The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

[Cow Poke]

This is a secular country, you don't get to define marriage based on your beliefs for the rest of the country who don't hold to your beliefs.

That's OK, JimL, in the next life, you don't get to make ANY of the rules.

[JimL]

That's OK, JimL, in the next life, you don't get to make ANY of the rules.

I am not concerned about a next life, I would rather concentrate on this one, and in this one we do our best as a people to come up with rules that are just and inclusive regardless of personal bias. You are free to believe whatever you like, but, as much as you would like to, you can not force your beliefs onto others.

[mossrose]

I am not concerned about a next life, I would rather concentrate on this one, and in this one we do our best as a people to come up with rules that are just and inclusive regardless of personal bias. You are free to believe whatever you like, but, as much as you would like to, you can not force your beliefs onto others.

Does that hold true for those who want everybody to accept and tolerate their beliefs? Such as the belief that homosexuality and all it's permutations are fine and good?

Because I don't like those beliefs and think they are wrong. Yet they are being forced down our throats.

Oh, and you really ought to be concerned about a next life. That is the most important thing of all.

[whag]

Yes, I am anti-homosexuality.



Correct, I am against the act of abortion. However, I'm not anti-women who have had abortions.

Bad analogy. You're "anti" the doctors who perform them, which is the actual parallel to homosexuals (since homosexuals commit the act of homosexuality).

You're really not very good at this, Whag. If there were a test case that was heard by an activist judge, it should not be at all surprising that there would be a huge sea change.

That sea change is your fault. Your entire case against homosexuality was based on a bad argument: marriage is for breeders. That's why you lost every case, not because of bad judges but weak arguments about procreation.

The case we're talking about here is entirely different -- idiot troll lesbians forcing obviously anti-gay pastors to marry them. If you blew that one, it'd be your fault for legal incompetency, not the activist judge's

I DON'T fear those possibilities, Whag - I BATTLE them - as I did in Austin last month testifying before the House and Senate, standing with about 200 other pastors and passing the Pastor Protection Bill.



Well, yeah, I'm no stranger to courtroom challenges, Whag.

Good. I'm glad you're not a wimp.

Why, yes you ARE... you're anti-Christian! Just look at your posting here! You come to a Christian board to do battle with Christians "in our house". But that's OK, I find you amusing.

Um, skeptics are invited here for that purpose, and the battles don't translate to anti-Christian.

Married her to punish her, eh? (Kidding, Whag - I married a Lutheran to get back at a Lutheran Sunday School teacher who rapped my knuckles in Vacation Bible School. KIDDING!!!!!!)

I'll be glad to toss the CDC stats, Whag -- the crux of the thing is that God says homosexuality is wrong. Regardless of what any stats would say.

Fair enough, then. That's progress to eliminate that stat as a point of argumentation on homosexuality, in general, being an inherently dangerous activity. Obviously, it's no more of a dangerous activity than heterosexuality, which is why it has survived as an evolutionary trait. Bonobo chimps use it to quell violence in the group, for criminy!

[fm93]

It's two sides of the very same coin, fm. Not "exact opposite".

I already provided examples of how people can be loving and treat gay people as people, that DON'T necessitate moral acceptance of their relationships.

fm - have you ever thought about the fact that you're actually more anti-Christian than you are pro-gay?

I know you saw that post I wrote praising the Christians of Emanuel AME Church. Yet you have the nerve to call me anti-Christian?

I criticize the church on this point because I perceive that it's not functioning the way that Jesus intended it to function. And I find this problematic, because I believe what Jesus intended is the moral thing to do. In other words, it is the CHURCH that is acting anti-Christian in this regard--it's acting in the opposite manner of what Christ intended. Thus, I'm criticizing the church here because I want to point out where it's gone wrong and re-direct it back to a more Christ-like style.

That is as far from "anti-Christian" as one could possibly get.

Why don't you demonstrate what you're talking about by accepting our beliefs without question and SHOW us that you aren't hateful or unloving?

That's not what I said, and you know it.

[fm93]

It is terribly unloving to tell people they are ok in what they doing if what they are doing is destructive.

