i think thats hilarious. they both should stay, i agree with the first person :)
2006-08-16 07:11:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Neither. A sex shop in and of itself is not anti-church. I go to church, and I go to sex shops (though I definitely go to church more often than I go to the sex shop, and the sex shop is on the way home from church, so I've been known to leave church and hit the sex shop on the way home).
What is important is that I use the things I buy in the sex shop in my monogamous marriage. And a monogamous marriage is more fun and easier to uphold if you visit the sex shop every once in a while.
Church wants monogamous marriage, therefore they should see the value in the sex shop.
I know how horrifically heretic this may sound at first read, but really think about what I am saying.
2006-08-16 07:17:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nitris 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If the people coming out of the church are secure enough in their faith, the presence of a sex shop shouldn't bother them.
And if the sex-shop owners are secure enough in what they do for a living, they shouldn't be bothered by the church being next door.
It would make for an interesting photo, though, wouldn't it? A sex shop right next to the church ... pretty ironic.
2006-08-16 07:12:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In most states this would be against the law. There can't be sex shops, bars, things like that, within so many thousands of feet from schools or churches. And, as for who should move, I guess that is up to God, now isn't it?
2006-08-16 07:17:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by The Nana of Nana's 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No reason either one should move. If you believe that god created everything, then god created sex, and the sex shop, AND put the church next door.
2006-08-16 07:14:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by lee m 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
The sex shop.
2006-08-16 07:13:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by a_delphic_oracle 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Neither, they are both aware that most people can buy whatever locations they can afford and that there are people who like to go to each place and maybe both. I doubt that many are bothered by it.
2006-08-16 07:15:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by iMi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that to force either of them to move would be to say that the one moving is wrong. They should just stay where they are and operate normally.
2006-08-16 08:01:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by steele_feher 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither should have to move. There is a place in our world for all types of people.
2006-08-16 07:11:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by mykidsRmylife 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
If no one has a problem with this than I say they both stay but if there is a problem I say the one that was there first gets to stay.
2006-08-16 07:11:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by farmergyrl23 4
·
1⤊
1⤋