Karen Pence is Teaching at School that Bars LGBT Students and Teachers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

Bullshit. Married people of all sorts have children. Protected legal spousal rights.

Maybe you refer to some religious ceremony? No one GAF about that.

I don't GAF about what you think. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

DP here and I don't GAF about what you think. Nor do the courts and that is why dear uncle was finally able to marry the love of his live after decades of living with him. Hurrah for love!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what? It's a Christian school. Obviously many Christians believe that engaging in same sex sexual behavior is a sin. Are Christians now required to accept same sex relations?

It’s funny how when you put it like that you realize how much they have in common with conservative Muslims. Maybe some day they’ll realize that too.

Same sex relations is condemned by all religions.

Not in mine. I’m a Christian. But I actually listen to what my Christ taught.

Take his head cover off. There are horns. And he is limping on a left foot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

The law says otherwise. Are you stuck in 1950?

I don't care what your ''law'' says. In some countries the law says it's OK to eat people.

this is the semantics argument again

The problem is that we mixed state functions with religious functions.

The government calls EVERYTHING marriage, whether it is a civil union or a religious sacrament.

You can do whatever the hell you want in your church. I'm going to think you're a bigot, but religious freedom and all that.

But the Constitution, as per the Supreme Court, allows for religious equality.

[Anonymous]

allows for MARRIAGE equality. Sorry, NOT religious equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the curiously ignorant reaction by a small vocal group in the progressive movement has demonstrated how incompatible their ideas and goals are with the principles that has made this country great.

Please show me in the US Constitution where the United States of America is a Christian nation.

this

the truth is several of the Founding Fathers were NOT believers

+100000

religion has ZERO place in government

A number of the original states had established churches in their constitution at the time of the founding which enforced religious taxes on their populations which continued until the 1830's. Laws prohibiting certain religious groups from holding office continued through the first half of the 19th century.

The 1st amendment establishment clause was there because of those established churches, which were an outgrowth of several colonies originally being religous colonies. Setting one particular church up as the national established church would have caused considerable problems in the late 18th century.

I'm amazed that people don't remember this from history class.

You can certainly make an argument that the national government was not a Christian government, but the fact is that several of the States were religious governments. You would have to note, that the social and cultural norms of the United States have been and still are Christian.

It's not very Christian to demonize poor people trying to come here for a better life. Nor was it very Christian to enslave people and then make them third class citizens for a hundred years. You'll have to call those "norms" something else besides Christian.

I'm amazed you don't remember these things from history class.

I abhor slavery, but you need to look at the historical context.

Why do you consider slavery to be incompatible with Christianity? Clearly if you remembered your history classes, you would know the exact biblical passages that southerners used to defend the institution.

You might also remember that not once does Jesus denounce the institution, namely because he wasn't concerned with making this world better, but saving people for the next.

The new and old testiment aren't anti-slavery. In fact, slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ. Slaves were considered to be free "spiritually", but not free under the law.

You also need to read the biblical passages on nations, it's not quite what you think it is.

Unlike many "Christians" who believe in "Hippie Jesus", I've actually read the bible. It's rather strange that many supposed christians haven't.

So just what is it about Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31 that you think is compatible with slavery? Really, really curious.

signed -- a Catholic school graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Shapiro on Twitter:

“Which is more discriminatory: a private school requiring that its voluntary attendees abide by a code of conduct, or people saying such a school should not exist because that school disagrees with their ideas?”

Or C) one group of people saying another group of people shouldn’t exist. I’ll go with C as most discriminatory.

Except “A”never said that about “C”

If I tell you that your heterosexuality is immoral and you have to become gay that is pretty much the equivalent of saying you should not exist as you truly are. If I tell a black man he must be a white woman, that is the equivalent of me saying he shouldn't exist as he truly is.

Conservative Christians don't think gays should exist. Period.

No, they hate the sin, not the sinner.

They're of the belief that homosexuals should not act on those impulses. They also believe that those who truly repent for a sin should be forgiven, rather than tolerating sins.

Feel free to disagree, but you don't understand the religious right.

I’m a minister. I have lots of minister friends. Every single one would call bullshit on that ridiculous excuse. Being gay is part of who someone is. You cannot “hate the sin” without hating the sinner. That would be like me saying I hate women. But I love you. It’s a cop out that cowardly ”Christians “ use to justify hate.

As a minister you should be well aware of the 6 things God hates. Proverbs 6:16-19

Not in the Church that serves a different master

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

The law says otherwise. Are you stuck in 1950?

