Churches to raise money to fight gay marriage

Captain Irascible wrote:

<quoted text>
WHY SHOULD THEY? It's always the people who don't want to help that want to dictate what other people do with their money.

LOL....Ok dont help the poor sick and old....then the government will have to......BECAUSE WE CANT LET 40-60 MILLION PEOPLE BE HOMELESS AND STARVE TO DEATH.....THAT WOULD COST US 3 TIMES AS MUCH TO DEAL WITH....

Captain Irascible wrote:

<quoted text>
WHY SHOULD THEY? It's always the people who don't want to help that want to dictate what other people do with their money.

1. Homeless people ruin the aesthetic of the area and since we actually care, helping them is the best option.

2. Such programs are funded by everyone, so your point fails completely.

3. Children do not have control of their lives, so they should be cared for unless you want four year olds to have drivers licenses.

4. Churches spend billions on buildings, and most of those costs are all creature comforts. That is spitting in the face of Jesus who did not like such things.

psssst.... looks like all that money they are raising went to waste today... cudos to the feds!~

Dudedad wrote:

psssst.... looks like all that money they are raising went to waste today... cudos to the feds!~

do you understand the decision i think you are celebrating found that gay marriage is not a fundamental right and that gays are not a suspect class?
The court essentially found state legislatures could ban gay marriage, just not the FEDERAL gov't.

In other words, its a huge loss wrapped in a small win.

"A key part of the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court Thursday."
and i quote, "In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples."
yeah... small win... ;)

Dudedad wrote:

"A key part of the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court Thursday."
and i quote, "In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples."
yeah... small win... ;)

do you understand the decision i think you are celebrating found that gay marriage is not a fundamental right and that gays are not a suspect class?
The court essentially found state legislatures could ban gay marriage, just not the FEDERAL gov't.

In other words, its a huge loss wrapped in a small win.

Put another way, it was decided on federalism grounds (state's rights) and not gay rights as the court found NON EXIST.
celebrate it with me.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
in all honesty I disagree with gay marriage and with being gay. But I love gay people the same as all people and I don't want harm or bad things. I disagree is all. I do wish you happiness.

Thank you. You too.

sad but true wrote:

<quoted text>
you sound like dearth vader trying to get Luke to go over to the dark side, in this case the sick and twisted side of the gays.....

Another fearful soul. Why don't you answer those questions then. All I'm saying is that if guys or 2 girls want to roll in the hay, then who are we to tell them what to do?

Would you like someone telling you who you could make love to or how to live your life? i don't think you would.

Is this because of religion? If so, then consider this: A godly man isn't one who hides from temptation but one who confronts it without judgment and leaves it to God.

Is it because Society? Then I ask, what is a greater assault on society, allowing one to live freely in the pursuit of happiness or striping away freedoms and forcing people into living what they don't believe?

Confession wrote:

<quoted text>Another fearful soul. Why don't you answer those questions then. All I'm saying is that if guys or 2 girls want to roll in the hay, then who are we to tell them what to do?

Would you like someone telling you who you could make love to or how to live your life? i don't think you would.

Is this because of religion? If so, then consider this: A godly man isn't one who hides from temptation but one who confronts it without judgment and leaves it to God.

Is it because Society? Then I ask, what is a greater assault on society, allowing one to live freely in the pursuit of happiness or striping away freedoms and forcing people into living what they don't believe?

roll in the hay all you want with who you want just don't expect me or other people to accept it and leave the kids out of it.

sad but true wrote:

<quoted text>
roll in the hay all you want with who you want just don't expect me or other people to accept it and leave the kids out of it.

No one ever asked you to accept it or anything else. Just mind your own and don't judge. The whole same-sex marriage issue is over society telling people how to live. It is all of us who should find a disregard of freedom as unacceptable.

Who mentioned kids? Don't pretend that's a reason. "Think of the children" excuse is hiding behind an unjustifiable argument.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Homeless people ruin the aesthetic of the area and since we actually care, helping them is the best option.
2. Such programs are funded by everyone, so your point fails completely.
3. Children do not have control of their lives, so they should be cared for unless you want four year olds to have drivers licenses.
4. Churches spend billions on buildings, and most of those costs are all creature comforts. That is spitting in the face of Jesus who did not like such things.

1. Homeless people ruin the aesthetic of the area and since we actually care, helping them is the best option.

**** Moving them by force if necessary to another location is cheaper and will maintain the aesthetics. Helping them is only the best option if like yourself, you have no intention in contributing.

2. Such programs are funded by everyone, so your point fails completely.

***** Once again your failed reading comprehension surfaces. The issue was that the church should pay to support the homeless instead of building lavish churches. So to your point this is not funded by “everyone”.

3. Children do not have control of their lives, so they should be cared for unless you want four year olds to have drivers licenses.

***** This statement is so ridiculous that it does more to highlight your ignorance than your position

4. Churches spend billions on buildings, and most of those costs are all creature comforts. That is spitting in the face of Jesus who did not like such things.

***** Why do you care where a church spends its money if you are not a participant and reject their beliefs.

Confession wrote:

<quoted text>No one ever asked you to accept it or anything else. Just mind your own and don't judge. The whole same-sex marriage issue is over society telling people how to live. It is all of us who should find a disregard of freedom as unacceptable.

Who mentioned kids? Don't pretend that's a reason. "Think of the children" excuse is hiding behind an unjustifiable argument.

society tells everyone how to live, are you daft!?

sad but true wrote:

<quoted text>
society tells everyone how to live, are you daft!?

Bans against gay marriage isn't telling people how they should live? Really???

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
if you don't see the difference between hair color, and male and female, then you don't have enough sense to talk with.

I won't attack you personally like you do to so many of the people you reply to but I will say you missed the point. Attraction is something that is different for each individual. I can no more tell you that you are not attracted to a woman, then you could tell a bisexual they are not attracted to both. It's all in the genetic makeup.

Aphelion wrote:

<quoted text>

***** Why do you care where a church spends its money if you are not a participant and reject their beliefs.

Because they want to force their beliefs onto other people. Live and let live is not what churches want.

truth wrote:

<quoted text>I won't attack you personally like you do to so many of the people you reply to but I will say you missed the point. Attraction is something that is different for each individual. I can no more tell you that you are not attracted to a woman, then you could tell a bisexual they are not attracted to both. It's all in the genetic makeup.

you better have a talk with the pro gay posters here because most of them have said it isn't.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
you better have a talk with the pro gay posters here because most of them have said it isn't.

Where have we said attraction isn't different for each individual?

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
you better have a talk with the pro gay posters here because most of them have said it isn't.

The vary fact that we support gay rights proves your entire assertion incorrect and destroys all credibility you possess in this matter. Supporting gay rights means that we know and understand that everyone's attraction is different. There are even people with no sexual attractions. The gambit is run by humanity.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Bans against gay marriage isn't telling people how they should live? Really???

Its telling people what they cannot do, not how they live.

Wow I have a great idea for the christardo churches to raise money for... HOW ABOUT FEEDING AND CLOTHING FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR!!!!!!!!!

WOW Lilith... Brilliant!!!!!!!!

Oh but that's not christian... Sorry... They aren't happy unless they are persecuting minorities... after all that's what JesASS did