# Rainbow flag flying over the nations capital today



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

The Supreme Court just legalized gay marriage nationwide:

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

and it has nothing to do with prepping or your survival. it is just hate


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I took no position, pro or con, in my post. And it was placed in general talk, where it is appropriate even though not survival related.

I hate no one.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yeah, that is the next step. Vilify Christianity and call all those who believe in God as nothing more than haters.


----------



## Dubyagee (Nov 9, 2012)

The US is upside down. I believe there is something wrong with gay marriage but I an not allowed to have my own beliefs. Haters.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Personally I think we have a lot more to worry about than two dudes getting a state license to marry.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

While I think it’s a large issue, I am waiting in anticipation for the Supreme Court ruling on if religious organizations are required to marry same sex couples when it goes against their beliefs.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> I took no position, pro or con, in my post. And it was placed in general talk, where it is appropriate even though not survival related.
> 
> I hate no one.


Why did you post it then? What outcome did you expect? All the Gay haters on here to come chime in on how horrible and disgusting it is. lol you are not fooling me.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

OctopusPrime said:


> Why did you post it then? What outcome did you expect? All the Gay haters on here to come chime in on how horrible and disgusting it is. lol you are not fooling me.


It is news.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

judge not least ye be judged. you all remember that next time you go to church. block or flame me all you like. i won't leave. I'm here to learn not be your friend.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OctopusPrime said:


> Why did you post it then? What outcome did you expect? All the Gay haters on here to come chime in on how horrible and disgusting it is. lol you are not fooling me.


Funny; I don't see you barging into all non-prepper threads, demanding people not talk about whatever the topic of discussion is.

Then again, I also see you are more than happy to declare all people who realize homosexuality is an abomination are also haters of people. As far as I can see, there is a hater who is posting in this thread, but the hater isn't those you are trying to paint as haters.

Now, if you prefer to only post or read threads you deem as specifically prepper-related, remember that there are no rules demanding you either click on, read or enter into conversation any thread in General Talk or the Bunker.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OctopusPrime said:


> judge not least ye be judged. you all remember that next time you go to church. block or flame me all you like. i won't leave. I'm here to learn not be your friend.


Misquoting what you don't understand doesn't make your point, and what are you learning in this thread?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

OctopusPrime said:


> judge not least ye be judged. you all remember that next time you go to church. block or flame me all you like. i won't leave. I'm here to learn not be your friend.


Sorry. Didn't mean to raise anyone's hackles. It was just a news story.


----------



## Disturbed12404 (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm Heterosexual. 


See. no one cares. Homosexual. Heterosexual. It's in general talk and we're a community there is nothing wrong with him posting it here, there are tons of topics in general talk where we come to debate the news. Two dude and two ladies getting married isn't something I care about, Just invite me to the wedding


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The first amendment prevents the feds from forcing churches to provide sacraments to outsiders. It cannot force any church to perform gay marriages.

If they try to do that there will be such an upheaval that the fed will fall.


----------



## Disturbed12404 (Apr 23, 2015)

PaulS said:


> The first amendment prevents the feds from forcing churches to provide sacraments to outsiders. It cannot force any church to perform gay marriages.
> 
> If they try to do that there will be such an upheaval that the fed will fall.


Unless the gay community supports a movement to rewrite the constitution. An agenda that we know they've been secretly trying to do.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

It is none of the state's business who marries who, or if people marry at all.

What we should be working towards is getting the state the hell out of ALL of our marriages.

Marriages between consenting ADULTS should have NOTHING to do with the state. The government should have no say in any way on any of our marriages. How in the world did our ancestors let the government take control of marriage in the first place.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> The first amendment prevents the feds from forcing churches to provide sacraments to outsiders. It cannot force any church to perform gay marriages.
> 
> If they try to do that there will be such an upheaval that the fed will fall.


The first amendment has not protected Christian bakeries or florists. This ruling has declared more than most grasp.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Denton said:


> Misquoting what you don't understand doesn't make your point, and what are you learning in this thread?


I understand christianity quite well actually, and the bible...i read it every day and love the book and i love god.

I try to stay out of politics and religion and civil rights.

I got tired of seeing threads about gay people and also muslims who haven't done criminal acts.

You are a moderator, why are you in here causing more grief than has occurred?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

No surprise they ruled the way they did. I don't give a damn who lives with who or what they do in the bedroom. My objection is that the government is involved at all with it. While it shows a continuation of the path the government is on towards socialism, which is relevant, the government, and we as a nation, have much bigger problems at hand then gay marriage.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> Sorry. Didn't mean to raise anyone's hackles. It was just a news story.


ok, i was irritated from seeing lots of threads about gays over time and it set me off.

Didn't mean to call you a hater or say that you hated people.

It seemed like that was where it was going and i spoke before it could take off.


----------



## Disturbed12404 (Apr 23, 2015)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> It is none of the state's business who marries who, or if people marry at all.
> 
> What we should be working towards is getting the state the hell out of ALL of our marriages.
> 
> Marriages between consenting ADULTS should have NOTHING to do with the state. The government should have no say in any way on any of our marriages. How in the world did our ancestors let the government take control of marriage in the first place.


The same way I cannot own High capacity magazines, automatic weapons, a switch blade, a CCWP, telescopic stock or not wear my seat belt.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OctopusPrime said:


> I understand christianity quite well actually, and the bible...i read it every day and love the book and i love god.
> 
> I try to stay out of politics and religion and civil rights.
> 
> ...


I'm not the one jumping down people's throats because they started a thread that isn't specifically prepper related.

Yes, I am a moderator. I know the rules. I know this thread's creation violated no rules. Yet, I see someone jumping into the thread to cause grief.

You try and stay out of politics, religion and civil rights, yet you flew into this thread to attack its very being.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Denton said:


> I'm not the one jumping down people's throats because they started a thread that isn't specifically prepper related.
> 
> Yes, I am a moderator. I know the rules. I know this thread's creation violated no rules. Yet, I see someone jumping into the thread to cause grief.
> 
> You try and stay out of politics, religion and civil rights, yet you flew into this thread to attack its very being.


Because i can't stand bigotry of any kind...that is why i flew in here....i have stayed out of the other ones....today i choose not too. and i have every right to say what i want to say here as long as i follow the rules. i have followed the rules. I'm leaving this thread now before you and i have a problem. have a nice day


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Our rights don't come from the constitution - even if the entire bill of rights was erased we would still have those rights. Our rights are birthrights - they are not charity from the federal government.


----------



## Disturbed12404 (Apr 23, 2015)

PaulS said:


> Our rights don't come from the constitution - even if the entire bill of rights was erased we would still have those rights. Our rights are birthrights - they are not charity from the federal government.


don't tell them that


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OctopusPrime said:


> Because it can't stand bigotry of any kind...that is why i flew in here....i have stayed out of the other ones....today i choose not too. and i have every right to say what i want to say here as long as i follow the rules. i have followed the rules. I'm leaving this thread now before you and i have a problem. have a nice day


You have the right to state your opinion. Did I say anything otherwise? Nope. You yelled about the thread being started. Period. Then, you felt the need to quote a verse out of the Bible while ignoring scores of others that would make it clear you are cherry picking. Then, you felt the need to stand back, point out that I am a moderator and declare I am the one causing grief. Interesting, to say the least.

Bigotry, you say. Knowing right from wrong is not bigotry. You have, by insinuation, stated that those who understand right from wrong are bigots.

