Somebody once suggested

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
that churches be exempt from state homosexual protections. Most agreed. Let the churches work within their faith. Don't force them to perform marriages, against their dogma. That's in next years bill.

Illinois churches are protesting a new state law that bars them from "discriminating" against homosexuals, contending it robs Christians of their First Amendment freedoms.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the bill into law yesterday amid a demonstration led by the Illinois Family Institute, or IFI, a non-profit group affiliated with Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund.
Click to expand...

Surprise, suprise
 
"...older than scripture: Love thy neighbor"....

Using Jesus as a way to get his way? Hmmm. Like an idiot from Illinois would even know the meaning of the word scritpture.


I don't know, sounds rather commie to me.


/reads a bit further


No wonder, the good ol' liberals are the sponsors. I sure most of them have never even seen a Bible...
 
Churches ought to be able to practise what they preach. They shouldn't have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in.

Further, I don't quite understand how potential participants can find meaning in a ceremony such as this when it's performed in a church which doesn't condone the ceremony itself, and feels that it's immoral and unethical.
 
Gonz said:
that churches be exempt from state homosexual protections. Most agreed. Let the churches work within their faith. Don't force them to perform marriages, against their dogma. That's in next years bill.



Surprise, suprise
Click to expand...




while I am for equality for gays, the churches shouldnt have to do anything. If they dont want gays in thre or dont want to perform gay marriages they shouldnt have to
 
I believe I said it once before...the gay folks pushing this agenda want their own 'rights' held in esteem above all others. If they force a church to grant them a 'marriage', then that church will no longer have credence. Isn't this a form of discrimination in itself? Acceptance forced is not acceptance.
 
Isn't this a form of discrimination in itself? Acceptance forced is not acceptance.
Click to expand...



in honesty: yes. It is basically asking them to change their values to fit another group. and as you said it is forced acceptance which is not true acceptance
 
Leslie said:
Further, I don't quite understand how potential participants can find meaning in a ceremony such as this when it's performed in a church which doesn't condone the ceremony itself, and feels that it's immoral and unethical.
Click to expand...


Isn't that the definition of gay marriage? Immoral?

The simple fact is that it's a power play, just like the gay marriages right here. A week after years of whining, complaining, and protesting gets them the right to marry, they divorce.
 
I am all for gay marriage (shocker..), but, as a non-christian I will not tell the church how to practice religion. I may have my personal opinion on what I would wish for them to do, but I don't have a say in it. (A small "but" below..)

---

Btw, how's the situation with "state church" (or whatever to call it) over there? In Norway we have a State Church. Now, a part of me feels that as long as we have a state church that is heavily funded by the government, the state should have some say in their affairs. This includes passing laws to prevent discrimination.

I am, however, for a seperation between state and church.

On the side-note: I'm not updated on the laws pertaining to the church over here. I do however know that there is a lesbian priest who has registered partnership (civil union) with her SO. She was ordained by one of three "gay-friendly" bishops in the country. (This had however nothing to do with the state and it's laws)
 
I am not against gay marriage - I AM against forcing any church to perform the ceremony. I am also against the whole idea of changing the definition of marriage. What the hell?!!??
 
Starya said:
Btw, how's the situation with "state church" (or whatever to call it) over there? In Norway we have a State Church. Now, a part of me feels that as long as we have a state church that is heavily funded by the government, the state should have some say in their affairs. This includes passing laws to prevent discrimination.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment of th Bill of Rights, written in 1786 adressed the formation of a "state church" quite clearly.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The government is not allowed to form, regulate or hinder religion. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words to somebody in a church...pointing out that teh US will not create an official church, ala The Church of England.

Jefferson said:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Click to expand...
 
The government is not allowed to form, regulate or hinder religion. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words to somebody in a church...pointing out that teh US will not create an official church, ala The Church of England.
Click to expand...



If that is the case then the Church does not need to perform the marriages if it chooses not to perform them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top