Homosexuality from a christian point of veiw.

[Followers4christ]

I suspect that God doesn't give a 4X what gender, race, religion or sexuality we are, it is the person underneath it all that counts!

Yes but we as Christians are told to put are sinful ways to death.Of coures no ones perfect and we all fall sometimes but we have to pick our selves back up.We live to serve christ how are we serving him if we continue to live in sin.Most Homosexuals wont even admit it to themselves that its a sin.God Bless

Romans 6:1"Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?By no means!We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer"

 

[Followers4christ]

Some Christians bang on about sin and silly, pointless little rules, but if you haven't got love you haven't got anything worth having!

Yes but then you have to ask yourself are you loving what is good and holy or are you loving sin.God Bless

2 Timothy 3:2-5 "People will be Lovers of themselves,Lovers of money,boastful,proud,abusive,disobedient to their parents,ungrateful,unholy,without Love,unforgiving,slanderous,without self control,brutal,not lovers of the good,treacherous,rash,conceited,Lovers of pleasure rather than Lovers of god."

 

[Tangnefedd]

It depends what you mean by good and holy?

The most important thing in life is to try to do no harm and hopefully do a bit of good for one's fellow humans, imo.

 

[RufusTheRevelator]

its astonishing the intolerance on some of these threads.
god kill you because you are a homosexual, people what have we become?

 

[nb_christseeker]

talk about beating a dead horse...

or is that beastiality?

 

[nb_christseeker]

can anyone here photoshop a pic of someone beating a dead horse? that would be a useful graphic for some of these threads.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Probably not talking about the right to sodomy here. Probably alluding to gay marriage bans and the fundamental right to marry, as recognized by the Supreme Court in ... you guessed it ... Loving v. Virginia. You and I have been through this before, so I think there's probably no need to rehash the constitutional arguments (although I'm happy to if you like). Just thought I'd make the point (not so plain and simple ).

Hello beechy ,

Actually, I would rather discuss/debate with you. Recently it has been tiresome to only find a few making opined negative assertions they don't feel they need to restate properly, opine and deny everything or simply show prepubescent behavior. I can at least find reciprocated respect if not intelligent challenges with you when we are both having good days . But enough of my rant/venting and on to the post~

Well if points were to be made, it too would fall within what I stated then.

Loving v. Virginia (see your link) was a man and a woman that were facing imprisonment for their interracial marriage. As I'm sure you know, sex is not racial and if I'm not mistaken, any "bans" would be against government officials (or a representative with government authority to marry) misrepresenting the government by officially recognizing a marriage that does not qualify as such by the State's constitution.
IOW - gays can have a ceremony and even call it marriage, the government won't imprison them for that. Of course, that last was a statement of "to my knowledge, so you are free to show where an American couple was recently imprisoned or fined by simply having such a ceremony (and not breaking any other laws) - I would find that interestingly new and informative.

I realize you disagree with that status quo and I believe you are aware of my position too; regardless, there we are.

Generally speaking, citizens simply don't promote ALL possible models of marriage and as I said in response to the opinion by the other member earlier on, for something to be taken away would imply that it was there before.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

can anyone here photoshop a pic of someone beating a dead horse? that would be a useful graphic for some of these threads.

In case you plan on following through on that...
To my knowledge and FYI:
I believe that would be inferred as animal cruelty and would be against the rules.

 

[outlaw]

Homophobic is a fear of Homosexuality.

Actually homophobia is not a reference to an anxiety disorder as in claustrophobia but rather it is akin to racism and sexism in that it is prejudice against homosexual people and homosexuality
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

God does not fear anything.

John 7:1

But God condemns Homosexuality as a sinful disire.

Right next to where God condemns eating shellfish (Lev 11:10-12) and cutting ones hair (lev 19:27)

God who knows all things is never wrong.

And this is why there really are 4 legged insects Lev 11:20-21

And that rabbits really do chew their cud Deu 14:7

And the earth is really flat Prov 8:26-27, Job 26:10

And Ahaziah really was 2 years older than his father Jehoram 2 Chr 21:20, 2 Chr 22:1-2

And Jesus was right that no one except him has ascended into heaven John 3:13 but then that makes 2 Kings 2:11 wrong…



Because God is never wrong

 

[beechy]

Hello beechy ,

Actually, I would rather discuss/debate with you. Recently it has been tiresome to only find a few making opined negative assertions they don't feel they need to restate properly, opine and deny everything or simply show prepubescent behavior. I can at least find reciprocated respect if not intelligent challenges with you when we are both having good days . But enough of my rant/venting and on to the post~

Well if points were to be made, it too would fall within what I stated then.

