7 reasons gay ain't OK

[jasoncran]

You can't force a chaplain/priest/minister/rabbi/whatever to perform a marriage. There's strong protections for religious freedom in every jurisdiction that has allowed gay marriage.

huh? really? a chaplain is able to marry in any area they are in and i have been to a wedding and all 50 recongnise that act so if mass has it legal and doma is gone and two mass resident soldiers ask a chaplian to marry them he has to if theres none to do so. they are paid salaries by the state to act as such. like the justice of the peace

im still in the services i asked my chaplain about doma and how it affected him. he said if he marries gays he looses his chaplain status and will be removed from the army. his demonation will defrock him if he did that. he has said if two gays asked him to marry them he would say no but it would bite him in the but. in the army we are all equal gays and straights . so one can treat a hetero with marriage and not gays under this mindset that may come when doma is repealed.

 

[CalledToServe]

well i will chime in. christ_empowered pm me. universalism isnt the way..

that said it. to those who are christians and for gay marriages being allowed. let me ask you this? if you are dying on the battlefield whom do you want to be the chaplain there while you die? a liberal chaplain who doesnt believe in sin or one who believes in the bible and loves the sinner?

that is what the soldiers face. if doma is lifted and chaplains are made to marry them then all godly chaplains will leave the services in mass.

if marriage is contract? then i must have sex with my wife x amount of times? or things of that nature?

is our relationship with god a contract. for you see if marriage is a contract and you believe that god is reflected in a marriage to the kids and each other what does that mean?

Logical fallacy since the advent of marriage licenses, in 1856, marriage has not been a religious ceremony. It is a civil ceremony with judges being able to perform it and clergy become agents of the state. Since we do have marriage licenses, permission slips from the government, then every one can get married. Marriage now days has as much to do with God as Easter has to do with the resurrection, which is it doesn't and is a far cry from what it used to be. Want to change it? Get the government out of marriage. Do you believe in separate but equal? Well if you do then you'd be just as wrong as those segregationists that were for separating the races. US Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional and illegal.

I'm not the only one that just sees marriage as a contract. The government does too. This is why divorces are handled under contract law of the civil code. If you look up the definition of marriage in any legal dictionary you will quickly see that it is a contract between four parties. The two spouses, God, and the state with your minister being an agent of the state. This puts clergy as government agents. Hmm I believe that we have separation of church and state, plus by doing this it makes our ministers to serve two master and we all know what Jesus said about serving two masters.

Matthew 6:24 "“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

He says that you cannot serve both and if you substitute Money for the government you have the exact situation He preached against.

This is what my state's marriage law says, "451.010. Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential."

Makes it pretty clear that marriage is a contract. Further on it says this, "451.100. Marriages may be solemnized by any clergyman, either active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state. Marriages may also be solemnized, without compensation, by any judge, including a municipal judge. Marriages may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization." This makes clergyman agents of the state. I don't know about you, but I would not like our clergy to be agents of the state.

Now you're going to ask what type of marriage existed prior to the advent of marriage licenses that were to prevent whites and minorities from marrying each other? The answer is simple... common law marriage. A common law marriage was performed either by a judge or a minister that had a signed contract between the two parties with God as the third person in the contract. The government couldn't tell anyone who they could and couldn't marry.

 

[westtexas]

some xtians when they explain what their bible teaches them. I have seen lots of threads on forums where christians

Thank you for putting Christ back in the word Christians the second time. Lets don't X out our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[jasoncran]

Logical fallacy since the advent of marriage licenses, in 1856, marriage has not been a religious ceremony. It is a civil ceremony with judges being able to perform it and clergy become agents of the state. Since we do have marriage licenses, permission slips from the government, then every one can get married. Marriage now days has as much to do with God as Easter has to do with the resurrection, which is it doesn't and is a far cry from what it used to be. Want to change it? Get the government out of marriage. Do you believe in separate but equal? Well if you do then you'd be just as wrong as those segregationists that were for separating the races. US Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional and illegal.

I'm not the only one that just sees marriage as a contract. The government does too. This is why divorces are handled under contract law of the civil code. If you look up the definition of marriage in any legal dictionary you will quickly see that it is a contract between four parties. The two spouses, God, and the state with your minister being an agent of the state. This puts clergy as government agents. Hmm I believe that we have separation of church and state, plus by doing this it makes our ministers to serve two master and we all know what Jesus said about serving two masters.