Have a nice day, too.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

OctopusPrime said:


> and it has nothing to do with prepping or your survival. it is just hate


I disagree. It is news and worthy of discussion both as news and from a prepping point of view. Anything this government does will impact how we prepare. Taking into account how this government is imposing it's philosophy and the pattern of incrementally imposing it's will should concern every prepper.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The ruling is an awful one.
That cannot be understated.
However, it is not awful based upon the topic that brought it to the court.
It is awful because a decision has now been made to create a fictional "right" out of thin air.
We identify rights as those freedoms which allow us to live, prosper, and pursue our own goals.
Rights are things that, if forcibly taken away, cause great harm to our life or prosperity.
If your right to life was removed, it would be quite disastrous for you.
If your right to protect yourself was removed, it would be equally dangerous.
If your right to be secure in your possessions was removed, your prosperity would be destroyed.
However, if this fictional "right" to marry was taken away... you could go right on living just as you always have.
All protections and entitlements offered to heterosexual couples are now offered to homosexual couples, as they should be in a civil society.
Thus, no court needs to recognize a same sex marriage any more than they need to recognize an opposite sex marriage. Both still enjoy equal protections under the law.
Marriage should not be something regulated by the state, in any form. If the participants are of legal age, that should be all.
As Justice Thomas wrote opined in his dissent, liberty is not something granted by the government. It is something which the government is supposed to protect.
You should be free to marry anyone you choose, but by making this fictional "right", the government has now taken on the role of deciding what your liberties are.

Again, to restate the dangerous precedent set by this ruling... anything can now be made a "right".
If we have a right to keep and bear arms, we should demand a right to a gun. My ability to afford one should not be a hindrance to exercising my right.
Why not a right to a job? Can't help that right to life along without money.
Why not a right to a car? We should be able to travel to our place of employment, in order to continue pursuing our right to life, in a timely fashion and not be burdened by it.

The gates are open now.
Go nuts.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> The ruling is an awful one.
> That cannot be understated.
> However, it is not awful based upon the topic that brought it to the court.
> It is awful because a decision has now been made to create a fictional "right" out of thin air.
> ...


What I was trying to say but as usual you said it with much more eloquence. I might add that every right the government gives you........can be taken away by that government just as easily.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Again, to restate the dangerous precedent set by this ruling... anything can now be made a "right".
> If we have a right to keep and bear arms, we should demand a right to a gun. My ability to afford one should not be a hindrance to exercising my right.
> Why not a right to a job? Can't help that right to life along without money.
> Why not a right to a car? We should be able to travel to our place of employment, in order to continue pursuing our right to life, in a timely fashion and not be burdened by it.
> ...


This is the fallacy of people who believe in the state. Statists (I am not talking liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, but rather those that believe that the state is the ends and the means) think that rights descend from the state to the governed.

This is bass ackwards.

We, as humans, have certain rights that are inalienable. The right to life. The right to property. The right to liberty. The right to defend ourselves. Where we get into trouble is when we decide, as a society, to let others (in the form of a community, government or state) to take control of those rights.

We do not have the right to bear arms because we have the "constitution", we have the right because we have the inalienable right of self defense. The right does not come from the government, or the state.

With these rights are also the burdens of responsibility. We have the responsibility to not deprive others of their lives, their freedom or their property if they have done nothing to deprive us of ours. We have the responsibility to recognize that if they are doing something that we don't like, as long as it doesn't affect OUR lives personally, take OUR property from us, or limit OUR freedom, then even if we don't approve of their actions since it doesn't affect us, it's not our concern.

We reap what we sew, and they will reap what they sew. As long as they stick to their fields and we stick to ours, it's all good.

That's the problem with all this statism that's going on, where everybody is trying to decide everybody else's business on everything.

Join me in just letting it go. Take care of ourselves, take care of our own.

Don't be a control freak, who has to stick his or her nose into everybody else's business just to be an asshat.


----------



## CWOLDOJAX (Sep 5, 2013)

Denton said:


> Yeah, that is the next step. Vilify Christianity and call all those who believe in God as nothing more than haters.


been done... continues.


----------



## txcdrvr (Sep 19, 2014)

So now they can rewrite the bible..


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OctopusPrime said:


> there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.


It Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
It Defeats the State's Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

*It Offends God*!!!!!


----------



## Jack Hinson 1865 (Jun 18, 2015)

And take away any religious organization's 501c3 status who do not willfully participate.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Jack Hinson 1865 said:


> And take away any religious organization's 501c3 status who do not willfully participate.


Can't be done lawfully.

The supreme court did not "create" a right, they only recognized that the state cannot limit who can marry. The decision will not change what happens in any church. It does not change how your moral code affects the way you live. It DOES prohibit you from restricting the actions of others based on your moral code. Your moral code is for you to live by - not to determine how others must live.

Unless you are gay nothing has changed for you.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Disturbed12404 said:


> Unless the gay community supports a movement to rewrite the constitution. An agenda that we know they've been secretly trying to do.


There's a gay chapter of the Illuminati?!? Who knew!


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

As a rule, I am against government licenses for marriage. I do not think the government should license anybody for marriage. No Tax benefits, no write offs, etc

this whole thing is just a big ACCEPT me as I am deal... Sorry it will not work... there are 10' of millions of people that will never "accept" gay couples as normal... I am one of them

I do not hate gays, I wish them no evil, if they were broken down beside the road i would stop and help... but I will not "Accept" that type of relationship as normal.. (and by normal I mean correct/righteous/holy/proper)


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> There's a gay chapter of the Illuminati?!? Who knew!


and I hear they have a secret handshake!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> The ruling is an awful one.
> That cannot be understated.
> However, it is not awful based upon the topic that brought it to the court.
> It is awful because a decision has now been made to create a fictional "right" out of thin air.
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I agree mostly with you comment. I'm just trying to fully understand what you said. With that said, by your rationale on rights shouldn't SCOTUS denied taking on the case and rather just said "gays already have the right to marry just as hetero couples do". Didn't they just protect a gays right to marry rather than create that right out thin blue air? Full disclosure I have not had time to read the decision.


----------



## Jack Hinson 1865 (Jun 18, 2015)

PaulS said:


> Can't be done lawfully.
> 
> The supreme court did not "create" a right, they only recognized that the state cannot limit who can marry. The decision will not change what happens in any church. It does not change how your moral code affects the way you live. It DOES prohibit you from restricting the actions of others based on your moral code. Your moral code is for you to live by - not to determine how others must live.
> 
> Unless you are gay nothing has changed for you.


Paul, I do respect your opinion. However, conservative political groups are already being targeted. It is of my opinion that this will open the doors for them to now target conservative religious institutions. It would be hard for me to call the actions of the IRS lawful at this time.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> As a rule, I am against government licenses for marriage. I do not think the government should license anybody for marriage. No Tax benefits, no write offs, etc
> 
> this whole thing is just a big ACCEPT me as I am deal... Sorry it will not work... there are 10' of millions of people that will never "accept" gay couples as normal... I am one of them
> 
> I do not hate gays, I wish them no evil, if they were broken down beside the road i would stop and help... but I will not "Accept" that type of relationship as normal.. (and by normal I mean correct/righteous/holy/proper)


The really important part of the whole deal, to me, isn't about whether a person agrees or disagrees with gay marraige, it's about the need to get government out of things it has no business doing in the first place.

Marriage is a personal thing between two people, it should not be a legal contract involving the state.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I have a church, it is by the fact that it is a church, a tax exempt entity. I do not need to have a corporate ID or charter to be tax exempt. The IRS cannot touch my church because it is not a corporation. The act of incorporating a church gives the IRS the power to look into your finances and the actions taken at the pulpit because it is a corporation. There is only one benefit to incorporation - that of assuring the uninformed that you are a tax exempt entity. 

The government - especially the federal government cannot force a church to do something against its "standard practices". Sacraments are reserved for members in good standing who meet the church's requirements. If the church has a longstanding rule or doctrine against homosexual relationships then nothing changes. The church cannot be forced by the government to provide marriages to those that don't fit the "standard practice".

