Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Comprehender]

Some try to compare homosexual sex with heterosexual sex.
But there's no comparison!!

 

[Stormcrow]

Banning same sex marriage dosen't fix broken families.

That same logic could be used to justify marriage between an adult and a child, two adults that are closely genetically related (brother-sister, first-cousin), and polygamy, all of which (among other deviant forms of marriage) are illegal in this country.

States do have the power to regulate who can and cannot marry and on what grounds. Homosexuality is deviant behavior and, therefore, falls under the category of those types of marriage not legally recognized by states.

This, however, is all setting the stage for the day when NAMBLA will claim what they do is perfectly acceptable, too.

 

[Stormcrow]

Same sex marriage advocates have the US constitution on their side

The same argument could be made for other practitioners of deviant lifestyles wishing to express their freedom through marriage.

The same argument you raise for one form of deviancy will be raised in defense of others:

Polygamists have the US constitution on their side;
Pedophiles have the US constitution on their side;
Those who want incest legal have the US constitution on their side;

The problem is marriage is not just a social contract but a religious covenant made expressly for a man and a woman. Those who wish to see this institution destroyed by any means necessary are also those who wish to see this country's other institutions destroyed in the same manner.

 

[Stan53]

I run into this on a regular basis. Christians wanting the world to live by God's standards. They don't, so why do we think, grabbing onto a subject like this, or legalizing pot, is going to make them listen to God, or us?

God does NOT wish to establish a government on earth, He wishes to establish His rule in our hearts. God shows in Gen 2:23-24, why He made man and woman. The Hebrew word used for 'join' here is dabaq, which connotes to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch.
In many instances, this is what the Hebrew says. Another word used is laqach, as in Gen 4:19, for the word 'took'.
Modern day marriage is a construct of our society, not God. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. In the eyes of the Body of Christ and believers, Lesbians and Gays should NOT join together and cannot in the sight of God. The modern issue is legally recognized unions in the sight of the government, and that is NOT our area of domain or control. We don't have to accept that gay unions are acceptable in God's eyes, but we have to recognize that gay unions are a current fact of life and instead of condemning them, like any other unbelievers, we should reach out in Christ's love and let them know of the Good News.

When you got married, did it bother you that the government mandated that your pastor send them a copy of the marriage certificate so it would be legal? I don't think many of us did. So now, why do so many Christians get up in arms about something that the government says gays need to do? Let's not be like a bunch of Don Quixote's, "tilting at windmills."

 

[Milk-Drops]

The same argument could be made for other practitioners of deviant lifestyles wishing to express their freedom through marriage.

The same argument you raise for one form of deviancy will be raised in defense of others:

Polygamists have the US constitution on their side;
Pedophiles have the US constitution on their side;
Those who want incest legal have the US constitution on their side;

You have missed the point. Also Pedophilia isn't constitutionally protected because Judges have repeated defended that Minors don't have the right to consent to contracts or sex until they are no longer minors. Also the main point is that the argument that Traditional marriage is having problems so Same sex marriage should be illegal is a bad argument. Simple as that. Yelling Polygamy, pedophilia, incest, etc. dosen't change that.

The problem is marriage is not just a social contract but a religious covenant made expressly for a man and a woman.

Christianity has its own rituals, etc. surrounding their practitioners marriages. The State is not Christianity, The State/Fed has its own version of Marriage agreements and the contracts around it. This issue is so silly because many people seriously can't or willfully refuse to understand this.

Those who wish to see this institution destroyed by any means necessary are also those who wish to see this country's other institutions destroyed in the same manner.

Completely false. The government expanding access of marriage contracts of Religions, State/fed departments, and Judges to include same sex couples won't destroy anything. No value is lost from a Christian marriage just because the State allows other people social contracts. Just like how you owning a tv and you neighbor then buying a tv dosen't destroy your tv.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Some try to compare homosexual sex with heterosexual sex.
But there's no comparison!!

Homosexual sex is the same as heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

 

[Comprehender]

Homosexual sex is the same as heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

Not according to human anatomy & how we each were created.
It's not the same AT ALL.

 

[Comprehender]

The same argument could be made for other practitioners of deviant lifestyles wishing to express their freedom through marriage.

The same argument you raise for one form of deviancy will be raised in defense of others:

Polygamists have the US constitution on their side;
Pedophiles have the US constitution on their side;
Those who want incest legal have the US constitution on their side;

The problem is marriage is not just a social contract but a religious covenant made expressly for a man and a woman. Those who wish to see this institution destroyed by any means necessary are also those who wish to see this country's other institutions destroyed in the same manner.

Good points.

Also, children have the "right" to be raised by the 2 opposite genders that created them... not necessarily the same exact parents (adopted are ok) but studies & history since it's been recorded indicates that children need the balance of being raised by both a mother & father.

