AlanLamb0986

*** moved to the music video forum *** Found it! Hope this blesses people as much as it blessed me!

A video was played in Church today, it was really powerful, but for the life of me I can't remember the name/lyrics or artist! Useful, right? It was sung by a man, it was about feeling worthwhile. I know it didn't feature any worship words, it didn't even use the name of Jesus or anything. But the people in the video were having there photos taken, then the photographer was handing the picture to them and it was making them cry! Then at the end you saw that it was a photo of them with a loved one, or something like that! Please help, it was amazing!

What do you mean by memories? I know who Jesus is because I can recollect events, scripture and teachings about Him. I recollect a moment when I gave my life to Him, it's a memory. I remember things God has done in my life. Imagine, I wake in Heaven one day and there's this almighty being, with eyes like fire seated on a great white throne. Needless to say, I'd be terrified if I didn't remember who this being is, if I didn't remember what I'd learnt about this moment I'm now experiencing. Isaiah 65:17tells us, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Some interpret Isaiah 65:17 as saying that we will have no memory of our earthly lives in heaven. However, one verse earlier in Isaiah 65:16, the Bible says, “For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.” It is likely only our “past troubles” that will be forgotten – not all of our memories. Our memories will be cleansed, redeemed, healed, and restored – not erased. There is no reason why we could not possess many memories from our earthly lives. The memories that will be cleansed are the ones that involve sin, pain, and sadness.Revelation 21:4declares, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Some point to the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) as proof that the dead remember their earthly lives. The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn the rich man’s brothers not to come to hell. So he remembered his relatives. He must have also remembered his own life of sin because he never asked to be released from hell, nor did he ask why he was there or claim there had been some kind of mistake. He remembered enough about his earthly life to know that he deserved hell. But this is no proof that those in heaven remember their earthly lives. The rich man’s remembrance was part of his misery. If we have memories in heaven, they will only be of things that will bring us joy.

Woah, Jesus didn't give up His divinity. What is God if not divine? And if Jesus gave up His divinity, then He wouldn't be God, wouldn't be perfectly righteous, and His death on the cross would've been pointless, You're referring to this verse Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death Read the first line. Christ's very nature is God. And we know that God cannot deny Himself. That doesn't mean God can say 'I don't exist', it just means that God cannot deny His divinity, His Holiness, His righteousness etc- they are the very essence of God. God can't choose to be less Holy or less righteous, any more than we can choose not to be carbon based mammals. If Jesus 'gave up' being God, then Jesus wasn't 'good', since only God is good. If Jesus gave up His divinity, then in His state of imperfection, He would've been an imperfect sacrifice and we would remain in our sinful state. Put bluntly, if Jesus gave up His Godliness, He died for nothing, and we are all screwed. Jesus was both fully God and fully man- hypostatic union. Salvation isn't 'cheating' death. To cheat would be a dishonest act, and since Salvation is from God, it would imply that God is dishonest. Salvation isn't 'cheating', because sinfulness wasn't our natural 'mode.' Adam was made perfectly, that was God's intention. If anything, Adam cheated himself out of life, and Jesus came to return us to our intended state- righteousness. Jesus didn't cheat death, because Paul said that 'He humbled Himself, and became obedient to death. Jesus didn't sidetrack death, He tackled it head on. But the Holiness and righteousness of Jesus couldn't be contained, and He was raised back to life. Jesus didn't come to show us how to follow the Law. He came to show us His perfection, and so realize our own imperfection. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, to bring it to completion in order to bring us under Grace. Man isn't asked to follow the Mosaic Law, because man is sinful and will only fail. Jesus said 'Do not think I have come to abolish the Law. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them' Fulfill- to bring to completion. Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans), and of the dissolving of the human body at death ). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.” Why would Christ come to show us how to follow a Law that He intended to make mute? If man can follow the Law, Jesus wouldn't have needed to die. We are dead to the Law, and dead men aren't obliged to follow the Law. That's what baptism represents- death to the Law and a symbolic resurrection into Grace. As soon as we fail ONCE, the punishment is death. That's why Jesus died- to die under the Law, a perfect ransom in place of us. In His death, we were given His righteousness, perfect and Holy. In that perfect righteousness we are not chained to the Law. When you said 'they will realize that a mere man can do it', you imply that Salvation is dependent on the Law. It's not. Please stop trying. To try to follow the Law is an insult to God, because His plan was to send Jesus to die, and we inherit His righteousness. If you claim we can follow the Law, what good was Jesus' death? Did Jesus die needlessly? Was God wrong when, through Paul, He said that the Law brings nothing but death? (2 Corinthians 3:6) I wanna ask you a very strange question.... How do you kill God? You don't. EXACTLY... So how was Jesus killed?........... as a what.....? as a God?.... or as a man......? You sound like a Muslim,using the same arguments that they use, and placing God in the same two dimensional view as they do. I think the Bible clearly states how Jesus can be divine and choose to die on the Cross, I think you'd be interested to know that your view goes against the teachings of mainline Christianity. Most Christians view Jesus as fully man, and fully God- the Hypostatic Union. Those who don't agree with the Hypostatic Union are usually JW's or Mormons. it's just you're assuming that Jesus' divinity was His body, where as a mainline Christian views Jesus' divinity as His Spirit, and being only contained by His body, not defined by it. The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58,10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). If you claim that Jesus was the eternal God, who upon His earthly ministry became completely human, then you're in disagreement with the Bible. The word makes it clear that Jesus cannot change who He is. So who He was in Heaven was who He was on earth- God. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8 You could claim that this verse only applies to Jesus after His earthly ministry. But then you'd have to ignore the word 'forever.' Forever must have no starting point, otherwise it's not forever, but 'x' amount of time. For Jesus to be the same forever, He must be the same as He was pre-incarnation as He is now. That doesn't mean Jesus had a flesh and blood body pre-incarnation, but only means that His nature, His eternal substance in unchanging- He is, was, and always will be fully God. The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man. Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6,19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43;Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality. The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58,10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1,14). Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever. So what is God? "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." John 4:24 Was Jesus' Spirit crushed or destroyed? No. So how does Jesus' body being broken, in any way make it sound like God died? "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19 So it's pretty obvious that Jesus could 'die' and still retain His divinity. Jesus' divinity is bound by Spirit, not flesh. I think it funny that you quote Jesus was Emmanuel, but deny the prophecy that clearly states that when God comes in flesh, He would still be Mighty God: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.- Isaiah 9:6