Businesses are different. If they are open to serve the public they cannot discriminate based on sexuality and a host of other things. personally, if I were gay, I would find a gay owned business to support. why give your money to someone who works against you? That is why I don't use Google, AARP, and a host of others.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> The really important part of the whole deal, to me, isn't about whether a person agrees or disagrees with gay marraige, it's about the need to get government out of things it has no business doing in the first place.
> 
> Marriage is a personal thing between two people, it should not be a legal contract involving the state.


But the state IS involved in "licensing" marriage so now they can't discriminate anymore. If you are not gay, nothing changes. (just for clarity sake, you don't have to buy a license to get married. The document used by any church is an acceptable document to register the marriage. It does have to contain all the data that is on the state license but it doesn't have to be purchased from the state)


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Denton said:


> The first amendment has not protected Christian bakeries or florists. This ruling has declared more than most grasp.


First Amendment restricts the governments from making laws. They cannot make any laws to force churches to do anything.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

PaulS said:


> But the state IS involved in "licensing" marriage so now they can't discriminate anymore. If you are not gay, nothing changes. (just for clarity sake, you don't have to buy a license to get married. The document used by any church is an acceptable document to register the marriage. It does have to contain all the data that is on the state license but it doesn't have to be purchased from the state)


Without a state issued license it will/may not be recognized by the state/other states for all the Marriage related benifits (taxes and such).


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

This is what I have said over and over 5 of 9 tell us what the constitution you think you have says and means. They get to make it up as they go. They are doing just that. You aint seen nothing yet.
Hillary and those like her keep breaking laws and will never see a day in jail , just Like bill and so many others. All designed to tear this country down. Now the teachers in public school will have a field working to convert children .
I know I will be purchasing more weapons and ammo. The rest of the preps are in good order.


----------



## CWOLDOJAX (Sep 5, 2013)

Just thinking... the whole same sex thing could be a way for Muslims and Christians to unite.... Hmmm


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> First Amendment restricts the governments from making laws. They cannot make any laws to force churches to do anything.


The Establishment clause restricts the federal government from establishing one sect over the rest. The very intention of that clause has been misquoted and miscontrued for the last sixty of seventy years, now. All branches of the federal government has gone off the rails.

Furthermore, LBJ made it clear that the churches are not out of reach when he used the IRS to silence them from speaking against him. The same regulations are in place.

Of course, they can only reach to the 501(c)3 churches, which is most of them. Personally, it is my opinion that all churches should drop their 501(c)3 status and preach the truth, rather than worry about their tax deductible status. Part of this (once) Christian nation's problem is churches have allowed themselves to be castrated.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

CWOLDOJAX said:


> Just thinking... the whole same sex thing could be a way for Muslims and Christians to unite.... Hmmm


Not really. We pray for them. They kill them.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

That would only work up to the disagreement about the marital status of sheep and goats, possibility alpacas.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

James m said:


> That would only work up to the disagreement about the marital status of sheep and goats, possibility alpacas.


Well, why not? There is no true liberty until there are no shackles placed on those who are in "true love."


----------



## east mountain preppers (Jun 23, 2015)

Agree or not with it thats your own choice to make. That being said if G-d doesnt judge this nation then He will have to apologize to sodom and gomorrah.:!:


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Denton said:


> Not really. We pray for them. They kill them.


They kill everybody that is not Muslim enough.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

"IF" you were gay, who would you gay marry?


----------



## east mountain preppers (Jun 23, 2015)

Seams to me you are the one on the attack with anyone that has a view other that yours. Thats called liberal tolerance.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Denton said:


> The Establishment clause restricts the federal government from establishing one sect over the rest. The very intention of that clause has been misquoted and miscontrued for the last sixty of seventy years, now. All branches of the federal government has gone off the rails.
> 
> Furthermore, LBJ made it clear that the churches are not out of reach when he used the IRS to silence them from speaking against him. The same regulations are in place.
> 
> Of course, they can only reach to the 501(c)3 churches, which is most of them. Personally, it is my opinion that all churches should drop their 501(c)3 status and preach the truth, rather than worry about their tax deductible status. Part of this (once) Christian nation's problem is churches have allowed themselves to be castrated.


True, I have always though that the church should not be tax exempt, or it should not preach political messages. It is kind of like dancing on both sides of the coin. They are allowed to accumulate tax free wealth then influence voters and donate to political activities at the same time.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> True, I have always though that the church should not be tax exempt, or it should not preach political messages. It is kind of like dancing on both sides of the coin. They are allowed to accumulate tax free wealth then influence voters and donate to political activities at the same time.


My question is, how many congregants would no longer tithe if they weren't able to list it as a deduction? Also, how many pastors preach a watered down, feel-good version of the truth because they don't want the IRS to look at them through the critical eyes of the tax code?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

The problem we have is that many people think the CHURCH is a building... the CHURCH is the FLORIST, the BAKER, the CANDLE STICK maker...

Forcing them to act against their faith is forcing the church to deny its values...




.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Denton said:


> My question is, how many congregants would no longer tithe if they weren't able to list it as a deduction? Also, how many pastors preach a watered down, feel-good version of the truth because they don't want the IRS to look at them through the critical eyes of the tax code?


If they are true believers then all of them would continue to tithe.
As far as the pasters go I have no clue, I stay far away from churches because of the whole burst into flames thing.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> True, I have always though that the church should not be tax exempt, or it should not preach political messages. It is kind of like dancing on both sides of the coin. They are allowed to accumulate tax free wealth then influence voters and donate to political activities at the same time.


You need to look at the rules that govern 501C3. Only faith speech from the pulpit - no political speech from the pulpit. There is also a limit on the amount of profit you can make and any income generated outside the parameters of your faith are taxable. Any money used to pay salaries or wages are taxable and housing for church personnel is considered a salary and taxable as such. The money raised by rental property owned by the church is taxable. "Tax exempt" only goes so far.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> If they are true believers then all of them.
> *As far as the pasters go I have no clue, I stay far away from churches because of the whole burst into flames thing.*


:21: You are an absolute scream!


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Denton said:


> My question is, how many congregants would no longer tithe if they weren't able to list it as a deduction? Also, how many pastors preach a watered down, feel-good version of the truth because they don't want the IRS to look at them through the critical eyes of the tax code?


MOST...yep MOST pastors are weak... Jesus was not wrong when he called it a SMALL FLOCK...


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Burn it and pee on it. Twice

If you have a kitty or puppy, smear some fecal matter on it also, just make sure you to put the flames out.

But do nothing violent nor illegal. Let the liberals gag on that.

I love America.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

PaulS said:


> - no political speech from the pulpit. .


and that is why all churches need to give up their tax free status


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> Yeah, that is the next step. Vilify Christianity and call all those who believe in God as nothing more than haters.


That is a fait accompli. It is happening now.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> The problem we have is that many people think the CHURCH is a building... the CHURCH is the FLORIST, the BAKER, the CANDLE STICK maker...
> 
> Forcing them to act against their faith is forcing the church to deny its values...
> 
> .


I think you are looking for the term 
*Congregation:*

Any local gathering of believers for worship. This can be thought of as a more inclusive term for church, since many religious traditions use different names for their place of worship. Usually this refers to a building or physical structure, but it also could refer to a more fluid group of people without a specific building (e.g. a 'congregation' that meets in member's homes).

Church: 1) A building, program or service providing religious goods to a certain constituency and a specific geographical location. 2) Historically and theologically, it represents a Christian community founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ (Reid et al. 1990: 266).

