A poll

[OllieFranz]

A quick poll on two statements:

A) "I am against same-sex civil marriage because it is not right to redefine a perfectly clear term just to serve a political agenda."

B) "Homosexuality is a sin"

Just check off whether you agree with these statements

 

[JGL53]

Well, that was easy.

 

[bigbadwilf]

Well, that was easy.

Quite.

 

[OllieFranz]

Eight and a half hours after posting this poll, and there are 15 votes. 14 disagree with both statements. That is not what I was expecting to see. One side of the issue seems to be lacking in conviction, even in an anonymous poll.

 

[b&wpac4]

Perhaps you should do another poll and instead of "homosexuality" say "homosexual sex". Homosexuality is the orientation and there are those that view the attraction to the same sex to be not sinful, but acting on those attractions to be the sinful part.

 

[OllieFranz]

Perhaps you should do another poll and instead of "homosexuality" say "homosexual sex". Homosexuality is the orientation and there are those that view the attraction to the same sex to be not sinful, but acting on those attractions to be the sinful part.

I chose the two statements I offered for a reason. And now you've given those on the other side of the issue who are paranoid a reason to suspect that it's a trap. I'll never get a fair representation now,

 

[Jade Margery]

Try posting this in another part of the site though, perhaps one of the Christians only sections. Those who participate in E&M tend to be loudly opinionated and oriented in one way or the other, not to mention bored of the dozens of similar homosexual topics, so you're not going to get a good sampling.

 

[ke1985]

Eight and a half hours after posting this poll, and there are 15 votes. 14 disagree with both statements. That is not what I was expecting to see. One side of the issue seems to be lacking in conviction, even in an anonymous poll.

Ethics and morality section is getting old because a bunch of seekers/atheists are hanging out on a Christian site and calling us intolerant...ironic huh?

I am not going to post on the homosexuality threads anymore since there are too many and its just endless debate that goes in circles!

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, it looks like people who would tend to agree with both statements are reluctant to admit it in the poll. Out of 28 votes, option C only got 3. B&W's post and some of the ones that follow may have scared them away, because they might worry it may be a trap.

And it was a trap. Anyone who answered C is at best logically inconsistent, and may quite likely be a hypocrite.

The main objection offered for opposing the civil marriage of same-sex couples is the claim that "redefining" a well established term to serve a political agenda is simply wrong.

And yet, in making the statement "homosexuality is a sin" they not only do just that very thing, but they deliberately blur the distinction between the traditional definition and their new definition in order to condemn people who are homosexual under the traditional definition, but who are not committing "homosexual sins" under their new definition, nor committing "sodomy" under the old definition of these sins.

 

[b&wpac4]

OK, it looks like people who would tend to agree with both statements are reluctant to admit it in the poll. Out of 28 votes, option C only got 3. B&W's post and some of the ones that follow may have scared them away, because they might worry it may be a trap.

And it was a trap. Anyone who answered C is at best logically inconsistent, and may quite likely be a hypocrite.

The main objection offered for opposing the civil marriage of same-sex couples is the claim that "redefining" a well established term to serve a political agenda is simply wrong.

And yet, in making the statement "homosexuality is a sin" they not only do just that very thing, but they deliberately blur the distinction between the traditional definition and their new definition in order to condemn people who are homosexual under the traditional definition, but who are not committing "homosexual sins" under their new definition, nor committing "sodomy" under the old definition of these sins.

Oh sure, blame me.

 

[Supernaut]

OK, it looks like people who would tend to agree with both statements are reluctant to admit it in the poll. Out of 28 votes, option C only got 3. B&W's post and some of the ones that follow may have scared them away, because they might worry it may be a trap.

And it was a trap. Anyone who answered C is at best logically inconsistent, and may quite likely be a hypocrite.

The main objection offered for opposing the civil marriage of same-sex couples is the claim that "redefining" a well established term to serve a political agenda is simply wrong.

And yet, in making the statement "homosexuality is a sin" they not only do just that very thing, but they deliberately blur the distinction between the traditional definition and their new definition in order to condemn people who are homosexual under the traditional definition, but who are not committing "homosexual sins" under their new definition, nor committing "sodomy" under the old definition of these sins.

Praise Jesus I voted right!! *said in a white trash southern trailer park accent. (no offense if yer form there)

 

[IzzyPop]

Oh sure, blame me.

I usually do.