 

[Comprehender]

Stan,
No offense, but your post reflects that you have not considered much except what applies to you.
If all men & women were angels, we wouldn't need laws - but guess what? They aren't all angels.

Think about it Stan.
If there was no legal marriage, how much easier would it be for couples to split up & for children to be abandoned?
The Legality of marriage is primarily to protect the future of society: CHILDREN.

Also, reconsider what the gay agenda group has been doing (read the OP) & read up on the rights they are infringing upon in the name of "gay rights." If this were limited to behind closed doors - so be it, but they've brought it front & center in our faces, whether we like it or not & are harassing their way through the legal system, as they harassed their way in getting the APA to redefine homosexuality & pedophilia.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Good points.

No, these are horrible points. His point is to ignore the actual argument and just bunch it together with Pedophilia, Polygamy, and incest. His argument is also bad becasue he seems to think that the state expanding marriage contracts destroys the contracts of other people. How? It makes no sense. This type logic makes no sense. If Marriage is so weak in the eyes of Christians, that if anyone other then them can have access to the same benefits, can destroy their own personal view on it. Its not the fault of the other people. That would be a personal problem.

Also, children have the "right" to be raised by the 2 opposite genders that created them... not necessarily the same exact parents (adopted are ok)

So where do these children draw this right? Same sex couples can invoke their right to raise children. To be honest, children don't have this right. Children are actually wards of the state or their parents. Children don't technically have rights until they reach adult hood. Children do have basic rights like life, liberty, etc. But what you just defined is actually a legal contract. Children can't consent to contracts. This is why adoption agencies exist. The agency or the State takes over as the guardian of the child until guardianship can be given or acquired by new parents. Children borne into a family are subject to guardianship of their direct relatives ( parents)

If a child has rights to parents being a specific gender set, then they could also deny themselves of this right, but they can't because they don't have the legal "right" to do so. So, no. I think you are confusing the rights of the state and agency to discriminate with Children's rights.

but studies & history since it's been recorded indicates that children need the balance of being raised by both a mother & father.

History and studies also show that Adoption isn't marriage. So all of this is irrelevant anyway.

 

[CalledToServe]

Stan,
No offense, but your post reflects that you have not considered much except what applies to you.
If all men & women were angels, we wouldn't need laws - but guess what? They aren't all angels.

Think about it Stan.
If there was no legal marriage, how much easier would it be for couples to split up & for children to be abandoned?
The Legality of marriage is primarily to protect the future of society: CHILDREN.

Also, reconsider what the gay agenda group has been doing (read the OP) & read up on the rights they are infringing upon in the name of "gay rights." If this were limited to behind closed doors - so be it, but they've brought it front & center in our faces, whether we like it or not & are harassing their way through the legal system, as they harassed their way in getting the APA to redefine homosexuality & pedophilia.

Historically, before the government got involved in telling people who they could marry etc... people were married until they died. The reason being was due to the way contract law was handled at the time which would leave the man destitute and on the street. Women couldn't exactly get a job outside of the home, so couples had a natural reason to stay together.

Do you support the laws that said that whites and blacks couldn't intermarry?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Not according to human anatomy & how we each were created.
It's not the same AT ALL.

I was referring to the sinful nature. I'm aware of basic human anatomy, thank you.

 

[Stan53]

Stan,
No offence, but your post reflects that you have not considered much except what applies to you.
If all men & women were angels, we wouldn't need laws - but guess what? They aren't all angels.

Think about it Stan.
If there was no legal marriage, how much easier would it be for couples to split up & for children to be abandoned?
The Legality of marriage is primarily to protect the future of society: CHILDREN.

Also, reconsider what the gay agenda group has been doing (read the OP) & read up on the rights they are infringing upon in the name of "gay rights." If this were limited to behind closed doors - so be it, but they've brought it front & centre in our faces, whether we like it or not & are harassing their way through the legal system, as they harassed their way in getting the APA to redefine homosexuality & paedophilia.

It's NOT my job to tell any unbeliever how to live. My responsibility is to bring them the good news. It's also NOT my job to try to legislate morality as many Christians may think. God has a plan, and it doesn't involve unbelievers. It involves Jesus' Second Coming and the establishment of His government on earth.

God has all the angels He wants. He made man to worship and obey Him and His plan is ongoing.

Jesus was always speaking against the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, NOT against governments. He did say to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
It's NOT our job to ensure people procreate, the world does it well enough on their own.
Your concept of legal marriage is based more on the PC societal view than the BC Christian view. Being a homosexual is not synonymous with being a paedophile, as you allude to, and just shows the heights some people will go to justify their own biases. My federal government has been trying to pass a law allowing them to snoop on anyone's computer, without a search warrant or reason. Their biggest scare tactic was to protect people against paedophiles. Give me a break.

 

[CalledToServe]

It's NOT my job to tell any unbeliever how to live. My responsibility is to bring them the good news. It's also NOT my job to try to legislate morality as many Christians may think. God has a plan, and it doesn't involve unbelievers. It involves Jesus' Second Coming and the establishment of His government on earth.

God has all the angels He wants. He made man to worship and obey Him and His plan is ongoing.

Jesus was always speaking against the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, NOT against governments. He did say to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
It's NOT our job to ensure people procreate, the world does it well enough on their own.
Your concept of legal marriage is based more on the PC societal view than the BC Christian view. Being a homosexual is not synonymous with being a paedophile, as you allude to, and just shows the heights some people will go to justify their own biases. My federal government has been trying to pass a law allowing them to snoop on anyone's computer, without a search warrant or reason. Their biggest scare tactic was to protect people against paedophiles. Give me a break.

We may not have agreed much at all in the past Stan, but you nailed it right on the head. Bravo.

 

[Comprehender]

Meatball,
You really should discuss your issues with his post with him.
Still, you asked, so I'll respond.
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation, as is another sexual deviations like pedophilia. It's not the same, but they are indeed both sexual deviations. And those who have supported the gay movement, have also supported redefining pedophilia with the APA.

Our economy is struggling. Businesses are struggling. Redefining marriage to be any 2 adults is like throwing a bunch of counterfit money into circulation, especially in regards to businesses & goverment tax who will then be legally required to cater to those who don't really contribute directly to the future of society (children).

It's all about children, really. Many who support gay marriage seem to care less about children, but the fact is that children are the FUTURE of society. I don't really care if 2 people of the same sex want to have a commitment ceremony & enter into contracts like common law marriage or cohabitation agreements. But when they require society to redefine a law that is primarily for CHILDREN, I do have a problem, especially when homosexual practices statistically & medically prove to be harmful.

 

[Comprehender]

Historically, before the government got involved in telling people who they could marry etc... people were married until they died. The reason being was due to the way contract law was handled at the time which would leave the man destitute and on the street. Women couldn't exactly get a job outside of the home, so couples had a natural reason to stay together.

Yeah, and although there weren't equal rights of men & women as much as there are now with the Feminist movement, we've gone too far & now children are being raised by day-orphanages (day cares) or worse.

Do you support the laws that said that whites and blacks couldn't intermarry?

LOL Why do people always try to compare genetics with preferences?
THERE IS NO GAY GENE!!
Homosexual preferences are preferences - not inborn.
Do you know why we are on the outside of cages at the zoo?
At birth, some primates have more developed brains than we do, except we more than make up the difference, by being cared for by our parents much longer. At birth our brains are only 25% developed, so we can better adapt to environmental influences.

 

[Comprehender]

I was referring to the sinful nature. I'm aware of basic human anatomy, thank you.

I apologize - I could've phrased that better.
Sin is anything that causes harm, to us or others.
Sin is anything that breaks the greatest commandments (loving God, others & self).

IMO, we are not punished for our sins, but by the natural consequences of them (either directly or indirectly).
Homosexual intercourse between 2 men, (even if they are healthy) have risks of anal fissures, bacterial infection, colon rupture & anal cancer. Heterosexual intercourse between a healthy man & a woman have no health risks.
It's true that both are sinful, but one is even more sinful than the other.

 

[Comprehender]

It's NOT my job to tell any unbeliever how to live. My responsibility is to bring them the good news.

And the good news is GOoD, not evil.
Goodness is that which is of God, that which is medically & spiritually healthy.
Homosexual practices prove to not be - according to the USCDC, medical doctors & the bible.

God has all the angels He wants. He made man to worship and obey Him and His plan is ongoing.

God does nothing except through us.
"Prayer doesn't change things. Prayer changes people & people change things."
Sitting on your behind, waiting for the world to go to hell, is not what Jesus taught nor is it what he lived.

We have laws because men & women are not angels.
And unfortunately, laws have been enacted that are anti-Christ & ungodly.
We need to do what is in our power to do God's will & encourage others to also.

It's NOT our job to ensure people procreate, the world does it well enough on their own.
Your concept of legal marriage is based more on the PC societal view than the BC Christian view. Being a homosexual is not synonymous with being a paedophile, as you allude to, and just shows the heights some people will go to justify their own biases. My federal government has been trying to pass a law allowing them to snoop on anyone's computer, without a search warrant or reason. Their biggest scare tactic was to protect people against paedophiles. Give me a break.

You're putting words in my mouth.
I never stated anybody needs to procreate.
Infact, I believe people should be very careful about procreation, considering many (93% of abortions) use murder as birth control.
What I stated is that the main societal legal purpose of marriage is to protect the future of society: CHILDREN.

