Topic: One in five Americans: “Religious institutions Should Be Forced to Perform SSM" (Read 3204 times)

AP Poll: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage

Notice the name of the article is sharp divisions after courts back gay marriage, but the poll is not about gay marriage being legalized, it's about whether or not local officials should be forced into issuing a SSM license.

Those who are against SSM based on their religion can be perfectly fine with others being allowed to do it. They are not the same thing.

"The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

The poll was conducted July 9 to July 13, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage."

The article discusses more results from the poll too.

Freedom for the people who give us the most money
Debt Slavery for the rest

Sounds like he shielded every religious group from performing SSM, but I think it's only for Kansas, lol.

"they can't punish ministers or religious groups for opposing same-sex marriage"

Did he shield imams too?

Yup.

Here's an article about it today:

Kansas governor's order shields clergy on same-sex marriage

"TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas' governor told state government agencies Tuesday that they can't punish ministers or religious groups for opposing same-sex marriage, and critics said he is sanctioning discrimination even as the state extends new benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order in response to last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the nation. Brownback's order said the "imposition" of gay marriage could lead to "potential infringements" of religious liberties."

Amen!

 

I'm all for gay marriage, but if it violates a religions beliefs it should not be forced in anyway. A church is a place of worship for a certain group of people to believe in whatever they believe in and no one has the right to step all over their beliefs.

I don't want to raise my children in a society that is non-Bible. Why? Because it is hard enough to get them to be good people living in only a Bible society. Letting them live among ardent sinners makes it really difficult to raise them properly.

Very simple, and very true.

I don't care (as in it's good if they are free to) if homosexuals can marry. I do care when people are more than happy to take away rights from others when they are not hurting anyone.

I don't know about this arguing about the bible, seems pretty pointless. On the other hand one thing that is very simple: You do not take the rights of one person to protect the rights of another. Case closed.

The thing that is going to shock many Christians even more is the fact that there is no Mother Earth for them. Saint Paul says in Galatians 4.26:

The point is, God didn't actually tell people to rape. It could have just been sinful people going and doing the rape, if in fact it did occur. (I never argued ravished didn't mean rape, but that they may have mistranslated "ravished" instead of another word "violated" which maybe stood for something else). But the point is God didn't say to do it.

This is a pretty good page, Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist?

Time for God is outside of this universe as well as inside it. Why? Because God made this universe. And before He made it, He had his own form of time which was probably some form of eternity.

In Ezekiel 28, we see that the angel who became the devil and Satan, walked with God before he became wicked and evil. He walked right in the places where God walked, "among the fiery stones." His job was to guard the newly created race of mankind. Read Ezekiel 28 and see the glory God gave to His partner-angel, Satan, before Satan fell.

Satan fell because he became conceited regarding his great glory and beauty that God had bestowed on him. While his exact thought processes might not be easily interpreted or known, Satan probably figured that he was so much greater than mankind that why in the world should he have to be a guardian for this stupid, little race of human beings? And since God gave him such great glory, and then assigned him the task of guardian over stupid, weak, little people, God, Himself, must be flawed in His thinking. Therefore, who would be better than he, Satan, to rule the universe and Heaven itself?

Now, let me give you a great piece of understanding, something that you will find almost nowhere else. Here it is. Regarding this wonderful universe that God created, God created everything except for one thing. The only thing left in this universe that could be created (because God hadn't created it) was destruction. So, to be like God (creating something) and to start the destruction of God (so that he, Satan, might take over) Satan created destruction. Even the Revelation in the Bible N.T. calls Satan, Destroyer, in two languages, Hebrew and Greek - "Abaddon and Apollyon." Satan did this by turning on the people in the Garden of Eden that he was supposed to protect, by tempting them into sin, the exact opposite of the thing he was supposed to do.

It was only after Satan did this that he began to find out exactly how strong God is. God is thorough. God is powerful beyond imagination and belief. Satan found this out when he couldn't turn Jesus-God into a sinner, even though Jesus is man (as well as God).

The point is, God isn't the One Who is doing the evil. Rather, it is mankind at the direction of Satan who are doing evil, right along with Satan.

At the same time, recognize that God doesn't let anything move completely out of His control. Satan created destruction. People acknowledged and accepted destruction. But now that it is here, God controls it better and more thoroughly than Satan or people could ever hope to. And God, just to retain His complete control even over the themes and the essence, is controlling destruction in righteous ways that are beyond the greatest thinking of both Satan and mankind.

