WTF ping...
Anita Hill changed professions I see.
gag - cacckk-cacck!
Marriage isn’t supposed to be a business.
“Ultimately, the three churches that passed the ban decided against making any concessions. “Seventy-five dollars for a judge and 30 minutes plus parking is such a small inconvenience compared to what same-sex couples experience,” says Lyndale’s Portwood.”
Nothing compared to what unrepentant same-sex couples will experience later on...
Marriage between one man and one woman is the cornerstone of American society.
Marriage is ordained by God, confirmed by law, and is the glue of the American family.
It is sad that the very institution, the church, that should be at the forefront of this cultural battle in defending marriage, is the very one that is advocating for the destruction of it.
I have faith in the American people that they understand and appreciate dearly the blessings of marriage and how strong marriages create strong families and strong families create a strong America.
ALL churches and other religious groups should stop following orders from the government about marriage. They wouldn’t take orders from the government regarding any other religious ritual or recognition, so why this one? If a church doesn’t believe in divorce, it doesn’t recognize them just because the government declares a church member divorced. If you want to get married in the Catholic Church, the Church requires you to get permission from the government first in the form of a license. But if you later get a government-issued divorce, the Church doesn’t recognize it. How much sense does this make?
This is an interesting article. The word Christian is NEVER used in the article. The word Christ appears twice because it happens to be in the name of church. Obviously, secular humanism has taken over a lot of territory in this post modern era.
BUZZZZZ Sorry wrong answer.
You are not in either business. God is.
This is what we have gotten out of years of "sensitivity" training and "diversity" education.
Translation: No one wanted to be labeled a "bigot" by the rest of the congregation.
I did stand up against it at a church, btw, and that's what happened to me.
On the other hand, maybe every single member of this congregation is as loopy as the guy who made the proposition.
I seem to rememhber something about Jesus rather ungently booting a batch of 'businessmen' out of His Father's house, while in the flesh.
Maybe this batch better keep a sharp eye out for Jesus coming through the doors of their "Christian" church; he may do more than just sue them for taking His name in vain.
Some church.
Sounds like a place to avoid.
The bastardization of language and communication by the displacement of the basic definition of terms with meanings that don’t just give new expression to those terms but undermine the original basic meaning as well - like “discrimination”.
It comes from “discriminate”.
It means to mark or perceive the distinguishing or distinctive features of (fill in the blank), or to distinguish, differentiate, or to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences, to identify one from another, to make a distinction. It’s most common synonym is “discern”.
So, even if one is an atheist secularist, is a romantically involved “couple”, simply a romantically involved couple, with no “distinguishing or distinctive features”, and no discernible differences to identify one couple from another, in kind, regardless of the genders?? I expect, when exposed to the correct definitions, the answer is NOT.
Does not “discriminate” simply, in its basic sense, mean to identify a difference or difference and “to discriminate” (or “discrimination” - the act of discriminating) to apply some meaning to an action because of that difference (those differences) that the discriminating mind observes.
What we have is also the destruction of the basic meaning of both “same” and “equal”, which do not, intrinsically mean the same thing and now are treated so often as if the do.
Keeping with an atheists/secularists reasoning: No matter our religious faith, a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple are “different”, there are differences, there are differences in the physical composition, in the “natural” outcomes that can accrue to them (naturally derived children from the genetic components of a heterosexual couple are not possible for a same-sex couple, even by accident), among other things. So, the two types of couples are NOT in fact THE SAME, in many ways.
To say they are THE SAME is simply to ignore the differences.
To acknowledge the differences, to admit they are not the same, even from an atheists/secularists position, should not have to mean that in as much as they are not THE SAME, still they MUST be treated THE SAME?? This now occurs because here is where same and equal get merged, among secularists, by their leftists.
An apple and an orange may be of equal value, in a general nutritional sense, but that “equality” does not make them the same, nor do I treat them the same (I don’t eat the skin of an orange, I don’t bake it sliced-up in a pie) - I respect their differences, I discriminate, and I accord each EQUAL consideration IN RESPECT OF THOSE DIFFERENCES (EQUAL DOES NOT = SAME).
So, even if one wants to permit, by law or otherwise, some things to “same sex” couples, how and why is it that (a)the differences MUST BE IGNORED, OBLITERATED FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AS HAVING NO CONSEQUENCE OR DISTINCTION (when standing right in front of us we know that is not true), and bastardize EQUAL, in terms of what is granted to “couples” to falsely mean SAME. Should not we give EQUAL respect TO THE DIFFERENCES, AS DIFFERENCES and in “marking those distinctions” allow them to drive distinctions in our legal responses to “the couples”, commensurate with those differences?
I once was told by a liberal minister that to him whether it was “civil partnership” license or a “marriage license”, either was good enough, as was a “commitment ceremony” or a marriage ceremony. If he had no problem with those differences then, and even his ceremonies he said were “different”, I doubt that he has any problem with those differences now.
What is afoot here is not a seeking of “equality” but, as I said above, the bastardization of terms, like discriminate (choose), same and equal, so that actual differences that people have a right to believe they can make value judgments about, are IGNORED, OBLITERATED FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AS HAVING NO CONSEQUENCE OR DISTINCTION - but we know they do.
Social engineering theories are nothing more than the belief that nothing is natural in we humans, we are totally plastic - it is an “inorganic” concept of humans and ignores much of our God-given innate nature.