Matthew 6:24 "“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

He says that you cannot serve both and if you substitute Money for the government you have the exact situation He preached against.

This is what my state's marriage law says, "451.010. Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential."

Makes it pretty clear that marriage is a contract. Further on it says this, "451.100. Marriages may be solemnized by any clergyman, either active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state. Marriages may also be solemnized, without compensation, by any judge, including a municipal judge. Marriages may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization." This makes clergyman agents of the state. I don't know about you, but I would not like our clergy to be agents of the state.

Now you're going to ask what type of marriage existed prior to the advent of marriage licenses that were to prevent whites and minorities from marrying each other? The answer is simple... common law marriage. A common law marriage was performed either by a judge or a minister that had a signed contract between the two parties with God as the third person in the contract. The government couldn't tell anyone who they could and couldn't marry.

well i guess i will tell the rabbis of the jewish faith that they got it wrong with there ceremony where they had the members sign a paper that told them off the sins and how god felt about it if they divorced and quoted the torah. hmm the rabbis and the ancient isrealites did this. if the goverment of isreal was made a theocracy then who did have the power to marry them hebrews?

theres more to the tanach then what you read. theres a whole culture behind it and they certain things to performed marriage. where did you think jesus got that marriage feast from? that culture as that is what they did. its still done today with few changes.

now then yes marriage must have some penalties for divorce and i was trying to say that if you view marriage as contractual only then you DONT NEED TO MARRY. FOR IF YOUR MARRIAGE IS LIKE A CAR THAT is bought and tested before the purchase then you are doomed to failure unless you change that mindset.

one can give to the wife and not love, one can give to the kids and not love. seen it and my family has a father of a child doing the just that.paying his child support and not seeing the kid that he made. that is legal and not in violation of said contract of making children.

 

[CalledToServe]

well i guess i will tell the rabbis of the jewish faith that they got it wrong with there ceremony where they had the members sign a paper that told them off the sins and how god felt about it if they divorced and quoted the torah. hmm the rabbis and the ancient isrealites did this. if the goverment of isreal was made a theocracy then who did have the power to marry them hebrews?

theres more to the tanach then what you read. theres a whole culture behind it and they certain things to performed marriage. where did you think jesus got that marriage feast from? that culture as that is what they did. its still done today with few changes.

now then yes marriage must have some penalties for divorce and i was trying to say that if you view marriage as contractual only then you DONT NEED TO MARRY. FOR IF YOUR MARRIAGE IS LIKE A CAR THAT is bought and tested before the purchase then you are doomed to failure unless you change that mindset.

one can give to the wife and not love, one can give to the kids and not love. seen it and my family has a father of a child doing the just that.paying his child support and not seeing the kid that he made. that is legal and not in violation of said contract of making children.

This has nothing to do with what I posted. It appears that you cannot counter anything I wrote using either scripture or US law. In short, you've created a strawman for you to knock down.

 

[jasoncran]

This has nothing to do with what I posted. It appears that you cannot counter anything I wrote using either scripture or US law. In short, you've created a strawman for you to knock down.

sorry, it happens. so havent heard of man who father kids and dont want to pay and pay because they dont want to go to jail?or hollywood stars who have prenups before they marry? that is what i said what i say. one needs just to look at the kardashian marriage

scripture?You nothing of my jewish culture. jews didnt and dont write down all that they did. the did the law two ways orally and written. all you have is the written law that you claim to know.

so if two men and women married by having sex and telling the dad oh well we married now and heres the proof and dowery you asked too. there was a ceremony involved in ancient jewish culture.

hmm joseph and mary werent married and yet what? he thought put her away in private and the got that from what biblical traditon that is where in the tanach?

hints its not listed nor mentioned at all to my knowledge and yet here is a jewish site saying the same thing about purity in the engagment and having something to make it final as its a promise to marry.

