|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/29/2008 1:26:54 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, you are the one making the fantastic claim
I have claimed nothing. You are the one who claimed that there is an invisible, time-honored definition of marriage that everyone just knows has already been there all along. The burden is on you to prove your fantastic claim, sir.
quote:
Well, no, it doesn’t only ‘relate to employment’ – it relates to housing, it relates to education, it relates to benefits, it relates to access – it relates to all sorts of things, including marriage.
Wrong. Try actually reading the legal definition link that I provided.
quote:
And the sense that I used arbitrary was this one:
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported.
And the sense in which I mean it is this:
Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
quote:
The courts had no basis to overturn it.
Not true: "Chief Justice Ronald M. George . . . repeatedly said the ruling was based on the California court's first-in-the-nation decision in 1948 to end the state's prohibition on interracial marriage, nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court took the same action."
Also, "the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage” — does not meet constitutional muster. It “cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”
quote:
Indeed – "was not abrogating the will of the people…"
They did by coercion. And as I already said, we survived it just fine.
quote:
Where is it supported?
Amswer my question. You expressly stated that it was forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. Wherein is this prohibition couched, sir?
quote:
As long as the courts act within their well defined roles, I’m a happy camper.
The fact that you refuse to directly answer my question just lends more credence to my contention that you disagree with the court's decision, not their "proper role."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/29/2008 5:02:12 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have claimed nothing. You are the one who claimed that there is an invisible, time-honored definition of marriage that everyone just knows has already been there all along. The burden is on you to prove your fantastic claim, sir.
Well, it’s not at all a fantastic claim; in fact, it is such an ordinary claim so basically assumed, that it was never questioned until the 21st century. Not a single marriage license, not a single divorce proceeding, not a single law nor court ruling has recognized the relationship between two people of the same sex as a marriage.
It was normative, indeed, the most fundamentally normative aspect of our society, to the point of being assumed; only a perversion of that normative state has brought us to the point where it is even being called into question, and to claim otherwise is complete and utter ignorance of American jurisprudence.
quote:
Wrong. Try actually reading the legal definition link that I provided.
I appreciate the ability of those who aren’t familiar with the law to look up simple definitions, but it ignores its actual use in terms of legislation – for example:
In Housing:
What kind of housing discrimination is illegal?
Whether you rent or own, no one can treat you differently in a housing situation because of your race, sex, color, religion, familial status (having kids), receipt of public assistance, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, national origin, or creed. The state Human Rights Act, which is enforced by the Department of Human Rights, prohibits housing discrimination against these "protected classes" in most situations.
http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/rights_housing.html
In Education:
Subpart E. Protected Class. Protected class for the purpose of this policy means that discrimination and harassment in employment and education are prohibited on the basis of: race, sex, color, creed, religion, age, national origin, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance or sexual orientation. In addition, membership or activity in a local human rights commission is a protected class in employment.
http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/1b01.html
In Healthcare access:
Access to health care has never been treated as a basic human right in the United States and has been viewed as a civil right only to the extent that it is denied to individuals on the basis of their race, sex, or membership in a "protected" class as defined by law.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_4/ai_66678569
etc, etc, etc…
quote:
And the sense in which I mean it is this:
Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
Well then you misunderstood my use of it.
quote:
Not true: "Chief Justice Ronald M. George . . . repeatedly said the ruling was based on the California court's first-in-the-nation decision in 1948 to end the state's prohibition on interracial marriage, nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court took the same action."
Yes, and in doing this he totally muffs it. The laws protecting people from discrimination based on race were established constitutionally long before this ruling occurred; no such constitutional amendment or federal legislation has ever extended this right to homosexuals as a class.
quote:
Also, "the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage” — does not meet constitutional muster. It “cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”
This is where he really blows it; it’s not about ‘equal protection’, it is about what marriage is; and judges don’t get to decide this, the legislature does. Unless there is a specific statute defining a group as a protected class for the sake of applying the equal protection clause, judges have no business simply creating them out of thin air for the sake of applying such a clause.
quote:
They did by coercion. And as I already said, we survived it just fine.