 

[Zaac]

I chose the two statements I offered for a reason. And now you've given those on the other side of the issue who are paranoid a reason to suspect that it's a trap. I'll never get a fair representation now,

You really do have to phrase such a question the right way in order to get a proper response.

Most Christians feel the way they do about marriage because they know GOD has already defined marriage and we don't have the authority to redefine it.

And as b'pac said, we are slowly but surely getting folks to see that God says nothing about orientation but does speak to homosexual ACTS as sinful.

 

[OllieFranz]

You really do have to phrase such a question the right way in order to get a proper response.

Most Christians feel the way they do about marriage because they know GOD has already defined marriage and we don't have the authority to redefine it.

And as b'pac said, we are slowly but surely getting folks to see that God says nothing about orientation but does speak to homosexual ACTS as sinful.

Yes, you do make the distinction between homosexuality (the orientation) and what you call "homosexual acts," but most of the anti's that post here do not, and that is one of my points.

The other is that although they believe that Christian marriage does not extend to gays, the only secular reason they come up with for objecting to extending civil marriage is tradition, which they cloak in the re-definition complaint.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, you do make the distinction between homosexuality (the orientation) and what you call "homosexual acts," but most of the anti's that post here do not, and that is one of my points.

The other is that although they believe that Christian marriage does not extend to gays, the only secular reason they come up with for objecting to extending civil marriage is tradition, which they cloak in the re-definition complaint.

I understand what you're saying. But as a Christian, my primary objection is always gonna be because it's contrary to what God has ordained that marriage be.

Why would a Christian give you a secular reason for folks not marrying? That opens the door for confusion.

 

[OllieFranz]

I understand what you're saying. But as a Christian, my primary objection is always gonna be because it's contrary to what God has ordained that marriage be.

Why would a Christian give you a secular reason for folks not marrying? That opens the door for confusion.

Because civil marriage is separate from religious marriage. It is registered by the state and involves privileges, responsibilities, benefits and obligations regulated by the state. And discrimination by sex, sexual orientation, or sexual identity violates the equal protection guaranteed in the Constitution. Only a well argued secular reason can provide a compelling reason for the state to violate that guaranteed protection.

 

[atomweaver]

You really do have to phrase such a question the right way in order to get a proper response.

Most Christians feel the way they do about marriage because they know GOD has already defined marriage and we don't have the authority to redefine it.

You are no student of history, I see. God didn't define marriage. Marriage as a secular institution predates even the Torah, never mind Christianity. The Church didn't become involved in observing marriages until the 1500's, when it served as a primitive sort of notary. Christian marriage ceremonies developed during that time.

Sheesh... you leave somebody with the responsibility of documenting instances of a >10,000 year old secular contract for a few hundred years, and they start acting like they invented it...

 

[Zaac]

Because civil marriage is separate from religious marriage.

Again, I as a Christian am gonna talk to you with Jesus Christ at the center of EVERYTHING. So why do people even expect Christians to respond to the secular?

If God says marriage is one thing, why would I as a Christian attempt to argue a secular point?

 

[Zaac]

You are no student of history, I see.

Sure I am. Of BIBLICAL, CHRIST CENTERED history. Not of man's best guess of what he thinks history is.

God didn't define marriage.

HE most certainly did.

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

Marriage as a secular institution predates even the Torah, never mind Christianity. The Church didn't become involved in observing marriages until the 1500's, when it served as a primitive sort of notary. Christian marriage ceremonies developed during that time.

As a Christian, I must say that the marriage of the first man and woman created by GOD kinda trumps what you believe to be secular marriage.

So unless you know of a married couple that preceded the first two people to live, GOD defined marriage.

Sheesh... you leave somebody with the responsibility of documenting instances of a >10,000 year old secular contract for a few hundred years, and they start acting like they invented it...

SMH. Yall and this faulty science of dating things upon the half-life of carbon.

 

[OllieFranz]

Again, I as a Christian am gonna talk to you with Jesus Christ at the center of EVERYTHING. So why do people even expect Christians to respond to the secular?

If God says marriage is one thing, why would I as a Christian attempt to argue a secular point?

Did you miss the part where I said that civil marriage -- registered by the secular government -- is separate from religious marriage? And must be, because of separation of Church and State.

No one is trying to redefine what you or your church decides to do about ceremonies performed in your church or the meanings of the blessings attached. It is when you try to interfere with the secular laws concerning the civil contract without a compelling civil reason that we get frustrated at your density.