I don't care what your ''law'' says. In some countries the law says it's OK to eat people.

this is the semantics argument again

The problem is that we mixed state functions with religious functions.

The government calls EVERYTHING marriage, whether it is a civil union or a religious sacrament.

You can do whatever the hell you want in your church. I'm going to think you're a bigot, but religious freedom and all that.

But the Constitution, as per the Supreme Court, allows for religious equality.

I personally think it would have made more sense for courts to stop issuing marriage licenses and just rename them to civil unions if you are looking at the property rights aspect of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the curiously ignorant reaction by a small vocal group in the progressive movement has demonstrated how incompatible their ideas and goals are with the principles that has made this country great.

Please show me in the US Constitution where the United States of America is a Christian nation.

this

the truth is several of the Founding Fathers were NOT believers

+100000

religion has ZERO place in government

A number of the original states had established churches in their constitution at the time of the founding which enforced religious taxes on their populations which continued until the 1830's. Laws prohibiting certain religious groups from holding office continued through the first half of the 19th century.

The 1st amendment establishment clause was there because of those established churches, which were an outgrowth of several colonies originally being religous colonies. Setting one particular church up as the national established church would have caused considerable problems in the late 18th century.

I'm amazed that people don't remember this from history class.

You can certainly make an argument that the national government was not a Christian government, but the fact is that several of the States were religious governments. You would have to note, that the social and cultural norms of the United States have been and still are Christian.

It's not very Christian to demonize poor people trying to come here for a better life. Nor was it very Christian to enslave people and then make them third class citizens for a hundred years. You'll have to call those "norms" something else besides Christian.

I'm amazed you don't remember these things from history class.

I abhor slavery, but you need to look at the historical context.

Why do you consider slavery to be incompatible with Christianity? Clearly if you remembered your history classes, you would know the exact biblical passages that southerners used to defend the institution.

You might also remember that not once does Jesus denounce the institution, namely because he wasn't concerned with making this world better, but saving people for the next.

The new and old testiment aren't anti-slavery. In fact, slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ. Slaves were considered to be free "spiritually", but not free under the law.

You also need to read the biblical passages on nations, it's not quite what you think it is.

Unlike many "Christians" who believe in "Hippie Jesus", I've actually read the bible. It's rather strange that many supposed christians haven't.

So just what is it about Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31 that you think is compatible with slavery? Really, really curious.

signed -- a Catholic school graduate.

I see those as in alignment with Ephesians 6:5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the curiously ignorant reaction by a small vocal group in the progressive movement has demonstrated how incompatible their ideas and goals are with the principles that has made this country great.

Please show me in the US Constitution where the United States of America is a Christian nation.

this

the truth is several of the Founding Fathers were NOT believers

+100000

religion has ZERO place in government

A number of the original states had established churches in their constitution at the time of the founding which enforced religious taxes on their populations which continued until the 1830's. Laws prohibiting certain religious groups from holding office continued through the first half of the 19th century.

The 1st amendment establishment clause was there because of those established churches, which were an outgrowth of several colonies originally being religous colonies. Setting one particular church up as the national established church would have caused considerable problems in the late 18th century.

I'm amazed that people don't remember this from history class.

You can certainly make an argument that the national government was not a Christian government, but the fact is that several of the States were religious governments. You would have to note, that the social and cultural norms of the United States have been and still are Christian.

It's not very Christian to demonize poor people trying to come here for a better life. Nor was it very Christian to enslave people and then make them third class citizens for a hundred years. You'll have to call those "norms" something else besides Christian.

I'm amazed you don't remember these things from history class.

I abhor slavery, but you need to look at the historical context.

Why do you consider slavery to be incompatible with Christianity? Clearly if you remembered your history classes, you would know the exact biblical passages that southerners used to defend the institution.

You might also remember that not once does Jesus denounce the institution, namely because he wasn't concerned with making this world better, but saving people for the next.

The new and old testiment aren't anti-slavery. In fact, slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ. Slaves were considered to be free "spiritually", but not free under the law.

You also need to read the biblical passages on nations, it's not quite what you think it is.

Unlike many "Christians" who believe in "Hippie Jesus", I've actually read the bible. It's rather strange that many supposed christians haven't.

So just what is it about Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31 that you think is compatible with slavery? Really, really curious.

signed -- a Catholic school graduate.

I see those as in alignment with Ephesians 6:5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Wow, you really need to get to a bible class to discuss interpreting the Gospels.

