Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

page: 24
23
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Yes the state cant regulate here unless someone is doing human sacrifice.


Wrong. There are several religions which have their religious practices banned.

There's a Brazillian church in New Mexico that drinks Ayahuasca (psychadelic) which is illegal. The federal government granted their congregation special permission for ceremonial purposes.

The government can ban whatever religious practice they want, regardless of whether or not it hurts someone.

(Because it's not Ecclesiastical law)




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


That's the point. The church pays tribute to evil by rationalizing materialism, and the necessity to be tax-exempt. Rather than admitting they shouldn't be concerned with money period.



This happens and more so today with these prosperity teachers. Unfortunately the state cant regulate some without regulating all and that some is not only what the status protects but the state protects itself from.

Its a complex issue and you are right about some churches running as wealth machines but it is because you are wrong about the nature of the relationship with the saints and money in general that I cant see the whole thing as some evil exercize. The vast number of churches take in money for basic operational considerations and are not money laundering for Jesus.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Its a complex issue and you are right about some churches running as wealth machines but it is because you are wrong about the nature of the relationship with the saints and money in general that I cant see the whole thing as some evil exercize. The vast number of churches take in money for basic operational considerations and are not money laundering for Jesus.


Some churches do only take in for basic operational costs. I don't disagree. Because as I said we made money a necessary evil. That doesn't make my point incorrect by any means.

In fact it reinforces it. Because if the church simply operated under Ecclesiastical law, and forgoes holding on to materialism.

Then the government can't touch them period unless they break common law. But if they followed Common Law, you couldn't make gay-sex a crime.

YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Maybe you are avoiding the question because you do not see how it relates. I assue you that all I am asking for is your opinion on churches and their right to speak freely. I am not looking to get into a this church against that church kind of thing or a religious debate. I simply want to know, based on what you have said so far, if you feel they have the right to speak positively about gay marriage as a church in the same capacity you believe the christian churches should be able to. Yes or no?

[edit on 7/13/10 by evil incarnate]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
Yes the state cant regulate here unless someone is doing human sacrifice.


Wrong. There are several religions which have their religious practices banned.

There's a Brazillian church in New Mexico that drinks Ayahuasca (psychadelic) which is illegal. The federal government granted their congregation special permission for ceremonial purposes.

The government can ban whatever religious practice they want, regardless of whether or not it hurts someone.

(Because it's not Ecclesiastical law)


Yea ok but you thought you were going to catch me saying something else like the satan church should be shut down.

Besides I said what you just said that in the case of human sacrifce the state doesnt have to regard that as an act of liturgy. And really that is within its duty even as put out in the NT by Paul.

In our country at the beginning we have agreed that tax and the power to tax must be garded against excess as part of our soical contract and philosophy.. We dont believe the gov has rights to tax at thier pleasure. The gov on all levels has grown contemptuous of the peoples rights here and this late talk of taxing churches is evidence of this driffting from its moorings and development of a vast appetite.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Ok guys enough with the tax debate. I hate to point this out but you have let yourselves be pulled way off topic. The whole tax debate was started as a form of misdirection as we had all provided ample proof and evidence of the outright hypocrisy of their arguments. We also provided clear and concise reasons why the church cannot have a sway in law. Please stop feeding these trolls with this debate; as soon as you win it they will not concede and will bring up yet another topic to keep your focus from where it should be.

I am still waiting for a reply from TheChristianVoice. I am a shining example of the proof he asked for regarding a homosexual with an optimal upbringing and he has yet to reply to me; another member provided an equally well serving example and has been ignored as well. I have asked a basic question regarding people's faith citing one example from the old testament and one example from the new testament only to be completely ignored. Both of these posts can be found on page 21 of this thread if anyone wants to actually answer them.

It should not surprise me that I am being ignored and it should not surprise the rest of you when it happens to you. The best way I can put it is to point out the behavior of a child when he does something he knows is wrong and gets corrected/disciplined for it. The child will go off and pout. The child pouts from frustration at having ever been so wrong and from being embarrassed by the correction he received. None of you should be surprised by these childish behaviors, and none of you should allow the pouting to pull you off topic. Doing that gives these oafs a form of validation in their own minds and however crazy they are for feeling that way we must not validate their twisted psychology or their erroneous opinion based narrow minded viewpoint.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Logarock
 


Maybe you are avoiding the question because you do not see how it relates. I assue you that all I am asking for is your opinion on churches and their right to speak freely. I am not looking to get into a this church against that church kind of thing or a religious debate. I simply want to know, based on what you have said so far, if you feel they have the right to speak positively about gay marriage as a church in the same capacity you believe the christian churches should be able to. Yes or no?

[edit on 7/13/10 by evil incarnate]


You have never asked that question.

The question was if churches that speak out nagatively about gay marriage should be censured by the gov. And no they shouldnt. If the gays want to start thier own church thats thier thing....its not like human sacrifce if thats where you were going here. But I wouldnt buy into it, a gay church and would speak against it on spritual grounds.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Well said. I would compliment you on your grasp of parenting but that would lead to an entirely new topic.


Thanks everyone! Later.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
If the gays want to start thier own church thats thier thing


But their church can't allow homosexuals to marry right?