I don’t think you understand what coercion is; if I choose not to shop at a particular store because they don’t bag my groceries, am I ‘coercing’ the store? I would say that what the NFL did was simply exercise their power in the marketplace – which incidentally, gays are perfectly free to do as well.
quote:
Amswer my question. You expressly stated that it was forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. Wherein is this prohibition couched, sir?
I didn’t say that at all; I said, “I would actually have no problem with a state voting to do something not specifically forbidden by the Constitution.”
quote:
The fact that you refuse to directly answer my question just lends more credence to my contention that you disagree with the court's decision, not their "proper role."
How many times do I have to answer the question? Liking or not liking a decision has nothing to do with whether the court is doing their job. If they stepped in and made a decision about an election that was unwarranted by their proper powers, I would be concerned whatever the outcome.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/29/2008 6:12:59 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It was normative, indeed, the most fundamentally normative aspect of our society, to the point of being assumed
. . . As a practice, not as a definition.
quote:
only a perversion of that normative state has brought us to the point where it is even being called into question, and to claim otherwise is complete and utter ignorance of American jurisprudence.
Cultures throughout the world, throughout time, have varied in their parameters as to what does and does not constitute the "normative state" of marriage. In America, the practice has altered, but by process that did not address sex first, but rather religious-cultural comity, then monogamy/polygamy, then women's rights, then race, and only very recently about sex.
quote:
I appreciate the ability of those who aren’t familiar with the law to look up simple definitions, but it ignores its actual use in terms of legislation – for example:
quote:
The state Human Rights Act, which is enforced by the Department of Human Rights, prohibits housing discrimination against these "protected classes" in most situations.
. . . Does not define "protected classes."
quote:
In addition, membership or activity in a local human rights commission is a protected class in employment.
. . . "In employment. . ."
Funny, that's what I said.
quote:
Access to health care has never been treated as a basic human right in the United States and has been viewed as a civil right only to the extent that it is denied to individuals on the basis of their race, sex, or membership in a "protected" class as defined by law.
. . . "As defined by law," but what is that definition?
quote:
etc, etc, etc…
Yeah, I appreciate the effort.
quote:
Well then you misunderstood my use of it.
I understood that you misused the term. At the very least, you should have picked a better word that could not be defined as to contradict yourself.
quote:
no such constitutional amendment or federal legislation has ever extended this right to homosexuals as a class.
So, the law is to be interpreted as meaning that matrimonial discrimination is not prohibited as long as it isn't about race?
quote:
Also, "the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage” — does not meet constitutional muster. It “cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”
quote:
This is where he really blows it; it’s not about ‘equal protection’, it is about what marriage is
I don't think he was saying it was about equal protection; quite the opposite he said, "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause"
quote:
Unless there is a specific statute defining a group as a protected class for the sake of applying the equal protection clause, judges have no business simply creating them out of thin air for the sake of applying such a clause.
That's just it; he doesn't seem to be applying it.
quote:
I didn’t say that at all; I said, “I would actually have no problem with a state voting to do something not specifically forbidden by the Constitution.”
Which implies that they did do something specifically forbidden by the Constitution; otherwise, why did you bring it up?
Now, what was it?
quote:
How many times do I have to answer the question?
Once would be refreshing.
quote:
Liking or not liking a decision has nothing to do with whether the court is doing their job.
But it does have everything to do with whether or not you will object to their decision.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 11:42:25 AM
|
|
|
Evangel70
Posts: 430
Joined: 10/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Latest fallout from the controversial California ruling:
NEW YORK INCHES CLOSER TO ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE
WILL RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES
This is known as comity of states.
How many other states will follow suit?
I wouldn't be surprised if most states eventually follow NY's lead. You can't have a patchwork of states recognizing or not recognizing gay marriage. IMO, this issue (like that of abortion) will eventually be settled by the Supreme Court.
