Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[KarateCowboy]

Well in that case my sympathy for them is considerably lowered.

Why? Marriage is a social institution, the existence of which is entirely predicated upon the biological union of male and female. If we reproduced by budding then we would not have marriage. The Church has long referred to unions within the Church as "holy marriage" and outside the church as "natural marriage". Two men pretending to be married is unnatural. The church has held natural marriages to be legitimate marriages.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Could you be so kind as to provide and explain to us the verses in the Bible, and specifically ones directly quoting Jesus, that pertain to marriage?

Geez. When was Jesus NOT talking about marriage?

And he said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two of them shall be one flesh.” Matthew 19:5.

 

[OlduvaiGeorge]

Geez. When was Jesus NOT talking about marriage?

And he said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two of them shall be one flesh.” Matthew 19:5.

That's fine for a straight guy and his property, I mean wife. But where does it say ONLY one man and one woman? Or: two men aren't allowed to marry each other?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Probably because you didn't actually read any of the posts that showed what type of marriages the wedding chapel used to host. They included Christian ceremonies as well as those of other religions and civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

I still don't get where you're going with this considering marriage between one man and one woman is endorsed by the Bible.

Too bad they married those of other religions in spite of Biblical teachings. I bet they even, at some point, married a Christian to someone of another religion!

There is nothing against Biblical Teachings against marrying a couple that aren't of the Christian Faith. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for you to expect them to ask people what religious faith they are a part of...

Plus hate to break it to you, but Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why? Marriage is a social institution, the existence of which is entirely predicated upon the biological union of male and female. If we reproduced by budding then we would not have marriage. The Church has long referred to unions within the Church as "holy marriage" and outside the church as "natural marriage". Two men pretending to be married is unnatural. The church has held natural marriages to be legitimate marriages.

People murdering each other is natural. You should choose an alternate word if you want to describe something a homosexual marriage isn't. It is, in fact, natural.

 

[bhsmte]

Probably because you didn't actually read any of the posts that showed what type of marriages the wedding chapel used to host. They included Christian ceremonies as well as those of other religions and civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

Too bad they married those of other religions in spite of Biblical teachings. I bet they even, at some point, married a Christian to someone of another religion!

Beat me to it.

 

[GarfieldJL]

People murdering each other is natural. You should choose an alternate word if you want to describe something a homosexual marriage isn't. It is, in fact, natural.

If you really want to go down this road, homosexuality was usually seen in the ancient world where a slave was used by their owner... It was also seen with grown men using a child or adolescent... There was constantly a power dynamic behind it.

In the animal kingdom homosexual behavior is usually exhibitted to demonstrate a form of dominence over another.

 

[elliott95]

So they may have married couples from different Christian Denominations, I fail to see the point you're trying to make.




Except those other marriages were between 1 man and 1 woman, in accordance to biblical teachings...

Christians of all denominations have tended to recognize the marriages performed in churches and even secular or non-Christian institutions different from their own.


The argument of SSM proponents before SSM became the law of the land was that those who objected were free to just butt out.

That was a lie.


Progressive bullies are not happy until everybody drinks the kool-aid and accept that their truths are the Truth.


Who cares what kind of people these people who hold marriages were?
It is not just a Christian issue anyway. Bottom line is that they are not entitled to their own values and freedom of conscience.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Christians of all denominations have tended to recognize the marriages performed in churches and even secular or non-Christian institutions different from their own.


The argument of SSM proponents before SSM became the law of the land was that those who objected were free to just butt out.

That was a lie.


Progressive bullies are not happy until everybody drinks the kool-aid and accept that there truths are the Truth.


Who care\s what kind of people these people who hold marriages were?
It is not just a Christian issue anyway. Bottom line is that they are not entitled to their own values and freedom of conscience.

So if you are a staff person at a hospital, and the patient is only allowed visitors from family, and the homosexual married spouse comes in, will you or will you not allow that visit?

 

[GarfieldJL]

So if you are a staff person at a hospital, and the patient is only allowed visitors from family, and the homosexual married spouse comes in, will you or will you not allow that visit?

This is part of why I had no problem with civil unions, so issues like this could be handled.

 

[elliott95]

So if you are a staff person at a hospital, and the patient is only allowed visitors from family, and the homosexual married spouse comes in, will you or will you not allow that visit?

That is not a response to anything I said.

 

[elliott95]

This is part of why I had no problem with civil unions, so issues like this could be handled.

As marriage and family life in general break down, neither civil unions, or SSM will really touch the problem of increasing legal un-connectedness of more and more members of society.

The libertarian solution would be for individuals to decide for themselves in such situations. It could just as easily be two nuns of the same convent who deem themselves to the the most significant other in such situations, or two brothers, or two friends of any kind.

But that is a side issue to the lies that were being perpetrated that this was going to be all about freedom, and people could believe and act according to their own consciences.

That was a lie.

 

[MachZer0]

Oh, then does that mean that Christ also confirmed it's acceptable for fathers to offer up their virgin daughters to be gang raped as detailed in Genesis 19:4-8?

Have you studied the historical context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and the original language of the verses? Look at 1 King 14:24 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18 for hints. They're not about two men (or two women) having an affectionate, genuinely consensual relationship with one another. Paul's condemnation of same-gender relationships in Romans were in regards to common practices at the time that are diametrically different than gay marriage, such as ritualized sexual encounters tied to pagan worship and idolatry, and pederasty (the practice of grown men taking on pubescent boys as students and lovers).

