heterosexual like everyone wants them to be. A bisexual person considers "people" as companions, not any particular-gendered person, just whatever person comes along that strikes a sexual interest in them. If a person is being unfaithful to their spouse to have sexual relations with any other person - that person is acting against his MARRIAGE. If a person has sexual relations with both male and female people, doesn't that make them bi-sexual by definition? How is it that they are lying to themselves?

G,L,B,&T are lacking these rights: the ability to legally marry the person they choose and to have their "family" recognized legally, as heterosexual people do.

Oh! Gay men are alright but those clown people they hang out with are making them look bad? Well, that might be true. But clown people have rights too.

OK then - I get the point: you like gay men best. JK!! I know how mad heterosexual men get when you challenge their heterosexuality.

I'll say it better: Gay men know how to act civilized and you might consider that it would be OK for them to legally co-exist since they are already physically co-existing. However, if you did that: you would be encouraging men to dress up as women and you think that is disgusting. I see your reservations. Consider this...

You once cast a vote that elected a president that did something corrupt that brought on chaos and societal destruction, oh, no! Don't give yourself so much credit. All you did was cast a vote - everybody else did everything else - casting a vote is about the least way you could have affected the outcome. You are concerned that "gay marriage" is going to tear down the church and destroy life as we know it - oh, the horror! Where is the logic that something so subtle as removing "gender" from the marriage licence would cause the outrageous effects that I keep hearing described?

Gays invited their fabulous cousins to join in their fight because they needed ALL the support - they were in no position to reject any support - I'm sorry you think they are embarrassing, but, they think that they are quite entertaining. You realize that fabulous gay people have been bringing you quality entertainment as long as there has been entertainment.



Dave P

Lexington, KY

#114 Jun 29, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Not that it matters, but your founding fathers were not unworldy men. They surely knew of such things. Homosexuals have always been around, don't you claim it is addressed in The Bible? Do you think ole Jefferson or Madison weren't aware of what was in The Bible? Julius Ceaser was said to be "a husband to the all the wives and a wife to all the husbands." Your claim that your founding fathers had "no inkling" paints them as very uneducated men. Perhaps, you should think a little more before you post.
Pearl do you really think good ol' JC was getting hitched to both men and women back then? Of course not and it wouldn't happen. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning; gay marriage not so. Do you think George Washington would have thought gay marriage even possible. Perhaps you should stop and think as well. Make no historical blunders.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#115 Jun 29, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have been in a legalistic church which may be why you don't go anymore. There is nothing wrong with having fun in church, I enjoy being there. I will spend about half the day there tomorrow and then have a home group dinner and fellowship tomorrow night.
If the church wants me to remodel their building, I might give them a lower price, but if I were working for a living I would have to charge them because of the great expense and my own need to pay my bills. Having said that, most of the work in our church is done by volunteers like me and my wife. There is nothing un christian about charging other christians for your services-that is biblical. Now, in the old testament Jews were not supposed to charge interest to each other, but could charge for their work.
The churches here in WV are very different from the one I grew up in. "My church" was large and had a huge membership - it offered a long list of programs. I think their philosophy was to keep the kids BUSY working for God so they don't have any time left to get in trouble. The paid staff included: a pastor, a music director, an organist, and a secretary.(sometimes a youth director) A league of deacons managed the church business, because a church is a business: a non-profit organization - there is a budget that is funded by offerings - funds were used to make additions and renovations to the church, to buy Sunday School literature, to buy music and instruments, to upkeep a church van and to pay the staff. Money was budgeted to "fund missions" and to sponsor community programs like a food and clothes pantry that is available for the poor. I thought all churches were this way.

Here, there are many, many churches with small memberships. Their staff volunteers and offerings go towards maintaining the building. There is a tendency for churches not to have many or any programs outside of 2 services per week, Sunday and Wednesday. Few churches have choirs since it is difficult to coax participation. Bible school is very popular - a resourceful Christian parent could get churches to entertain their children all summer long.

So, I think a church with a paid staff gets more qualified, educated personnel that will serve a much larger membership than a church run by volunteers. However, some churches serve a very small membership - so long as the church(es) are meeting the needs of the community - it takes all kinds.

There is nothing wrong with churches "doing business" by paying to upkeep their buildings and even to purchase the rights to use music - the members donate that money - it should be used as they see fit. It is often beneficial to hire a professional rather than to rely on the generosity and expertise of the church volunteers. People who donate their time, skills, and hard work to their church are still submitting an offering.