Ultimately gay marriage will have no effect of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage still goes on despite a 55% divorce rate and the fact that over 60% of straight couples "living together" (with and without children) are not even married. Straight marriages continued in MA when they legalized gay marriage and they will continue in CA. It takes more than legislation to change sexual immorality (gay or straight).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 12:31:16 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ultimately gay marriage will have no effect of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage still goes on despite a 55% divorce rate and the fact that over 60% of straight couples "living together" (with and without children) are not even married. Straight marriages continued in MA when they legalized gay marriage and they will continue in CA. It takes more than legislation to change sexual immorality (gay or straight).
I love this argument; marriage is failing, so what difference does it make if we erode it even further by perverting it beyond all recognition?
Of course, such an argument has no end – it could just as easily justify polygamy and interspecies marriages.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 12:45:03 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1360
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
The same argument is being used by some groups for allowing pedophilia and even beastiality. Once you abandon God's Word everything is allowable. With no foundation every evil will be protected eventually as a human right.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 12:59:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
. . . As a practice, not as a definition.
As an application of the legal concept, just as I have been saying.
quote:
Cultures throughout the world, throughout time, have varied in their parameters as to what does and does not constitute the "normative state" of marriage. In America, the practice has altered, but by process that did not address sex first, but rather religious-cultural comity, then monogamy/polygamy, then women's rights, then race, and only very recently about sex.
We aren’t talking ‘cultures’, we are talking US jurisprudence; and modifying basic cultural norms through judicial fiat is corruptive any one views it.
quote:
. . Does not define "protected classes."
A protected class is simply one against whom discrimination is forbidden on the basis of their membership in that class. That is what it always is.
quote:
. . . "In employment. . ."
Funny, that's what I said.
But ignored “and education” as well as “housing discrimination” and “health care”.
quote:
I understood that you misused the term. At the very least, you should have picked a better word that could not be defined as to contradict yourself.
The words I used made complete sense in the context I used it; it was only contradictory in the mind of a sophist.
quote:
So, the law is to be interpreted as meaning that matrimonial discrimination is not prohibited as long as it isn't about race?
No, it means there is no constitutional protection of homosexual relationships in the guise of marriage, or indeed on any other basis, which would prohibit a state from making a law concerning such relationships, or defining marriage in it’s regular usage
quote:
I don't think he was saying it was about equal protection; quite the opposite he said, "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause"
You do see the words ‘equal protection’ there in the statement? It’s right there, at the end, and the sentence is structured so that the entirety of the meaning is lost absent those words. Saying it wasn’t “about equal protection” renders the entire statement completely meaningless in a legal or indeed, in other sense.
quote:
Which implies that they did do something specifically forbidden by the Constitution; otherwise, why did you bring it up?
Now, what was it?
I don’t think you quite get it; the branches of the government have the powers designated them – the constitution doesn’t grant the congress veto power, but it doesn’t expressly forbid it either.
In the same manner the courts have no basis to operate except under those designated to them by the federal and state constitutions. And they have no basis for making decisions other the precepts articulated in the Constitutions state and federal and the application of laws generated by various legislative bodies. If they exceed this, they are abrogating their duties as courts.
quote:
Once would be refreshing.
Yes, well, my answers do not guarantee others abilities to comprehend said answers.
quote:
But it does have everything to do with whether or not you will object to their decision.
Well, no, it has nothing to do with that. I object and agree with many decisions made by many governmental bodies; but the basis of those objections and agreements don’t necessarily have anything to do with whether those agencies have the right to make such decisions.
If the people of California had voted to have gay marriages, my belief in the right of the people to do so would have compelled me to accept that decision. The court has no right or basis to do what it did. Same result, different response.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 1:39:17 PM
|
|
|
Evangel70
Posts: 430
Joined: 10/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The failure of the church and or heterosexuals doesn't change what is right and wrong... For that matter "credibility" or lack thereof isn't going to keep homosexual from acting out their sin.
