Jump to content
IGNORED

Court Rulings correct?


Remnantrob

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Christian groups brought up tradition as a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I've never heard a Christian group appeal to tradition in favour of keeping marriage between 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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

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 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.

There is also no reason why marriage should be redefined to suite whatever people want it to mean.

 

 

 

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  100
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,029
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/23/1982

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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)
 
  1. 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)
  2. "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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  100
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,029
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/23/1982

 

I just wanted to show that you don't change the mind of a homosexual by changing the law.

 

 

 

But you see, we are not trying to change any laws. Homosexuals are the one's with the agenda. They are the ones trying to change laws. They are the ones fighting the majority of the peoples' will in those States that have marriage laws. All we, as Christians are doing, is standing up for what we believe in. Those of us who are not willing to compromise our convictions because of what a small minority is trying to force upon society under the guise of tolerance and justice. They are the ones who are intolerant, that changes justice into injustice, wrong into right and right into wrong. Just as prophecy has said, as you have so aptly pointed out. This is how a large segment of the population feels, Christian or not, and we are not in anybody's face about it. Gays are in our faces. Surely you see that? And it's not just about marriage, but the fundamental changing of society.

 

Hey Parker,

 

But we are.  Remember proposition 8?  What Christian churches should have done was to continue to preach that homosexuality is sin and the God has a solution to that problem in Jesus.  My stance is that if the courts rule that gays have the right to be married according to the constitution then so be it.  I don't advocate fighting against the law, I think my job is to continue to preach the gospel though the heavens may fall.  The fact that the devil is using agents to change society should not come as a shock to you.  Just do what the Word of God says and be in the world but not of the world.  The world is supposed to hate you because they hated Christ.  Why are we trying to continue to make the world heaven on earth if we're hoping Christ comes back soon to get rid of all of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  100
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,029
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/23/1982

 

Christian groups brought up tradition as a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I've never heard a Christian group appeal to tradition in favour of keeping marriage between 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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

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 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.

There is also no reason why marriage should be redefined to suite whatever people want it to mean.

 

 

 

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.

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I just wanted to show that you don't change the mind of a homosexual by changing the law.

 

 

 

But you see, we are not trying to change any laws. Homosexuals are the one's with the agenda. They are the ones trying to change laws. They are the ones fighting the majority of the peoples' will in those States that have marriage laws. All we, as Christians are doing, is standing up for what we believe in. Those of us who are not willing to compromise our convictions because of what a small minority is trying to force upon society under the guise of tolerance and justice. They are the ones who are intolerant, that changes justice into injustice, wrong into right and right into wrong. Just as prophecy has said, as you have so aptly pointed out. This is how a large segment of the population feels, Christian or not, and we are not in anybody's face about it. Gays are in our faces. Surely you see that? And it's not just about marriage, but the fundamental changing of society.

 

Hey Parker,

 

But we are.  Remember proposition 8?  What Christian churches should have done was to continue to preach that homosexuality is sin and the God has a solution to that problem in Jesus.  My stance is that if the courts rule that gays have the right to be married according to the constitution then so be it.  I don't advocate fighting against the law, I think my job is to continue to preach the gospel though the heavens may fall.  The fact that the devil is using agents to change society should not come as a shock to you.  Just do what the Word of God says and be in the world but not of the world.  The world is supposed to hate you because they hated Christ.  Why are we trying to continue to make the world heaven on earth if we're hoping Christ comes back soon to get rid of all of this?

 

Rob, you are missing it, man. Christians didn't start this. Christians didn't try and force Christianity down the throats of homosexuals. Christians didn't attack the institutions and norms of this country. Gays did. You are placing the blame on the wrong people. You are trying to concvince the wrong people. You should be standing your ground. You should not be speaking in defense of the gay agenda. You are refusing to see the whole picture. You are looking at it with colored glasses. You want to just give in and be silent in the face of' a massive assault on people's sensibilities by the GLBT agenda. They started this. They will win. For now. But you and I must not, as Christians, stand by silently and just watch. We must speak out, and we do that at the ballot box and with our witness. I would not want to be associated with what you are doing and saying in this thread, and, no offense, you really need to examine yourself. Read your Bible to see how GOD feels about those who condone, ignore or support willful sin. That's all I have to say. Good luck, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  51
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/10/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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)
 
  1. 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)
  2. "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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  51
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/10/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

Christian groups brought up tradition as a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I've never heard a Christian group appeal to tradition in favour of keeping marriage between 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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

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 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.

There is also no reason why marriage should be redefined to suite whatever people want it to mean.

 

 

 

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Hello Friends,

 

For the most part Christianity stands firm on the bible with regards to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.  If you have been paying attention to the news media you might have noticed that slowly state by state is making same sex marriage legal.  Now I am an American and believe in the constitution  just as much as the next guy.  I want to know do you agree with the courts rulings that same sex marriage is constitutional.  Before anyone asks I will tell you that my stance is yes based on the constitution,  not morality.  Do you agree or disagree with me and please state why the courts are wrong if you believe they are.  Thanks and God bless.

I agree with you.  I am in favor of same-sex marriages by the Justice of the Peace, but not in the church.  The constitution is based on rights, chief of which is the right to happiness.  I do not see how forbidding homosexuals marriage impinges on my right to happiness; it is quite obvious it impinges on theirs.

 

But I also believe that ultimately homosexuality is not in accord with the Bible, and therefore must ultimately be destructive and cannot generate the same happiness that heterosexual marriages generate: I believe this on numerous grounds--Bible, nature, testimony from homosexuals etc.

 

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

Ok Alan, I get what you're saying and I agree with you in that morally it is wrong.  But again we are talking about in regards to the constitution.  The founders of this country were some pretty smart guys in that they knew what it was to have both the state and church have a union of power and dictate what a person should or should not do.  Hence the declaration of Independence(first part)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

 

Now the problem is that marriage became a state issued license and although Christians say marriage is a christian institution, you can't impose a religious activity on a person so we're back to square one.  What say you?

"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

Edited by ConnorLiamBrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  51
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/10/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

 

Ok Alan, I get what you're saying and I agree with you in that morally it is wrong.  But again we are talking about in regards to the constitution.  The founders of this country were some pretty smart guys in that they knew what it was to have both the state and church have a union of power and dictate what a person should or should not do.  Hence the declaration of Independence(first part)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

 

Now the problem is that marriage became a state issued license and although Christians say marriage is a christian institution, you can't impose a religious activity on a person so we're back to square one.  What say you?

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...