Here it comes! Religions not recognizing gay marriage will be hate groups

[PaulConventionWV]

And the SPLC ( GOVT Agency ) is free to list them as " hate groups " .....

The government is "free".... haha, that's a good one.

 

[Elias Graves]

The entire point of all this, as with anything the government is involved in of late, is to divide and conquer. This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion. The founders recognized natural rights as flowing from a higher power and the founding documents did not grant them, but merely codified them. As soon as God is out of the picture, God given rights have no basis in being and are therefore merely constructs of man, subject to his whims.
The entire point of the separation of church and state is that nobody is compelled to belong to any religion. Any person who is legally permitted to marry can do so with the appropriate state documents and procedures, entitling them to whatever legal privilege a they may enjoy from said union. This does not, however, compel any church to recognize those unions, to sanction them or institute them.
The government clearly wants to equate this issue with civil rights and to label as a hate group anyone who refuses to recognize it as such. Most churches have prohibitions against many things that are legal under the law. Alcohol, gambling, adultery, lying, etc. with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.
Think what you will about religion, but it has no means to compel anyone to act or refrain from acting on anything under the law. The Vatican does not control tax law or the deployment of military troops and never has in this country, so the whole religious war argument is a straw man. The state, on the other hand, is free to compel behavior at gunpoint if it so desires and can deprive anyone it sees fit of their liberty. When these lines get crossed, whether you agree with the victim or not, it is a loss for all of us.
I would not stand by for the government singling out any legal group no matter how much I disagree with said group simply on the grounds of equality. When one group is compelled to conform, we all lose.

 

[jbauer]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

So the government should or shouldn't FORCE a religious ceremony between two consenting adults from a religion that does not consent of said ceremony?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Saw this one coming a mile away. In two years time, Christianity will be illegal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...to-Gay-Marriage-Endangering-Religious-Liberty

Seems that some Christians have taken over the "persecuted religion" image for themselves from the Jews. "They are out to exterminate us!"

 

[Zippyjuan]

So the government should or shouldn't FORCE a religious ceremony between two consenting adults from a religion that does not consent of said ceremony?

They don't force any religion to perform any ceremonies.

 

[Antischism]

It's clear to me that a lot of Christian fundamentalists have persecution complex partly due to the Bible mentioning that "true Christians" would be persecuted in the end times. Or at least, they use that as a basis for their claims. I can't wait until there's a gay or atheist president (if ever); the fundamentalists will be foaming at the mouth. We'll truly see how bigoted certain people are despite claiming to follow the words of Jesus Christ who preached love and compassion.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Seems that some Christians have taken over the "persecuted religion" image for themselves from the Jews. "They are out to exterminate us!"

Wouldn't be the first time in history.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They don't force any religion to perform any ceremonies.

Failure to comply means the same thing.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Government gameplans in work 100% of the time... both foreign and domestic. How that segregation and divide working out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Kosovo, et al. Always to devide the people and turn them upon each other and themselves. THEN, WHILE THE ANTS SQUABBLE FOR CRUMBS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER...

The entire point of all this, as with anything the government is involved in of late, is to divide and conquer. This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion. The founders recognized natural rights as flowing from a higher power and the founding documents did not grant them, but merely codified them. As soon as God is out of the picture, God given rights have no basis in being and are therefore merely constructs of man, subject to his whims.
The entire point of the separation of church and state is that nobody is compelled to belong to any religion. Any person who is legally permitted to marry can do so with the appropriate state documents and procedures, entitling them to whatever legal privilege a they may enjoy from said union. This does not, however, compel any church to recognize those unions, to sanction them or institute them.
The government clearly wants to equate this issue with civil rights and to label as a hate group anyone who refuses to recognize it as such. Most churches have prohibitions against many things that are legal under the law. Alcohol, gambling, adultery, lying, etc. with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.
Think what you will about religion, but it has no means to compel anyone to act or refrain from acting on anything under the law. The Vatican does not control tax law or the deployment of military troops and never has in this country, so the whole religious war argument is a straw man. The state, on the other hand, is free to compel behavior at gunpoint if it so desires and can deprive anyone it sees fit of their liberty. When these lines get crossed, whether you agree with the victim or not, it is a loss for all of us.
I would not stand by for the government singling out any legal group no matter how much I disagree with said group simply on the grounds of equality. When one group is compelled to conform, we all lose.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's clear to me that a lot of Christian fundamentalists have persecution complex partly due to the Bible mentioning that "true Christians" would be persecuted in the end times. Or at least, they use that as a basis for their claims. I can't wait until there's a gay or atheist president (if ever); the fundamentalists will be foaming at the mouth. We'll truly see how bigoted certain people are despite claiming to follow the words of Jesus Christ who preached love and compassion.

I don't know if he's atheist, but I know Justin Raimondo is gay, and I'd be fine with him being President.

Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of gays and atheists, like most other people, want their own particular agenda to be supported by law, rather than actually wanting freedom.

They may SAY they are, but violating God's law does not make one Christian. I'm not saying this out of spite, either. I'm just recognizing the fact that homosexuality is explicitly outlawed in the Bible.

If anyone here feels justified in saying getting a federal marriage license is a RIGHT, then we have truly lost our way.

