- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,356
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of s? Really? Are they?Comfort has nothing to do with it. You are forcing a priest at gunpoint to do something he doesn't want to do
Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of s? Really? Are they?Comfort has nothing to do with it. You are forcing a priest at gunpoint to do something he doesn't want to do
Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of 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.Yeah? They're gonna shoot him if he doesn't marry a couple of s? Really? Are they?
Then I would warn any priest to 1) Not break the law and 2) don't resist arrestIf 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Can two gay men get married in a German mosque?
The special snowflakes package: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 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?
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.
Jesus didn't.
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.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."
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?
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.