BOOM CHECKMATE.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Ok guys enough with the tax debate. I hate to point this out but you have let yourselves be pulled way off topic. The whole tax debate was started as a form of misdirection as we had all provided ample proof and evidence of the outright hypocrisy of their arguments. We also provided clear and concise reasons why the church cannot have a sway in law. Please stop feeding these trolls with this debate; as soon as you win it they will not concede and will bring up yet another topic to keep your focus from where it should be.



You are right about the drifting off topic.

The cannadian issue is clearly related to gov action in relation to gay issues i.e. churches that speak out aganist gay marriage are threatened. You dont have a problem with that?

but as for the rest...excuse me? troll? ample proof of hypocrisy? Sounds like somebody on the ropes.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
You have never asked that question.


It is exactly what I asked. Let me quote myself completely.

The Church of Satan is a pretty big advocate of things like Gay Marriage. Do you feel they should have more or less freedom to speak about that and why?


Why are you lying?


The question was if churches that speak out nagatively about gay marriage should be censured by the gov. And no they shouldnt.


I asked about churches that speak POSITIVELY.


If the gays want to start thier own church thats thier thing....its not like human sacrifce if thats where you were going here.


No, you are the one that keeps bringing up human sacrifice and I do not know why. It has nothing to do with the Church of Satan, gay marriage, or taxes. Why do you keep going there?


But I wouldnt buy into it, a gay church and would speak against it on spritual grounds.


You have to be trying pretty hard to twist what I asked that far. It is a simple question and I have asked several times now. Is this the only way to promote your point of view? Distortion?

I will ask again.

A SPECIFIC CHURCH (I will not bother to say which one because it seems to confuse you and it does not matter any more) is a PROPONENT of gay marriage.

DO YOU feel they should be allowed to express that or not?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
If the gays want to start thier own church thats thier thing


But their church can't allow homosexuals to marry right?

BOOM CHECKMATE.


Man you are desperate. Thats "church" in a truly generic way their buddy. In my personal opinion it would be a misdirected bunch but could operate under the name "church".



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
In my personal opinion


That sums up your entire argument. Opinions devoid of fact.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



I have answered this question in the affermative many times. Why? Not becouse I am pro gay but pro free speech. But dont have to advocate anything about gay marriage in my private or public conversation.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Logarock]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
In my personal opinion


That sums up your entire argument. Opinions devoid of fact.


That was an opinon on a point. But what do you operate from if not opinion?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



I have answered this question in the affermative many times. Why? Not becouse I am pro gay but pro free speech. But dont have to advocate anything about gay marriage in my private or public conversation.


Well there is a reason I asked one specific question one time so many attempts ago. Do you feel that The Church of Satan is having its ability to SPEAK in favor of gay marriage hampered or censored?

NO HUMAN SACRIFICE!!!!!!

I am specificaly talking about SPEAKING -with words- in favor of gay marriage. Do you feel they are being stopped from doing so, as a church?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
In my personal opinion


That sums up your entire argument. Opinions devoid of fact.


That was an opinon on a point. But what do you operate from if not opinion?


Continually shifting understanding in relation to facts.

My opinion isn't, gays should marry.
My opinion isn't, gay's shouldn't marry.

The opinion is that I would like the choice to marry or not. So the fact is, if I would like the freedom to marry and admit it's a freedom. Then being a freedom it hold's just as true for homosexuals to have the choice.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


The original topic of this thread was that Gay Marriage was declared unconstitutional in the U.S. Now if you can kindly explain to me how government actions regarding churches in Canada (Canada is sovereign) has any bearing on the constitutionality of gay marriage in the United States?

If I do or do not have a problem with what the Canadian government is doing has no bearing in any way shape form or fashion on this thread.

As to being "on the ropes" I am not sure what you meant by that comment. I think my position was defined pretty clearly. As near as I can tell from your evasive tactics I am standing in the center of the ring ready to go and you are the one off in the corner.

If your next reply doesn't directly relate to his thread's topic I see no reason to dignify your behavior with a response.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Many of the churches in the north were known for thier anti slavey position. What we saw in the south was the church as instrument of the environment....and it was wrong and everybody knows it.


Oh no my friend, you're not going to get away with that so easily. It's irrelevant that some churches were against slavery (and as you know, there are some churches that marries gay couples), there's a wider point you can not ignore. When people were using the bible to defend slavery they were not misinterpreting anything: the bible is clear about it, it says slavery is ok, and you know it if you've read it. The only reason why the most extreme part of the church has given up on that point is simply because noone supports it, not even the sheppard. How can you say a part of the bible is wrong but another part isn't? You're just nitpicking as most christians do.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



I have answered this question in the affermative many times. Why? Not becouse I am pro gay but pro free speech. But dont have to advocate anything about gay marriage in my private or public conversation.


Well there is a reason I asked one specific question one time so many attempts ago. Do you feel that The Church of Satan is having its ability to SPEAK in favor of gay marriage hampered or censored?

NO HUMAN SACRIFICE!!!!!!

I am specificaly talking about SPEAKING -with words- in favor of gay marriage. Do you feel they are being stopped from doing so, as a church?


Free speech cannot be infringed here it not even debatable.

As far as the last question not legaly stoped no but there is pressure for this to be stoped that doesnt consider rights of free speech. Having said that its true that gays dont protest churches like they have in the past...but they dont have to. And I havent been to church in years.





top topics
 
23
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join