Shouldn't the same be said then about heterosexuals? The fact that they are allowed to marry doesn't keep them acting out THEIR sin (sexual relations outside of marriage). Do you think that God judges heterosexual immorality differently than homosexual immorality? In God's eyes, SIN IS SIN. Be it engaging in pornography or cheating on your taxes. Only earthly consequences are different.
Look, no one is arguing that homosexuality is not sinful, but one needs to be able to separate what is "of God" from the rights and priviledges granted all citizens regardless of their obedience to the gospel. That's why we allow hate groups the same access to free speech as we do church groups. Not because what they have to say is moral or in line with biblical teachings, but because they are American citizens.
quote:
It's not inherentaly sinful for a man and woman to be married...
It is if the "woman" is 12 years old.
< Message edited by Evangel70 -- 5/30/2008 1:45:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 1:58:57 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3745
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Evangel70
Shouldn't the same be said then about heterosexuals? The fact that they are allowed to marry doesn't keep them acting out THEIR sin (sexual relations outside of marriage). Do you think that God judges heterosexual immorality differently than homosexual immorality? In God's eyes, SIN IS SIN. Be it engaging in pornography or cheating on your taxes. Only earthly consequences are different.
Heterosexuals don't have to justify their existence...
quote:
Look, no one is arguing that homosexuality is not sinful, but one needs to be able to separate what is "of God" from the rights and priviledges granted all citizens regardless of their obedience to the gospel. That's why we allow hate groups the same access to free speech as we do church groups. Not because what they have to say is moral or in line with biblical teachings, but because they are American citizens
Ok... Of course God will hold the government and those who support the right of folks to sin responible since the government was ordained to deal with those who do evil, not promote it...
quote:
It is if the "woman" is 12 years old.
You're missing the point... Regardless of age it's inherentaly sinful for the same sex to marry...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 3:42:49 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I love this argument; marriage is failing, so what difference does it make if we erode it even further by perverting it beyond all recognition?
I think that Evangel70 was saying the exact opposite: that marriage is not failing in spite of a roughly 50% divorce rate, non-marital cohabitation, and same-sex unions.
Whether the institution of marriage fails or survives, it will do either one on its own.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
The same argument is being used by some groups for allowing pedophilia and even beastiality.
What groups are openly advocating pedophilia and bestiality?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 4:04:50 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3745
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Evangel70
If you believe this to be true, then how do you justify so easily dismissing the sins of heterosexuals that the governments supports -- pre-marital sex, pornography, drunkedness, etc. Do you believe that God will only judge homosexual sin? If so, you are sadly mistaken.
Who says I justify so easily anything? The government will answer for all its evil... This is a thread about homosexuality.... If you wish to debate/discuss the other sins of the government I will be more than glad to join in...
quote:
But heterosexuals, like homosexuals, DO have to answer to God for their sin. Are you claiming that heterosexuals are somehow above sin or that homosexuals are somehow less than human?!?
I said what I said... Whatever you claim is yours... Again...
Heterosexuals don't have to justify their existence... In other words being a heterosexual isn't sinful, yet being a homosexual is...
quote:
No, YOU are missing the point. Pedophilia is not excusable because the perpetrator chose a victim of the opposit sex. 
Hardly... Unlike yourself I don't have to create a sinful scenario to make a union of two homosexual sinful, it is no matter how you slice it... You cannot say the same in regards to a man and woman... You must insert sin into the picture, for instance pedophilia...
John
< Message edited by SovereignIsHe -- 5/30/2008 9:36:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 5/30/2008 4:12:19 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
As an application of the legal concept, just as I have been saying.
You said that it was a normative assumption:
"It was normative, indeed, the most fundamentally normative aspect of our society, to the point of being assumed."
post #1252
Legal concepts are not assumptions.
quote:
We aren’t talking ‘cultures’, we are talking US jurisprudence
No we aren't; we are talking about your historic, universal, and invisible definition of marriage-- the one that you claim is so normative that it is both an assumption and a legal concept.