But since you think Jesus agreed to every dotted i and crossed t of the Old Testament, what about the multitude of verses not only allowing slavery, but permitting masters to beat their slaves so long as the slaves don't die within two days of that beating? Jesus is totally cool with that, according to you? I mean, if Jesus really did confirm every word in the OT, then He must think slavery, incest, stoning rebellious sons, and other nefariousness is permissible. Or, does He just treat verses the same way this couple did and pick and choose which ones he liked as if they were proffered up for selection at a smorgasbord?

Could you kindly show me a single verse where homosexuality as it is applicable to two consenting adults who want to be in an exclusive, loving, mutually beneficial relationship such as with a gay marriage is prohibited? You can't.
The condemnations of same-sex intimacy in the Bible are pertaining to gang-rape, temple prostitution, idolatry, and pederasty, all of which are as unrelated to gay marriage as they are to marriage between two heterosexuals.

The issue isn't the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior. The issue is whether or not people who believe it to be a sin should be forced to help others celebrate it or facilitate it such as performing wedding services

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Why? Marriage is a social institution, the existence of which is entirely predicated upon the biological union of male and female. If we reproduced by budding then we would not have marriage. The Church has long referred to unions within the Church as "holy marriage" and outside the church as "natural marriage". Two men pretending to be married is unnatural. The church has held natural marriages to be legitimate marriages.

Do you also view marriage between a biological woman and a biological man who are well beyond the biological years of procreation to be unnatural? The last wedding I attended was for two septuagenarians.

Do you view polygamous marriage to be traditional since it is Biblical and actually endorsed and regulated in the OT? Gideon was also revered as a hero of faith in Hebrews 11:32 despite being a polygamist. Most famously, "wise" Solomon had “seven hundred wives… and three hundred concubines” (2 Kings 11:3). None of the several royal polygamists of the OT were chastised or punished by God for having a marriage that did not consist of 1 biological man and 1 biological woman – except for Solomon, but even here the exception proves the rule. According to the Bible, Solomon’s sin was not that he married a boatload of wives, but that he married foreign wives who turned him away from worshipping God.

Some other factoids about marriage: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

Geez. When was Jesus NOT talking about marriage?

And he said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two of them shall be one flesh.” Matthew 19:5.

Jesus spoke quite a bit other matters than marriage. But, why not compare everything Jesus he did say about marriage and other NT verses regarding it to how the couple at the root of this thread operated their for-profit wedding business prior since its establishment? See a few discrepancies??????

 

[TLK Valentine]

I love this country...wouldn't live anywhere else. The laws are warped by liberals. Here we have the ability to vote them out. Then, perhaps, they would go to live in Cuba? Russia? A number of places would welcome them with open arms. Until then the battle rages of right vs left. As Jesus said:

John 21:6 And He said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.​

I doubt Jesus would preach such disdain for his fellow man. Certainly not the Jesus who said:

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.​

 

[TLK Valentine]

I still don't get where you're going with this considering marriage between one man and one woman is endorsed by the Bible.

A pity the Bible is not endorsed by the government.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The argument of SSM proponents before SSM became the law of the land was that those who objected were free to just butt out.

That was a lie.

Is that how you remember the assurances towards religious institutions? "We're going to make a law, but if you don't like it, feel free to ignore it?"

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is part of why I had no problem with civil unions, so issues like this could be handled.

What's the difference?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The issue isn't the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior. The issue is whether or not people who believe it to be a sin should be forced to help others celebrate it or facilitate it such as performing wedding services

I agree that the issue is not about the rightness of wrongness of homosexual behavior. The issue at the crux of this matter is regarding the nature of the Hitching Post's nearly century-old for-profit business and the expectation that they comply with the anti-discrimation ordinances other public accommodation for-profit businesses in their city are expected to follow. As I explained to you in this post I do not object to houses of worships setting and uniformly enforcing standards that are in accordance with their religious beliefs. If a synagogue refuses to marry a Muslim and a Christian because they only wish to officiate over the union of Jews, that's their entitlement; if a Catholic church refuses to marry a homosexual couple, I believe that's their right. The Hitching Post has historically operated as a "public accommodation" business and is still currently classified as such, which requires them to accommodate all members of the public who legally qualify for the service they provide. From what they've disclosed about their business practices, they have not adhered to a multitude of doctrines regarding Christian marriage. The Knapps operated a for-profit business and they operated it like a for-profit business instead of a Christian one for decades upon decades. They looked like a duck, acted like a duck, quacked like a duck, and as soon as they were told they had to obey the rules of their pond like all the other duckies they insisted they were swans deserving special treatment.
I'd still be more sympathetic to them if they hadn't resorted to well-documented subterfuge and theatrics.

If the Hitching Post converts to a non-profit religious organization they will be exempt from the anti-discrimination ordinance. They could have quietly gone about filing the necessary paperwork to accomplish this right, but it appears they were basking in the warm glow of the spotlight centered on the melodrama they manufactured. As suspected from the get-go, the media hubbub surrounding this case was primarily to strum up publicity and illicit the support of all those folks who just enjoy puffing up their chest, stomping their feet, and screaming persecution before rationally verifying any facts. The premise of this entire thread was based on hyperbole and the bullying accusations were meritless.

However, the City of Coeur d’Alene says it never threatened the Knapps with fines or jail time.

In fact, the city hasn't received any complains about the Hitching Post wedding chapel violating its 2013 anti-discrimination ordinance.

"We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind," Coeur d’Alene spokesman Keith Erickson told CDAPress.com.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...an-wedding-chapel-not-threatened-jail-claimed

Almost Everything You've Been Told About The Idaho 'Hitching Post' Wedding Chapel Story Is A Lie - The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[YeShallTread]

Lets be fair about that. There are no countries without warped laws.

True. Every good thing is attacked by the nasty/evil/wicked thing. Sadly, it is written that this will be and...woe to them!

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!​