Jump to content
IGNORED

Court Rulings correct?


Remnantrob

Recommended Posts


  • 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?

 

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.

 

 

Hey Parker,

 

Even if Christians didn't start this, I don't believe it's our job to fix it.  Ephesians 6:12 reminds us who we are really fighting against.  Do you think our finite minds are going to overtake his? This isn't our war and even though it has been won, we are encouraged to set our minds on things above(heaven).  I got news for you if you didn't already realize.  It's only going to get worse. 

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

 

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

 

Hi Connor,

 

I'm not in favor of the same sex marriages at all.  I'm saying that I agree with courts in that allowing gays to be married is constitutional.  As you said it doesn't prevent me from happiness and do harm to me.  I pray that Christians stop conforming and saying things like the bible doesn't really speak against that type of lifestyle.  I think this is where I'm being misunderstood.  I think the states who have passed laws to allow gays to marry have every right to do so and are being true to the ideals of this countries forefathers that we shouldn't allow laws to exist that deprive them of what is considered a human right.  Am I happy about it? No, but I know that these sort of things have to happen before Christ's return.  If you are a christian who is against it, continue to preach according to the bible.  But, I'm also against soliciting govt. officials to aid us in overturning those laws because at the end of the day it's not going to change the mind of the homosexual.  Lift up Christ, that's all he asks for you to do.

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

Amen

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

But it was the original concept.  Here are a few quotes from founding fathers.

 

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

~Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

 

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

 

 

 “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

 

 “The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

~James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

 

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

~George Mason, Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

 

Just saying.... :halo:

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? 

 

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.

 

 

 

Maybe I was deliberate.  The whole point I want to get across is that although homosexuality is wrong, we live in a nation that promotes freedom of conscience.  The courts in certain states have ruled against the definition of a marriage and found that when issuing a license you have to be fair to everyone.  I think they did a good job following the law of the land and not promoting one sect over another(christian vs. non christian)  Do I like that they can now get married, no, but I respect that they have a right to do so.  My job is to preach Christ crucified and proclaim the power he has to deliver the homosexual from that lifestyle.  Doing so will bring me into direct problems with my govt.  Should I worry, no.  Because the bible says in John 15:18-27

 

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

 

Be his witness and let HIM do the rest. 

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

 

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

 

 

Okay, I’ll try and take the above response step by step.

 

We both agree that smoking is bad and homosexuality is immoral.  What separates the two for you on the constitutional level is a statistical difference.  Thus, hypothetically speaking, if the life expectancy of a homosexual were only 2-5 years shorter, then it would be alright for the state to endorse gay marriages, right?  Or if the incidents of domestic violence were equal to that of heterosexuals, again, you would support gay marriages by the State, though not the church.  In other words, it is a quantitative matter and homosexuality exceeds a certain limit which disqualifies its claim to marital rights.  But of course who establishes that limit? It is arbitrary selected.

 

But my guess is, you would still say “no” regardless of the stats, which means the statistical argument is not really that poignant and in fact never was your real reason for opposing gay marriages by the state.  Your statistics reinforce your claim that homosexuality is unnatural; they do not establish that the State ought not to recognize gay marriages.

(Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t question the stats, and when I came across them at another time it greatly helped me understand “why” homosexuality is wrong; as opposed to the merely dogmatic assertion ‘that’ it is wrong—a nuance absolutely essential to communicating our position to homosexuals).

 

 

You point out that the division of Church and state was originally meant to protect the church from the state; I do not disagree.  But the issue here is not whether the State should require ministers to preside over homosexual marriages in the Church; the issue is whether the State should recognize gay marriages.  The Church is still protected (at least in America.  And in fact, theoretically, NO state can ever force unwilling ministers to conduct homosexual marriages; for when push comes to shove we will always have that impregnable defense, martyrdom).  If the State should ever attempt coercion within the Church, believe me, I will be irate.

