The Body Politic is Queer

TruthxChange ^ | June 26, 2015 | Dr. Peter Jones

[spirited irish]

Ironically, this claim [“the body of Christ is queer”], by an ordained bi-sexual female, Layton E. Williams, in the PC(USA), appeared the day before the decision of the USSC to legalize same sex marriage in all fifty states.

Culturally, this legal decision represents an historic moment for the United States. The Declaration of Independence, declaring that rights and laws are endowed by the Creator, has been rendered meaningless by a fake redefining of marriage, with no reference to the Creator or to any objective standards. The charade is over. This decision indicates that what has been happening for some time is finally here for all to see: the USA is clearly a “godless nation.” Let public figures supporting this decision no longer say or sing: “God bless America.” or “Amazing Grace.” It is just as worthless as their view of marriage.

[spirited irish]

Dr. Peter Jones ping

[servo1969]

Off topic: You know what I think is queer?

“an historic”

How I loathe that!
It’s “a historic,” dammit!
When did “an historic” become okay?

[wbarmy]

["the body of Christ is queer"], by an ordained bi-sexual female, Layton E. Williams,

This "person" will have to hear those words again. In front of a white throne with the Supreme Judge sitting on it. And I can only imagine her feelings when those exact words are repeated again to the One she was describing.

That alone would be justice enough.

[RoadGumby]

The real question IS when did the misuse of ‘a historic’ become ok.

The ‘H’ is mostly ‘silent’ so ‘an’ is appriate.

[spirited irish]

Amen!

[servo1969]

Not when I say it.
I say Historic not ‘istoric.
‘Istoric sounds British to me.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

In all fairness, conservative and orthodox faiths could reclaim marriage as a sacrament, but have refrained from doing so, because they no longer want to be morally firm, and don’t want to be attacked for holding on to their beliefs.

It would require an agreement between conservative and orthodox faiths, all of whom agree about marriage, to only recognize marriages in their faiths as legitimate. The hard part would be in *not* recognizing secular marriages or marriages outside of their faiths as legitimate.

While only some of these faiths accept divorce, that would not have to be part of the agreement, just the unwillingness to not accept “illegitimate” marriages within their congregations.

As with “covenant marriage”, which was only adopted in three states a generation ago, this form of conservative and orthodox marriage would require a new name, but this would not be done with the permission of the state, only within these churches. To the states it would just remain “marriage”, and a state issued marriage certificate would still be required.

As far as the increased difficulty of divorce in covenant marriage, this should not have been done through the state, but by legally binding prenuptial agreements created by the church for the couple to join.