Why do I feel so much anxiety when it comes to gay marriage?

[SAT]

It’s because God has programed into you right and wrong, and the world is pulling you one way and the word of god the other, you want to show love but also be truthful to the word of God.

I like you have difficulty balancing both, fact is if I love them into marriage I am only loving them into sin. Remember the gays who call for homosexual marriage do not want your acceptance of their marriage but acceptance of the fact that they are not sinning, and that is not your decision but Gods

 

[I Eat Pie]

Recently, they made gay marriage legal here in California, even though voters voted to ban it. We have a Godless government in power. I do still oppose gay marriage. And I don't believe in "equality" either. I believe in liberty and the word of God. homosexuality is wrong, and no matter how much they try to justify it, it will always be wrong.

 

[willlowbee]

I don't support "gender-neutral" marriage, because the Bible clearly says that marriage is a holy constitution between a man and a woman. Then, when I'm under pressure by reading texts about how the Bible is wrong and listen to people complaining to me about how homosexuals should have the right to marriage, I get anxiety. I have nothing against homosexuals, referring to the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment, but I just can't accept them getting married...

I don't understand why I feel so much pressure in my heart about this.

I hope you find peace eventually.

This issue is not so hard to come to terms with I find. Those churches who adhere to scripture are free to refuse to officiate a gay marriage before the eyes of God.
Those churches who allow gays are going to have to explain rebuking scripture when allowing immoral sinful fornicators to wed in God's house.

Marriage licenses though are issued by the States. They're not religious decrees they're State civil contracts to my understanding. They're issued to Christians and non-Christians alike.

The definition of marriage therefore in the eyes of the religious can not be forcibly changed by a high court. However, it is certainly that courts right to amend the legal secular definition so as to be in keeping with the Constitution.

I think if we as scripture based believers focus our attentions on the sin of the sinners among us and let that affect our state of mind, we'll suffer the side effects that come from that stress over what is outside our control.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God the things that are God's.

I think we can serve and rule in God's name in our churches. We can give light and hope from our hearts to the fallen and bear no enmity to the lost.

And we can let Caesar do as it wishes when it is outside our control and we can not rightly force the government to outlaw sin.

But we can not agree to allow sin to perpetrate itself in the house of worship where sin is to be redeemed. Not tolerated.

Pray for the gays. Bear no malice. It is truly between them and God. And how we act in Christ's name is up to us when we look toward the judgment.

How did you treat your fellow man and woman? Did you see the holy source in them as that what was created by the one and only God?

I imagine a question like that being posed to me at the throne. And God knows the truth in my heart and of my life and the answer shall last me for eternity.

God be with us all.

 

[McMatt]

I hope you find peace eventually.

This issue is not so hard to come to terms with I find. Those churches who adhere to scripture are free to refuse to officiate a gay marriage before the eyes of God.
Those churches who allow gays are going to have to explain rebuking scripture when allowing immoral sinful fornicators to wed in God's house.

Marriage licenses though are issued by the States. They're not religious decrees they're State civil contracts to my understanding. They're issued to Christians and non-Christians alike.

The definition of marriage therefore in the eyes of the religious can not be forcibly changed by a high court. However, it is certainly that courts right to amend the legal secular definition so as to be in keeping with the Constitution.

I think if we as scripture based believers focus our attentions on the sin of the sinners among us and let that affect our state of mind, we'll suffer the side effects that come from that stress over what is outside our control.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God the things that are God's.

I think we can serve and rule in God's name in our churches. We can give light and hope from our hearts to the fallen and bear no enmity to the lost.

And we can let Caesar do as it wishes when it is outside our control and we can not rightly force the government to outlaw sin.

But we can not agree to allow sin to perpetrate itself in the house of worship where sin is to be redeemed. Not tolerated.

Pray for the gays. Bear no malice. It is truly between them and God. And how we act in Christ's name is up to us when we look toward the judgment.

How did you treat your fellow man and woman? Did you see the holy source in them as that what was created by the one and only God?

I imagine a question like that being posed to me at the throne. And God knows the truth in my heart and of my life and the answer shall last me for eternity.

God be with us all.

