OMG... Just when you think you have seen it all in VA.

Help Support CattleToday:

I still don't understand why the state should be involved in marriage period. What other religious ceremony and personal contract requires you to first pay the county for permission to do so. What worries me more than anything is how people seem to rely on government to set the moral standard. The words morality and government don't go together.
 
HOSS":2az797er said:
I say that within 5 years churches will be like wedding cake businesses. If you don't allow / perform gay marriages in your church someone will sue and win either forcing them to do it or close them down. The government will probably start by revoking the tax exempt status of non-conforming churches. How many churches will knuckle under to keep that almighty dollar? I say the majority will. The rest will be sued out of existence and the doors closed. The question is will we have the guts to carry on anyway in spite of what the government dictates?

I hope you're wrong, but afraid you're right. The separation of church and state may hold that off for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. And any churches that change their doctrine and practices to keep their tax exempt status don't deserve to be called churches. I'm one of the elders at my church, and while I don't think we'd ever agree to do gay marriages, I know it will never happen while I'm in office. If I got over-ruled it would be time to find a different church, and if there aren't any available it may be time to go back to informal house churches. Through the centuries the church has always thrived under adversity, and it can do so again.
 
My churches' stance. Sure hope it never changes.

Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?

The choice is an easy one. Marriage should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Marriages like that lead to health, happiness, prosperity, long life, and social peace. And the evidence is there to prove it. Homosexuals will not be able to create marriages like that, even if their "marriages" become legal. Statistics reveal that the lives of homosexuals are anything but gay. A more accurate description would paraphrase Thomas Hobbes's vision of life apart from civilization: nasty, lonely, and short.

The loneliness and short lives are not due to the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. They are inherent in the nature of the homosexual lifestyle itself. Homosexuality doesn't satisfy; sexually satisfied people don't seek random sex with hundreds of strangers. Gay activists who seek absolution from society will not find it, even if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Courts and legislatures cannot create clean consciences.

But legalization of homosexual marriage would empty marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.

The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.

Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.

Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain.
 
What separation of church and state???? Where does that apply? The constitution says we have freedom of religion and the government can not infringe on that. there is no "separation of church and state " clause
 
hF5B014C9
 
M5farm":fmoriwkf said:
What separation of church and state???? Where does that apply? The constitution says we have freedom of religion and the government can not infringe on that. there is no "separation of church and state " clause

Maybe I used the wrong words. But wouldn't the government requiring churches to perform same sex "marriages" infringe on freedom of religion?
 
Rafter S":3uw0xsuu said:
M5farm":3uw0xsuu said:
What separation of church and state???? Where does that apply? The constitution says we have freedom of religion and the government can not infringe on that. there is no "separation of church and state " clause

Maybe I used the wrong words. But wouldn't the government requiring churches to perform same sex "marriages" infringe on freedom of religion?
Yes it would. It riles me up when people use a seperation of church and state. Disrespect was not my intention.
 
This so-called "separation of Church and state" was never intended in any way to put any limitation or restrictions on the Church....it was intended to limit and restrict government from forcing any one particular religion on anyone and everyone (State Church). Nothing more but it has now been abused to the point that nobody has any idea what it mean.
 

Latest posts

Top