Woah, Jesus didn't give up His divinity. What is God if not divine? And if Jesus gave up His divinity, then He wouldn't be God, wouldn't be perfectly righteous, and His death on the cross would've been pointless, You're referring to this verse Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death Read the first line. Christ's very nature is God. And we know that God cannot deny Himself. That doesn't mean God can say 'I don't exist', it just means that God cannot deny His divinity, His Holiness, His righteousness etc- they are the very essence of God. God can't choose to be less Holy or less righteous, any more than we can choose not to be carbon based mammals. If Jesus 'gave up' being God, then Jesus wasn't 'good', since only God is good. If Jesus gave up His divinity, then in His state of imperfection, He would've been an imperfect sacrifice and we would remain in our sinful state. Put bluntly, if Jesus gave up His Godliness, He died for nothing, and we are all screwed. Jesus was both fully God and fully man- hypostatic union. Salvation isn't 'cheating' death. To cheat would be a dishonest act, and since Salvation is from God, it would imply that God is dishonest. Salvation isn't 'cheating', because sinfulness wasn't our natural 'mode.' Adam was made perfectly, that was God's intention. If anything, Adam cheated himself out of life, and Jesus came to return us to our intended state- righteousness. Jesus didn't cheat death, because Paul said that 'He humbled Himself, and became obedient to death. Jesus didn't sidetrack death, He tackled it head on. But the Holiness and righteousness of Jesus couldn't be contained, and He was raised back to life. Jesus didn't come to show us how to follow the Law. He came to show us His perfection, and so realize our own imperfection. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, to bring it to completion in order to bring us under Grace. Man isn't asked to follow the Mosaic Law, because man is sinful and will only fail. Jesus said 'Do not think I have come to abolish the Law. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them' Fulfill- to bring to completion. Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans), and of the dissolving of the human body at death ). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.” Why would Christ come to show us how to follow a Law that He intended to make mute? If man can follow the Law, Jesus wouldn't have needed to die. We are dead to the Law, and dead men aren't obliged to follow the Law. That's what baptism represents- death to the Law and a symbolic resurrection into Grace. As soon as we fail ONCE, the punishment is death. That's why Jesus died- to die under the Law, a perfect ransom in place of us. In His death, we were given His righteousness, perfect and Holy. In that perfect righteousness we are not chained to the Law. When you said 'they will realize that a mere man can do it', you imply that Salvation is dependent on the Law. It's not. Please stop trying. To try to follow the Law is an insult to God, because His plan was to send Jesus to die, and we inherit His righteousness. If you claim we can follow the Law, what good was Jesus' death? Did Jesus die needlessly? Was God wrong when, through Paul, He said that the Law brings nothing but death? (2 Corinthians 3:6)

A Catholic CAN be saved, but dare I say, isn't saved because he/she is Catholic. In regards to the question “Are Catholics saved?”, this is a more difficult question to answer. It is impossible to give a universal statement on the salvation of all members of any denomination of Christianity. Not ALL Baptists are saved. Not ALL Presbyterians are saved. Not ALL Lutherans are saved. Salvation is determined by personal faith in Jesus alone for salvation, not by titles or denominational identification. Despite the unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, there are genuine believers who attend Roman Catholic churches. There are many Roman Catholics who have genuinely placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. However, these Catholic Christians are believers despite what the Catholic Church teaches, not because of what it teaches. To varying degrees, the Catholic Church teaches from the Bible and points people to Jesus Christ as the Savior. As a result, people are sometimes saved in Catholic churches. The Bible has an impact whenever it is proclaimed (Isaiah 55:11). Catholic Christians remain in the Catholic Church out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church truly stands for, out of family tradition and peer pressure, or out of a desire to reach other Catholics for Christ. At the same time, the Catholic Church also leads many people away from a genuine faith relationship with Christ. The unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church have often given the enemies of Christ opportunity to blaspheme. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus Christ established. It is not a church that is based on the teachings of the Apostles (as described in the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles). While Jesus’ words inMark 7:9were directed towards the Pharisees, they accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”

I don't really understand Silvia. A Catholic isn't any less a candidate for Salvation than a Muslim or Atheist. We're saved by Grace, bot be what we do to earn it, so it's just as likely that a Catholic will find Salvation as anyone else. They're no more or less a sinner. The 'pass mark' for Heaven is 100%, so even if we were at 99%, we'd still fail. ANYONE can be saved by the Grace found in Jesus Christ. His righteousness is so all encompassing that it totally obliterates the presence of sin.