Why do see those passages as only addressing the slave and not the slavemaster? Don't slavemasters need to ask themselves, "Would I want to be a slave? Would I want my children sold from me? Would I want to be beaten and whipped and never be paid for the hard labor I did?"

Explain why slavemasters do not have to answer Jesus's command to treat everyone as they want to be treated.

Jesus says nothing in those passages about obeying. However, if you want to obey him, you'd darn well better treat others the way you want to be treated. Or are you saying slave owners wanted to be treated as slaves? Slave owners wanted to be whipped? Slave owners wanted their freedom and property held from them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the curiously ignorant reaction by a small vocal group in the progressive movement has demonstrated how incompatible their ideas and goals are with the principles that has made this country great.

Please show me in the US Constitution where the United States of America is a Christian nation.

this

the truth is several of the Founding Fathers were NOT believers

+100000

religion has ZERO place in government

A number of the original states had established churches in their constitution at the time of the founding which enforced religious taxes on their populations which continued until the 1830's. Laws prohibiting certain religious groups from holding office continued through the first half of the 19th century.

The 1st amendment establishment clause was there because of those established churches, which were an outgrowth of several colonies originally being religous colonies. Setting one particular church up as the national established church would have caused considerable problems in the late 18th century.

I'm amazed that people don't remember this from history class.

You can certainly make an argument that the national government was not a Christian government, but the fact is that several of the States were religious governments. You would have to note, that the social and cultural norms of the United States have been and still are Christian.

It's not very Christian to demonize poor people trying to come here for a better life. Nor was it very Christian to enslave people and then make them third class citizens for a hundred years. You'll have to call those "norms" something else besides Christian.

I'm amazed you don't remember these things from history class.

I abhor slavery, but you need to look at the historical context.

Why do you consider slavery to be incompatible with Christianity? Clearly if you remembered your history classes, you would know the exact biblical passages that southerners used to defend the institution.

You might also remember that not once does Jesus denounce the institution, namely because he wasn't concerned with making this world better, but saving people for the next.

The new and old testiment aren't anti-slavery. In fact, slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ. Slaves were considered to be free "spiritually", but not free under the law.

You also need to read the biblical passages on nations, it's not quite what you think it is.

Unlike many "Christians" who believe in "Hippie Jesus", I've actually read the bible. It's rather strange that many supposed christians haven't.

So just what is it about Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31 that you think is compatible with slavery? Really, really curious.

signed -- a Catholic school graduate.

I see those as in alignment with Ephesians 6:5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Wow, you really need to get to a bible class to discuss interpreting the Gospels.

Why do see those passages as only addressing the slave and not the slavemaster? Don't slavemasters need to ask themselves, "Would I want to be a slave? Would I want my children sold from me? Would I want to be beaten and whipped and never be paid for the hard labor I did?"

Explain why slavemasters do not have to answer Jesus's command to treat everyone as they want to be treated.

Jesus says nothing in those passages about obeying. However, if you want to obey him, you'd darn well better treat others the way you want to be treated. Or are you saying slave owners wanted to be treated as slaves? Slave owners wanted to be whipped? Slave owners wanted their freedom and property held from them?

As I said earlier, Jesus never once condemns slavery. That doesn't mean He endorsed it either.

If He had considered it to be a sin as an institution, He would have said so. Rather Jesus often used stories of slaves in parables. He used them to teach people to live holy lives rather than to decry the institution. Rather Jesus was teaching than in Him there is no slave nor free.

Since Paul preached the whole council of God, and many of the Old Testament biblical figures favored by God held slaves, no man can call the institution a sin, as abhorent as we may find it to be today.

You're whole argument is a strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

Bullshit. Married people of all sorts have children. Protected legal spousal rights.

Maybe you refer to some religious ceremony? No one GAF about that.

I don't GAF about what you think. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

DP here and I don't GAF about what you think. Nor do the courts and that is why dear uncle was finally able to marry the love of his live after decades of living with him. Hurrah for love!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

The law says otherwise. Are you stuck in 1950?

I don't care what your ''law'' says. In some countries the law says it's OK to eat people.

this is the semantics argument again

The problem is that we mixed state functions with religious functions.

The government calls EVERYTHING marriage, whether it is a civil union or a religious sacrament.

You can do whatever the hell you want in your church. I'm going to think you're a bigot, but religious freedom and all that.

But the Constitution, as per the Supreme Court, allows for religious equality.

I personally think it would have made more sense for courts to stop issuing marriage licenses and just rename them to civil unions if you are looking at the property rights aspect of it.