The Association of Religion Data Archives | The Learning Center | Learning Activities

I would tend to agree people use the term Church for a lot of things to include the meaning of religion.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

PaulS said:


> You need to look at the rules that govern 501C3. Only faith speech from the pulpit - no political speech from the pulpit. There is also a limit on the amount of profit you can make and any income generated outside the parameters of your faith are taxable. Any money used to pay salaries or wages are taxable and housing for church personnel is considered a salary and taxable as such. The money raised by rental property owned by the church is taxable. "Tax exempt" only goes so far.


Law and practice are often two different things.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

A good pastor knows that he can say anything he needs to say before or after services. There is no need to campaign from the pulpit.

A good pastor will set up a political group that meets once or twice a month. He will be a member of that group but not an officer. He can then say what ever is on his mind. (without endangering the church's tax standing in the least)


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

If the Supreme Court is entitled to redefine a religions 2000 year old covenant they can redefine militia pretty easily....think about it.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Mad Trapper said:


> Burn it and pee on it. Twice
> 
> If you have a kitty or puppy, smear some fecal matter on it also, just make sure you to put the flames out.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure setting something alive on fire is considered violent.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> I think you are looking for the term
> *Congregation:*


NO SIR!.. I used the word as I meant to use it... Church refers to the people within the gorup..it has NOTHING to do with a building

which of the below verses refer to a building?

Mat_16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 
Mat_18:17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to *hear the church* also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 
Act_5:11 And great* fear came upon the whole church*, and upon all that heard these things. 
Act_7:38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: 
Act_8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great* persecution against the church* which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. 
Act_8:3 But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison. 
Act_9:31 So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied. 
Act_11:22 And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: 
Act_11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. 
Act_12:1 Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. 
Act_12:5 Peter therefore was kept in the prison: but prayer was made earnestly of the church unto God for him.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ripon said:


> If the Supreme Court is entitled to redefine a religions 2000 year old covenant they can redefine militia pretty easily....think about it.


Pagans were perfoming marriages long before the Christian religion came along.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

OctopusPrime said:


> Why did you post it then? What outcome did you expect? All the Gay haters on here to come chime in on how horrible and disgusting it is. lol you are not fooling me.


What is it to you? Are you the moral conscience of Sodom & Gomorrah? I am deeply offended by homosexuality, as a Christian and as an American.
If you are offended by me, you can kiss my butt. And, I am not afraid of your loud mouth.
I believe the Bible and I believe Jesus...in comparison to Him...who are you?

And, I am not given to endless debating either, it is just another tactic. It wears down and wears out an opponent.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

PaulS said:


> A good pastor knows that he can say anything he needs to say before or after services. There is no need to campaign from the pulpit.
> 
> A good pastor will set up a political group that meets once or twice a month. He will be a member of that group but not an officer. He can then say what ever is on his mind. (without endangering the church's tax standing in the least)


ha ha ha.... do not be afraid of the one that can kill you... be afraid of him that can cast you into hell....

Can you imagine Jesus saying "we can not talk about that right now, wait until after the meeting".........

Jesus was Killed for his public teaching and pastors today worry about losing their tax exempt status...sad just plain SAD.......


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> Pagans were perfoming marriages long before the Christian religion came along.


ya but they were not doing it before God came along......


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> NO SIR!.. I used the word as I meant to use it... Church refers to the people within the gorup..it has NOTHING to do with a building
> 
> which of the below verses refer to a building?
> 
> Mat_16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and *upon this rock I will build *my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.


The first one

Call it what you will a church is a builiding to me. A congregation is the people who attend the church or are members of a particular group/sect, a religion is a teaching based upon a belief in something and faith is the relationship between beings (human and supernatural if you will), a cult is the begining stages of a religion.


----------



## east mountain preppers (Jun 23, 2015)

How is it hate to disagree with some one? I disagree with my wife on the color of her purse, do i hate her or her me? No i would both take and give a bullet for her. To say that we as Americans have to be happy with what a bunch of unelected, unaccountable men and women just shoved down our mouths then you are the hater. The 36 states that already had the law in place, not buy a vote of the people ( when it was put to a vote it was struck down every time) the courts stepped in and made law from the bench. We as a nation should weep at the loss of our right to Life, Liberty and our pursuit of happyness. On the gay issue G-d calls it sin. We can slice and dice it anyway we want but sin is sin. When we stand before the L-rd we will have answer for our sin.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

MisterMills357 said:


> What is it to you? Are you the moral conscience of Sodom & Gomorrah? I am deeply offended by homosexuality, as a Christian ans as an American.
> If you are offended by me, you can kiss my ass.


how are you offended...??

look up the meaning ....

here it is
Mat 24:10 And then9 shall many be offended,G4624 and shall betray one another, andshall hate4 one another.

offend (Offended)
G4624
σκανδαλίζω
skandalizō
skan-dal-id'-zo
To "scandalize"; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> ya but they were not doing it before God came along......


They were doing it in front of their gods, which the christian religion did not recognize. So are you telling me their gods are the same as your god? The Christian religion just came along to streamline things?


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be as miserable as everyone else?


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> Call it what you will...


I do not need your permission but thanks anyway


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Christians not acting like Christians.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> They were doing it in front of their gods, which the christian religion did not recognize. So are you telling me their gods are the same as your god? The Christian religion just came along to streamline things?


Followers of Christ (The son of Elohim) were not called Christian until a little before 100 AD...

Elohim (and his son) have been around much longer then Christian.

Followers of Elohim have always recognized pagans... Elohim has often punished them for worshiping false gods

Followers of Elohim have been are much longer then pagans


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> I do not need your permission but thanks anyway


You're welcome.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> The supreme court did not "create" a right, they only recognized that the state cannot limit who can marry. The decision will not change what happens in any church.


It is the court's place to rule on whether a state or federal law has violated or overstepped their boundaries, be they constitutional or related in law.
The case was brought forth debating whether a state could ban marriages between same sex couples.
States have passed laws doing so, whether they originated in the legislature, or by a referendum from the people.
The state's position was that this was within their realm since the constitution does not grant authority to the federal government to handle this matter.
What Kennedy stated in his majority opinion was that states were violating the 14th amendment when banning the marriage of same sex couples.
The 14th amendment, paragraph 1, denotes that no state can make or enforce law that abridges the privileges or immunities of a US citizen, nor can they deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process, nor deny any person within the state's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While some would choose to interpret the "privileges or immunities" as implying that marriage should be respected, it simply cannot be interpreted so broadly. Otherwise, we open up the entire breadth of state's laws to full scrutiny by comparing them to all laws of other states. If one state allows something, and we call it a privilege, than the broad interpretation of the 14th amendment would disallow any other state from restricting that "thing". This would violate the very intention of this experiment, where states are test beds for new legislation.
When we discuss the "equal protections" clause, we have to remember that there are no longer such discrimination against same sex couples, or shouldn't be, with respect to what benefits they should enjoy versus those of a hetero couple. Any state that bans these benefits is in violation, for sure.
However, the ruling here was not to force states to grant benefits to same sex couples. This ruling was to strike down bans on the specific act of marriage.
This has created a fictional right, and tied it to a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment, that states cannot restrict.
The Chief Justice was correct when he stated:


> "If you are among the many Americans-of whatever sexual orientation-who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."


I'm not sure who keeps swapping out his copy of the constitution day to day, but at least this version was correct. Yesterday's was rubbish.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

MisterMills357 said:


> What is it to you? Are you the moral conscience of Sodom & Gomorrah? I am deeply offended by homosexuality, as a Christian and as an American.
> If you are offended by me, you can kiss my butt. And, I am not afraid of your loud mouth.
> I believe the Bible and I believe Jesus...in comparison to Him...who are you?
> 
> And, I am not given to endless debating either, it is just another tactic. It wears down and wears out an opponent.


No but you are given to witless debating. I will pray for you.

Sorry everyone had to chime in once more 

Im a sinner after all just like Elmer Fudge


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

I am getting horribly confused... the supreme court ruled that same-sex couples don't have to fly the Confederate flag to get Obamacare?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> I am getting horribly confused... the supreme court ruled that same-sex couples don't have to fly the Confederate flag to get Obamacare?


I don't care who you are that's funny.


----------



## luminaughty (Dec 16, 2014)

Get mad all you want but God has stated that being homosexual is wrong just as men or women having sexual relations with animals. As far as the churches not preaching subjects that can be construed as political it is impossible when the government is doing things that God specifically says are WRONG. How can a true Christian not tell other Christians a politician trying to be elected is pro abortion or pro homosexual when they are sins God specifically warns his followers to avoid? When the potus gets up on national television and states America is no longer a Christian nation how can it not be talked about in the church? When our government supplies arms and training to muslims who hate America and believe all Christians should be murdered how can that not be talked about in the church. If the church stopped talking about anything that could be construed as political they could not talk about sin at all and it would cease to be a Christian organization. My personal belief is America has been a blessed country for much of its existence because of it religious background. But as we become more evil and promote ideas that are clearly opposed to Gods teachings the natural disasters, wars, terrorism, and economic problems all those "third world" nations face on a regular basis will become the new norm for America.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> The really important part of the whole deal, to me, isn't about whether a person agrees or disagrees with gay marraige, it's about the need to get government out of things it has no business doing in the first place.
> 
> Marriage is a personal thing between two people, it should not be a legal contract involving the state.


bingo! My point exactly! Whether one disagrees with homosexuality or not and its religious implications the point of the matter is the government and Supreme Fools should never have had their hands in this to begin with.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The only legal rights we have come from 5 of 9 depending on who they are at any given time. The constitution only means or says what they say it does and as we have seen that gives them total control of everything.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The Federal Government has absolutely ZERO business getting involved in marriage of any kind. PERIOD, END OF STORY on that subject.

This is just another example of an over-reaching out of control Federal Government taking more and more control from WE The People. Its the government giving permission and regulating. 

Well, they can take their pharkin permission slip and cram it up their ass at the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches. We shouldn't "need" a permission slip from the Feds to marry anybody. 

Simply put, Liberty and The Constitution took another ass kicking today.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Ok my turn.....

Think of it this way.... In todays age, been married is a fashion statement to most and divorce rates are so high.... This "law" is nothing more than a extension of that fashion statement to others.....

Sorry but that's the reality of our society and social structure.... 

Ps.... On one hand im anti it, on the other it has zero affect on me and mine, so I really shouldn't care.... 

If the rainbow flag is really flying on capital hill.... That is a massive insult after all this crap over the stars and bars


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

OctopusPrime said:


> and it has nothing to do with prepping or your survival. it is just hate


Typical..say you don't believe in something or in this case make a post and you're called a hater..

It's neither. It's about the Supreme Court making law and violating e constitution by ruling on something that is within states rights. Show me where the constitution address gay marriage or any marriage for that matter.

It's the scouts usurping congress simple.

And now, if a church refuses to marry a gay couple they will be vilified like the bakers who refused to make a cake. Now that's pure hate.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Today me and Mrs Slippy had reason to go to our county courthouse. On the front door was a neatly typed sign saying the Marriage License Office was closed.

We went to the department that we needed to handle our business and asked the clerk about the Marriage License Office and was the closure related to the Supreme Court Decision? Yes, she replied, then got quiet and said that the country was trying to figure out how to get out of the issuance of ALL Marriage Licenses! I was very pleased to hear that and hope that ends up happening. (I live in a Southern State that has been somewhat vocal on the over-reaching Federal Government.) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html

There may be hope after all?!?!


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Today me and Mrs Slippy had reason to go to our county courthouse. On the front door was a neatly typed sign saying the Marriage License Office was closed.
> 
> We went to the department to handle our business and asked the clerk about the Marriage License Office and was the closure related to the Supreme Court Decision? Yes, she replied, then got quiet and said that the country was trying to figure out how to get out of the issuance of ALL Marriage Licenses! I was very pleased to hear that and hope that ends up happening. (I live in a Southern State that has been somewhat vocal on the over-reaching Federal Government.)
> 
> There may be hope after all?!?!


Can't argue with that logic. They shouldn't be involved with Marriage, ( Gay or otherwise ) Religion, Abortion, ( Pro or Con ) or half dozen other things I can think of. Gosh darn it! If O'l slippy wants to marry his horse he should be ably to marry it without permission from the damn boobs in Washington! LOL


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OctopusPrime said:


> ok, i was irritated from seeing lots of threads about gays over time and it set me off.
> 
> Didn't mean to call you a hater or say that you hated people.
> 
> It seemed like that was where it was going and i spoke before it could take off.


OctupusPrime,

You're a good dude and I enjoy many of your posts and believe you to be a valuable member to this forum. The **** thing doesn't really concern me one bit, people are going to do sexually what they do and I can't control that, nor do I care.

But as far as the islamists go, well I may be one of the most outspoken on this forum about the global threat of this Socio-Political Ideology of World Domination. I hope you and others understand where I come from in my outspokenness about the islamists who want to kill the infidel. If not, no hair off my ass.

Butt Humpin' Men and ********/******, well I care little about either....except that I don't want to pay for what they do with my tax dollars nor do I want them granted special status by any government. And, from my viewpoint, God is not pleased with them, so I'll go on record. But then again, God ain't generally pleased with me when I consume lots of Bourbon and curse like a madman at my beloved NASCAR races with my degenerate friends.

But, Islamists and Mexicans coming illegally into my country to commit crimes and take my hard earned tax dollars, that's another story. And I will fight and continue to post to make sure people know what is up and do what I can to make sure neither happens. I let these lying politicians have their way with my votes for 34 years and no more.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Evil men by universal standards deserve one thing...their head on a slippy made pike ^^..we are in agreement sir


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Well, why not? There is no true liberty until there are no shackles placed on those who are in "true love."


Horrible argument. Two humans of any gender can consent, an animal and a human only the human can consent.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

^^^^^^^
ditto!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Sasquatch said:


> Horrible argument. Two humans of any gender can consent, an animal and a human only the human can consent.


That was the argument that many of Mrs Slippy's friends took when we decided to wed. How can she marry that tobacco chewin', beer swillin', sweaty cursin' fool...and otherwise vile animal formerly known as Single Slippy?

Well thank God it happened with no court objections!


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Slippy said:


> OctupusPrime,
> 
> You're a good dude and I enjoy many of your posts and believe you to be a valuable member to this forum. The **** thing doesn't really concern me one bit, people are going to do sexually what they do and I can't control that, nor do I care.
> 
> ...


Well said my friend. Well said.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

OctopusPrime said:


> judge not least ye be judged. you all remember that next time you go to church. block or flame me all you like. i won't leave. I'm here to learn not be your friend.





> Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


It's about the condition of your heart and "HOW" you judge others.



> John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.





> 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.


How can you separate yourself from the world unless you judge the actions of others. We cannot know their hearts but, we can see what they do. 


> Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.


I don't hate anyone but, I do try to protect my family from their wrongful influence.


----------



## topgun (Oct 2, 2013)

Say what ever makes you "feel good", but there is no denying that for eons, it took one man and one woman to produce a child.

Here's what makes me "feel good": I'm glad I had one Dad and one Mom.

I'm sure some will see "hatred" in those two sentences.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

The SCOTUS is null and void.. Never agreed all their decisions, but this one takes the cake! jmo. Abolish that court!!! At one time I thought they were folks of high intellect and reasoning, that just flew out the window!!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Yes, the Supreme Court has been over-reaching in their "powers" since Roe V Wade. (And maybe before....)