Sometime during the course of the engagement, the tena'im, an official engagement document, is written and ratified by the bride and groom. Some do this towards the beginning of the engagement, while others wait until the reception which precedes the chupah before officializing the engagement. Click here for an article which discusses these customs and also includes a comprehensive review of the tena'im document

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/475823/jewish/Engagement.htm

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/476750/jewish/Tnaim-Engagement-Agreements.htm

so isreal has done that for years.

isreal did have a theocratic goverment. yes marriage should be recongnised by the goverment and it must have some contractual agreements to it but to say as you say it should be a common law thing its not well the case here nor is it wise to say that the marriage is just a contract. its MORE THEN THAT.
mathew 1:19

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately

If the family had believed Mary, then Joseph would not have been thinking about putting “her away secretly.†According to Jewish law, an engagement was a legal contract requiring the couple to marry. The engagement could only be broken by divorce or adultery. Deut. 22:23-25 gave the law allowing the woman and man to be killed for a violation of the engagement contract. Once engaged, the marriage did not occur until the groom ceremonially took his bride home and the couple had sexual intercourse.

from here and its what i have been told.
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/series/Life/LH010/LH01.html

now then if isreal being a theocratic state where the religion and the goverment were intertwined like that then it means that the levites and the kings who did follow the torah would be the ones to enforce these marriage rites and "contracts"

there were ceremonies. not some people going into a house saying hey were married. that isnt the case. you cant use genesis for that as well that isnt what they did im sure as they made an arragment to marry then isaac going to rebeccah and that was arranged by abraham and in that culture a dowery was given and the maiden had to be a virgin. thus a contract in that sense. but not like to day where when YOU SAY A CONTRACT it means oh i can pay this and get out easily. that is what i object too the most.

 

[GojuBrian]

Even our government recognizes the severe risk of homosexual behavior.
I'm a regular blood donor. If a person has even one homosexual contact since 1977 he can not give blood, period. Why? Because there is a huge risk involved with getting sick blood. Even they recognize that.
I'm also a cancer survivor. I had large doses of chemotherapy for several months. 5 years later I am eligible to give blood.
Think on that...

 

[Milk-Drops]

Even our government recognizes the severe risk of homosexual behavior.
I'm a regular blood donor. If a person has even one homosexual contact since 1977 he can not give blood, period. Why? Because there is a huge risk involved with getting sick blood. Even they recognize that.
I'm also a cancer survivor. I had large doses of chemotherapy for several months. 5 years later I am eligible to give blood.
Think on that...

Yeah the reason for this is because there would have to be a campaign to change it. And as this thread has shown, most are still to scared of gay people to even understand them.

 

[stovebolts]

Logical fallacy since the advent of marriage licenses, in 1856, marriage has not been a religious ceremony. It is a civil ceremony with judges being able to perform it and clergy become agents of the state. Since we do have marriage licenses, permission slips from the government, then every one can get married. Marriage now days has as much to do with God as Easter has to do with the resurrection, which is it doesn't and is a far cry from what it used to be. Want to change it? Get the government out of marriage. Do you believe in separate but equal? Well if you do then you'd be just as wrong as those segregationists that were for separating the races. US Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional and illegal.

I'm not the only one that just sees marriage as a contract. The government does too. This is why divorces are handled under contract law of the civil code. If you look up the definition of marriage in any legal dictionary you will quickly see that it is a contract between four parties. The two spouses, God, and the state with your minister being an agent of the state. This puts clergy as government agents. Hmm I believe that we have separation of church and state, plus by doing this it makes our ministers to serve two master and we all know what Jesus said about serving two masters.

Matthew 6:24 "“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

He says that you cannot serve both and if you substitute Money for the government you have the exact situation He preached against.

This is what my state's marriage law says, "451.010. Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential."

Makes it pretty clear that marriage is a contract. Further on it says this, "451.100. Marriages may be solemnized by any clergyman, either active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state. Marriages may also be solemnized, without compensation, by any judge, including a municipal judge. Marriages may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization." This makes clergyman agents of the state. I don't know about you, but I would not like our clergy to be agents of the state.

Now you're going to ask what type of marriage existed prior to the advent of marriage licenses that were to prevent whites and minorities from marrying each other? The answer is simple... common law marriage. A common law marriage was performed either by a judge or a minister that had a signed contract between the two parties with God as the third person in the contract. The government couldn't tell anyone who they could and couldn't marry.

Even ancient Rome where homosexuality, adultry (as we know it) and pedophile's were socially accepted, Rome never did acknowledge same sex marriages. At least they got that right.

I've said it earlier, and you acknowledged it earlier in another unrelated post that marriage is a privilege, not a right. I would add that much like driving is a privilege, that one must meet a certain criteria. Does a blind person have the right to drive due to the physical nature of their body? No, that person cannot drive and is not granted that privilege based on a physical charactarisic of that person.