Every summer, a few church youth groups from other states visit our county and "spruce up" a few houses that have fallen into disrepair, owned by elderly people. It seems like a great experience for all involved.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#116 Jun 29, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Pearl do you really think good ol' JC was getting hitched to both men and women back then? Of course not and it wouldn't happen. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning; gay marriage not so. Do you think George Washington would have thought gay marriage even possible. Perhaps you should stop and think as well. Make no historical blunders.
Actually, it makes no difference to me what your founding fathers thought, and I would not try to claim what Washington would have thought about gay marriage. Man does not know what is in another mans heart. But, your statement, "The founding fathers roll over in their graves thinking gay couples would ever exist" is just ridiculous. Gay couples have always existed. It makes no sense that you would paint your founding fathers as so uneducated, unless of course that is your perception of them.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#117 Jun 29, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
The churches here in WV are very different from the one I grew up in. "My church" was large and had a huge membership - it offered a long list of programs. I think their philosophy was to keep the kids BUSY working for God so they don't have any time left to get in trouble. The paid staff included: a pastor, a music director, an organist, and a secretary.(sometimes a youth director) A league of deacons managed the church business, because a church is a business: a non-profit organization - there is a budget that is funded by offerings - funds were used to make additions and renovations to the church, to buy Sunday School literature, to buy music and instruments, to upkeep a church van and to pay the staff. Money was budgeted to "fund missions" and to sponsor community programs like a food and clothes pantry that is available for the poor. I thought all churches were this way.
Here, there are many, many churches with small memberships. Their staff volunteers and offerings go towards maintaining the building. There is a tendency for churches not to have many or any programs outside of 2 services per week, Sunday and Wednesday. Few churches have choirs since it is difficult to coax participation. Bible school is very popular - a resourceful Christian parent could get churches to entertain their children all summer long.
So, I think a church with a paid staff gets more qualified, educated personnel that will serve a much larger membership than a church run by volunteers. However, some churches serve a very small membership - so long as the church(es) are meeting the needs of the community - it takes all kinds.
There is nothing wrong with churches "doing business" by paying to upkeep their buildings and even to purchase the rights to use music - the members donate that money - it should be used as they see fit. It is often beneficial to hire a professional rather than to rely on the generosity and expertise of the church volunteers. People who donate their time, skills, and hard work to their church are still submitting an offering.
Every summer, a few church youth groups from other states visit our county and "spruce up" a few houses that have fallen into disrepair, owned by elderly people. It seems like a great experience for all involved.
Out here, you know the LDS church rules and the bishops on down to stake leaders are volunteers and told when to volunteer. Of course this leads to a difference in each wards understanding of their own gospel. Also as a Mormon, you don't choose which church to attend, you are designated by what neighborhood you live in. What better way to keep an eye on each other.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#118 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Pearl do you really think good ol' JC was getting hitched to both men and women back then? Of course not and it wouldn't happen. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning; gay marriage not so. Do you think George Washington would have thought gay marriage even possible. Perhaps you should stop and think as well. Make no historical blunders.
What would you think JC would think of Protestantism? You think he would of approve of everybody believing what they want. YOu think he would approve of SS?

That is what the same sex attraction groups are doing. Believing what they want.

Jesus started 1 church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Only the CC for 1500 years. The Church created the Bible.

Make no historical blunders.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#119 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
The churches here in WV are very different from the one I grew up in. "My church" was large and had a huge membership - it offered a long list of programs. I think their philosophy was to keep the kids BUSY working for God so they don't have any time left to get in trouble. The paid staff included: a pastor, a music director, an organist, and a secretary.(sometimes a youth director) A league of deacons managed the church business, because a church is a business: a non-profit organization - there is a budget that is funded by offerings - funds were used to make additions and renovations to the church, to buy Sunday School literature, to buy music and instruments, to upkeep a church van and to pay the staff. Money was budgeted to "fund missions" and to sponsor community programs like a food and clothes pantry that is available for the poor. I thought all churches were this way.
Here, there are many, many churches with small memberships. Their staff volunteers and offerings go towards maintaining the building. There is a tendency for churches not to have many or any programs outside of 2 services per week, Sunday and Wednesday. Few churches have choirs since it is difficult to coax participation. Bible school is very popular - a resourceful Christian parent could get churches to entertain their children all summer long.
So, I think a church with a paid staff gets more qualified, educated personnel that will serve a much larger membership than a church run by volunteers. However, some churches serve a very small membership - so long as the church(es) are meeting the needs of the community - it takes all kinds.
There is nothing wrong with churches "doing business" by paying to upkeep their buildings and even to purchase the rights to use music - the members donate that money - it should be used as they see fit. It is often beneficial to hire a professional rather than to rely on the generosity and expertise of the church volunteers. People who donate their time, skills, and hard work to their church are still submitting an offering.
Every summer, a few church youth groups from other states visit our county and "spruce up" a few houses that have fallen into disrepair, owned by elderly people. It seems like a great experience for all involved.
On the surface this sounds like a good church. You are making it sound very different from the way you first described your relationship to church and why you left.There must be something else stuck in your craw...