 

 

You say that the separation was never meant to stifle the influence of the Church.  But there is more than one outlet through which we can influence society; and I believe most are more powerful than casting a vote.  Personal relationships, literature, forums such as these, and most of all “recovered homosexuals” giving their testimony, surely these get across more than a vote.  A vote can (and often is) simply misconstrued as “I hate gays”.  The distinction “hate the sin but love the sinner” is completely lost in a vote.

 

Thus my proposed stratagem is unashamedly subversive and surreptitious. On the political level I support gay marriages: that is, marriages acknowledged by the Justice of the Peace; but while that right is granted on the secular level, the Church should be constantly voicing its opinion as a church, refusing to marry gays, yet reaching out to homosexuals with the truth in sincerity and compassion.  The ideal situation would be one in which a State acknowledged gay marriages in principle, but would have no gay marriages to acknowledge in fact, because the Church had been successful in convincing the citizens of that state of the immorality and misery that accompanies homosexuality; success achieved not on the political level directly, but obliquely, by its own methods.  Obviously such an ideal is unlikely to ever be realized.  But still we must keep our guard up and strive for that ever receding horizon.

 

P.S.  I am assuming you know that a number of the politicians you quoted were not Christian but deists.  I am not sure that changes anything substantial in your argument, but the “religion” which Jefferson and Franklyn advocated was hardly Christianity.

 

I have enjoyed this exchange, thank you!

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

  • 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 was re-reading what I wrote 3 years ago. I didn't realize that the entire country would have passed gay marriage nationwide so quickly the following year.  Now that its the law, I'm thinking about whether it has a double meaning.  Every time someone gets married the minister says something like What God has joined together let no man put asunder.  I now think about it in the context of gay marriage.  Maybe part of the the agenda is to get the blessing of the church.  If the marriage bed can't be defiled and we gay marriage is legal than the christian should not be able to "gay bash" or say things like its an abomination because "God blessed it".  (wow)  I've also see a lot of pushing for laws that say churches can't give therapy to gays to convert them from their sexuality.  Add to that the education of our children about the "normality" of gay families and we have a recipe for disaster.  How does a christian witness the gospel to those who have morality legitimized

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  1,265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.45
  • Content Count:  2,637
  • Content Per Day:  0.93
  • Reputation:   760
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/04/1972

On 1/21/2014 at 6:26 PM, Remnantrob said:

For the most part Christianity stands firm on the bible with regards to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. 

Yep. We we need to keep the purity of the Holy Scripture, which says:

  • Lev 18:22 -> "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.".
  • Rom 1:25-27 -> "For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.".
  • 1Co 6:9,10 -> "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.".
  • 1Ti 1:9,10 -> "knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine,".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,492
  • Content Per Day:  1.53
  • Reputation:   613
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/29/2021
  • Status:  Offline

The relationship between male and female is alone that which produces offspring. To recognize that is not necessarily Christian, nor religious. It is naturally true. Equal responsibility to one another, and the children produced, naturally. Gay persons do not naturally do this. The adoption process can be made equal, in ability to have children. But that is granted through adoption, not marriage. Marriage determines fatherhood, and both parents are legally responsible. This responsibility can be taken through adoption as well. So marriage between two people of the same sex can be attained in "other" ways.

Rights for homosexuals should never violate rights of others. Money for education, and freedom of association, could have allowed for the two to live under the constitutions freedoms, without effecting the other.

  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  423
  • Topics Per Day:  0.28
  • Content Count:  3,178
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   404
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/06/2020
  • Status:  Offline

I think this is a slippery slope. The next thing we are going to do is to be legalizing drug abuse use. In California it is decriminalized but they do nothing to get the people off of the streets. If we take away the stigma for trying drugs in the first place, hence, make it legal, And then say it is illegal to be on the streets, Well what is the deterrence for trying to take them in the first place. First off, they are not making it illegal to be on the streets. Everything we are doing is a slippery slope that is going to lead to disaster. I miss the nineteen fifties, Loll...............................................,,,,,,,,........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...