So, what are you going to do? Are you going to continue being on the side of Satan and destruction by attributing evil and wickedness to God? Are you going to go down the path with Satan to the destruction of himself by his own creation, and of all who follow him? Or are you going to turn and humbly accept the wisdom of God in Jesus, His Son, Who is bringing all godly people (those on God's side and in favor of God) out of destruction in the wisest, best way that it can be done?

You are badly mistaken in your thinking. Turn to God and be on His side, in favor of Him, before there is no more time for you, and you are destroyed right along with Satan and all those who follow him.

Yes of course that's why this passage explicity says ," Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
"

I guess "women ravished" doesn't mean "rape" in your language. Hint: It does.

Also, while we're at it, here's a few passages from the bible that depict women as being second-class citizens to men. Hope your happy with the laws "God the father" gave that oh so treats women fairly /sarcasm.


"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."- 1 Corinthians 14:34

"But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven." 1 Corinthians 11:5

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ..." - Ephesians 5:22

So it seems "God the Father" is a mass murderer And a sexist.

I've read the passages.


Selling someone as a slave doesn't mean the person she is enslaved to is free to rape her.

"Back than, it wasn't uncommon for poor families to give their children up to slavery. Slavery wasn't as bad as we think of it today. Instead of families letting their children starve or die from sickness, they would send them to be maids or farmers under a boss so that they could receive food, water, shelter, clothing, income, and more. These "slaves" were treated more like servants or workers contract rather than our definine of slaves.

Now, in this particular passage, it is discussing the treament of female "servants" in specific. Women were highly protected under the Jewish law due to the fact that they were highly vulnerable in society. This is why we see so many extra laws of protection revolving around women. If a father gave up his daughter, than the 'boss' would have to take on the duties of a father. He was not allowed to sell her to foreigners (as that would endanger her life). If he was unpleased with her abilities to work, she was simply set free from the contract. He also wasn't able to just get rid of her when her time working was up. The men could simply be let free, because they could get jobs. Women couldn't back than, so the boss was not allowed to just let her leave, and end up in a life of poverty. Often times they would arrange marriages for these women (arrange marriages were common back than). The woman had many extra rights in this marriage that most other women didn't get.... for example, she could divorce him in a multitude of cases! If he mistreated her in any way she had the right to leave and she didn't have to give him anything (whereas a woman in todays society may have to give up half of her belongings to her ex after divorce). " Christians: can you explain this verse Exodus 21:7-8?

And taking a damsel, doesn't mean they're free to rape them, versus rescuing them and allowing them to live. It's also another instance where people are saying that others are taking damsels, not that God is telling them to do so. Are there any examples in the bible where God tells someone to go rape someone? I don't think we've hit on one, and He does say to kill those who would rape others.

Guess what? The bible is written and rewritten by HUMANS, who 1) have the capacity to lie 2) are incapable of being perfect. It's a waste of bandwidth to discuss it as if it's "the word of god" - only as a philosophical text.

Because the bible is inconsistent and contradictory. Some parts promote rape, some are "against it". Ugh, this has already been stated, the below shows that the bible allows for rape. Please open up your nearest bible and go read it.

It says that God will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle. Then it talks about what will happen. That does not necessarily mean to say He wants it all to happen. It says in the bible a lot of things He never wanted to happen, but do because of free will and evil. Even if it means rape (versus marriage/taking care of those who weren't killed), it doesn't say they should ravish women, just that they will be ravished (or another definition of the word used is violated).

Or it could just be another translation problem. It may have just meant men would lie with their wives after they got married. Shakab

The bible is against rape.

In the first book of the bible...

Genesis 34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. 5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.

Also:

Deuteronomy 22:25 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die."

Why would God want His men to rape people when He believes men should die for raping someone?

Please, read below, the bible promotes rape. It explicit says it, go open up your bible and look before posting again...Thanks.

God gave people plenty of time to ask for forgiveness, they didn't. He forgives when you ask nowadays too. He wiped evil from the world. That's what He does. He doesn't want evil to be running around and affecting those who love Him and give Glory to Him.

As for the quote, I saw no mention of rape.

"1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24): First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from EvilBible in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone repeatedly. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:

    Provide them with housing (taking them in)
    Allowing them 1 month to mourn.
    Then allow marriage
    If they divorce, no mistreatment.

Where's the rape? You should know by now."

(Debunking evil-bible)

The bible does not condone rape, and says not to do it.