70 yr olds forced to live in sin because someone's church says they can't get married.
I Smell a SitCom!!
70 yr olds forced to live in sin because someone's church says they can't get married.
We're trying to whittle our membership down as much as we can cause we know it's the best way promote our 2A rights.Black cops who put their lives on the line everyday now think it's pointless to post on here.
Those black cops should just take their Obama phones and be happy.
I guess "cracker" is not a racial slur since there has been a "cracker" thread for a week now.
Your church should obey God's law, not the Government. The Government was created to represent The People as a whole. Not some of them, not even the majority. There are two ways to do this, either allow ALL religions to influence law (which isn't a very effective way to go about this) or allow NO religions to dictate law. Considering there are millions of non-Christian citizens in the US who have to follow laws influenced by Christianity, this whole "I shouldn't have to accept someone else's beliefs!" argument is laughable.
The Government is not re-defining anything. Your church recognizes "Holy Matrimony" as the union of two individuals. The Government recognizes "marriage" as the union of two individuals. Do not confuse the two, as they are not the same terms.
You serious, Clark?
Besides the fact that the vast majority of states outlaw same-sex marriage justified under Christianity, read the "I'm going there!" thread. There are many people who want to justify the denying of the right to marriage to homosexuals all because their bible tells them it's wrong. Unrelated to your question, I also understand that this "shall not lie with another man" biblical teaching is taken out of context and actually has nothing at all to do with same-sex couples, especially marriage.
So are you in favor of fully legalized gambling, prostitution, unlimited drug use, etc.?
I am on counts 1 and 2, and mostly on 3.
Gambling: If someone wants to pay a "stupid tax" because they gamble with money they don't have, that's their problem. You reap what you sow. If I want to be a responsible gambler and only play the games with money that I can afford to lose, I should be able to. No one (well, except maybe my wife) seems to have a problem with me lighting a $20 bill (cigar) on fire and drinking a $10 bill (Scotch) on the tailgate of my truck and enjoying God's creation. Why shouldn't I be able to take that $30 and see if I can turn it into $300 (or more)?
Prostitution: What's it my business that two or more consenting adults enter into a contractual agreement to exchange sexual services for money?
Drug Use: If it's a natural substance, who are we to control access to God's creation? Pharmaceutical companies turn out worse drugs that are designed to produce a dependency, and doctors happily prescribe them if you ask for them. (Remember, meth is available by prescription for children with no dosage limit - just has to be an FDA-approved manufacturer.) Why can't I self-medicate with natural herbal remedies? Why can't I enjoy nature in a recreational manner? If you still want government involved, perhaps treat natural drugs like we do others such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and sugar: Public Health instead of Crime and Punishment.
ETA: RE: "consenting adults" post later in thread about justifying "immoral" behavior -
-- The Oklahoma law against consensual oral sex between a heterosexual married couple in a private setting is still on the books (misdemeanor and $2,500 fine). Struck down by court rulings, but still on the books. A zealot could probably argue about the logic in those rulings, but they'd likely lose.
Enter your email address to join: