Why Do Homosexuals Want To Marry In Christian Churches?

I can't understand why homosexual people want to get married by a Christian minister or in a Christian Church. They have chosen a lifestyle that clearly contradicts the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments but they insist on marrying under Christian traditions. A Christian couple was fined $10,000 by the State of New York and ordered to pay a lesbian couple $1,500 each for not allowing them to marry on their property. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/27/gay-mafia-claims-another-...
Why should Christians be forced by state governments or the federal government to participate in an action which goes against everything that their religion stands for? When Christians can be sued and/or be possibly jailed for following their beliefs in what is supposed to be a land or religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution then Christianity's existence is not only threatened but doomed. Christianity is being threatened from the left and the right. Both political parties are embracing so-called "gay" rights. Christians need to wake up and see they are headed for destruction unless they stand up and say with a collective voice "no more". If Christians are forced to solemnize these immoral weddings how long will it be before the government tells them what they can say in their sermons? Oh, I think the mayor of Houston is already trying to do that.

No votes yet

Misleading headline is misleading, and you are a horrible conservatard troll and should feel bad.

"Because Liberty Ridge Farm is open to the public for seasonal activities such as an annual fall festival, the state of New York classifies it as a public accommodation that cannot discriminate on the basis of certain personal characteristics, including sexual orientation."

Yeah, just trying hanging a "NO COLOREDS" sign on your "church" and see how that plays out.

Until all of the churches will be called a "public accommodation" in order for the homos like you Anonyturd to take them over? All of you need to go crawl back underneath the rock you slithered out from. If the courts want to allow perverted weddings then the judges should be kept busy performing the "weddings". Maybe then the jails would not be overcrowded with non-violent offenders. The courts legalized it so let them handle it and leave the Christian churches alone.

Hey ignorant assclown, the article you posted has nothing to do with a church at all, so why don't you take your homophobia and shove it up your ass along with your head?

I'm in favor of homosexuals getting married, anywhere and everywhere. Then, they'll be getting divorces, paying alimony, and so on. IMHO, they can then start suffering like the rest of us have!

All you have to do is add "Toledo Chapter" to the bottom of the sign and you're spot on.


Sarge...I agree that no church SHOULD be forced to marry a gay/lesbian couple. However, if one runs a rental facility open to the general public, it is a violation of the rights of any two adult people to deny them the opportunity to be married in any PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION! A church IS NOT a "public accommodation."
For the record, I am not homosexual, but my son is. I am proud to be his father. He is married to a man, and they are both wonderful human beings who deserve the same rights as do my straight daughter and her husband. My son and his husband are both Jewish, but were not married in a Jewish house of worship. However, their older son is attending a Jewish elementary school and their younger son is in a Jewish preschool. Of course, they do live in San Francisco where the general population is more accepting of diversity than they are in most other places in America.
Also, for the record, my son has degrees in architecture and Spanish, is a licensed architect, and worked for several years as an architect. He is also certified in American Sign Language and is a concert level violist. He now teaches architecture and math at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. His husband received his undergraduate degree from Yale, and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He is currently practicing law and specializes in real estate law. In addition, he has a Masters Degree in counseling, and also does counseling professionally.
So, San Francisco is enhanced by talented, intelligent people like my son and son-in-law, because people where these two were born are less tolerant of those with a different sexual orientation. BTW -- The latest unemployment rate in the immediate San Francisco area is 4.2%. Think that there's any connection between being an open, accepting society and having a vibrant economy? Maybe, just maybe, if Northwest Ohio had a reputation of tolerance and acceptance, we, too, would attract more talented, intelligent, creative, well-educated people. Of course with intolerant people like Sarge around...

Sorry Dale but I just remembered... corporations are people too, my friend, and the corporate person can have religious beliefs (as determined by the Supreme Court in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings)... so any good CORPORATE rental facility doesn't have to let those damned homogayfags in since all they have to do is state that letting queers and dykes is against their CORPORATE religion. When it goes to the court system, thanks to Hobby Lobby the lower courts will toss the case because the government has no right to question if those CORPORATE religious beliefs are sincerely held and has no right to force CORPORATIONS to accommodate the LGBTQ community, nor any other kind of human being that the CORPORATION'S religious beliefs are against, like colored people, Catholics, Jews, atheists, women, etc.

(Use of derogatory terms for homosexuality in this post is purely for purposes of irony, mockery, and expression of the right-wing intolerance only, and if you couldn't figure that out after reading the above posts tearing "Sarge" a new one, you need to adjust your sarcasm and irony detectors.)

And YOU need to change your attitude, because that is the way you really think imho.

Oh look at this, G-string runs in with an ad hominem attack.

Frankly, you can go fuck yourself, in the privacy of your own home, of course.

nationwide. Mexico and the United States leave the question up to individual jurisdictions. All of these 20 nations have a clear majority of Christian citizens. Not one is a heathen, g-dless, Communist nation. Not one is a Muslim nation!
So, Sarge, your intolerant position aligns you with Communist dictatorships like China, North Korea, and Cuba; and wonderful Muslim nations such as Iran, Syria, and the new self-declared, Islamic State. Congrats, Sarge!

Here's the link to the article:

I keep hearing how enamored the Right is with Putin, how he's a strong leader and Obama should be more like him etc. Maybe we can chip in and send Sarge and all his little friends to Russia since they love it so much.

And you should relocate to Fire Island.

uncomfortable around people whom they know to be part of the GLBT community, are those who are most concerned about their own sexual identity.
Just sayin'...

BTW -- It is my understanding that Fire Island is quite a nice place to be in the summer.


Find anything interesting in that closet, G-man?

The booze hound returns!

Yes, we can see your post. Decided to put down the bottle and face the reality of a black Democrat in the White House again, did ya?

Don't you mean the LAST Black president? There won't be any more, at least for 75-100 years.

According to some on here Dr. Carson is a leader for the nomination.


there are prominent African-Americans in both major political parties. At one point in 2012, Herman Cain was at or near the top of polls for the Republican nomination. Currently, Ben Carson is prominent in many polls on the Republican side.

The point should be that labeling anyone by race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, should be passe. We should try to find the best possible candidate regardless of personal backgrounds. Al Smith lost the Presidential race so badly in 1928, that no Catholic would be considered seriously for the Presidency until John F. Kennedy received the Democratic nomination in 1960. Even though Kennedy served less than 3 years, most consider him to have been a very good, if not great, POTUS. Should we not for 100 years or so consider another African-American for POTUS because we are disappointed in Obama? And what if the economy continues to improve to the point where Obama looks really good within the next two years? Should we then ONLY consider an African-American to succeed him because he would appear to have done so well? Shouldn't we get past labels and look for the best possible person no matter what that person's personal racial, ethnic, gender, or religious background may be?

Maybe someday Nudist will be as accepted in society as the GLBT is? Just sayin............!!!!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.