I was making fun of those views but I don't really care what they teach at an individual church. They can teach anything they want as a church(although we can make fun of it).
My real problem is when they invent these new legal or constitutional rights without a real debate or explanation of what they mean.
Justice O Conner was the key in creating a US constitutional right to homosexual sodomy through judicial fiat. Where did that come from? The 'right to sexual privacy' fairy?
Here in Maryland it is against the law to discriminate in housing and employment for sexual orientation, but sexual orientation is not defined in the law.
Here in Maryland it is against the law to discriminate in housing and employment for sexual orientation, but sexual orientation is not defined in the law.
“Sexual Orientation” has never been clearly defined to me, other than perhaps the acts one has committed, but I don’t know of any special tests, other than perhaps committing the act with someone or possibly numerous people, as the case often is, is some sort of proof. I don’t think even the gays know for sure who is truly homosexual amongst their own ranks.
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce...
The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.