You accuse me of having "biases" - yet you & others are biased against children - supporting legaly denying them of needed mothers and fathers. What about "Thou shalt honor thy mother & father"?

I agree that the government is using silly excuses to infringe on privacy - but it's not about pedophilia as much as the "war on terrorism" nonsense.
Why did the APA change the definition of homosexuality not based on research, but based on harassment from gay lobbyists?
Why has the APA changed the definition of pedophylia with backing by gay lobbyists?

 

[stovebolts]

It's NOT my job to tell any unbeliever how to live. My responsibility is to bring them the good news. It's also NOT my job to try to legislate morality as many Christians may think. God has a plan, and it doesn't involve unbelievers. It involves Jesus' Second Coming and the establishment of His government on earth.

God has all the angels He wants. He made man to worship and obey Him and His plan is ongoing.

Jesus was always speaking against the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, NOT against governments. He did say to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
It's NOT our job to ensure people procreate, the world does it well enough on their own.
Your concept of legal marriage is based more on the PC societal view than the BC Christian view. Being a homosexual is not synonymous with being a paedophile, as you allude to, and just shows the heights some people will go to justify their own biases. My federal government has been trying to pass a law allowing them to snoop on anyone's computer, without a search warrant or reason. Their biggest scare tactic was to protect people against paedophiles. Give me a break.

I identify myself as both a Christian and a US citizen. As a Christian, I am under the authority of God first, and government second. Scripture tells us to be submissive to government as long as it doesn't violate our / God's morality.

As a US citizen, I am obligated to vote my conscience. It is not simply a right.

The way you tell it, we have no obligation, or right to our country.

When Jesus said to render what is Cesar to Cesar, he was referring to taxes and when he referred to marriage, he said, "What God hath brought together, let no man asunder". And we all know that "in the beginning", Adam and Eve were not Christians.

The association between homosexuality and pedophilia, is that they are both morally wrong sexual acts according to God's word.

Going back to Cesar, Peter said, Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Remember who said, Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

Paul put it this way: Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What you may not know, is that there was a popular slogan in the days of Jesus. They went like this:

"There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved than that of Caesar." Another saying was "Caesar is Lord."

I would say that within the cultural context of both Philippians 2:11 and Acts 4:12, both saying flew right in the face of government and society and were bold statements of faith. From another perspective, both were "good news" for him who had ears to hear.

 

[Stan53]

And the good news is GOoD, not evil.
Goodness is that which is of God, that which is medically & spiritually healthy.
Homosexual practises prove to not be - according to the USCDC, medical doctors & the bible.

The Good News is that of Jesus Christ, who is our Saviour and came to forgive our sins and change our lifestyle.

God does nothing except through us.
"Prayer doesn't change things. Prayer changes people & people change things."
Sitting on your behind, waiting for the world to go to hell, is not what Jesus taught nor is it what he lived.

Oh yes good. Now instead of railing against homosexuals, PRAY for them. You will surely accomplish a lot more than criticizing their agenda. They need Christ just like any other unbeliever, including the whore-monger's, the war-monger's, the Wall Street thieves, the welfare scammers, the lascivious, the lazy.

We have laws because men & women are not angels.
And unfortunately, laws have been enacted that are anti-Christ & ungodly.
We need to do what is in our power to do God's will & encourage others to also.

We have laws because we live in societies that want them, not because men and women aren't angels. Maybe you can tell us what laws you are being made to follow that are anti-Christian or ungodly?
We need to do all in our power to live at peace with ALL people and honour our respective governments, municipal, provincial/state, and federal.
I see that scripture is clear about how we are to treat government.

1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,
1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,
Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Romans 13:5
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Ephesians 3:10
His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

You're putting words in my mouth.
I never stated anybody needs to procreate.
In fact, I believe people should be very careful about procreation, considering many (93% of abortions) use murder as birth control.
What I stated is that the main societal legal purpose of marriage is to protect the future of society: CHILDREN.

Sorry but you said the words and that is how I took it. What exactly did you mean then by protecting the future children?

You accuse me of having "biases" - yet you & others are biased against children - supporting legally denying them of needed mothers and fathers. What about "Thou shalt honour thy mother & father"?

Then maybe you shouldn't use 'children' as a reason to rant against 'homosexuality'. The OP is pretty clear so creating a straw man and deflecting to it is very disingenuous as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that the government is using silly excuses to infringe on privacy - but it's not about paedophilia as much as the "war on terrorism" nonsense.
Why did the APA change the definition of homosexuality not based on research, but based on harassment from gay lobbyists?
Why has the APA changed the definition of paedophilia with backing by gay lobbyists?

This is OFF topic and you have offered no support to your assertions, so I have no comment.