Banning Gay Marriage

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

Likely it was 1 Cor. 6:9 -- but I better not put words in his mouth.

Right, I forgot about that one. This god of yours really seems to care a lot about sex.

He cares about teaching truth. Deviations teach a lie.

[doug yowell]

Could you explain how taking Lev 18 literally while ignoring the better parts of Lev 17 and 19 does not qualify as arbitrary cherry picking?

Maybe the absolute lack of capital punishment for the one and the absolute abomination to God requiring capital punishment for the other may have something to do with it.Of course, when God mentions that He is removing the Amorites from Caanan for their sexual practices one would think that this warning would suffice to indicate to the reader that He would require the same punishment to those who repeated the same sexual practices. Come to think of it, He even promises that that would be the same consequence.

[doug yowell]

Further, you live in a society of more than 330 million people, with about as many different understandings of God. Why do you think that your beliefs need to be imposed on everyone else? Would you appreciate it if a muslim majority in your state developed and started imposing Sharia law on everyone? If you don't think gay marriage is compatible with God's plan, then don't marry someone of your gender. It should be that simple.

What a prime example of hypocritical reasoning. What if 75% of those 330 million people,with different understandings of God, are all unified in their belief that homosexual behavior is deviant and destructive to society, should the remaining minority have the right to impose THEIR beliefs(law)on everyone else? If history records NO society,religious or not, ever equating homosexual practice with marriage,on what basis should we be forced to impose it on society today? Why do you think your unique beliefs demand social acceptance?

[doug yowell]

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to others. But this disagreement does not trouble you, .

Yet, what seems obvious to you is not obvious to the overwhelming majority of the world's population and this seems to pose no problem for you. Why not? On what moral or rational basis do you claim the high ground in this discussion? Why is all of history wrong and you are right? What have all the greatest religious thinkers and all of the world's greatest philosophers missed that you have now discovered? Even the most decadent societies of the pagan world never allowed for gay marriage, why then should we now demand it on the one country that was founded on a religiously based morality?

[Guest]

Don't hold back Doug...you're points are very accurate, and to the point! lol

[M. T. Cross]

There is a difference between now and then Doug. In ancient societies homosexuality was often not frowned upon at all. But each man and each woman was expected to marry and have children. If that was the only hetro sex they ever had that was fine. It was about keeping the tribe going, about ensuring that there was enough young to care for the old and to hold onto what lands they had.

We live in a very different world now. As of Oct.31 of this year the world population is at 7 billion. No-one has to worry any longer about keeping the tribe going, making sure that there are enough hunters and farmers to gather food, warriors to protect the land. We have a surplus of people to do those things.

[Igakusei]

What a prime example of hypocritical reasoning. What if 75% of those 330 million people,with different understandings of God, are all unified in their belief that homosexual behavior is deviant and destructive to society, should the remaining minority have the right to impose THEIR beliefs(law)on everyone else? If history records NO society,religious or not, ever equating homosexual practice with marriage,on what basis should we be forced to impose it on society today? Why do you think your unique beliefs demand social acceptance?

A few hundred years ago, most people in society agreed that niggers black people were stupid, morally depraved, and needed to be kept on short leashes doing manual labor for their own good. Even among those in the North, these ideas ran rampant although they generally felt that slavery was still the greater evil. It even had Biblical support! Should these minorities have the right to expose the rest of society to their deviant and destructive natures?

[Dr. Shane]

A few hundred years ago, most people in society agreed that niggers black people were stupid, morally depraved, and needed to be kept on short leashes doing manual labor for their own good.

Even in African societies? Really? Are you sure?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues!

Not on this board. I may not see every thread posted here but the liberals are the ones that can't seem to stop talking about gays and gay marriage. I think it is a liberal obsession.

Exactly, Shane. For instance, I only talk about it when liberals bring it up first in order to defend gay marriage. Other than here on the Forum, I never discuss it with anyone.

[Guest]

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues!

[CoAspen]

If I really cared about #'s, I would go back and count! How quickly people forget!! Even with #'s there would be disclaimers....as usual. Way too much protesting protesting, not me, not me, it was those liberals, who ever they are!!!!!!

[ClubV12]

Yup, thats what I've seen as well. I see no need to discuss the gay issue at all, UNLESS it directly relates to pending litigation and headline news. But even then, I don't bring it up.

It's predominatly someone with an agenda who wants to support gay rights and BASH anybody that doesn't agree with that view. Frankly, I do get tired of hearing of it, I don't support gay marriage. So what? I don't have a problem with that, don't care to discuss it, why don't those with an agenda just let me have my opinion? Because there major militants on a mission and can't let it go! They DEMAND I change my view and accept it, aint gonna happen, no matter how threatening you get, no matter how hard you yell about it. Just let it go, take it somewhere else...

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

A few hundred years ago, most people in society agreed that niggers black people were stupid, morally depraved, and needed to be kept on short leashes doing manual labor for their own good.

Even in African societies? Really? Are you sure?

I should have been more clear in that I was referring to American society. The reference to the "North" should have made that plenty clear, but my apologies for not spelling it out for you.