You have yet to show this definition at work-- both normative and legal-- universally throughout history.
quote:
But ignored “and education” as well as “housing discrimination” and “health care”.
I didn't ignore them: they were not part of the definition. "Protected class" refers to employment, and education by greater extention of the concept of employment. When you are a student, that is your job in a sense.
quote:
The words I used made complete sense in the context I used it; it was only contradictory in the mind of a sophist.
I didn't even know what "sophist" meant until I just looked it up. You seem to be the resident expert on that topic rather than I.
quote:
No, it means there is no constitutional protection of homosexual relationships in the guise of marriage, or indeed on any other basis, which would prohibit a state from making a law concerning such relationships, or defining marriage in it’s regular usage
I think that the court ruled on the basis of fair play rather than protected classes. An amendment aimed to restrict only certain, select citizens is predatory.
quote:
You do see the words ‘equal protection’ there in the statement?
Yes, and that is why I included it in my quote.
Do you see the words "cannot properly be viewed as" in the statement?
quote:
And they have no basis for making decisions other the precepts articulated in the Constitutions state and federal and the application of laws generated by various legislative bodies. If they exceed this, they are abrogating their duties as courts.
Wrong. They also have the power to interpret the Constitution as well as the law. If they see a conflict between the two, they abrogate their duties if they do not arbitrate objective rulings.
quote:
If the people of California had voted to have gay marriages, my belief in the right of the people to do so would have compelled me to accept that decision. The court has no right or basis to do what it did.
I was talking about the court: if the court had ruled to uphold the gay marriage ban, would you have objected on the grounds that the court does not have that right?
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/30/2008 4:21:21 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 4:10:03 PM
|
|
|
coleel
Posts: 7
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: james6378
Please understand, I am no way stating that I support homosexuality; however, there actually are documented cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.
Study by the National Geographic
I hear about homosexuality in the animal kingdom a lot, especially from those who support the homosexual lifestyle and try to use it as an excuse. Yes there is occasional gender confusion in animals and it doesn't make it natural, normal or an excuse for sodomitic activities among humans. Animals also kill and eat their young and are usually very promiscuous in their sexual relationships. Animal behaviour cannot be used as examples for human behaviour.
_____________________________
Be Real
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 4:49:25 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5024
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: coleel
Animals also kill and eat their young and are usually very promiscuous in their sexual relationships. Animal behaviour cannot be used as examples for human behaviour.
Well liberals are into killing the young (abortion and partial birth abortion), they just haven't gotten into the eating part as of yet.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 5:15:32 PM
|
|
|
LoyalFriend
Posts: 160
Joined: 9/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Ultimately gay marriage will have no effect of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage still goes on despite a 55% divorce rate and the fact that over 60% of straight couples "living together" (with and without children) are not even married. Straight marriages continued in MA when they legalized gay marriage and they will continue in CA. It takes more than legislation to change sexual immorality (gay or straight).
I love this argument; marriage is failing, so what difference does it make if we erode it even further by perverting it beyond all recognition?
Of course, such an argument has no end – it could just as easily justify polygamy and interspecies marriages.
I don't understand either when christians support gay lifestyle and the laws that encourage it. How can you say you care about homosexual people that are headed for hell and instead of leading them toward the truth according to the bible you do the opposite by turning your own back on God's truth. Supporting what God hates and helping lead people into further destruction is not love in my opinion.
< Message edited by LoyalFriend -- 6/1/2008 5:24:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 5:52:22 PM
|
|
|
coleel
Posts: 7
Status: offline
|
The decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize homosexual "marriages" in California was not unexpected. This state, specifically San Francisco, has been referred to as a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah so they are only living up to their image.
These upcoming so-called "marriages" may take place but there are two things that homosexuals cannot be and never will be. HUSBAND and WIFE. By definition, a husband is always a male member in a marriage and the wife always a female. There may be partner marriages (homosexuals) and there will be husband/wife marriages but they will always be two completely different institutions.