"Why should we try to influence the laws to promote our religious beliefs?" Because our belief in God should cause us to abide by the Law, but the Spirit should guide us to what is good and pleasing to the Lord. I must respect a homosexual couples right to marriage, but I don't, and should not agree to it. Jesus called us to follow the Law and be subject to the governments. I am subject, but I can still verbally disagree with strong disdain. You get that homosexuality is wrong, BUT we're talking about the Constitution? I hate to tell you Americans, but God doesn't care about the U.S Constitution. You speak of the Constitution as if it were divinely inspired. You can't say to God 'Homosexuality was legal in our nation.' God decides what is legal, what is wrong. You can't possibly defend that statement from a Christian perspective, only as an American. God doesn't care about your citizenship. The word 'God' doesn't appear in the Constitution. While governments exist under God, that doesn't mean they are for God. The U.S was not founded as a Christian nation.The 1706 Treaty with Tripoli says that 'the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.' Most of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christian, God isn't pro-America, pro-Britain etc. That's not what John 3:16 means. It means that God loves each individual that makes up the world. God doesn't care about a mass of people, He loves the individuals that make the collective. God won't judge man on whether He abides by man-made Laws. You can't impose God's word on man, damn straight. But that still doesn't change the fact that when man wanders from God's word, it's called 'sin.' Whether the U.S allows that sin is utterly mute, God still hates that sin, and absolutely doesn't care about mankind's laws. He orders us to follow the law of the land, but He isn't bound by it. Alan, Take a breather.....I'm not promoting that gay marriage is moral. I'm saying gays have the right according to the laws of the land. Answer me this. Would it be right for a Christian group to petition their law makers to deny a person to get a license to practice medicine because they're gay? How about a license to fly a plane? How about a license to drive a car? If not then why a marriage license? Remember, the argument is not morality...it is as a human being, do they have a right to get a license issued by the state? If not then why not? The argument from your perspective is secular, you're subtracting God. But homosexual marriage is an abomination to God, that's my issue. God doesn't consider flying, driving, or the practicing of medicine to be sin. They are amoral points, they neither righteous, nor sinful. A sin is measured against righteousness. It's wrong to kill, so it's moral to not. It's wrong to steal, therefore it's moral to not. Practicing medicine is not 'moral', because otherwise it would be immoral not to. Your logic is a bit flawed. If a gay person was qualified to practice medicine, it wouldn't be due to his sexuality. Homosexual marriage has everything to do with sexuality. God made man, and has every right to define the characteristics of man- homosexuality is a flaw to God, not a characteristic. One has nothing to do with the other. The issue of gay marriage is only to do with sexuality, that's why I can say that God views it as a sin. If God says it's wrong, it's wrong, and I agree. My point seems to have been overlooked. Of course gay's have rights according to the law, and rightfully so. The issue is with gay marriage. Man's opinion doesn't matter, God says its wrong. hello Alan, Smoking is bad, right? Does the state have the right to forbid it? drinking to excess is wrong, right? So the state should outlaw drunkeness even if it is occurring at home, right? divorce is bad, right? So the state should no longer issue a bill of divorce, right? Worshiping any God other than that of the Bible is certainly bad (maybe worse than homosexuality). The state should therefore destroy all mosques and synagogues and censor all non-christian literature, right? For these (I presume you think) can only lead people to hell. atheism is wrong, right? So all citizens should be required to take a religious oath, right? What you seem to require is theocracy, not a democracy. A democracy is based on human rights--chief of which is the right to happiness. Now of course we all agree that homosexuality ultimately lead to the unhappiness of homosexuals; but then, we also know this of smoking--yet we allow persons to smoke so long as it is done outside of public facilities (which would violate my right to happiness). A democracy operates by different principles than biblical ethics. Separation of Church and State, remember? clb As far as I'm aware smokers, drinkers, and people who have divorced don't suffer the same mental/physical afflictions that homosexuals do. You did read that comment right? The life expectancy of a gay man is 8-20 years shorter than a heterosexual person. The incident of domestic violence among gay couples is double that compared to heterosexual. Health24.com states that homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression and substance abuse. The risk of suicide jumps over 200 % if a person engages in a homosexual lifestyle. In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. 2% of the U.S population is gay, but accounts for 61% of the HIV suffering population. The Federal budget request for HIV treatment is $20.4 billion. Before you ask, YES HIV/AIDS should be treated, and those suffering deserve compassion and love. But since AIDS is being spread mostly by the homosexual community (you can't deny that statistic), homosexuality does effect everyone who pays taxes. By the way, separation of church and state was devised to protect the Church from government dictatorship, not to prevent the Church from influencing society I find it interesting that Americans point out separation of church and state, like that was the original concept. "“The wall of separation between church and state is not there to protect the state from the church; rather, it is there to protect the church from the state. It stands as a divide to preserve religious freedom. And one needs to protect the church from the state because the latter will utilize its enormous powers to do what the state has always done – either subvert the religion or destroy it. " Prof. Stephen Carter- Yale