This goes back to something that I've posted on a few times; The fact that many "We The People" view those in the 3 Branches as some sort of Kings, Queens, (gods? perhaps). Which is what the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid. 

I think its disgusting that Congress, President and Justices act like Kings and we allow them.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Again, the gay issue aside, ( Don't care ) Is how the court is making law from the bench that is the big worry. This and prior rulings ( Oblunder care twice ) means they are not ruling on the law much less even looking at the constitution. They, and the government as whole, are on a clear path to tyranny. The threat is how they are arriving at their rulings. They have become a kangaroo court that nods in agreement at every liberal / socialist policy Oblunder and his co conspirators in congress advance.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

I guess I'm in the minority here. I think religion should stay out of the marriage business.

A marriage is basically a social contract. It brings with it certain legal and financial obligations. Marriage has specific tax and insurance benefits. Marriage laws decide the division of resources in the case of divorce, which is handled in court. There's no way for government to not be involved.

Vowing to love someone until you die is an empty, hollow promise. You can't control who you love or for how long. Yeah, you plan to love them forever, you want to love forever, you hope it happens, but if divorce rates indicate anything, it's that these promises can't be kept. And this doesn't consider how many couples stay together, "for the sake of the children" or because it's simply more convenient. Why should anyone swear an oath before God to do something over which they have no control? 

So yeah, since marriage is a contract, it should be the business of the government, not the churches.

By the way, the government can't (and shouldn't be able to) force churches to perform wedding ceremonies for gay people. What the churches decide to do or not do is no concern of the government at all, unless, of course, it violates someone else's rights. For example, the government has the right to tell the churches they can't burn accused witches and so forth. Throwing them into water to see if they float is probably OK though. (LOL)


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> The SCOTUS is null and void.. Never agreed all their decisions, but this one takes the cake! jmo. Abolish that court!!! At one time I thought they were folks of high intellect and reasoning, that just flew out the window!!


The court has become a political operative, no different than a lobbyist. There is a way to fix this, term limits. The down side is a constitutional amendment is required to do this so unlikely. You got to that position by political appointment. Give that appointment a 10 year term or until death due you part. Look on the bright side, time marches on. Ginsberg and a few others are long in the tooth. So the next POTUS gets to pick. If it is Hillary, we are in a world of hurt and the court will have the deck stacked with judicial activists like we currently have for decades, at least the rest of my lifetime. Currently as was proved, the written rule of law no longer means what it was written to mean.

Term limits for Congress too while we are at it. The ability for an individual to remain in his elected position is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned. you came you did your job for 2 terms and you go home to resume your life, just like serving in the military. The ability to sit and acquire power for decades, just has proven to be wrong. Prime exhibit Sen Robert Byrd WV.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Boss Dog said:


> It's about the condition of your heart and "HOW" you judge others.
> 
> How can you separate yourself from the world unless you judge the actions of others. We cannot know their hearts but, we can see what they do.
> 
> I don't hate anyone but, I do try to protect my family from their wrongful influence.


Everyone must make their own choice. My choice is to avoid immoral people and basically mean people. I do not consider homosexuality to be immoral as long as it is not adultery. If you love another and you are in a relationship that is the same as marriage in my eyes. Homosexuality is a modern concept not thought about the same as we do today back in the times the Bible was written. My interpretation is that prostitutes and loose people are an abomination in Gods eyes. The original words have many meanings and the translators guessed as to what the author meant. An example is the word Arsenokoites, it is this word that they had to pull apart to decipher its meaning but mistakes are always made.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The first amendment prevents the feds from forcing churches to provide sacraments to outsiders. It cannot force any church to perform gay marriages.
> 
> If they try to do that there will be such an upheaval that the fed will fall.


Paul, I am thinking the same way. Same sex marriage maybe legal now, but churches could not be forced to do them if it is against their beliefs. Civil marriage via city hall is mandated to do it. I was arguing this last night at work... However, one of my partner is big on a Christian church, she said her church does not allow it but now they have to perform the weddings because they could be sued. She said that churches have some sort of manifesto that is registered with the govt. If it is not written that they don't allow it, they have to perform it or get sued. Now that's unconstitutional, suing the church because they won't go against their belief...


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> So yeah, since marriage is a contract, it should be the business of the government, not the churches.


Please retract that statement Prepadoodle. Surely you jest?

Maybe I read this wrong, and I hope I did, but that ain't the Prepadoodle that I know and love? Say it ain't so? Say it ain't so!


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Please retract that statement Prepadoodle. Surely you jest?
> 
> Maybe I read this wrong, and I hope I did, but that ain't the Prepadoodle that I know and love? Say it ain't so? Say it ain't so!


Sorry Mr Slippy. but marriage is a legal matter... a contract. I surprised myself by coming to that conclusion, but there it is. One of our founding principals is that "All men are created equal," so of course gay people should have the right to marry. Since laws govern one's rights and obligations within a marriage, and laws govern the dissolution of a marriage and the distribution of material property and financial obligations, how would it be possible for them to not be involved in the creation of the union in the first place?

The US was never conceived as a Christian nation. In fact, it was created by those seeking to escape from the churches' control over lawmaking. Why do you think we have separation of church and state in the first place?

I personally resent those who insist on cramming their quaint and outdated religious ideals down my throat. Believe as you will and let me do the same... That's what religious freedom is all about.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Let's make this simple...

1... Marriages are regulated by laws.

2... Only the government can enact laws.

3... Therefore, marriage is the domain of government, and ONLY of government.

How is this position so difficult to understand?


----------



## Spooky110 (Apr 3, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> It Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
> It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
> It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
> It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
> ...


If god exists*

You have obviously never met a gay person. Your intolerance is startling. I don't want to be a part of a group with you in it.

F*** this forum. I'm out.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> Sorry Mr Slippy. but marriage is a legal matter... a contract. I surprised myself by coming to that conclusion, but there it is. One of our founding principals is that "All men are created equal," so of course gay people should have the right to marry. Since laws govern one's rights and obligations within a marriage, and laws govern the dissolution of a marriage and the distribution of material property and financial obligations, how would it be possible for them to not be involved in the creation of the union in the first place?
> 
> The US was never conceived as a Christian nation. In fact, it was created by those seeking to escape from the churches' control over lawmaking. Why do you think we have separation of church and state in the first place?
> 
> I personally resent those who insist on cramming their quaint and outdated religious ideals down my throat. Believe as you will and let me do the same... That's what religious freedom is all about.


I defy you to show me WHERE in the constitution it states there is a separation of church and state. I'll save you some time, it's not in there and a fallacy that is tossed out there, sort of like if you tell a lie enough times, it can become the truth. That is what we have there.


----------



## Spooky110 (Apr 3, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> I defy you to show me WHERE in the constitution it states there is a separation of church and state. I'll save you some time, it's not in there and a fallacy that is tossed out there, sort of like if you tell a lie enough times, it can become the truth. That is what we have there.


The Origin of "Separation of Church and State" (good article)


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Our founding fathers understood the importance of the separation of church and state. Although it's not specifically spelled out in the constitution, it's well understood as the intent and function of the "Free Exercise" and "Establishment clauses of the 1st Amendment.

The idea of separation of church and state can be traced back to Roger Williams, who wrote, "(a) hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world," as early as 1644. The actual phrase, "separation of church and state," is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, but the concept predates this by many years.

This concept is, and always has been at the very foundation of this nation. However, I never said it was specifically spelled out in the constitution.

_Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."_ (Wikipedia)

Many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Diests. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and others were critical of established religions. Paine went as far as calling the whole Bible "blasphemy." (Bibilical Blasphemy by Thomas Paine)

The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our legal system, and was the intent of those who created it. But hey, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Oh Good the residents can give each other a BJ!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

OK, the first amendment states:


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The ninth amendment states:


> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
> not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people.