Excellently said. I wish they had a fist-bump smiley thing

 

[I Eat Pie]

I have previously stated I am not pro homosexuality. I am pro it's-their-business-not-ours.

However, the US is a secular nation. The bible clearly states that the world is under dominion of man and this world is not god's kingdom. Therefore you live in a secular world and the US is included

And how is that secularism working out for us now?

 

[McMatt]

And how is that secularism working out for us now?

Does it even matter? You cannot change the fact that the US is a secular nation. God deemed the whole world secular. Why impose our beliefs on others when god clearly gave man free will. For you to try and take away that free will you are stepping in where you don't belong.

 

[I Eat Pie]

Wait, your location says Canada.

Anyways, if they want to sleep together in private, that's their business. But when they go outside in their underwear in public where everyone can see, including the kids, then we should draw a line on these people.

So again, how's that secularism working out for this country?

 

[I Eat Pie]

Hahahahaha. A small church of 72 people, and only like 10 that protests? What a lousy comparison.

 

[McMatt]

Hahahahaha. A small church of 72 people, and only like 10 that protests? What a lousy comparison.

How is that a lousy comparison? They are the "christians" that get media attention. Just like the muslim community and the group of terrorists that call themselves muslim, and the outright obnoxious gay people. Your opinion on them is flawed because the only gay people you see are the flamers on tv that are just blatantly obnoxious and I will agree with you that those guys/girls/both act in a disgusting manner. One's sexuality is not for the public domain, that is a private matter straight or gay. However, they aren't the entire gay community and their actions shouldn't be the basis on what you judge the entire community. A good example would be Anderson Cooper or Ellen who aren't out there pushing their lifestyle in people's faces. Anderson Cooper has been in the media spotlight for years and only recently has it come out that he is gay. He's not out there on the streets wearing next to nothing with rainbow flags.

So how is that really a lousy comparison? Is it because I said the obvious thing that christians could potentially be judged because of westboro? Or is it because you want to ignore the truth in the matter entirely? Or would my statement be more accurate if I included all of the obnoxious people associated with christianity like al sharpton, jesse jackson, jesse duplantis, or even benny hinn (who is a complete con artist).

 

[Albion]

Hahahahaha. A small church of 72 people, and only like 10 that protests? What a lousy comparison.

I agree.

Need some comparison that will defame a million people of some persuasion or other? Then just find the smallest, marginal example and pronounce it "typical."

That's an instant retort that works every time...if accuracy isn't important to the speaker.

 

[ButterflyPoette]

I do have an issue with gay marriage, that now gays can adopt children easier. I am sure that many gay people do make good parents, but kids are better off with a mother and a father.
God didn't want gay parents.
I don't hate gay people though.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I do have an issue with gay marriage, that now gays can adopt children easier. I am sure that many gay people do make good parents, but kids are better off with a mother and a father.
God didn't want gay parents.
I don't hate gay people though.

Of course they are better off with a mother and father. I agree. In particular, they are better off with the biological parents.

But typically in the case of adoption, this is not an option. I believe that the chance for the child to actually have two loving, supportive parents (regardless of sexes) is a pro that far outweighs the con of not having opposite-sex parents.
Or the con of never having actual parents at all - being stuck in "the system" until they are unceremoniously cast out at adulthood.
Or being passed from foster home to foster home, city to city, until they may eventually be adopted if they are extremely lucky.
Or they run away and become homeless.

It is not so much an issue, sadly, of what is the best situation. It is an issue of what is the best POSSIBLE situation - and that may well be two men or two women raising them.

 

[McMatt]

I agree.

Need some comparison that will defame a million people of some persuasion or other? Then just find the smallest, marginal example and pronounce it "typical."

That's an instant retort that works every time...if accuracy isn't important to the speaker.

However, that is the same logic pie eater uses to judge the gay community as a whole. Pride parades are stupid, excessive, and in everyone's face and personally I think they (just like straight people) should keep their business behind closed doors. But the pride parades are only a portion of the gay community. A lot of gay people conduct themselves similarly to anderson cooper, who kept his sexuality a secret for years until people found out. It was also the straight people that were fighting tooth and nail to find out his sexuality.