I don't really understand. If I have racing thoughts about ways to live my faith, ways to teach the Gospel, ways to love strangers, then the scripture would support it. If I had racing thoughts about sex with a random person, or fantasize about causing harm to someone then scripture would condemn it. It depends on the thought. I'm not quite sure that the thought's mph has to do with it Hmmm...that's a good point. I guess I'm pointing more towards being anxious and not taking your time with stuff. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.- Philippians 4:7 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”- Psalm 46 I LOVE that Psalm. God is saying 'don't just believe I 'am', but believe I am who I claim to be.' When God says He is our Redeemer, our Life, our Shield, our Prince and so on- be still and know that He means it. He will never leave you, nor forsake you. As soon as we focus on who God is, our problems start to shrink.

I don't really understand. If I have racing thoughts about ways to live my faith, ways to teach the Gospel, ways to love strangers, then the scripture would support it. If I had racing thoughts about sex with a random person, or fantasize about causing harm to someone then scripture would condemn it. It depends on the thought. I'm not quite sure that the thought's mph has to do with it

I've never heard a Christian group appeal to tradition in favour of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It's a bad analogy. Race and ethnicity cannot be changed, whereas homosexuality is a behaviour. Secondly race or ethnicity has nothing to do with marriage. Gender, however has everything to do with marriage. Not true, because governments have always recognised that the natural union between a man and a woman is what produces the next generation, as a rule, as a group and by nature. Homosexual unions as a rule, as a group and by nature do not produce the next generation. There is also no reason why marriage should be redefined to suite whatever people want it to mean. I don't think laws are meant to change the minds of those who break it. The question isn't even about allowing gays to do what they want, they already have that freedom, the question is whether government ought to promote same sex unions by declaring that it is no different from a natural marriage. I'm sorry Luft. I shouldn't have said literal Christian group...I was speaking hypothetically. I apologize. Also I wasn't saying the the race/tradition argument was a correct one, but just one that could not be used to justify labelling a marriage legally between a man and a woman. Again I'm not speaking from the point of view of the Christian, I speaking from the point of what is legal for each state. I didn't understand your response to my procreation argument so could you please clarify? Thanks. How does marriage being redefined affect you personally? Are you still able to get married? Then if them getting married doesn't hurt you physically impede on your right to exist leave it to God. Continue to preach against it as sin and ushing in the 2nd coming of Christ. I'm tired of this world aren't you? I knew things would change sooner or later whether I liked it or not. But things have to happen in order for prophecy to be fullfilled. Why do we want to stay on this earth? I think you were deliberately careful to say 'physical' harm. We know that gay marriage would harm, does it matter if it's physical or not? What's less harmful about mental or emotional harm? The fact of the matter is that we will no longer be able to teach our children that same sex relationships/marriage are immoral. If you think we can, then you don't have a grip on society. Homosexuality is now considered an amoral act, it is viewed as neither good nor bad. So gay marriage has become amoral, and it's viewed as natural and acceptable. Gay marriage is the homosexual societies way of convincing themselves that homosexual behavior is acceptable, which is why they stamp their feet and demand rights. So what happens when children are taught about gay relationships? Eventually schools will begin educating students on same sex relationships, it's just a matter of time. It will be passed as some sort of equality bill. This would detract from what I plan to teach my children when asked- homosexuality is wrong. So does gay marriage effect me? Yes. Will it harm people? Yes, children will have Christian parents shunning homosexuality, but society viewing it as an 'ok' thing. Yes, homosexual marriage harms me.