The supreme court did not make any law. They simply recognized the right of marriage under the ninth amendment.
The first amendment and many legal arguments and court decisions note that the sacraments of any church are the faith based domain of the religion and not open to interpretation outside the canon and doctrine of the church. The marriages of any church must be accepted as a legal marriage but must be provided only under the restrictions of the church. Civil marriages are legal contracts between two people that provide for governing the continuation and dissolution of that contract. Although procreation is mentioned as one of the benefits of religious ceremonies, couples who cannot procreate are often married by churches. The fact is that gay couples can have children "naturally". Lesbians can have artificial insemination to provide a child that is "blood related" to at least one of the couple. Through a surrogate mother gay men can have children that are blood related to the father. They can also adopt children who are "unwanted" by their biological parents. Loving parents (even when they are both male or both female) can provide for the emotional, physical, and mental upbringing of a child. Most often children raised in a same gender marriage are as "normal" as children raised in a loving environment by opposite gendered couples. They are most often heterosexual and not homosexual in their choice of partners as they grow up.
I personally know two homosexual couples who have raised children. They are as good at parenting as anyone I know and they do not choose or influence their children's sexuality. Both children are healthy and well adjusted young people.

There are no new laws - only the recognition of a right we all have.
There is no action that can force a church to marry anyone not a member of "good standing" in that church.
Churches cannot be sued for refusing to perform sacraments on those not religiously qualified to receive them.
Procreation has never been a requirement for a marriage.
Homosexual couples can and do procreate.

The court ruling only makes changes that provide homosexuals the same rights that other couples have enjoyed and practiced for thousands of years. 
The Church of Rome (Roman Catholic) has and has used marital rites for same gender couples as recently as 1025 CE. (990 years ago) The marriages were for the brothers and sisters of love. Two men or two women living together in love under the power of the original Christian church, from which all others originate.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Actually as I understand it, little has changed. Same sex marriage was available before the ruling, a civil union. The ruling has now expanded big govt. One of the unintended consequences could be Cc permits may now be forced upon all states to accept. The SCOTUS ruling expects a marriage in state 1 to be recognized in all other 49. License is thru govt, just like a CCW permit. So who wants to be the test case?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

The states use to have state churches... the federal government was not suppose to endorse one over the other but the states were free to do so.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Doesn't change how much the gayshtappo sucks or how they will delight in making everybody as miserable as they can.... they could care less about people or rights. Its just another lever to wrench against us.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> OK, the first amendment states:
> 
> The ninth amendment states:
> 
> ...


As Rand Paul stated in his Time editorial, the right to enter into contract has always been one we hold.
That is NOT the same as the ceremonial title of "married".
There is no right to marriage. Marriage is personal, and not something the federal government, nor the state, should have any say in.
There should not be any governmental benefits, nor penalties, associated with a title. The contract should be allowed, but the government has no role in defining it.
By claiming that marriage is a "fundamental right", as Kennedy did in his majority opinion, he has laid the precedent for a ceremonial title to be a right.
This is antithetical to what the founders intended the government's role to be.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If it is only a "ceremonial title" then it could be used by anyone who underwent the ceremony?

I disagree with your definition. Marriage is a sacrament in my church. It is a blessing by God on the union of partners who take an oath to God and family to join and remain joined for at least this physical life. (optionally they can vow to be together for eternity - after this life and into the after life)


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

1skrewsloose said:


> The SCOTUS is null and void.. Never agreed all their decisions, but this one takes the cake! jmo. Abolish that court!!! At one time I thought they were folks of high intellect and reasoning, that just flew out the window!!


A statement I heard in Sunday School yesterday; The real supreme court has only one judge, and he sits on a throne, at the head of a river...



GasholeWillie said:


> I defy you to show me WHERE in the constitution it states there is a separation of church and state. I'll save you some time, it's not in there and a fallacy that is tossed out there, sort of like if you tell a lie enough times, it can become the truth. That is what we have there.


Jefferson's letter wasn't law. But it is in the Soviet Union constitution. And of course all pretensions of freedom of religion ignored.
C1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part IV Article 124


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

I think you'll find that George Washington was much more than a deist. 


> "My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it." George Washington


The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources; Volume 15, page 55 by: Fitzpatrick, John C. 1939
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...uscript Sources, 1745-1799, Volume 15&f=false

Baptist Minister John Gano, BAPTIZED GEORGE WASHINGTON
George Washington?s Baptism ? The Direct Evidence | The Story of Liberty
Baptist Preacher John Gano baptised George Washington who in turn surrendered his sword to Gano as a symbol of his surrender to Christ.

In 1908 Rev. E. T. Sanford of Manhattan's North Church commissioned a painting of Washington and Chaplain Gano waist-deep in the Potomac. The painting was taken to the Baptist Church at Asbury Park, N. J. where it hung until 1926. It was then presented by Chaplain Gano's great-granddaughter to William Jewell College (Baptist) in Liberty, Mo. for the dedication of a John Gano Memorial Chapel. (Taken from "Time" Magazine - September 5, 1932)
The painting as well as the sword are displayed in the John Gano Chapel. 
John Gano Memorial Chapel
http://blog.visitmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Washington-sword.jpg


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> I guess I'm in the minority here. I think religion should stay out of the marriage business.
> 
> A marriage is basically a social contract. It brings with it certain legal and financial obligations. Marriage has specific tax and insurance benefits. Marriage laws decide the division of resources in the case of divorce, which is handled in court. There's no way for government to not be involved.
> 
> ...


Ok. I don't agree with you on marriage but we'll leave it at that...

But.. Can you clarify something for me.

Your last paragraph - you say the government cannot force a church to perform a wedding ceremony and it's not concern of the government. But then you state "unless it violates some else's rights". Gay marriage is now a "right" as stated by the courts. If a church says no to a gay couple that would violate their right.

Please reconcile that thinking for me.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Churches can have a private membership as long as you have a tank in front that anything can walk in and get whatever you might have for everybody (here's a nice pamphlet) but your congregation is still free to gather in peace without that "public" arena part.
neither the gays nor the devil, the commies or the nazis can ever give up that. Hence, the boyscouts don't have to either.
we have crazies right now that came right in with broken wings and went right to fleecing. They did not value more and so more remains ours.....but they are cancer free now and out happily fleecing anyone they can again, so oby can be pleased....his peeps got the crumbs they came for


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> If it is only a "ceremonial title" then it could be used by anyone who underwent the ceremony?
> 
> I disagree with your definition. Marriage is a sacrament in my church. It is a blessing by God on the union of partners who take an oath to God and family to join and remain joined for at least this physical life. (optionally they can vow to be together for eternity - after this life and into the after life)


It isn't my personal definition. It is simply what the title of the contract is where government is concerned.
The belief that marriage is a sacrament in church is a root cause for why the homosexual agenda wants to attack it. Like you, I believe that a marriage is a promise between two people that keeps God at the core. I noticed that your definition does not include the gender of the people, but God's example sure does. That's why I consider a union between a man and a woman to be the only true form of marriage there is. There is no justification, whatsoever, to support an idea that God condones a homosexual union. Therefore such unions are indeed only ceremonial in nature. The homosexual movement has wanted to attack this idea, and make the ceremonial marriage equal to religious marriage. It's why they are now attacking the tax exempt status of religious institutions. If they can't get churches to accept that their marriage is equal before God, then they'll attempt to tear down the institution God set fort, and make it equal to their lower form of theatrical ceremony.