If same sex couples want to live together, then that's fine. It is within their God given right. But they should not be granted a marriage based on something they don't qualify for. Again, it's a privilege, not a right.

 

[Arizona Jones]

So who here is without sin? Throwing stones is poor bait to fish for men with. I am called to fish for men not clean the fish. When it comes to casting stones at sinners I feel we are to be stone shields not stone throwers. It does not matter what the sin is the price has been paid and any judgment I have against a sinner is the measure of judgment that will be used against me. So is the blood good enough to forgive me? Then it must be good enough to forgive ANY other person.

Dark Horse said it well!

LOVE! and the Love some more.

 

[stovebolts]

So who here is without sin? Throwing stones is poor bait to fish for men with. I am called to fish for men not clean the fish. When it comes to casting stones at sinners I feel we are to be stone shields not stone throwers. It does not matter what the sin is the price has been paid and any judgment I have against a sinner is the measure of judgment that will be used against me. So is the blood good enough to forgive me? Then it must be good enough to forgive ANY other person.

Dark Horse said it well!

LOVE! and the Love some more.

I agree with the gist of your post, but I would mention that you've misinterpreted the "who's without sin, throw the first stone" story... Fact is, both male and female should have been brought before Jesus according to the Law, yet only the female was brought forward according to the account. What you should have carried away from that story is you can't convict a lawbreaker by breaking the law yourself.

Also, nothing wrong with having good judgement, we just don't take the role of judge. We are called to discern.

I would remind you that the op isn't saying that somebody who is gay can't be forgiven. But if you look at forgiveness, it always includes repentance. Repentance isn't simply stopping one behavior, it's starting a new one. Point in case, one doesn't stop being a liar once they stop lying. No, one stops being a liar when he starts telling the truth.

As far as "God is Love", Jesus even said, "If you love me, keep my commandments". Jesus ministry was a ministry of repentance because he loved them... He did not enable the sinner.. no, he called them into holiness.

 

[heymikey80]

Based on what statistics? HIV is on the decline thanks to many people's efforts to enforce safe sex and better choices. Also, herpes is a legitimate problem for all heterosexuals. HIV is a legitimate problem for heterosexuals. All STDs are rampant just as much in heterosexuals.

I doubt anyone is embracing promiscuity as a moral lifestyle, either: this is a reason promiscuity ain't OK either. However, there're more physical effects of homosexuality than just HIV, too.

I doubt this is true because all we have is your anecdote of this. I've watched most of my friends relationships with the oposite sex crumble for several reasons. Promiscuity is actually a huge marketing campaign aimed at men of all sexual persuasions from the ages of 14 to 40.

Uh, for how long? Historically promiscuity has been problematic regardless of the advertising.

This is just a stereotype wrapped up with extreme exaggeration. Considering I've never met a Gay male that truly acts in this fashion. I bet they exist, but I think its mostly just a character trope used to insight discus against gay people. Most of the gay people that I see like this, are on television next to actor and actresses with equal amounts of self obsession.

Mmm, I've observed it too, but I've observed a range of relationships, too. The range though does seem much less focused on strong longterm commitment.

Or it could be because gay people are still a minority where most feel isolated and misunderstood because most people still prefer to listen to stereotyped nonsense and hate mongering then get to know them. Causing many to feel socially isolated which since we are a social species, causes many mental health problems.

I expect there's some of both. Social isolation is simply bound to occur to people who are doing things that others consider immoral, though. Changing human attitudes isn't supposed to make something morally acceptable, either.

This is the entire US culture at this point. We live in the culture of Instant gratification from Facebook, Twitter, Iphones, 24 hr McDonald, internet access almost everywhere. An advertising system that markets with Half naked women everywhere and stoic strong men. News programs that tell us who to hate or why only you are correct. etc.
This problem you listed is the easiest to refute.

What news program tells me who to hate?

And what's telling you who to hate?

Welcome to US advertising and Business again.

Advertising doesn't do anything but feed existing interests and desires, be they moral or not. It doesn't generate immorality -- it simply magnifies what's already in the culture.

So we're back to -- what's the cause of immorality? It isn't advertising, it appears to be magnified by it, the cultural state also seems to be encouraging it, but there's no initiative to change the culture because anyone who tries is accused of hate-mongering.

Here is my point. Christianity holds that having sex with the same gender is a sin. That is fine and more power to you guys. Preach it all you like, I don't care.
My problem comes from posts like these that is nothing but hate mongering. Most of these claims are stereotypes or hoisted to make PEOPLE seem horrible. Being attracted to the same gender does not lead to any of that.

Anything to support this, or are we comparing opinions at this point? Because if it's not substantiated, it seems to me that I shouldn't consider your opinion more representative of fact than the OP. It's the way you think about it, true. But the question would be, how is that related to fact or truth?

Especially since most of the issues presented are not exclusive in anyway to gay people at all. Most social problems that do come out form observing homosexual "culture" was caused do to social isolation or are massive exaggerations to dehumanize these people.

That remains to be demonstrated, and the anecdote that you present can't really override an anecdote that the OP presents. Right?

I'll give a quick example. We as a people are very social and need that social activity. We feed off of positive encouragement and kindness to one another. For a long time Gay people have had to put up with extreme social harassment. With issues of being kicked out of the house, attacked, socially isolated, humiliated, demonized. etc.

Many make it out with character building life experiences and don't succumb to destructive behavior. Those that do, do it to escape the harsh reality that people hate them. So many people that do go into destructive behavior do so to fill a void that society has caused them.

Like I said, I'm not saying you guys can't say its a sin. I'm not promoting homosexuality. I'm just sick and tired of reading posts where people want to make vast sweeping judgments against a group of people, but don't seem to understand the basics of human interaction.

There is not reason to lie about gay people. Just state the truth. God said its bad. There is no need to go further.

 

[CalledToServe]

sorry, it happens. so havent heard of man who father kids and dont want to pay and pay because they dont want to go to jail?or hollywood stars who have prenups before they marry? that is what i said what i say. one needs just to look at the kardashian marriage

scripture?You nothing of my jewish culture. jews didnt and dont write down all that they did. the did the law two ways orally and written. all you have is the written law that you claim to know.

so if two men and women married by having sex and telling the dad oh well we married now and heres the proof and dowery you asked too. there was a ceremony involved in ancient jewish culture.

hmm joseph and mary werent married and yet what? he thought put her away in private and the got that from what biblical traditon that is where in the tanach?

hints its not listed nor mentioned at all to my knowledge and yet here is a jewish site saying the same thing about purity in the engagment and having something to make it final as its a promise to marry.


http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/475823/jewish/Engagement.htm

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/476750/jewish/Tnaim-Engagement-Agreements.htm

so isreal has done that for years.

isreal did have a theocratic goverment. yes marriage should be recongnised by the goverment and it must have some contractual agreements to it but to say as you say it should be a common law thing its not well the case here nor is it wise to say that the marriage is just a contract. its MORE THEN THAT.
mathew 1:19





from here and its what i have been told.
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/series/Life/LH010/LH01.html

now then if isreal being a theocratic state where the religion and the goverment were intertwined like that then it means that the levites and the kings who did follow the torah would be the ones to enforce these marriage rites and "contracts"

there were ceremonies. not some people going into a house saying hey were married. that isnt the case. you cant use genesis for that as well that isnt what they did im sure as they made an arragment to marry then isaac going to rebeccah and that was arranged by abraham and in that culture a dowery was given and the maiden had to be a virgin. thus a contract in that sense. but not like to day where when YOU SAY A CONTRACT it means oh i can pay this and get out easily. that is what i object too the most.

Another strawman argument and acting holier than thou. Stick to the facts as I presented them and the scriptures I used. If you can't then I suggest you learn how to put together an argument that counters the points I made. I didn't talk about ancient Israel nor did I talk about marriage in scripture. If I had written about marriage from scripture I would have included the seven (eight) types of marriages given by God, but I didn't.

Even ancient Rome where homosexuality, adultry (as we know it) and pedophile's were socially accepted, Rome never did acknowledge same sex marriages. At least they got that right.

I've said it earlier, and you acknowledged it earlier in another unrelated post that marriage is a privilege, not a right. I would add that much like driving is a privilege, that one must meet a certain criteria. Does a blind person have the right to drive due to the physical nature of their body? No, that person cannot drive and is not granted that privilege based on a physical charactarisic of that person.

If same sex couples want to live together, then that's fine. It is within their God given right. But they should not be granted a marriage based on something they don't qualify for. Again, it's a privilege, not a right.