Dr's don't say, I'm gay, give me a license to practice medicine. They take years of classes, years of internships, take a very difficult exam and if they are successful, they are granted a license to practice medicine. Being a Dr. is a privilege, granted by a State, not a right. Pilots don't say, I am gay, give me a license to fly an airplane. They take classes, most spend years perfecting their flying through experience and flying hours, must pass a test and demonstrate that they can safely fly (and land) a plane safely. Then they are awarded a license to fly. Being a pilot is a privilege, not a right. Drivers don't say I'm gay, give me a license to drive. They take classes, spend hours behind the wheel learning how to drive, must pass two tests and then they are awarded a driver's license by the State. Having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. Gays don't have the right, just because they are gay, to demand a marriage license by the State. If the people of that State vote to allow gay marriage, then they are equally entitled to apply for and get one. But, if the people have voted to amend their State's Constitution to ban gay marriage, then they are not entitled to apply for and get one. The issue still remains that it is not in the Fed's purview to decide if what the people have chosen is right or wrong, as long as it is not prohibited by the US Constitution. Getting married is not a right, it is a privilege that is regulated by the States. Not the Feds. The State is not required to issue anyone a marriage license, even to heterosexuals. We are Christians, we follow the will of the Father if we follow Christ. We are not told to compromise our values because it is expedient or what society wants. We are instructed to "stand firm" in our convictions. We are to obey GOD's laws whenever they conflict with man's laws, even though GOD had placed leaders above us. Forget what people want; this is not your home. Do what GOD would have you to do, and let man do what he wants. And GOD does not want you to be silent, either. We are to be His witnesses. Don't place gays under your judgment, but be true to GOD. Don't aid and abet sin by being silent, but be a visual witness of your faith. Saying that people have the right to sin is sin in itself. Feeling that one is attracted to a person of the same sex in not a sin, but performing homosexual acts is. And giving them a license to wed is giving them a license to sin. After all, they don't give you a license to commit adultery or to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex do they? Yet, they are sins. Do you think we should give licences to these people? The point of my asking those questions are the reasoning behind why each state is slowly allowing gay marriage laws to pass. Christian groups brought up tradition as a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It's always been a man and a woman. But tradition used to say a black man could not marry a white woman. Therefore that argument couldn't stand. The religious reasoning I have already mentioned why it doesn't stand. So the Christian says that marriage is for procreation. But then you'd have to take away marriage licenses from people who can't have kids or 70 year old people who want to get married late in life. There is no reason under united states law why a gay person can not be allow to be issued a marriage license solely because they are gay. This does not change the fact that Christians are to call a spade a spade and sin sin, but knowing that you will be in trouble with the law for "promoting hate" is a part of prophecy. Jesus says you will be hated for my name sake. I just wanted to show that you don't change the mind of a homosexual by changing the law. You lift up Christ and let the Holy spirit do the changing of their mind. That's all I wanted to get across. God bless. No Christian says that same sex marriage is immoral because of tradition. We call it a sin, because it is. We go back to the belief in God, and His word. We're not calling it a sin because we hate homosexuals, we just don't disagree with God. Your arguments about what used to be is mute- we used to consider interracial marriage wrong, not a sin- it has no scripture to condemn it. Of course it's not wrong, we were just ignorant.Why do people only disagree with the morality/immorality of gay marriage? No one disagrees with God's view of rape, murder, and so on. But hey, you're not disagreeing with God, you're just agreeing with the laws that disagree with God, right? Christians are to call a sin a sin, but support a persons right to gay marriage? 'Hey this is a sin, you can do it, but I'll correct you after.' Good logic. Answer me these questions: Do you believe in God? Is homosexuality a sin? Does God view homosexual marriage as a sin? Is God wrong? Homosexual is harmful to both the society, and to the person. Putting a ring on it doesn't mean all is well. Just in case you say homosexuality doesn't hurt people: Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed thathomosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual...While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment.Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614) Breast Cancer higher among Lesbians: "Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women and is the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, following cancers of the skin and lung. Recent research has identified risk factors for breast cancer that may differentially affect lesbian and bisexual women, including nulliparity and higher rates of alcohol consumption and overweight, that may place this population at geater [sic] risk than heterosexual women of developing breast cancer." 2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html) "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s….” (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) Gay men lifespan shorter than non gay men: "The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657." (Exodus Global Alliance, exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php) "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.'(Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php) Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men: "For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men." (American Journal of Public Health, ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126 Alan are you reading my posts or skimming through them. I ask because you're asking questions that I've already answered in previous posts. I believe in God the creator of heaven and earth as per the bible. Yes I believe homosexuality is a sin. Yes I believe God views homosexual marriage as a sin. And no God is not wrong. But the point of this was to get readers to understand that our job as Christians aren't to get lawmakers to create laws that would prevent people from doing what they want to do even if it's against God's word. Proposition 8 was all over the news at one time and it was something that should not have been done in my opinion. My reasoning for this is because you can't change a homosexual by restricting him legally. You do what God has called you to do and call sin by its right name but still love the person. Of course the change is a work of the Holy Spirit, but we are called to ammend laws because they are in contridiction to our moral beliefs. When you do so you start exercising power that the pope did in the dark ages where everyone's life was tied to religion. It sounds wonderful to the Christian but it's not effective. That's the only reason I brought up this topic. I think you seem to have a warped view on how homosexual rights came to be. Gays didn't have rights that the Christian Church fought to revoke. We're not creating laws, the government create new laws. So who's changing what? What do you mean we shouldn't have laws that prevent people doing what they want to do?! Are you insane?! We have laws that prevent rape, murder and child molestation- we very much should have laws that prevent people doing what they 'want.' You're next comment would be that homosexuality is a mutual act, but so what? Two people agreeing doesn't make it right. You can't change homosexuals by laws, but that doesn't mean we should agree with laws that condone an immoral act. That helps how? Homosexuals and lesbians will often say that people who love each other, no matter what their gender, should be allowed to marry each other. After all, they say, that's what heterosexual couples do. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights? It makes sense, doesn't it? It does, but not that much. First of all, love is not the basis on which marriage is defined or justified. Marriage is defined by a public, legal commitment, and love is not a necessary component of the contract (though it is a good idea to love each other). Marriage is entered into by a mutual agreement that involves emotional and sexual faithfulness and the promise to raise children within its bonds. Of course, some heterosexual couples can't have children, and some adults marry knowing they will not have children. The issue is that marriage has always been the normal means in which children have been brought into the world. The marriage institution is supposed to provide a stable environment. Second, if marriage is justified simply because two people love each other, then what do you do with two married couples who don't love each other, but the husband of one couple loves the wife of another? If the reason is raised that love is what determines that they can/should be married, then shouldn't they each dissolve their present marriages and marry each other? Or, are there other moral considerations involved that should be considered? Should marriages be formed and dissolved under such circumstances? How would this affect society as a whole? Third, what about the collateral effect or redefining marriage and using "love" as the justification of legal bonding? Consider pedophiles. If a pedophile loves a young boy and the young boy loves the grown man, then shouldn't they be allowed to get married -- if they are both mature enough for consent? After all, if love is the criteria that justifies two homosexuals or two lesbians getting married, then why can it not also be applied to pedophilia -- or as the new term that has been proposed, "minor attracted persons." What about polygamy and polyandry? Would those who say homosexual marriage is okay, as long as two people love each other, also advocate one man having many wives and one woman having many husbands as long as they love each other? It would seem that in order to be consistent they would have to. Where does it stop? Just saying that love is what justifies homosexual marriage can also be used to justify other things. It is a dangerous argument, illogical, and is wrought with problems and pitfalls. The old laws, that homosexual was immoral, and gay marriage wasn't legal, were not in contradiction with my belief. You say that ethnicity cannot be changed, but homosexuality is a behavior. As I've noted pedophilia, let's go with that. That's a behavior. Why can't we make that legal? What about bestiality? The answer is obvious, and please don't spout twaddle about 'adults in mutual understanding.'