Its very possible that they could be Christian, merely struggling with sin. Although you are absolutely correct that homosexuality is a sin, and that the issue of gay marriage, if any government is to be involved (which I oppose) should be dealt with by states, not the Federal government.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Get government out of marriage and it ends this. If you are bold enough to dare.

Yep.

The majority that want marriage want the same federal benefits as traditional couples do. Do you as a "straight" understand the auromatic benefits "granted" by the Crown for your particular sexual bent?

Well, considering I am not, and never have been married, I don't.

Extremists make the most noise in media. At some point individuals and collectives have to stand up.

True.

And your "defense" of your belief, the defense of traditional marriage benefits leads you to the conclusion that "self-defense" is the course you should take. SMFH.

So you are FOR the Federal government when it is For you? Against it when it is not? You need to change your user name.

I didn't say I was for Federal anything. I don't believe it should exist. And I agree with you on keeping government out of marriage.

What I meant was that if any gay person tries to use the law to force churches to marry them or pentalize them for not doing so, that church has the right to defend themselves through any means necessary, even physically if need be. I wasn't supporting the Federal government doing anything.

As for marriage: my ideal is the same as yours, getting government out of marriage. If there is going to be any invovlement of government in marriage, the states should define it without interference by the Federal government.

 

[Antischism]

I don't know if he's atheist, but I know Justin Raimondo is gay, and I'd be fine with him being President.

Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of gays and atheists, like most other people, want their own particular agenda to be supported by law, rather than actually wanting freedom.

Unfortunately, many bigoted fundamentalists would refuse to vote for an atheist or homosexual simply based on that, even if they're running on a solid political platform. I get the feeling that even if a future president were gay or atheist, they would feel forced to hide it simply because they'd lose a lot of votes from red states.

 

[Cissy]

You have to learn to think like they do if you ever plan to meet them in the middle.They will terrorize you and take everything , all your wealth , Liberty , dignity.....

The model for a believer's thinking is Christ. Is He insufficient to intervene or protect a believer?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion.

The only reference to God in the Constitution is the expression of the date it was signed, which is no more theologically significant than a mention of Thursday or January are references to Thor and Janus.

with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.

This doesn't follow at all.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Here it comes! Religions not recognizing gay marriage will be hate groups

Saw this one coming a mile away. In two years time, Christianity will be illegal.

There is zero relationship between your thread title, your post commentary, and the article to which you linked. If you were any more hysterical, I'd assume you were gay yourself or, at the very least, a 'wide stance' Republican.

Thread rating: 1 star.

Rep: -1

I'm tempted to report the thread as just a fucking waste of space but ... not gonna.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Unfortunately, many bigoted fundamentalists would refuse to vote for an atheist or homosexual simply based on that, even if they're running on a solid political platform. I get the feeling that even if a future president were gay or atheist, they would feel forced to hide it simply because they'd lose a lot of votes from red states.

I'm evangelical, baptist, and probably "fundamentalist" by your standards.

Nonetheless, I personally would have no problem with a gay or atheist president provided they agreed with my political views.

The thing is, for the average evangelical who thinks a lot like Rick Santorum does, there's literally no reason any gay or atheist would want to agree with their views. Maybe there is one, sure, but there's no good reason for it. So I can't even imagine a gay or atheist who agreed with that type of platform. I think some of them would discount that person because he's gay or atheist, while others would not, but frankly, I can't even imagine such a person even existing. While not all religious fanatics (A category I proudly put myself in) are Santorum-lites, pretty much all of the Santorum-lites are religious fanatics. I doubt you'll be finding any in the gay or atheist communities.

I'm a little different. While I have my nuances of course, I'm mostly in line with Ron Paul. So even though I'm an evangelical and even though my theology is probably similar to that of the fundamentalists you're talking about, our political agendas are different. While it does so happen most gays and atheists lean liberal, there is also no particular reason why one couldn't agree with me on politics.

Of course, in today's rabid PC world, anyone who opposed the gay or atheist candidate would be declared to oppose them BECAUSE they are gay or atheist, even if there was some other, politically substantive reason why.

Personally, I'd prefer someone who agreed with my values as much as possible, but moral and religious values are also secondary to political values and morality where it is directly relevant to politics (In other words, a candidates honesty is more important to me than his sexual purity, even though I believe lying and sexual immorality are both sins). I'd absolutely vote for a gay or atheist who agreed with my political values, provided he wasn't running against someone who agreed with me even more than he did.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The only reference to God in the Constitution is the expression of the date it was signed, which is no more theologically significant than a mention of Thursday or January are references to Thor and Janus.

The poster said the founding documents, plural, not just the Constitution had references to God. The Declaration premises its view of rights superseding government on the Creator. Almost all the early treaties reference Biblical doctrines such as the Trinity. Representatives sent to the Continental Congress had to make an oath affirming Christian doctrines as a condition for going to Philadelphia and representing the colonies. And so on.

As for the broken wall of marriage, it is a fact that many nations that have imposed acceptance of gay marriage on the country, have ended up criminalizing churches teaching that homosexuality is sinful. Already in some states where legislation banning "bullying" has been developed, attempts to amend it to clarify that expressing moral objections to homosexuality could not be called "bullying" were specifically defeated. There is an agenda to criminalize historic views on the subject.