Actually, ancient Rome did recognize same sex marriages with the first couple being married Nero and his same sex slave.

I never acknowledged that marriage is a privilege. I have consistently maintained that it is a right. Are you saying that contracts are a privilege when the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that this is a right? Substitute the words same sex couples with Blacks and you have the same hatred that racists had towards that minority or you can change it to another group of individuals and it has the same effect. It's hatred that shows you are not following Christ's teaching to love your neighbor as yourself in addition to loving them as Christ loves you.

 

[Mike]

It's very unsettling to me to see professed Christians do what society does; that is, accuse those who call sin sin hateful. I have not seen hate in anyone's post, including the OP's. No one has condemned the homosexual. Some have discussed the risks associated with the lifestyle, and some have pointed to God's rejection of it.

We are in a cultural war with the world that seeks to make acceptable what He has told us is an abomination, and the pressure to sacrifice our conviction grows. It is counter to our Calling as believers to make the same accusations that the world makes.

As Christians, we should expose the hypocrisy of "Christians" such as the members of Westborough Baptist who shame His Name with their poison. No one in this thread has gone beyond saying the act is sinful. We can expect such opposition from non-believers like Meatballsub when we take a stand on His Word. But if a Christian calls standing on His Truth "hate" s/he is doing harm to the Body of Christian.

 

[heymikey80]

Actually, ancient Rome did recognize same sex marriages with the first couple being married Nero and his same sex slave.

And Caligula married his horse. No Roman wanted Nero nor Caligula repeated as Caesars.

I never acknowledged that marriage is a privilege. I have consistently maintained that it is a right.

Who licenses a right? Aren't the two situations fundamentally incompatible with one another? You need a license for something you don't have a right to.

Are you saying that contracts are a privilege when the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that this is a right? Substitute the words same sex couples with Blacks and you have the same hatred that racists had towards that minority or you can change it to another group of individuals and it has the same effect. It's hatred that shows you are not following Christ's teaching to love your neighbor as yourself in addition to loving them as Christ loves you.

This is an uncalled-for demonstration. For the record, there would be no substitutions, as "black" doesn't appear in the Constitutional amendment.

But whatever you're talking about, substitute "pedophilia" for "blacks" and you'll get a clear demonstration why this experiment doesn't demonstrate something in particular. It neglects the morality of the practice -- which is largely the point when it comes to law.

The amendment simply doesn't talk about sexuality.

 

[CalledToServe]

And Caligula married his horse. No Roman wanted Nero nor Caligula repeated as Caesars.

It still doesn't change the fact that I countered his claim that Rome did not recognize same sex marriages.

Who licenses a right? Aren't the two situations fundamentally incompatible with one another? You need a license for something you don't have a right to.

That is the crux of the problem that is currently going on right now in the United States. There are many rights that have been turned into privileges by the government to gain control over people's lives. The right to marriage, to move about from place to place using whatever means, etc... have existed before the government did.

This is an uncalled-for demonstration. For the record, there would be no substitutions, as "black" doesn't appear in the Constitutional amendment.

But whatever you're talking about, substitute "pedophilia" for "blacks" and you'll get a clear demonstration why this experiment doesn't demonstrate something in particular. It neglects the morality of the practice -- which is largely the point when it comes to law.

The amendment simply doesn't talk about sexuality.

The substitution is done to show the absurdity that people will go through to justify their bigotry that runs contrary to what Christians are taught. The core of Christ's teaching is love the Lord your God with all you are, love your neighbor as yourself, and love your neighbor as Christ loves you. I don't see God not loving gays because they are gay. He loves them because they are people that He created. He has given them the opportunity to repent for their sins through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is love of God for the unsaved. Do you love gays like Christ loves them? Are you willing to go the extra mile by denying your right to marriage and to enter into contracts in solidarity of these second class citizens? Every time I have asked this question in this thread it gets ignored because people are unable to face themselves in the mirror and see the reflection of themselves that runs contrary to what Christ taught.

Yes, because we all know that all gays are pedophiles. 2

There is no morality in law. If you use morality as your measuring tape then you are headed for trouble. Our system of laws was set up originally around the concept of rights and the infringement of them. Murder is the removal of the right to life. Theft is the removal of the right to own property and dispose of it as you see fit. It goes on and on. It wasn't until the 1850's that people got married without the government being involved with their little permission slips called licenses. The entire reason behind licenses for marriage is based upon hatred of a minority group and to prevent these minorities from marrying whites. I'd be hard pressed to associate myself and support marriage laws since they are a racist institution to begin with. I'm all for getting the government out of where it belongs.