This is true in principle, but one problem is that many Christians are calling certain people and things destructive when they aren't--or at the very least, in ways that they aren't. You can tell people "I genuinely believe that same-sex relationships are sinful" without making fallacious comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality. You can tell them that you believe homosexuality is morally prohibited without making contrived attempts to paint gay people as promiscuous or bad parents. You can tell them that God disapproves of what they're doing without calling them Sodomites, a term referring to people who tried to gang rape angels.

Also, I figure you probably disapprove specifically of homosexual acts rather than merely being homosexual (aka merely experiencing feelings of attraction), but this is something that both sides really ought to get cleared up. I sometimes hear a celibate or abstinent gay person say "I'm gay," and some Christians jump to all these conclusions about "unnatural relations" and a sinful lifestyle or whatever. Coming out as gay doesn't necessarily mean the person is engaging in sexual acts.

To a Christian, the height of love is not to accept sin where they find it, but to point it out and offer the solution -- Christ.

Actually, doesn't John 15:13 indicate that the height of love is being willing to lay down your own life for your friends?

To a Christian, to love others as Christ loves us is not to tolerate sin, but to confront it and call it what it is.

True, but that's not all there is to Christ-like love, correct? In confronting and calling out sin, Jesus also was willing to visit people and dine with them and feed them and heal them and protect them in times of need. Unfortunately, the church doesn't have a reputation for this--they ONLY have a reputation for the "calling out sin" part.

As an example, the US branch of the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision announced last year that it would allow married gay Christians to work for them. This should've been wonderful--more charitable people would now be involved, and presumably, more impoverished children would be helped. Instead, many Christians withdrew their support for World Vision and even dropped their sponsorships. Basically, they'd agreed to help needy children, but then went back on their word--all because World Vision said that gay married Christians were also allowed to help lift people out of poverty.

This type of stunt sends the message that many Christians would rather betray impoverished children and have them starve than allow gay people to help rescue starving children. How can that possibly be seen as loving? Can you imagine Christ telling his disciples not to help someone feed the starving, just because that person happens to be an adulterer?

The world looks at love in two ways. One is pure lust. The other, that you are really talking about, is the warm fuzzies.

That's not what I'm talking about, as I've explained.

That is not how God and believers look at love, because we are looking at the big picture, the far-reaching affects of a sin-filled life.....and death.

But is one REALLY looking at the big picture when one sees in gay people only the possibility of sin and death, and not the life that is present?

So when we say we love the sinner but hate the sin,no matter how pat you may think that is, it is true. The fault in being able to recognize that lays in the sinner, not in how "love" is displayed by a believer.

Technically, both are supposed to be involved.

[Cow Poke]

I already provided examples of how people can be loving and treat gay people as people, that DON'T necessitate moral acceptance of their relationships.

Yeah, you totally mangled the encounter Jesus had with the woman caught in adultery. You made it sound like He was there to hang out with her there. He intervened on her behalf, then told her to go and sin no more.

[Sea of red]

That's OK, JimL, in the next life, you don't get to make ANY of the rules.

kcKnyEzki.gif

[Cow Poke]

Bad analogy. You're "anti" the doctors who perform them,

Actually, I'm not. I don't know any of them. I'm against abortion, pure and simple.

[Cow Poke]

Good. I'm glad you're not a wimp.

I wish you weren't a jackass.

[Sea of red]

I keep thinking about how revealing this is of liberal thought --- instead of actually DOING something about a problem, make up banners and "march in the streets". And demand that others - who ARE doing something - drop what they're doing and join the Silly Parade.

Look at the "marching in the streets" that you guys did in Baltimore and Ferguson and long before that? What did it accomplish. A lot of the locals got their businesses destroyed, economies negatively impacted, people arrested for vandalism, racial tensions heightened even more, city budgets burdened with additional costs, race pimps rush into to incite more hatred....

Look at what Mother Emanuel's CHRISTIAN RESPONSE accomplished --- it brought a community even closer together, there was no need for the race pimps to come in and incite riots, the world was profoundly impressed.

Then, what did the liberals do? Take all that love and admiration and grace and turn it into hatred of a piece of cloth.

You guys astound me.

You really are an idiot.

I am not a liberal. The only time I ever voted was for Obama in 08' to shut my ex-girlfriend up basically. I've never cared about elections and only voted that once. So I don't know where you get the right to refer to me as "liberal", other than the fact that I simply disagree with social conservationism. Is that the only qualifier now? If I don't wrap myself in the flag and sing God Bless America I'm now a liberal? Alright.