It's a bit off topic, so feel free to just PM me, but could you elaborate on the vow that extends into the afterlife? This concept is foreign to me.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It might interest others too and it is simple in concept.Most marriage vows end with, "until, in death do you part" which means that the union ends at death. The oath that extends into the after life ends with, "so long as love endures" which means as long as love exists you are bound by your oath. - not your love for each other but as long as there is love and since the love of God is eternal so is the relationship. This kind of oath is a show of commitment and faith that what the Lord brings together nothing can separate it, not even death.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> It might interest others too and it is simple in concept.Most marriage vows end with, "until, in death do you part" which means that the union ends at death. The oath that extends into the after life ends with, "so long as love endures" which means as long as love exists you are bound by your oath. - not your love for each other but as long as there is love and since the love of God is eternal so is the relationship. This kind of oath is a show of commitment and faith that what the Lord brings together nothing can separate it, not even death.


Oh. So this is to commit to the other, even when one passes on. One still remains, and will never remarry out of love for their lost spouse. I get it.
I had some idea that the participants thought their union would extend into the afterlife once they were both gone. I couldn't think of anything in scripture that would support this.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

PrepperLite said:


> While I think it's a large issue, I am waiting in anticipation for the Supreme Court ruling on if religious organizations are required to marry same sex couples when it goes against their beliefs.


That's why I contend it not about equal rights or what the define of marriage is. Its about a lot more than that if your able to read the stitches on a fast ball so to speak. You may not have an opinion on gay activist/life style one way or the other like I did for decades, but I am friends with several despite our differnces of opinions and here is one thing I can guarantee you...*YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE*! This is just the first domino in a long line of domino's to fall before they are satisfied with societies views on the gay life style. Not only are you going to made to condone their life style, your going to embrace it and celebrate it as normal and main stream and it doesn't matter if your gay, straight or still confused about what your orientation is or isnt. You don't have to agree with my assessment on this subject but it is going to one day be the reality whether you like it or not. The 98% is going to one day bow to the 2% and worship at the alter of Homosexualality before its all said and done.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I have a feeling that the gay pride celebrations are going to disappear in the near future and all will return to:
Who cares...

There is nothing more they want than equal protection of the law, and now they have that.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

No. They will become even worse and nastier like they are now. Two ***** in cali are drugging their male minor in preparation for his sex change. Kid looks like he wishes he was dead.
No, people have forgotten it can be as nasty as its going to get. Evil doesn't stop or find rest. Aidsbola next year


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

BlackLivesMatter v. Gay Rights Parade. Don't these idiots have jobs?

Black Lives Matter Protesters Disrupt Chicago Gay Pride Parade


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

You know what's going to come of this? Nothing. A decade from now we will be looking at the first solid statistics and I betcha gays have no better/worse divorce rate, and they will suffer from the exact same parenting issues as hetros. I would be surprised if there were as much as 3% difference between either group. 


Someting of interest; with the decline of religion in America, there is a rapidly forming new minority in our country: The Faithful.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> I have a feeling that the gay pride celebrations are going to disappear in the near future and all will return to:
> Who cares...
> 
> There is nothing more they want than equal protection of the law, and now they have that.


You think so?
Gay Marriage Decision Is Right Time to End Religious Tax Exemptions

The agenda never stops, my friend. One thing leads to another, that leads to another, that never ends...
C.S. Lewis hinted at it:


> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."


The homosexual agenda was only the latest iteration. They won't stop. They can't stop.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Interesting call our pastor received last week. 
A man wanted to use our social hall/bldg. Pastor asks, who are you?
Man gives a name. Pastor says, I don't know you.
Man: I just want to know if we can use your bldg. Pastor: No.
Man: Why not? Pastor: Because it is for church use or our member's use only.
Man: We'd be willing to make a donation for the use of it. Pastor: No. 
Man: You can't do that, it's public property! Pastor: No it's not. Man: Yes it is. 
This went on for about a minute or two then man asks: Well, if we come to church on Sunday and join can we use the building? He never did say what he wanted to use the building for. 

It has already started folks. They are already putting out feelers to see who they can trap in a quandary. It isn't over by a long shot.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

Boss Dog said:


> Interesting call our pastor received last week.
> A man wanted to use our social hall/bldg. Pastor asks, who are you?
> Man gives a name. Pastor says, I don't know you.
> Man: I just want to know if we can use your bldg. Pastor: No.
> ...


Oh they are just getting started, and yes that's exactly how they roll. Like I said earlier, you might not care, but they are gonna make sure you care one way or the other.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

The Occupants are celebrating their own personal situations......They can come out now.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I'm far more worried about the obama care ruling than this one


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

I was offended and felt my beliefs were trampled on by my representatives and a non elected body of the government took another chunk out of the constitution.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> I took no position, pro or con, in my post. And it was placed in general talk, where it is appropriate even though not survival related.
> 
> I hate no one.


I hate everyone equally.

I like dogs more than most people.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I've been gone a few days amd I'm not going to read 15 pages of this thread right now. So I will post a few of my opinions on the subject since it's a hot topic. Some may just echo what other may have said but here goes.

1: I think faggotry is wrong for personal reasons. I believe it is a learned behavior that should not be encouraged.

2: I think the deal with the white house being lit up like a rainbow reflects poorly on the international reputation of the USA. We are supposed to be a Christian nation after all.

3: I really don't care if the **** want to get married. Just don't call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I take no issue with the *** couples wanting the same rights and protections that normal married people enjoy. But let's not call it marriage. Perhaps a civil union.

4: We all have the right to life, liberty and happiness and that applies to them as well I guess. 

But this is a slippery slope... what's next? What about that ******* in Arkansas who want to marry his cousin? Or how about the people who want multiple wives? Using the same logic applied to make the gays marriage legal the above two should also be made legal...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arklatex said:


> I've been gone a few days amd I'm not going to read 15 pages of this thread right now. So I will post a few of my opinions on the subject since it's a hot topic. Some may just echo what other may have said but here goes.
> 
> 1: I think faggotry is wrong for personal reasons. I believe it is a learned behavior that should not be encouraged.
> 
> ...


On point 2, the White House being lit up made my stomach turn. Only a petty shill would use that building for such a divisive display.
On point 4, Ben Franklin said we have the right to "pursue" happiness, but it's up to us to catch it.
Thank goodness they didn't state that we had a right *TO* happiness. Can you imaging the vile underbelly of society coming out to demand that their wretched fetishes be made legal and public because it was their "right" to be happy?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Arklatex said:


> I hate everyone equally.
> 
> I like dogs more than most people.


I have a fridge magnet that says "The more people I get to know the more I like my dog".


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> I have a fridge magnet that says "The more people I get to know the more I like my dog".


LOL. One thing, who combs who?


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> On point 2, the White House being lit up made my stomach turn. Only a petty shill would use that building for such a divisive display.
> On point 4, Ben Franklin said we have the right to "pursue" happiness, but it's up to us to catch it.
> Thank goodness they didn't state that we had a right *TO* happiness. Can you imaging the vile underbelly of society coming out to demand that their wretched fetishes be made legal and public because it was their "right" to be happy?


That's what I'm worried about. This is just the beginning. This could be a precedent to get more and more immoral things legalized. Like my examples of polygamy and incestuous marriage. Wouldn't it be a double standard to deny those people using the same logic as national gay marriage?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> LOL. One thing, who combs who?


We take turns.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arklatex said:


> That's what I'm worried about. This is just the beginning. This could be a precedent to get more and more immoral things legalized. Like my examples of polygamy and incestuous marriage. Wouldn't it be a double standard to deny those people using the same logic as national gay marriage?


You are correct. Like I've said, this broad interpretation of the 14th amendment has opened the gate to all manner of legal action for various things.
Regardless of whether anyone likes the ruling on this particular case or not, it was reached using absurd reasoning and has set a terrible precedent for future courts.


----------