Dr's don't say, I'm gay, give me a license to practice medicine. They take years of classes, years of internships, take a very difficult exam and if they are successful, they are granted a license to practice medicine. Being a Dr. is a privilege, granted by a State, not a right. Pilots don't say, I am gay, give me a license to fly an airplane. They take classes, most spend years perfecting their flying through experience and flying hours, must pass a test and demonstrate that they can safely fly (and land) a plane safely. Then they are awarded a license to fly. Being a pilot is a privilege, not a right. Drivers don't say I'm gay, give me a license to drive. They take classes, spend hours behind the wheel learning how to drive, must pass two tests and then they are awarded a driver's license by the State. Having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. Gays don't have the right, just because they are gay, to demand a marriage license by the State. If the people of that State vote to allow gay marriage, then they are equally entitled to apply for and get one. But, if the people have voted to amend their State's Constitution to ban gay marriage, then they are not entitled to apply for and get one. The issue still remains that it is not in the Fed's purview to decide if what the people have chosen is right or wrong, as long as it is not prohibited by the US Constitution. Getting married is not a right, it is a privilege that is regulated by the States. Not the Feds. The State is not required to issue anyone a marriage license, even to heterosexuals. We are Christians, we follow the will of the Father if we follow Christ. We are not told to compromise our values because it is expedient or what society wants. We are instructed to "stand firm" in our convictions. We are to obey GOD's laws whenever they conflict with man's laws, even though GOD had placed leaders above us. Forget what people want; this is not your home. Do what GOD would have you to do, and let man do what he wants. And GOD does not want you to be silent, either. We are to be His witnesses. Don't place gays under your judgment, but be true to GOD. Don't aid and abet sin by being silent, but be a visual witness of your faith. Saying that people have the right to sin is sin in itself. Feeling that one is attracted to a person of the same sex in not a sin, but performing homosexual acts is. And giving them a license to wed is giving them a license to sin. After all, they don't give you a license to commit adultery or to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex do they? Yet, they are sins. Do you think we should give licences to these people? The point of my asking those questions are the reasoning behind why each state is slowly allowing gay marriage laws to pass. Christian groups brought up tradition as a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It's always been a man and a woman. But tradition used to say a black man could not marry a white woman. Therefore that argument couldn't stand. The religious reasoning I have already mentioned why it doesn't stand. So the Christian says that marriage is for procreation. But then you'd have to take away marriage licenses from people who can't have kids or 70 year old people who want to get married late in life. There is no reason under united states law why a gay person can not be allow to be issued a marriage license solely because they are gay. This does not change the fact that Christians are to call a spade a spade and sin sin, but knowing that you will be in trouble with the law for "promoting hate" is a part of prophecy. Jesus says you will be hated for my name sake. I just wanted to show that you don't change the mind of a homosexual by changing the law. You lift up Christ and let the Holy spirit do the changing of their mind. That's all I wanted to get across. God bless. No Christian says that same sex marriage is immoral because of tradition. We call it a sin, because it is. We go back to the belief in God, and His word. We're not calling it a sin because we hate homosexuals, we just don't disagree with God. Your arguments about what used to be is mute- we used to consider interracial marriage wrong, not a sin- it has no scripture to condemn it. Of course it's not wrong, we were just ignorant.Why do people only disagree with the morality/immorality of gay marriage? No one disagrees with God's view of rape, murder, and so on. But hey, you're not disagreeing with God, you're just agreeing with the laws that disagree with God, right? Christians are to call a sin a sin, but support a persons right to gay marriage? 'Hey this is a sin, you can do it, but I'll correct you after.' Good logic. Answer me these questions: Do you believe in God? Is homosexuality a sin? Does God view homosexual marriage as a sin? Is God wrong? Homosexual is harmful to both the society, and to the person. Putting a ring on it doesn't mean all is well. Just in case you say homosexuality doesn't hurt people: Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed thathomosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual...While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment.Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614) Breast Cancer higher among Lesbians: "Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women and is the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, following cancers of the skin and lung. Recent research has identified risk factors for breast cancer that may differentially affect lesbian and bisexual women, including nulliparity and higher rates of alcohol consumption and overweight, that may place this population at geater [sic] risk than heterosexual women of developing breast cancer." 2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html) "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s….” (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) Gay men lifespan shorter than non gay men: "The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657." (Exodus Global Alliance, exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php) "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.'(Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php) Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men: "For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men." (American Journal of Public Health, ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126

Dr's don't say, I'm gay, give me a license to practice medicine. They take years of classes, years of internships, take a very difficult exam and if they are successful, they are granted a license to practice medicine. Being a Dr. is a privilege, granted by a State, not a right. Pilots don't say, I am gay, give me a license to fly an airplane. They take classes, most spend years perfecting their flying through experience and flying hours, must pass a test and demonstrate that they can safely fly (and land) a plane safely. Then they are awarded a license to fly. Being a pilot is a privilege, not a right. Drivers don't say I'm gay, give me a license to drive. They take classes, spend hours behind the wheel learning how to drive, must pass two tests and then they are awarded a driver's license by the State. Having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. Gays don't have the right, just because they are gay, to demand a marriage license by the State. If the people of that State vote to allow gay marriage, then they are equally entitled to apply for and get one. But, if the people have voted to amend their State's Constitution to ban gay marriage, then they are not entitled to apply for and get one. The issue still remains that it is not in the Fed's purview to decide if what the people have chosen is right or wrong, as long as it is not prohibited by the US Constitution. Getting married is not a right, it is a privilege that is regulated by the States. Not the Feds. The State is not required to issue anyone a marriage license, even to heterosexuals. We are Christians, we follow the will of the Father if we follow Christ. We are not told to compromise our values because it is expedient or what society wants. We are instructed to "stand firm" in our convictions. We are to obey GOD's laws whenever they conflict with man's laws, even though GOD had placed leaders above us. Forget what people what; this is not your home. Do what GOD would have you to do, and let man do what he wants. And GOD does not want you to be silent, either. We are to be His witnesses. Don't place gays under your judgment, but be true to GOD. Don't aid and abet sin by being silent, but be a visual witness of your faith. Saying that people have the right to sin is sin in itself. Feeling that one is attracted to a person of the same sex in not a sin, but performing homosexual acts is. And giving them a license to wed is giving them a license to sin. After all, they don't give you a license to commit adultery or to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex do they? Yet, they are sins. Do you think we should give licences to these people? Finally, some Christian logic.

Your question was out of place on the forum then. Not being funny, but you asked a question about a sin on a Christian forum, then ask us to subtract God from our decision on whether it's right or not: "Do you agree or disagree with me and please state why the courts are wrong if you believe they are- by the way I will call you wrong if you do." You didn't say that we should only take the Constitution into account when we replied. If we're allowed to take other things into consideration (such as God *gasp*), how is my reply incorrect? Tell me, what's the point of this topic again? If the Law doesn't stand with that which is morally right, what's the point of the Law? Now, I don't care about anyone's opinion but God. God says homosexuality is immoral, therefore so is gay marriage. If a law supports that immoral act, it doesn't make it a moral act, it's still wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of God, this Law is immoral, wrong, a sin. Whose opinion counts? Are you one of these people that actually believe that homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone? How does a murder in another state between two people living in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere, among people whom we have never known and who don't know anyone we know, affect us personally? It doesn't, but because it has no effect on us personally this doesn't mean that we should ignore the moral issues associated with murder and not condemn such actions. Murder is morally wrong, and when any moral law is broken we are all ultimately affected and we know that if such actions were to increase, society would be affected...no matter where you are. Am I comparing homosexual marriage to murder and saying they are related or somehow equal? Not at all. I'm momentarily shifting the focus to something that we all agree is morally wrong in order to demonstrate that even though there can be an action somewhere that doesn't specifically affect us (i.e., murder), we should rightfully condemn it because it is wrong. It is a moral concern. Likewise, homosexual marriage is a moral issue and we must be concerned with its moral implications -- whether or not we are personally affected at the moment. However, someone might say that homosexual marriage is not a moral issue, but is instead a civil rights issue. Though some pro-homosexual marriage proponents wave the flag of "civil rights" in support of their cause, which I believe is inappropriate, homosexual marriage is wrought with moral issues: faithfulness, promise, love, support, commitment, sex, etc. Besides, civil rights are based on moral rights. It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant, or using public bathrooms based on skin color. Likewise, the union of two people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral. If you disagree, then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral issue. When we look at the question again, we can see an implied moral standard; namely, that morality is determined by how people are personally affected. But something is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone. Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths. For example, it is wrong to murder. It is wrong to torture babies for your personal pleasure. It is wrong to divide society based on skin color. It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner" and then break that promise. It is wrong to hate someone without a cause. It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like his skin color. If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only when they are acted on, not when they are felt. But this is problematic because if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply believing it? Am I morally right? Or is there no moral value to the belief? If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it? See how morality based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems? It ignores the underlying motives and says that evil motives aren't wrong until they are acted upon. If you deny that there are intrinsic moral truths, then there is nothing wrong with hatred, anger, lust, coveting, prejudice, etc., as long as they aren't manifested. Again, if there are no intrinsic moral truths, then please find an exception to the statement that it is always wrong to torture babies merely for your person pleasure. If you can't, then aren't you admitting there are moral absolutes -- to which we must ultimately answer since it implies a moral Truth Giver? But, I digress. Homosexual marriage is really about two things: love and sex. Sure, homosexuals profess love for one another. But, they also have sex with each other and it is the latter issue that, in my opinion, is the driving force behind their marriage redefinition. Think about it: homoSEXuality. Yeah, I know, its just a word. However, it leads us to the practical concerns as they are related to sex, the very thing that the homosexual community has brought out of the closet/bedroom into the public eye. If a single homosexual couple is married on the other side of the world, it has no effect on me -- but that doesn't mean it isn't a moral issue. However, if a homosexual couple is legally married in the country in which I live, I am affected. First of all, writing this article is the result of the question raised by pro-homosexual marriage supporters. I was affected, and I'm writing this as the result. Second, the redefinition of marriage away from the public promissory bond of a man and woman affects society as a whole, since society is based on the family unit in which marriage is the legal contract of fidelity and commitment through which children are brought into the world. Third, by redefining marriage away from a man and a woman, where normal physical sexual intercourse can occur, the absolutes of male female marriage relationships are broken down and sexual permissiveness is encouraged. This opens the door to further redefinitions of familial and sexual relationships. Take, for example, the 2011 symposium "Living in Truth and Dignity" in Baltimore, Maryland on August 17. In it, pedophilia was redefined as "minor attracted persons," and the symposium sought to raise concerns about how the DSM1considers it a mental disorder. At the symposium, one of the lectures was titled "Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts - Pedophilia as an Example." It was presented by John Z. Sadler, M.D., Prof. of medical ethics and psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Ctr., Dallas, TX.2 Is this a precursor of more sexual "reconsiderations" in a changing world where sexual permissiveness in the form of homosexual behavior now seeks acceptability by redefining marriage so it can hide within its sacred halls and gain acceptability? We have to ask if such a symposium would have gained traction if the fidelity of traditional marriage had remained intact, and along with it the sanctity of sexuality that marriage provides. I can't see how. With the redefining of sexual roles and marriage partners, the dike that holds back the immoral deluge is cracking. When the door to marriage redefinition is opened, a host of sexual moral obscenities can slip in. When and how do we close the door again? After pedophilia is accepted by society? What about polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory? Without a definite statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and with it the natural biologically designed sexual union that is guarded within marriage, then anything goes -- pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, gender identity, and more. Philosophically, this can have profound moral ramifications for society, and when morals change society changes and everyone within it is affected. As history too often demonstrates, when a society's morality frays the wicked prosper and they soon turn their attention to the morally conservative and persecute them. This is already occurring here in America where people who dare express contrary opinions to the politically correct view of homosexual marriage are fired from jobs, ridiculed, and/or called bigots. This causes others, myself included, to be wary about saying anything, lest the brown-shirts3 of the homosexual agenda turn us in and we be punished for simply believing that homosexual marriage is wrong. Think it won't happen? It already is! Harm is a relative term. What might be considered harmful to one person might not to another. There are different kinds of harm: physical, emotional, spiritual, financial, etc. Therefore, harm is a personal thing that is experienced and is a bit subjective. So, when we ask how gay marriage harms anyone, we have to look at more than just one aspect. Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we are seeing the effects of homosexual legal "rights" affecting housing, education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc. Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? (See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian) So, how would gay marriage harm anyone? First, let's define harm. Harm is damage to a person physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, morally, etc. The definition is obviously broad and subjective, and this is problematic. People experience harm in different ways. Here is a list of ways in which gay marriage can bring harm. It can bring huge financial and emotional stress. Homosexuals can sue people who are exercising their religious beliefs. For example, a heterosexual married couple with children who do not want to rent a room in their own family household to homosexuals could be sued for discrimination based on "sexual orientation." This can incur significant financial and emotional stress upon the family, not to mention the "prior restraint" effect of the fear of being sued which results in a family not renting out a room. The health risks are enormous to themselves and others. The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them. See Statistics on HIV/AIDS and health related issues But the HIV/AIDS epidemic is not only in the homosexual community. It has crossed over to the heterosexual community. Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners. The collateral damage to the rest of society, as far as health risks, cannot be denied. Gay Marriage means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority. This can also be said in the reverse. Either way, there is a problem. Normally, morals should not be forced on anyone, though there are exceptions. We force morals on others by preventing them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc. So, it is not automatically wrong to force morals on someone. But the issue then becomes what is morally right and wrong in the first place, and altering morals in a society definitely causes stress. The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and political periods. See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian. Gay Marriage means a redefinition of sexual morality, and with it other sexually related practices will be affected and this can be harmful. See the article Collateral damage effect as a result the change in sexual morals for a discussion on the increase in pedophilia, pornography, child pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking that are occurring in the world. These increases are not due to an increase in conservative sexual morals, but a reduction of conservative sexual morals. Gay Marriage reduces the number of children born in society and we need a stable population base to operate properly. Therefore, society can be harmed. Gay Marriage affects people spiritually. Don't assume that people's spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. People consider spiritual issues to be extremely important, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to "accept" and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person's spiritual and emotional health. It forces government to get involved in changing laws which automatically affect everyone in society. Homosexuality is being force fed to our youth via the education system. Civil unions are being recognized by employers which effect co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc. It exposes adopted children within potential homosexual unions to ridicule from others.