As for Baltimore, who gives a crap. That's not a protest, it's just a riot, and I called it that on this very forum. Of course, that stuff wouldn't happen period if our police departments weren't hopelessly corrupted beyond repair... thanks to conservatives.

The only reason you get riled up about homosexuality and not things like gang violence from a religious activism, is because nothing is to be politically gained from the latter. All that meaningless crap about "family", "children", and other tripe is just a put-on. It's about preserving and ancient understanding of sexuality and nothing more.

[Sea of red]

Does that hold true for those who want everybody to accept and tolerate their beliefs? Such as the belief that homosexuality and all it's permutations are fine and good?

Because I don't like those beliefs and think they are wrong. Yet they are being forced down our throats.

Oh, and you really ought to be concerned about a next life. That is the most important thing of all.

You just don't get the basic idea of what tolerance is, or you don't want to.

Tolerance is not about not disagreeing. It's about learning to live peacefully with others; to live and let live. Just as you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, homosexuals have the right to love each other. You have to get over it. Part of being in a free country means learning to accept this.

You tying to force your beliefs on others is what got you guys into this mess in the first place. If you all would just practice your religion in peace and leave others alone I wouldn't care. But you try to make laws and public policy derivative of your beliefs, and you go around telling people they are dirty based on an ancient understanding of reality, so I have no choice but to do defend those people.

[Abigail]

True, but that's not all there is to Christ-like love, correct? In confronting and calling out sin, Jesus also was willing to visit people and dine with them and feed them and heal them and protect them in times of need. Unfortunately, the church doesn't have a reputation for this--they ONLY have a reputation for the "calling out sin" part.

You only give part of the picture since look at how Jesus treated the Pharisees and religious rulers who were man-pleasers rather than God-pleasers. And as CP has said what about the woman taken in adultery. Jesus gave her specific instrucions to go and sin no more

As an example, the US branch of the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision announced last year that it would allow married gay Christians to work for them. This should've been wonderful--more charitable people would now be involved, and presumably, more impoverished children would be helped. Instead, many Christians withdrew their support for World Vision and even dropped their sponsorships. Basically, they'd agreed to help needy children, but then went back on their word--all because World Vision said that gay married Christians were also allowed to help lift people out of poverty.

This type of stunt sends the message that many Christians would rather betray impoverished children and have them starve than allow gay people to help rescue starving children. How can that possibly be seen as loving? Can you imagine Christ telling his disciples not to help someone feed the starving, just because that person happens to be an adulterer?

Two points:
1. I just heard here in the last two weeks that the gay movement is going to be lobbying our government (UK) to withhold aid from those countries who do not give gays rights. What about the starving babies fm93? Hypocrite?

2.Regarding Christians, Jesus taught that spiritual food is more important than physical food and if World vision isn't giving both then they are ineffective. When people start to water down the message we have a problem. World Vision cannot be the only Christian aid organization.

[Cow Poke]

You really are an idiot.

Yeah, I'm really worried about what you think.

[Cow Poke]

Bad analogy. You're "anti" the doctors who perform them,

Not that this means anything to anti-Christian bigots, but......

About 1984, we had a lady coming to our Church whose husband did not attend. I discovered he was the local abortion doctor. I encouraged her to invite me to supper at her house, because I wanted to meet her husband. It was a very civil dinner, and he seemed way more nervous than me. I actually liked him, and wondered what would cause him to want to kill babies. But he wasn't doing anything illegal, and I felt like God had a plan.

Over the next year and a half, I developed a friendship with him. Some of the people in my Church, quite honestly, were not very happy at all that the local abortion doctor was attending our Church. Others were glad, and realized there was hope.

One night I got a phone call at 2:30 in the morning, the Doctor wanted me to come to his office. About 4 in the morning, on our knees, he gave his life to Jesus.

He never performed another abortion after that - God had already been working mightily in his heart. In fact, he became quite a powerful anti-abortion spokesperson.

Even after the fact, some in the religious community gave me grief because during that 1 1/2 years that I was being a friend to him, "millions of babies died". However AFTER January 17, 1986, he worked every day to save lives.

IF I had been "anti-abortion doctor", that never would have happened.