The last bastion of hope and true Christian conservatism on the brink of defeat.

Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of :eek::eek::eek:s? Really? Are they?

He'd be breaking the law if he didn't. Then if he refused to go to prison and resisted arrest, they would shoot him.
 
Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of :eek::eek::eek:s? Really? Are they?
If it's a law (I don't know how it's handled) and a judge decides that a priest has to do gay weddings, then yes.
Every law is backed up by force, that's why it's a law. If you don't accept it and keep #resisting, ultimately you'll end up being shot.
 
If it's a law (I don't know how it's handled) and a judge decides that a priest has to do gay weddings, then yes.
Every law is backed up by force, that's why it's a law. If you don't accept it and keep #resisting, ultimately you'll end up being shot.
Then I would warn any priest to 1) Not break the law and 2) don't resist arrest

Hoodlums and thugs have no place in our society.
 
Then I would warn any priest to 1) Not break the law and 2) don't resist arrest

Hoodlums and thugs have no place in our society.
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Marriage is a license with deep historical roots in creating society. Government wasn't saying who could love who, were they?


Marriage, being a coupling of two people has been around far longer than licenses. At some point the government decided they could profit from it. Good riddance.
 
Marriage, being a coupling of two people has been around far longer than licenses. At some point the government decided they could profit from it. Good riddance.

Yeah.. The license used to be through a church. Why did gays need marriage to love each other again?
 
Yeah.. The license used to be through a church. Why did gays need marriage to love each other again?


To receive the same legal benefits. From taxes to hospital visits.




Honestly, the church has a hundred years of rebuilding to do because of the child rape epidemic and cover up.

Gays are the least of their problems.
 
To receive the same legal benefits. From taxes to hospital visits.




Honestly, the church has a hundred years of rebuilding to do because of the child rape epidemic and cover up.

Gays are the least of their problems.

Getting the same legal benefits wasn't enough for gays. They wanted their relationships enshrined with the word "marriage".
 
If you want to actually know why Christians believe in marriage between one and one woman, it is precisely because Jesus defined marriage in that way:

"Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?" -Matthew 19:4-5

Your post is a typical straw man argument.
There is nothing definitive in that statement. Normally when I speak about marriage is the traditional male and female marriage I am referring to, but that does not mean that I am opposed to different types of marriage. It seems like you are inferring his meaning here, that it is limited to only that.
 
There is nothing definitive in that statement. Normally when I speak about marriage is the traditional male and female marriage I am referring to, but that does not mean that I am opposed to different types of marriage. It seems like you are inferring his meaning here, that it is limited to only that.

I'm not inferring anything. How can his statement be anything other than a reference to the marriage between a male and female?

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
 
To receive the same legal benefits. From taxes to hospital visits.




Honestly, the church has a hundred years of rebuilding to do because of the child rape epidemic and cover up.

Gays are the least of their problems.

You're referring to the "catholic" church, which is in no way "the church".

Now what is your feeling towards radical Islamic terrorism? Do Muslims or "the mosque" have some rebuilding to do?
 
So we should mold society in a way so that nobody has to be uncomfortable? So that no one has to do things they don't like? Why does that sound so familiar?
The special snowflakes package:
Circumstances that favor our biases and that cater to us while making us feel superior
 
>last bastion of Christian conservativism
>flooding neighboring Christian countries with Muslim hordes

Hans pls go
 
The last true Christian Conservative Leader Angela Merkel gave her permission for a vote on Gay marriage in Germany.
Looks like it's going to pass gay marrige as well. Did her Party the Christian Democratic Union just sold out to the Marxists agenda?

b3ueit.jpg


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40416126

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the door to a free vote in parliament on legalising same-sex marriage, after signalling a shift in her party's position on it.

Mrs Merkel surprised the German media by saying she favoured a "decision of conscience" on gay marriage.

Her conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) have previously opposed it - unlike the rival Social Democrats (SPD), Free Democrats (FDP) and Greens.

more freedom.

good
 
Jesus didn't.

Jesus never specifically condemned incest or bestiality, either.

But since he was a Jew, operating out of the Torah's explicit sexual code, it's clear he would have been opposed to all three.

The fact is, Jesus had an even more conservative stance on human sexuality than did the Pharisees. As evidenced by his reference to adultery.

Whereas the Pharisees only believed a man was guilty of adultery if he actually performed an adulterous sexual act, Jesus argued that the mental and emotional desire for the act, in and of itself, constituted commission.
 
I'm not inferring anything. How can his statement be anything other than a reference to the marriage between a male and female?

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
I've already explained how. How do you know he wasn't speaking about marriage in general versus the small percentage of people who (the amount of openly gay at the time was probably much smaller) would possibly want to marry one of their own.

You have to read something further than what is said to convince your self that it is limited to only man and a woman. I don't see the word "Only" in there. It's not definitive.

Further marriage predates Christianity, and the Abrahamic religions. They don't own it.

Lastly, you're putting a lot of faith in a book by an unknown author, where all original copies of the text were lost and were written almost 60 years after the death of Jesus.
 
You're referring to the "catholic" church, which is in no way "the church".

Now what is your feeling towards radical Islamic terrorism? Do Muslims or "the mosque" have some rebuilding to do?



Of course, Islam will be pulled out of the 7th century whether they like it or not.


Maybe I didn't make myself clear,


Bill Clinton is a rapist, MAGA!!!
 
I've already explained how. How do you know he wasn't speaking about marriage in general versus the small percentage of people who (the amount of openly gay at the time was probably much smaller) would possibly want to marry one of their own.

He was speaking about marriage as it was defined by God in the beginning. Seeing as how homosexuality was considered a sin by God, I don't really see where you think you have the grounds to interpret Christ's opinion based on something HE NEVER SAID!

You have to read something further than what is said to convince your self that it is limited to only man and a woman. I don't see the word "Only" in there. It's not definitive.

Considering Jesus was referencing the old testament when he made the remark, and considering that homosexuality is expressly forbidden in the old testament, I fail to see how you could arrive at the conclusion that Jesus approved of gay marriage.

Further marriage predates Christianity, and the Abrahamic religions. They don't own it.

Non-sequitur. I wasn't debating whether gays have the right to get married (I think they do). I was simply pointing out why Christians don't agree with it. Get you emotions under control.

Lastly, you're putting a lot of faith in a book by an unknown author, where all original copies of the text were lost and were written almost 60 years after the death of Jesus.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage. (I think gays should be allowed to get married.) I'm explaining why most Christians oppose it. Can you work out the difference?
 
Back
Top