My point was that anyone can use the pride parades to judge all gay people, just as much as anyone can use westboro to judge all christians, or even al-qaeda to judge all muslims.

By looking at an example and taking such a literal context to it, you completely bypass the point of the example and shut out the purpose of it.

 

[McMatt]

I do have an issue with gay marriage, that now gays can adopt children easier. I am sure that many gay people do make good parents, but kids are better off with a mother and a father.
God didn't want gay parents.
I don't hate gay people though.

However marriage doesn't belong just to christians. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists get married all the time under state law. That is simply what marriage is, a state bound contract. As christians, we make it into more by actually confessing to god that we are committing the rest of your life to the person we love. However, not everyone's marriage is performed as a commitment made through god. With god not in the picture (especially for the non-religious), it is only a contract performed by two individuals so that (under most of the circumstances) the other is looked after once one dies. If it is a godless marriage, then there is no reason that two adults can initiate the contract of marriage.

As for adoption, in most cases the kids have no parents at all. Gay couples statistically are actually very caring for the kids that they adopt. Kids in the adoption system are usually passed from state to state, foster home to foster home, and eventually they get booted out to the streets if they haven't been adopted by a certain age. Which is the lesser of two evils?

 

[RDKirk]

I don't support "gender-neutral" marriage, because the Bible clearly says that marriage is a holy constitution between a man and a woman. Then, when I'm under pressure by reading texts about how the Bible is wrong and listen to people complaining to me about how homosexuals should have the right to marriage, I get anxiety. I have nothing against homosexuals, referring to the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment, but I just can't accept them getting married...

I don't understand why I feel so much pressure in my heart about this.

Because that's the pot being stirred most vigorously in public.

But it's not the pot that's about to catch fire. Divorce and unwed motherhood are far larger problems within the Body of Christ. There are more and more young people raised in the Church who simply don't see a point to marriage at all. But that's being ignored.

 

[RDKirk]

He has watered down religion in the military to the point that if two service people are talking about a christian subject and are over heard they can now be brought before a court marshal.

That's an untrue statement.

What is true is that a person in a military leadership role--while practicing that leadership role--must not be speaking to a subordinate about religion. Or politics, for that matter.

It's also true that service members may not evangelize other service members while on duty (or talk politics either, for that matter).

And it's true that if I'm sick in bed in the hospital, a Muslim can't come in and preach to me about Islam--but my chaplain and my friends can certainly come in and pray with me.

But there are multiple bible studies going on in the Pentagon every day. People of different ranks talk together about the Lord while in their church services and other religious meetings. A chaplain in the base chapel can preach about abortion and gay marriage as sins.

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a HUGE clean up to delete the FLAMING posts and the Off Topic posts. If you notice a posting of yours that is missing, it either contained a rule violation or responded to one that did.

Please remember to stay on topic and respond to the posting and not the poster. Do NOT flame other members!

Thank you!
MOD HAT OFF

 

[Albion]

Need some comparison that will defame a million people of some persuasion or other? Then just find the smallest, marginal example and pronounce it "typical."

However, that is the same logic pie eater uses to judge the gay community as a whole.

If so, it would be wrong in his case as it is wrong in your case. Agreed?

 

[SAT]

I do have an issue with gay marriage, that now gays can adopt children easier. I am sure that many gay people do make good parents, but kids are better off with a mother and a father.
God didn't want gay parents.
I don't hate gay people though.

I use this as an example to try to show I am not hateful but just caring, but caring for Children over adults.
Try this; little Holly has just been orphaned because her mummy and daddy has died in a tragic accident, so sad, she has no relatives so is to be adopted and you must choose which is the best family for her.
Your options-

1. Two of the best dads in the world.
2. Two of the best mums in the world.
3. One of the best mums in the world and one of the best dads in the world.

Choose please.

All I have done is level the playing field, so we have removed everything except the facts.

 

[McMatt]

If so, it would be wrong in his case as it is wrong in your case. Agreed?

How is it wrong in my case? I simply made a statement about how the people within an interest group that are seen in the media are never the correct archetype for the interest group as a whole.