Loving v. Virginia (see your link) was a man and a woman that were facing imprisonment for their interracial marriage. As I'm sure you know, sex is not racial and if I'm not mistaken, any "bans" would be against government officials (or a representative with government authority to marry) misrepresenting the government by officially recognizing a marriage that does not qualify as such by the State's constitution.
IOW - gays can have a ceremony and even call it marriage, the government won't imprison them for that. Of course, that last was a statement of "to my knowledge, so you are free to show where an American couple was recently imprisoned or fined by simply having such a ceremony (and not breaking any other laws) - I would find that interestingly new and informative.

I realize you disagree with that status quo and I believe you are aware of my position too; regardless, there we are.

Generally speaking, citizens simply don't promote ALL possible models of marriage and as I said in response to the opinion by the other member earlier on, for something to be taken away would imply that it was there before.

Hi CC ... glad you enjoy our exchanges. They're interesting for me as well.

So, once, again, Loving v. Virginia expressly held that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment's due process clause:

Marriage is one of the ``basic civil rights of man,'' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Loving v. Virginia is still good law, as it has not been overruled on this proposition. You're right in contending that just because something is held to be "fundamental right" under the substantive due process clause does not mean that it cannot be regulated by the government (through voter passed intiatives or otherwise). It does, however, mean that regulations affecting fundamental rights will be held to a higher standard than other government regulations, and will be subject to what is known as "strict scrutiny" in the courts.

As explained by Justice Scalia in the 1996 case, United States v. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (quoting Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988)):

Strict scrutiny, we have said, is reserved for state 'classifications based on race or national origin and classifications affecting fundamental rights'

Again, since marriage has been deemed a fundamental right under Loving, state classifications affecting that right will be subject to strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny, in turn, requires the government to show that the law or regulation in question is narrowly tailored, that is, it employs the "least restrictive means" to achieve a "compelling" government interest.

In Loving, the fundamental right affected was marriage, and the regulation at issue was race. In the current debates, the right affected is again marriage, but the regulation in question is gender/sexuality. So under the strict scrutiny test, the government will have to answer the question: is regulation of marriage based on gender the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest?

Finally, substantive due process violations don't have to involve criminal penalties in order to run afoul of the constitution. For example, here's an article about how a zoning law permitting only "stick-built" homes was recently found to violate substantive due process in Montana.

 

[nb_christseeker]

i was thinking more along the lines of a cartoon

 

[outlaw]

its astonishing the intolerance on some of these threads.
god kill you because you are a homosexual, people what have we become?

Behold, the power of hate.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Hi CC ... glad you enjoy our exchanges. They're interesting for me as well.

So, once, again, Loving v. Virginia expressly held that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment's due process clause:

[/i][/b]

Loving v. Virginia is still good law, as it has not been overruled on this proposition. You're right in contending that just because something is held to be "fundamental right" under the substantive due process clause does not mean that it cannot be regulated by the government (through voter passed intiatives or otherwise). It does, however, mean that regulations affecting fundamental rights will be held to a higher standard than other government regulations, and will be subject to what is known as "strict scrutiny" in the courts.

As explained by Justice Scalia in the 1996 case, United States v. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (quoting Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988)): Again, since marriage has been deemed a fundamental right under Loving, state classifications affecting that right will be subject to strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny, in turn, requires the government to show that the law or regulation in question is narrowly tailored, that is, it employs the "least restrictive means" to achieve a "compelling" government interest.

In Loving, the fundamental right affected was marriage, and the regulation at issue was race. In the current debates, the right affected is again marriage, but the regulation in question is gender/sexuality. So under the strict scrutiny test, the government will have to answer the question: is regulation of marriage based on gender the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest?

All fine and dandy to me and as long as SCOTUS doesn't rule in a way where I am forced to help promote said model against my wishes, I simply keep myself aware of events. I have no argument or compelling additions with the above mentioned principals; however, I do note the Rule by Consent principal.

Finally, substantive due process violations don't have to involve criminal penalties in order to run afoul of the constitution. For example, here's an article about how a zoning law permitting only "stick-built" homes was recently found to violate substantive due process in Montana.

This! I find interesting. Especially when SCOTUS recently ruled that the State could seize private property if it is in the best interest to the State.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/zieve/2005/06/news-supreme-court-rules-developers.html

Unfortunately, that is off topic too and I'll have to look for or start a thread on that to discuss it further.

Anyway, back to A Christian Point of View...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

i was thinking more along the lines of a cartoon

I was only trying to be helpful. I'm not a mod, so I could have been incorrect. I just didn't want to see someone get a warning for what I've been tempted to do myself at times. Sometimes it seems that certain people traded in their sticks for aluminum bats.

