mark kennedy said in post #80:
It's a perversion of the natural use of the body . . .
That brought to mind:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
-
It is sometimes asked: 'But how can homosexuality be "against nature"'?
Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.
*******
mark kennedy said in post #83:
All the way to the Supreme Court and this lawsuit is a typical example of how just disapproving of homosexual behavior is considered dangerous.
The Supreme Court could eventually outlaw even
speaking against homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", thereby negating the First Amendment. The way that this could be done would be by employing the principle of the past Supreme Court ruling in
Employment Division v. Smith, which even Scalia mistakenly supported, which says that a law can in effect forbid a specific religious activity so long as the law does not specifically target religion, but is a neutral law of general applicability. That is, a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court ruling could claim that it is not targeting Biblical Christianity per se, but is generally forbidding "hate speech" by anyone, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.
Also, the future forbidding of Biblical Christians from making any speech against homosexuality or abortion could be perpetrated by a future Supreme Court by claiming that any such speech presents a "clear and present danger" (
Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at the Pulse gay-nightclub in Orlando, or when a man attacked an abortion clinic claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying that homosexuality is a sin in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made by a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court as a means to squelch Biblical Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and religion (thereby contradicting the Supreme Court's own "content" precedent in, for example,
Reed v. Town of Gilbert).