< Message edited by coleel -- 6/1/2008 5:58:47 PM >
_____________________________
Be Real
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 6:06:48 PM
|
|
|
Evangel70
Posts: 430
Joined: 10/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't understand either when christians support gay lifestyle and the laws that encourage it. How can you say you care about homosexual people that are headed for hell and instead of leading them toward the truth according to the bible you do the opposite by turning your own back on God's truth. Supporting what God hates and helping lead people into further destruction is not love in my opinion.
Caring about homosexuals means you don't elevate their sin above that of heterosexuals. How effective would you be in reaching out to heterosexuals living in sin if you told them that their sin is going to lead them to hell. Yes, that is true. ANY unrepentant sin (lying, gossip, cheating, divisiveness, etc), will lead to eternal separation from God.
Would it not be more loving to reach out to homosexuals with the message of the gospel and allow the holy spirit to show them that thier lifestyle is not God's best for them, than to tell them that their sin is greater than yours?
Sexual immorality is rampant among heterosexuals, yet we don't fire people because they are living with their girlfriend/boyfriend without the benefit of a marriage certificate. We allow those who engage in pornography or prostitution to get fair housing and allow smokers access to their sin even though it is harmful to themselves and to others. So, using your logic, supporting ANY of these "rights" is turning your back on God's truth.
We can't legislate obedience to God's truth or turn a heart toward God by political intervention. However, we CAN show that God is real and that His way leads to life if WE obey the very commands we impose on others. That is what Jesus meant when he calls us to be "salt" and "light" so that others might see our good deed and GIVE THANKS TO OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN.
Why not work on making divorces and cases of adultery rare among the Christian community. Only THEN, we will have credibility when we say that marriage is indeed "sacred".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/1/2008 9:13:49 PM
|
|
|
LoyalFriend
Posts: 160
Joined: 9/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Evangel70
quote:
I don't understand either when christians support gay lifestyle and the laws that encourage it. How can you say you care about homosexual people that are headed for hell and instead of leading them toward the truth according to the bible you do the opposite by turning your own back on God's truth. Supporting what God hates and helping lead people into further destruction is not love in my opinion.
Caring about homosexuals means you don't elevate their sin above that of heterosexuals. How effective would you be in reaching out to heterosexuals living in sin if you told them that their sin is going to lead them to hell. Yes, that is true. ANY unrepentant sin (lying, gossip, cheating, divisiveness, etc), will lead to eternal separation from God.
Would it not be more loving to reach out to homosexuals with the message of the gospel and allow the holy spirit to show them that thier lifestyle is not God's best for them, than to tell them that their sin is greater than yours?
Sexual immorality is rampant among heterosexuals, yet we don't fire people because they are living with their girlfriend/boyfriend without the benefit of a marriage certificate. We allow those who engage in pornography or prostitution to get fair housing and allow smokers access to their sin even though it is harmful to themselves and to others. So, using your logic, supporting ANY of these "rights" is turning your back on God's truth.
We can't legislate obedience to God's truth or turn a heart toward God by political intervention. However, we CAN show that God is real and that His way leads to life if WE obey the very commands we impose on others. That is what Jesus meant when he calls us to be "salt" and "light" so that others might see our good deed and GIVE THANKS TO OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN.
Why not work on making divorces and cases of adultery rare among the Christian community. Only THEN, we will have credibility when we say that marriage is indeed "sacred".
I don't elevate homosexual sin above that of heterosexuals. Sin is sin. Porn is wrong and we should continue to speak out against it. I would have no problem if they made adultery against the law too. Driving drunk is illegal and should be. We should speak up against all sin and when dealing with people directly we should do so with complete love for the person as Christ. Love our neighbor as ourself.
Christ comfronted sin and called sin out. We are all sinners and fall short but we should not justify our own sins or close our eyes to it in society either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/2/2008 2:52:26 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7414
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You said that it was a normative assumption:
"It was normative, indeed, the most fundamentally normative aspect of our society, to the point of being assumed."
post #1252
Legal concepts are not assumption | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