Now, if you are basing your judgment of who gets rights based upon the Bible then you are definitely headed for trouble. This is a violation of the First Amendment's protections against laws being enacted based upon a religious tome, scripture, etc.... Establishment means to settled in fixed form such as laws, constitution, rule of government. I didn't write the definition for Establishment, but it was the one used by the founding fathers.

Actually, the Amendment speaks of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Sexuality is part of life and liberty. God gave us this great gift of being intimate on the emotional, physical, and spiritual level that we enjoy it. That is part of how God created us.

 

[Arizona Jones]

I agree with the gist of your post, but I would mention that you've misinterpreted the "who's without sin, throw the first stone" story... Fact is, both male and female should have been brought before Jesus according to the Law, yet only the female was brought forward according to the account. What you should have carried away from that story is you can't convict a lawbreaker by breaking the law yourself.

Also, nothing wrong with having good judgement, we just don't take the role of judge. We are called to discern.

I would remind you that the op isn't saying that somebody who is gay can't be forgiven. But if you look at forgiveness, it always includes repentance. Repentance isn't simply stopping one behavior, it's starting a new one. Point in case, one doesn't stop being a liar once they stop lying. No, one stops being a liar when he starts telling the truth.

As far as "God is Love", Jesus even said, "If you love me, keep my commandments". Jesus ministry was a ministry of repentance because he loved them... He did not enable the sinner.. no, he called them into holiness.

Brother, you are not called to point out sin in the unsaved. You are called to love them. Once they come to Jesus the Holy Spirit will convict and repentance will happen. repentance does not happen and then you are saved. Jesus protected the woman caught in the act from the stone throwers before he told her to sin no more. he did not require her to sin no more before he stood in the way of the accusers.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Brother, you are not called to point out sin in the unsaved. You are called to love them. Once they come to Jesus the Holy Spirit will convict and repentance will happen. repentance does not happen and then you are saved. Jesus protected the woman caught in the act from the stone throwers before he told her to sin no more. he did not require her to sin no more before he stood in the way of the accusers.

Couldn't have said it better!

 

[Mike]

Now, if you are basing your judgment of who gets rights based upon the Bible then you are definitely headed for trouble. This is a violation of the First Amendment's protections against laws being enacted based upon a religious tome, scripture, etc.... Establishment means to settled in fixed form such as laws, constitution, rule of government. I didn't write the definition for Establishment, but it was the one used by the founding fathers.

Actually, the Amendment speaks of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Sexuality is part of life and liberty. God gave us this great gift of being intimate on the emotional, physical, and spiritual level that we enjoy it. That is part of how God created us.

You don't have to want to force theocracy on our society in order to show support for His Word. You are sounding as intolerant as you are making others out to be. Do you believe God finds homosexual acts to be an abomination? Do you see anywhere in God's Word where He did not intend for marriage to be between a man and a woman?

You may decide not to show support for such bills, but why do you seem bent on demonizing the Christian who does? Is voting for proposals like this or voicing our opinion the same as forcing our will upon society to you? We may not have more say, but we don't have less say.

I must admit that I'm puzzled when I hear Christians fighting so vigorously for something that goes against God's Design. We as Christians have got to find a way to show compassion for everyone without giving in to what the world wants. Espousing the same message as the world isn't the answer. It may not be popular, but we shouldn't be moved from our commitment to His Word.

 

[Mike]

Brother, you are not called to point out sin in the unsaved. You are called to love them. Once they come to Jesus the Holy Spirit will convict and repentance will happen. repentance does not happen and then you are saved. Jesus protected the woman caught in the act from the stone throwers before he told her to sin no more. he did not require her to sin no more before he stood in the way of the accusers.

It may not be best to rail against the sin of homosexuality to those who are steep in it, but is it biblical to swing the other way and approve or even be neutral about it? Whether it's homosexuality, lying, stealing, or gossiping, can we not share what His Word says? It concerns me to see this tide of opinion from within the Church that it's somehow wrong to espouse biblical values. We mustn't ever forget the love, but it's not an either/or with His Word. They are one and the same.