 

[beechy]

All fine and dandy to me and as long as SCOTUS doesn't rule in a way where I am forced to help promote said model against my wishes, I simply keep myself aware of events. I have no argument or compelling additions with the above mentioned principals; however, I do note the Rule by Consent principal.

Okee dokee. I doubt SCOTUS will ever require you to marry someone of the same sex, so hopefully you'll be ok

This! I find interesting. Especially when SCOTUS recently ruled that the State could seize private property if it is in the best interest to the State.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/zieve/2005/06/news-supreme-court-rules-developers.html

Unfortunately, that is off topic too and I'll have to look for or start a thread on that to discuss it further.

Anyway, back to A Christian Point of View...

Yup. Interesting stuff.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Okee dokee. I doubt SCOTUS will ever require you to marry someone of the same sex, so hopefully you'll be ok

Well, I see you didn't lose you sense of humor.

 

[Montalban]

Happens all the time. People have their liberty removed based on what they do all the time. Maybe you've not heard about such things.

No need for sarcasm, Montalban. Yes, people have their liberties removed for crimes all the time. And it is EVIL (yes, I said it) to do such a thing to a person if you haven't verified that they did actually do wrong.

And these people have, homosexuals, have according to our beliefs in Christianity.

That is to say, it is NOT OK for the American voters to decide, "We don't like people who wear blue beanies, so we're going to make that a capital crime." It is NOT OK for the American voters to decide, "Ceasar salad is yucky, so anybody who eats Ceasar salad should be put in an asylum for the criminally insane." You can't just decide that anything you don't like is a crime.

Well aside from the fact I'm not American, so wouldn't want Americans deciding my fate, you seem to be for people's rights, but not for their rights to vote for a system you disagree with.

I mean, yes, of course, a government can choose to punish its citizens for whatever they like. But a government that kills people for wearing blue beanies is evil and should be toppled. Likewise, a government that takes away the rights of its citizens just because they do something "Yuk" is evil. Plain and simple.

What is the scientific evidence to show that killing people for such reasons is evil? What is the scientific test for 'evil'?

I agree that it's evil, but I base my beliefs on good and evil on the Bible, and the teachings of my Church. You say that it should be based on science. So I await your experimental proofs for your conclusions.

Thanks in advance.

What is the scientific test that has been used to show that a person who liters should be fined?

I'll assume you meant "litters."

My apologies. Yes, some one who is littering.

And there is reams of scientific evidence that littering severely damages the environment and is a risk to both animal and human life.

Show me the science to back this up. An apple peel is bio-degradable, but it would also be considered litter (spelling correct )

 

[Montalban]

Fining people for littering does not impermissibly infringe on or violate a protected right -- so the state doesn't need to have a compelling interest for doing it, just a legitimate one (like wanting to keep the streets clean). No scientific evidence is needed for this type of reg.

No. The only reason it's not a protected right is because an arbitrary decision by the state took place (once it was not an offence to litter). The civil authority did not use a scientific experiment to determine that an apple-peel should not be left behind (unless you can cite me the study they used). It was neither a right to or not a right to litter.

So you're looking at this from the wrong perspective.

There are a great many things we do not specifically covered under laws, which governments can fine us for; such as wearing a red hat. If you accept that you have no 'right' to wear a red hat, then you must simply accept the right of a government to fine you for wearing one... should they so wish.

Similarly there is no 'right' to have male-to-male sex, other than the legal determination that it is now permissable to do so. Therefore you must accept that a governemnt can regulate it; even imposing a tax on doing so.

 

[morningstar2651]

Similarly there is no 'right' to have male-to-male sex, other than the legal determination that it is now permissable to do so. Therefore you must accept that a governemnt can regulate it; even imposing a tax on doing so.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd say that marriage falls under all three, would you agree?

In the town I grew up in, you can be fined $200 for picking tulips, even if they're growing on your land. Each year they have a tulip festival, and they don't want the town to look remotely bad (signs with lights on them and tall signs are too tacky, and have been deemed illegal). Of course, the Tulip Queen and her court must be white (NO exceptions allowed), because everyone from the Netherlands is white. I'm glad to be out of that town.

 

[Montalban]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd say that marriage falls under all three, would you agree?

In that case you have the right to have sex in public. Trouble like this arises when you jump back into absolutes.

As you can see there's no 'absolute' right to pleasure... even amongst consenting adults.

And this is avoiding at all the debate over 'natural rights' anyway... which is flawed.