I honestly believe that calling all unions "marriage" is what causes all these problems. But it isn't just courts renaming licenses "civil unions" or whatever - lots of corporate policies and tax laws, etc. would need to be rewritten.

I'm "married", but I'm not religious. As long as the state and our companies recognize us as a couple/family unit in some way, and all that it implies, I don't care what it's called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

Bullshit. Married people of all sorts have children. Protected legal spousal rights.

Maybe you refer to some religious ceremony? No one GAF about that.

I don't GAF about what you think. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

DP here and I don't GAF about what you think. Nor do the courts and that is why dear uncle was finally able to marry the love of his live after decades of living with him. Hurrah for love!

Definitely! Best of everything to them but this is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, the curiously ignorant reaction by a small vocal group in the progressive movement has demonstrated how incompatible their ideas and goals are with the principles that has made this country great.

Please show me in the US Constitution where the United States of America is a Christian nation.

this

the truth is several of the Founding Fathers were NOT believers

+100000

religion has ZERO place in government

A number of the original states had established churches in their constitution at the time of the founding which enforced religious taxes on their populations which continued until the 1830's. Laws prohibiting certain religious groups from holding office continued through the first half of the 19th century.

The 1st amendment establishment clause was there because of those established churches, which were an outgrowth of several colonies originally being religous colonies. Setting one particular church up as the national established church would have caused considerable problems in the late 18th century.

I'm amazed that people don't remember this from history class.

You can certainly make an argument that the national government was not a Christian government, but the fact is that several of the States were religious governments. You would have to note, that the social and cultural norms of the United States have been and still are Christian.

It's not very Christian to demonize poor people trying to come here for a better life. Nor was it very Christian to enslave people and then make them third class citizens for a hundred years. You'll have to call those "norms" something else besides Christian.

I'm amazed you don't remember these things from history class.

I abhor slavery, but you need to look at the historical context.

Why do you consider slavery to be incompatible with Christianity? Clearly if you remembered your history classes, you would know the exact biblical passages that southerners used to defend the institution.

You might also remember that not once does Jesus denounce the institution, namely because he wasn't concerned with making this world better, but saving people for the next.

The new and old testiment aren't anti-slavery. In fact, slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ. Slaves were considered to be free "spiritually", but not free under the law.

You also need to read the biblical passages on nations, it's not quite what you think it is.

Unlike many "Christians" who believe in "Hippie Jesus", I've actually read the bible. It's rather strange that many supposed christians haven't.

So just what is it about Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31 that you think is compatible with slavery? Really, really curious.

signed -- a Catholic school graduate.

I see those as in alignment with Ephesians 6:5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Wow, you really need to get to a bible class to discuss interpreting the Gospels.

Why do see those passages as only addressing the slave and not the slavemaster? Don't slavemasters need to ask themselves, "Would I want to be a slave? Would I want my children sold from me? Would I want to be beaten and whipped and never be paid for the hard labor I did?"

Explain why slavemasters do not have to answer Jesus's command to treat everyone as they want to be treated.

Jesus says nothing in those passages about obeying. However, if you want to obey him, you'd darn well better treat others the way you want to be treated. Or are you saying slave owners wanted to be treated as slaves? Slave owners wanted to be whipped? Slave owners wanted their freedom and property held from them?

As I said earlier, Jesus never once condemns slavery. That doesn't mean He endorsed it either.

If He had considered it to be a sin as an institution, He would have said so. Rather Jesus often used stories of slaves in parables. He used them to teach people to live holy lives rather than to decry the institution. Rather Jesus was teaching than in Him there is no slave nor free.

Since Paul preached the whole council of God, and many of the Old Testament biblical figures favored by God held slaves, no man can call the institution a sin, as abhorent as we may find it to be today.

You're whole argument is a strawman.

Just like he did with abortion? Oh there's a convenient argument! LOL. I'm glad at least you don't find abortion to be a sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her.
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every other variation is a love union and commitment.

Bullshit. Married people of all sorts have children. Protected legal spousal rights.

Maybe you refer to some religious ceremony? No one GAF about that.

I don't GAF about what you think. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

DP here and I don't GAF about what you think. Nor do the courts and that is why dear uncle was finally able to marry the love of his live after decades of living with him. Hurrah for love!

Definitely! Best of everything to them but this is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is a marriage no matter what YOU say. It's a marriage. It's a marriage. It's a marriage.

And a better marriage than many I know of.