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#120 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
I may very well be dizzy, if that's how you'd like to describe me. Gay, I am not. It is common for me to be accused of being gay because many people cannot understand why anyone who ISN'T gay would support gay rights. In actuality, if not for heterosexual people, gay rights would not have come this far - 5% of the population cannot accomplish anything politically without support - it is how politics is designed.
Isn't every couple mutually exclusive? What do you mean that gay men and lesbians are mutually exclusive? They want the same kind of marriage - one that does not ask a person to reveal their gender. This sort of marriage is fair to ANY two people who want to marry. This needs to be the standard marriage.
Publicly bisexual people are being especially honest with themselves and with everyone else. Otherwise, they would just be heterosexual like everyone wants them to be. A bisexual person considers "people" as companions, not any particular-gendered person, just whatever person comes along that strikes a sexual interest in them. If a person is being unfaithful to their spouse to have sexual relations with any other person - that person is acting against his MARRIAGE. If a person has sexual relations with both male and female people, doesn't that make them bi-sexual by definition? How is it that they are lying to themselves?
G,L,B,&T are lacking these rights: the ability to legally marry the person they choose and to have their "family" recognized legally, as heterosexual people do.
Oh! Gay men are alright but those clown people they hang out with are making them look bad? Well, that might be true. But clown people have rights too.
OK then - I get the point: you like gay men best. JK!! I know how mad heterosexual men get when you challenge their heterosexuality.
I'll say it better: Gay men know how to act civilized and you might consider that it would be OK for them to legally co-exist since they are already physically co-existing. However, if you did that: you would be encouraging men to dress up as women and you think that is disgusting. I see your reservations. Consider this...
You once cast a vote that elected a president that did something corrupt that brought on chaos and societal destruction, oh, no! Don't give yourself so much credit. All you did was cast a vote - everybody else did everything else - casting a vote is about the least way you could have affected the outcome. You are concerned that "gay marriage" is going to tear down the church and destroy life as we know it - oh, the horror! Where is the logic that something so subtle as removing "gender" from the marriage licence would cause the outrageous effects that I keep hearing described?
Gays invited their fabulous cousins to join in their fight because they needed ALL the support - they were in no position to reject any support - I'm sorry you think they are embarrassing, but, they think that they are quite entertaining. You realize that fabulous gay people have been bringing you quality entertainment as long as there has been entertainment.
Don't get out much do you?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#121 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>This is nothing but an ignorant response. About one births out of one thousands have ambiguous genitalia. About one in five hundred births {considered male} have an extra x chromosome.
Gender is not always black and white.
I wouldn't throw around the word "ignorant" if I were you. We are not talking about birth defects. I'm guessing you have never been around many drag queens and cross dressers who do this for "fun." So what do you think of a biologically intact male who dresses as a woman being allowed to use a women's restroom? This issue doesn't seem to involve women wishing to use men's restrooms while dressed as males although many Lesbians do so dress.

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
thomas jefferson edwards (Apr '16) Oct '16 NUKS67 3
THE CHILDREN of THE GOD MOST HIGH (May '14) Oct '16 randy 5
Martinsville Seven - The Martinsville Curse (Mar '10) Oct '16 Santiago Ramey 10
Nickname of Stick Oct '16 A friend 1
Easter Auto Sales (Feb '12) Oct '16 donnawyattreed 9
Dawn Mills Oct '16 Alan Nolan 1
Worship vs Service (Sep '10) Oct '16 Openbook7 7

Martinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages