Tinky Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted December 11, 2012 do you believe that this Federal Law should trump the power of the states to define marriage as they choose? Doesn't all Federal law trump State law? Isn't that how our system is set up? And, if the laws every change and allow same-sex marriage, will you still be saying “You may not agree with the law, but that does not make it any less a law of the land. Yes, I'll still be saying that. But as a Christian, we are to obey God rather than man when they conflict with each other. I'd never attend, or support, a same-sex wedding - ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 i don't understand.. he was talking anti gay so what was the end.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 This guy was trying to equate people who are anti-gay marriage with people who were pro-segregation. Common tactic. Common tactic yet it get's attention... I wonder why? The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago. This is the second time in a thread you've brought this up RunningGator as a "valid" argument regarding segregation and homosexuality. What's your point? It gets attention because racial segregation was a low point in our history and elicits an emotional response. In the case of racial segregation the country was attempting to do something that was morally wrong. In the case of a prohibition of gay marriage, it is morally correct. People can't choose their race and therefore cannot be penalized by it. Gay men and women have just as much right to marry as anyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Intersex marriage is an established covenant that has persisted throughout the very entirety of human history. Same sex marriage (though not same sex relationships) is a very new concept on the social stage and is societally destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 11, 2012 With segregation, one has to play mental and theological gymnastics in order to equate morality with the mixing of races. With homosexuality, it is quite clear what God thinks and feels about sexual immorality, which includes same genders having sex with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yes, this was discussed at length in another thread. There is no civil right to Homosexual Marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 [ The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago. In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted December 11, 2012 If 'marriage' is merely a constract between parties, as our secular government wishes to 'define' it, then that federal government which has assurped the right to define marriage can certainly decide who can be 'married' in its view. If marriage is a spiritual covenant entered into before God, then the government has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN IT WHATSOEVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 This truly has nothing to do with God since the Bible does not tell us that we should get a tax break or visitation rights or inheritance rights due to marriage...these are all legal items not religious. However, These benefits were given in the past for God ordained Covenant Marriage because we wanted to encourage it as a society as we used to understand the benefit of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 [ The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago. In what way? watch the video Sorry doesn't answer the question. The basis in fact is that Homosexuality is a choice while the color of someones skin is not. It does nothing to explain how the two are similar other than in a cleverly designed ruse used by someone abusing their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 If 'marriage' is merely a constract between parties, as our secular government wishes to 'define' it, then that federal government which has assurped the right to define marriage can certainly decide who can be 'married' in its view. If marriage is a spiritual covenant entered into before God, then the government has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN IT WHATSOEVER. This is true. However, what do we do with the benefits that are government provided? How do we deal with that? Care to list a few of those Ruck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts