GBLTI Marriage - What's the worst that could happen?

[MissIndigo]

What is the worst that could happen if gay marriage was allowed?

Persecution and jail time for people who want to maintain traditional Christian marriage. The laws in other countries have protected preist/pastor but not the average church member. The CYC ruling were they were fined $5000 is the tip of the iceberg. Judges with a punitive mindset and clear bias like the judge in that case will payout on people attempting to maintain historical standards.

Gay marriage being forced to be taught as acceptable at all schools including Christian ones and the government money will removed if they don't. My son has been protected from much of the encroaching sexualization of our society. Schools being forced to addresss these issues before I thinks kids are ready for it (eg under 10) is not what I want for my kids.

Increasing in the number of children being raised by non biological parents. Gay marriage will increase the number of gay people wanting families . However at least one parent in a gay couple cannot be a biological parent.

You asked for the worst that could happen, these may not occur but honestly they are some of my concerns. Part of me thinks that a truly secular society would not have marriage at all and leave it to peoples personal religious/philosophical choice.

Actually it didn't need to be GBLTI marriages that sparked this off.

All it takes is another dominant religion to assert itself using the laws of human rights and 'racism' (e.g EU courts) to counter the dominance or the right of Christianity to exist and be freely celebrated by Christians.

Without naming any religions because my point isn't made to demonise but inform/discuss.

As an example, in the UK I read that some companies stopped celebrating Christmas (no christmas party, no christmas decor, no christmas greeting or the word christmas) for fear of a legal backlash of people of other religions suing them for punitive damages (e.g 'hurt feelings', racism, etc).

Christmas greetings were changed to "Happy Holidays" and many schools banned the celebration of Christmas so that it would be more 'inclusive' of other religions - yet the irony is that the other religions were free to celebrate their own festivals, but Christian festivals were singled out.

In my home country all the religions are catered to - at least the official ones - so no religion can really jump up and scream 'racism'. No religion is favoured, or singled out, like Christianity is in some countries these days.

Its just a little strange to me, that's all.

So to say that GBLTI marriages would lead specifically to the above I think might not be the case.

Without wanting to sound like a troll, I am just concerned more for the fact that I have read recently that the proponents for polygamy might now step up and ask for marriage of multiple persons now that they consider as the 'floodgates' opening.

I don't intend at all for this to offend or to make GBLTIs the scapegoat as polygamy proponents have been trying this for ages using 'freedom of religion' and 'human rights' as an opening to get it in, but it is a fairly legit concern and I'm wondering what do others have in terms of opinions and comments about it...without having to dig into the nasty box and fling it around.

 

[TheDag]

What you did was make a statement that was too strong... and so condemned yourself. Focusing on homosexuality at a point in time does not take away from talking about other sins at different times. That isn't an error in understanding, but a pointing out of a flaw in your argument.
That doesn't condemn me, I have already stated all sin can and should be talked about, regardless of the society. I just know it doesn't mean all have to be talked about at the same time (the error that made your comment too strong).

So even though you have admitted greed is a bigger problem you don't think it should be talked about more than homosexuality? this despite you claiming we should talk about what is a problem in this day and age.

Go back and read your arguments, you have changed them in order to meet objections. Some points you have totally dropped (including almost all of the last post).

That should tell you something.

If you wish to respond, either completely reframe your argument or go back and respond to the objections made against your position. You never answered them.

I made it clear why I cut stuff out. That you have ignored that should tell you something rather than me. i cut it out as you were way off the mark as to what I have always been saying. Sure I may not have explained myself very well to start of with but i did clarify. I'm not perfect like you obviously think you are. I have trouble expressing my thoughts in words. That you can perfectly express your thoughts first time every single time just means your lucky. you should not hold it against others who strugle with that.

Lets recap shall we. i said

i choose option C which you left out! I wish greed to be spoken about more than homosexuality as I believe it is by far a bigger problem inside and outside the church.

pretty clear in there that speaking against both is the way to go. You then said

The correct answer to the problem is greed and homosexuality should be spoken out against... because they are both sinful. Your own words rebuked you.

So you claim both should be spoken against. So if my words condemn me for saying we should speak against both which is not an option you gave but one I added in myself then you also are condemned as you say both should be spoken against.

So as I said you are so far way off base with understanding what I said that it is not worth continuing. So even though I said that you chose to be critical of me for not responding. You have called me a liar by questioning my reason for not responding. Are you God? Can you see a persons heart? I think not.

 

[DesertScroll]

So even though you have admitted greed is a bigger problem you don't think it should be talked about more than homosexuality? this despite you claiming we should talk about what is a problem in this day and age.

From post #119:

But keeping to your beliefs, for the sake of argument, on what is beeing preached...

No where have I admited that greed is a bigger problem, because homosexuality is a form of greed, and greed is a form of idolatry (Eph 5:5). For the sake of the argument, in order not to get to far afield, I went with your claim in order to concentrate on a point.

I made it clear why I cut stuff out. That you have ignored that should tell you something rather than me. i cut it out as you were way off the mark as to what I have always been saying. Sure I may not have explained myself very well to start of with but i did clarify. I'm not perfect like you obviously think you are. I have trouble expressing my thoughts in words. That you can perfectly express your thoughts first time every single time just means your lucky. you should not hold it against others who strugle with that.

No you have not made it clear why you have not responded to arguments that have shown your arguments to be false. This is not a claim about one post, but what you have done in regards to the thread. A few come to mind right away:
-The argument on what is a stumbling block.
-The fallacy of a part to a whole
-The Biblical argument for understanding the context of 1 John 2:16 versus Luke 22:15
-A more logical argument for the above
-And of course the linguistic argument for the above

These have not been dropped and then clarified with a more cogent postion, but dropped and ignored.


The parts that are dropped and clarified are nice, and I said as much in post #95:

First, nice. Some things are getting whittled away.

Moving along to your post:

Lets recap shall we. i said
pretty clear in there that speaking against both is the way to go. You then said
So you claim both should be spoken against. So if my words condemn me for saying we should speak against both which is not an option you gave but one I added in myself then you also are condemned as you say both should be spoken against.

In your first statement that is what you said, and in the second you contradicted yourself as the second was phrased as an 'either or, but not both'; Focusing on one, canceled out the other. Which one was true? That would have been worked out in the next response as you were forced to clarify yourself. Instead you took your ball and went home.

Just to recap how you have changed your position or clarified it, you wrote in post #51:

I have stated previously that I have no objection to gay marriage. So i guess that would make the answer No.

And now:

pretty clear in there that speaking against both is the way to go

No objection to an objection. You can't be for something in truth as well as against it in truth. And on that.... we agree.

So as I said you are so far way off base with understanding what I said that it is not worth continuing. So even though I said that you chose to be critical of me for not responding. You have called me a liar by questioning my reason for not responding. Are you God? Can you see a persons heart? I think not.

I can't see your heart, only your arguments. No where did I call you a liar, but a person who has had to change your postion because your arguments could not stand.

Which is good, I hope if I am teaching a lie, that my arguments get demolished. And they have. I have learned in a very humble way that:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him." Prov 26:4,5

When you try to maintain God's truth, using the the world's premises (like equality of rights) you will be argued down to the would's truth. What you start with, is what you will end with.
-------

Both being perfect examples of context being thrown out. And Leviticus is linguistically obscure, too. Ah well, I wasn't really expecting anything else .

Nice... a half quote. I was hoping for more.... but now I am disappointed. A missed chance to expose darkness to light (Eph 5:11).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nice... a half quote. I was hoping for more.... but now I am disappointed. A missed chance to expose darkness to light (Eph 5:11).

Not going there. The argument has been done to death elsewhere and I don't see anything to be gained rehashing it here.

 

[TheDag]

Desert Scroll sorry but you still don't understand my position. i have reviewed my posts and it is still that i do not believe in stopping gay marriage by means of legislation. That does not contradict my view of speaking against homosexuality if need be. Of course I see much bigger problems like lack of compassion meaning alot of people are going to find out they are goats not sheep. Greed ruining peoples lives. poverty, hunger etc. The list could go on as to what is a much, much bigger problem than homosexuality. yet the church seems to want to spend the overwhelming majority of its public speaking time on homosexuality.

now let me get this right. homosexuality is a form of greed. Self centredness is a form of greed homosexuality is a bigger problem than greed? Doesn't make sense to me. Greed is the bigger problem according to you.

you might have to point out the post numbers where i contradicted myself. i can't see what your talking about. My first and second post do not match what you say so obviously you do not mean my first and second post in this thread. i think you believe I contradicted myself but just don't understand my position.

 

[DesertScroll]

Desert Scroll sorry but you still don't understand my position. i have reviewed my posts and it is still that i do not believe in stopping gay marriage by means of legislation. That does not contradict my view of speaking against homosexuality if need be. Of course I see much bigger problems like lack of compassion meaning alot of people are going to find out they are goats not sheep. Greed ruining peoples lives. poverty, hunger etc. The list could go on as to what is a much, much bigger problem than homosexuality. yet the church seems to want to spend the overwhelming majority of its public speaking time on homosexuality.

If truth = not doing X
Then if you are still speaking in truth you will always say not to do X. And if someone says to do X, it is a lie.

Your quote above:
"do not believe in stopping gay marriage by means of legislation"
is very different than your beginning quote:
"I have no objection to gay marriage"


In the first, one can say it is wrong, but God is working towards His purpose. No vote for, no support for... just letting be. I have no qualms with a Christian not participating in a democracy, because as Christians we already have a King.
But the statement can also mean one is trying to separate faith from one's views in government. If that is true you aren't living your life by faith in Jesus (Gal 2:20) and are trying to support both the truth and a lie; trying to support both the Spirit and the flesh, but they are in opposition to each other (Gal 5:17).

Truth is never conditioned by another's like or dislike of it.

In the second, you have said it is not wrong. A stumbling block as you upheld a lie. Because we have a King, a Christian cannot uphold a lie. One could not vote for or support gay marriage.


This gets back to passive versus active.

now let me get this right. homosexuality is a form of greed. Self centredness is a form of greed homosexuality is a bigger problem than greed? Doesn't make sense to me. Greed is the bigger problem according to you.

No, homosexuality is a form of greed. One involves greed of one's body while the other is greed of possesions. Both put self before God, which is why they are also idolatrous.

So idolatry is the biggest problem for me (breaking the greatest command to love God with all heart and soul)... but all sin ends up being that as all sin is in the end a sin against God. Saying one sin is more of a problem than another only makes sense to me in the context of what the world is pushing at the moment. (Not to be confused with greater and lesser sins, which there are John 19:11).

you might have to point out the post numbers where i contradicted myself. i can't see what your talking about. My first and second post do not match what you say so obviously you do not mean my first and second post in this thread. i think you believe I contradicted myself but just don't understand my position.

See above for your first and last posts... your positions as they were stated were very different (hopefully).
If you still want to combine them (as in you could support gay marriage) then you would be supporting a lie and hence that could not come from a faith in Jesus.

Instead of your words being contradictory, it would be your faith. I hope for the first.

 

[TheDag]

Your quote above:
"do not believe in stopping gay marriage by means of legislation"
is very different than your beginning quote:
"I have no objection to gay marriage"

Different in your eyes maybe. i have no objection to gay marriage because i do not believe in stopping it by means of legislation. i believe we should stop it by being a light. i disagree with your interpretation of scriptures that seem to be talking about personal ways ofliving and declaring that means forcing your views on others by law. Gay marriage is not a stumbling block. The stumbling block would be homosexuality. that has already happened if two gay people are even considering getting married. if the church does not perform gay marriages then it would not be endorsing it in any case. i'm sure you disagree but that is my view.

 

[DesertScroll]

Different in your eyes maybe. i have no objection to gay marriage because i do not believe in stopping it by means of legislation. i believe we should stop it by being a light.

Your trying to separate personal faith from how you interact with the world. That is not possible. Just like God is light, so He cannot emit darkness... its impossible. God is good and so cannot lie. It does not matter the context, God cannot lie.

If your light, then you are light in regards to legisaltion as well. You can't be:
Personal = light
Public = darkness

I'll expalin more, next quote.

i disagree with your interpretation of scriptures that seem to be talking about personal ways ofliving and declaring that means forcing your views on others by law.

What i wrote above is very true. And it is the tact I have been using for the entire thread. I had a discussion in a different thread and while I was doing dishes earlier I thought... his view of what government is for is not Biblical.

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Rom 13:3,4

Governments have been established by God to avenge evil. It is not set up for mercy.. that is God's kingdom (Matt 22:21). Your equating this:

"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord." Rom 12:19

... a personal command of mercy, with what governments are charged with. If you are voicing your opinion in a government setting, then you are participating in the latter, not the personal.

Imagine you were a king. Personally you show mercy to others that have sinned against you. As for your state, you are a minster of God for vengeance, with the sword... for good and not evil. You just have to make sure your state is not taking what is God's kingdom as a state has limits. You cannot force others to follow Jesus, but you can punish others who practice evil things.

Equality for everyone under good law's is fine.

Making laws equal for all beliefs would be evil, because it is enshrining evil into the law, violating what God has set up governments to do. And governments (the people running them and in the case of democracy, voters) will be held accountable for protecting evil instead of good.

Gay marriage is not a stumbling block. The stumbling block would be homosexuality. that has already happened if two gay people are even considering getting married. if the church does not perform gay marriages then it would not be endorsing it in any case. i'm sure you disagree but that is my view.

It's not a matter of just disagreeing, but pointing out your view contradicts scripture.

Homosexuality is for sure a stumbling block.

Endorsing gay marriage is another stumbling block, because it further encourages a sinful behavior. And it violates God's directive for governemnets to enforce good, an avenge evil.

Your position is quite wrong.

I hope you change it and include your faith to encompass all of your life to make sure your election is true.

 

[TheDag]

Your trying to separate personal faith from how you interact with the world. That is not possible. Just like God is light, so He cannot emit darkness... its impossible. God is good and so cannot lie. It does not matter the context, God cannot lie.

If your light, then you are light in regards to legisaltion as well. You can't be:
Personal = light
Public = darkness

i accept that you think i am seperating personal faith from how I interact in the world. However that is a view based on ignorance. Your ignorance is that you do not know me and you do not know what I do. Without that knowledge you are basing your view on ignorance. That indeed is dangerous ground. there is nothing in my position that means I do not include my faith in all of my life and actions.

I hope you change it and include your faith to encompass all of your life to make sure your election is true.

you mean I should follow the gospel of DesertScroll to ensure my election is true? Sorry but I will follow God and what I believe is right from my understanding of the scriptures. Even if I am wrong that is far better than following someone elses view. God will not hold it against me if I am basing ny actions on what I understand of his word. I know I am christian and that can not be taken away from me.

 

[DesertScroll]

i accept that you think i am seperating personal faith from how I interact in the world. However that is a view based on ignorance. Your ignorance is that you do not know me and you do not know what I do. Without that knowledge you are basing your view on ignorance. That indeed is dangerous ground. there is nothing in my position that means I do not include my faith in all of my life and actions.

I don't need to know what you do, but what you teach. See 2 John 1:9:

"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

It boils down to:

Truth ----> Truth

Truth ----> Lie ... which is impossible.

Which means what you are teaching cannot come from a faith in Jesus, because upholding a sin as ok for someone is never good. If that were true lies could come from God.

you mean I should follow the gospel of DesertScroll to ensure my election is true? Sorry but I will follow God and what I believe is right from my understanding of the scriptures. Even if I am wrong that is far better than following someone elses view. God will not hold it against me if I am basing ny actions on what I understand of his word. I know I am christian and that can not be taken away from me.

Just as creation makes it so no one is without excuse (Rom 1:20) so to anyone who ignores scripture is without excuse. There is no self understanding of scripture (2 Pet 1:20). If good government is for avenging evil, then it cannot at the same time be for upholding evil and still be good.

Your understanding of scripture has a contradiction. Work that out.

 

[TheDag]

I don't need to know what you do, but what you teach. See 2 John 1:9:

"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

It boils down to:

Truth ----> Truth

Truth ----> Lie ... which is impossible.

Which means what you are teaching cannot come from a faith in Jesus, because upholding a sin as ok for someone is never good. If that were true lies could come from God.

ok then lets look at your claim. Please state the name of the individual or christian denomination or christian group that has 100% correct scriptural teaching. If you can not then what you have said here is wrong. So either name names as to who is 100% doctrinalyy correct or stop carrying on with nonsense. if you don't claim that someone has fully correct doctrine then put more thought into your posts before accusing someone of not being a christian.

 

[DesertScroll]

ok then lets look at your claim.

I agree, let's look at my claims from my last post:

Which means what you are teaching cannot come from a faith in Jesus, because upholding a sin as ok for someone is never good. If that were true lies could come from God.
[...]
Your understanding of scripture has a contradiction. Work that out.

Bolds are for the rest of your comment below:

Please state the name of the individual or christian denomination or christian group that has 100% correct scriptural teaching. If you can not then what you have said here is wrong. So either name names as to who is 100% doctrinalyy correct or stop carrying on with nonsense. if you don't claim that someone has fully correct doctrine then put more thought into your posts before accusing someone of not being a christian.

Freudian moment maybe?

I was very careful with my claims: What you are teaching cannot come from a faith in Jesus and that your understanding of scripture has a contradiction.

The scripture I posted mentioned not having God, but I never claimed that applied to you. The scripture was to show that teaching is a reflection of faith, just like actions are (3 John 1:11). If I thought your teaching revealed a wolf in sheep's clothing, I wouldn't hesitate to say so.

"[...] from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My bretheren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my bretheren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh." Jam 3:10-12

In the same way, make sure your teaching comes from your faith and not from the world. Make it scriptural.

 

[TrutherAU]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-reveals-strong-gay-focus-20120608-2017g.html

Christian Lobby analysis reveals strong gay focus

Already posted however essential to the thread I think!.

 

[Born to Watch]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-reveals-strong-gay-focus-20120608-2017g.html

Already posted however essential to the thread I think!.

......and they deny it by stating they dont have an anti gay focus, they have an anti homosexual marriage focus.
What a twist and lie that heading is, main stream media for you. You must love the MSM truther???

"The ACL doesn't consider this a LGBT issue or an anti-gay issue but a marriage issue.
"...The ACL is not anti-gay. The ACL supported changes made in 2008 to federal laws that removed discrimination in law against same-sex couples."

That is a quote from the article

 

[TrutherAU]

......and they deny it by stating they dont have an anti gay focus, they have an anti homosexual marriage focus.

Well considering one of the main goals of homosexuals is to make sure that gay marriage is legalised i dont see anything to split hairs overs here

What a twist and lie that heading is, main stream media for you. You must love the MSM truther???

As you should be able to see the article come from fairfax thats not msm although i realise many mainstream media orgs most likely get their sources from AAP etc. However in this case the journo works for fairfax so your assertion is not even close.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well considering one of the main goals of homosexuals is to make sure that gay marriage is legalised i dont see anything to split hairs overs here
.

Right, because homosexuals, like Muslims, are a singular homogenous unified bloc *rolls eyes*

 

[TrutherAU]

Right, because homosexuals, like Muslims, are a singular homogenous unified bloc *rolls eyes*

Well there are gay lobby groups that have a unified agenda that happens to be one of their main goals.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well there are gay lobby groups that have a unified agenda that happens to be one of their main goals.

You didn't say gay lobby groups. You said "homosexuals". As in all of them. Point of fact, I'd be quite surprised if there weren't a few gay lobby groups who don't hold SSM to be one of their goals. But hey, its easier with the broad brush, huh?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

As you should be able to see the article come from fairfax thats not msm although i realise many mainstream media orgs most likely get their sources from AAP etc. However in this case the journo works for fairfax so your assertion is not even close.

Since when did Fairfax stop being part of the mainstream media?

 

[Born to Watch]

Since when did Fairfax stop being part of the mainstream media?

Yeah I would like to see truthers answer to that question as well.