Edit: And I was only pointing out the silliness of arguing that the majority has a right to impose their will on the minority by pointing out one of many, many places where that mindset becomes quite obviously flawed. I'm sure you can think of some other examples if you flex your brain really hard.

[olger]

Igak, one's ethnicity is sacred. So is their gender. You cannot violate either.

[doug yowell]

A few hundred years ago, most people in society agreed that niggers black people were stupid, morally depraved, and needed to be kept on short leashes doing manual labor for their own good. Even among those in the North, these ideas ran rampant although they generally felt that slavery was still the greater evil.

On what moral basis were they wrong? And why did the majority of people in the US at the time feel that (like abortion today) slavery was morally wrong? You seem to forget that slave owners were in the minority not the majority and that when they tried to expand that "right" they created the most destructive war in American history. Slave owners and their sympathizers were in the minority attempting to dictate what the majority should allow!! Some things never change.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Even in African societies? Really? Are you sure?

I should have been more clear in that I was referring to American society.

There is where your comparison fails. Those that talk about gay marriage in a historical context are not just talking about it in the context of North American history. They are talking about it in the context of world history.

What we see today is unprecedented. I don't have an issue with gay marriage as long as laws regarding it protect religious liberty and that restrictions are put in place to prevent using it as an immigration scam.

[Igakusei]

What we see today is unprecedented. I don't have an issue with gay marriage as long as laws regarding it protect religious liberty and that restrictions are put in place to prevent using it as an immigration scam.

What aspects of religious liberty do you fear will be in danger once gay marriage is legalized? Why should gay marriage laws have stricter requirements than heterosexual marriage laws concerning immigration? There are already laws concerning such fraud that would apply equally to both.

[Dr. Shane]

My concerns regarding religious liberty are the same as those held by the Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty departments. I am certainly not going to debate them here.

Gay marriage is more prone to immigration fraud because the average marriage is so much shorter. The whole concept of marriage really exposes the drastic contrast between the heterosexual marriage and homosexual. I don't have a problem keeping the immigration rules the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals but those rules now are made to prevent heterosexual fraud and would need to be changed drastically for the homosexual dynamic.

Currently a person can get a fiance visa and come to the US and get married. After two years of being married they can get divorced and still stay in the country. If gay couples are granted immigration rights like heterosexual couples, that two year mark should be extended to five or seven years. That would apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[doug yowell]

What we see today is unprecedented. I don't have an issue with gay marriage as long as laws regarding it protect religious liberty and that restrictions are put in place to prevent using it as an immigration scam.

You wouldn't have an issue with gay marriage even though the social effects of homosexual behavior have been shown to be a non-productive`contribution to the family structure?? Marriage has been commonly held as the foundation of any society. Adding a lifestyle that functions only as an unnatural sexual deviancy to the list of commendable social institutions has a lot more implications for a society than religious liberty issues. Unless, of course, you believe God's creation design was a mere exercise in arbitrary Divine control,an unnecessary restriction on an innocuous sexual preference. As for your concern about immigration scams I find it rather inconsistent when you support the hiring of illegal immigrants who employ stolen social security numbers in order to secure jobs intended for legal residents.

[doug yowell]

And I was only pointing out the silliness of arguing that the majority has a right to impose their will on the minority by pointing out one of many, many places where that mindset becomes quite obviously flawed. I'm sure you can think of some other examples if you flex your brain really hard.

What about the silliness of arguing that the minority has the right to impose their will on the majority especially if the minority wants to legitimize a practice that the world has seen as a deviant sexual practice since the inception of the world.Sometimes the majority has it right! And the motto of the nation still remains "One nation under God" meaning that it has historically held itself up to a higher authority in the impositions of it's laws and practices.

[Overaged]

There are already laws concerning such fraud that would apply equally to both.

Marriage is not a "right" and if it's "gay" it's not marriage. They need to call it something else when they want to live together and stop trying to be something they never will be no matter what the courts say about marriage.

[Overaged]

Yup, thats what I've seen as well. I see no need to discuss the gay issue at all, UNLESS it directly relates to pending litigation and headline news. But even then, I don't bring it up.

It's predominatly someone with an agenda who wants to support gay rights and BASH anybody that doesn't agree with that view. Frankly, I do get tired of hearing of it, I don't support gay marriage. So what? I don't have a problem with that, don't care to discuss it, why don't those with an agenda just let me have my opinion? Because there major militants on a mission and can't let it go! They DEMAND I change my view and accept it, aint gonna happen, no matter how threatening you get, no matter how hard you yell about it. Just let it go, take it somewhere else...

[Overaged]

Igakusei,

What I am saying is, when the Holy Spirit is grieved away there is no more condemnation of sin. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin. He also convicts of the truth when one has truly arrived and seals us and settles us into the truth.

The Holy Spirit strives with us a long, long time and there is none but what don't feel His tugging to realize the sin and repent and be forgiven and be saved. We know what sin is from His Word and fornication is one of those set out in the law of true love, transcript of His character, that must be heeded. transgression of that law is sin.

We wouldn't know what sin is except for the law. When we become converted it abides in our heart same as His. We must have the will to do His Will and it no longer is galling.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.