Is this who we are as Christians? Is this who Christ is?

[WilliamB]

Speaking out against gay marriage being made a government mandate specifically "hurts" an individual how? As a voting member of the country my silence denotes de facto assent, which is not the case. Are my only options as a Christian and a voter open assent or de facto assent?

No, you have the right to voice your political positions. I misunderstood the point you were making. Sorry!

 

[RunnintheRace]

Wow, this guy is ready to separate the wheat from the chaff himself isn't he? Where do you leave room for repentance if this guy is ready to "get rid of 'em"?

 

[Texan40]

Doesn't the 14th Amendment cover ALL US Citizens?

Specifically the 14th amendment was introduced to keep states from denying the citizenship of freed slaves. It also provides citizenship to all children who are born in the country (with the exception of children of ambassadors or agents of foreign powers). What does the 14th amendment have to do with the present discussion? As far as I can tell nobody has introduced any measures to revoke citizenship based on sexual conduct. From what I read about the goings-on in Washington D.C. such a thing would be nicknamed the "Glass Houses Bill."

 

[WinBySurrender]

Doesn't the 14th Amendment cover ALL US Citizens?

All true minorities, yes. Tell me how the LGBTs are discriminated against other than not getting their way about same-sex marriage? They are protected -- and should be -- by EEOC, Fair Housing, Fair Lending, etc. Why do they need more rights than the rest of us?

 

[Lovely Lane]

Specifically the 14th amendment was introduced to keep states from denying the citizenship of freed slaves. It also provides citizenship to all children who are born in the country (with the exception of children of ambassadors or agents of foreign powers). What does the 14th amendment have to do with the present discussion? As far as I can tell nobody has introduced any measures to revoke citizenship based on sexual conduct. From what I read about the goings-on in Washington D.C. such a thing would be nicknamed the "Glass Houses Bill."

Have you noticed the equal protection clause for all citizens? That has every thing to do with thread.

 

[Lovely Lane]

All true minorities, yes. Tell me how the LGBTs are discriminated against other than not getting their way about same-sex marriage? They are protected -- and should be -- by EEOC, Fair Housing, Fair Lending, etc. Why do they need more rights than the rest of us?

EEOC, Fair Housing, Fair Lending all of these things apply to all citizens. The way you say it only the LGBT have these benefits/rights/laws.

More? Their rights, as are yours and mine, are in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says only one man/one women. If it is, show me.

 

[Texan40]

Have you noticed the equal protection clause for all citizens? That has every thing to do with thread.

Equal protection means equal access to the legal system, law and courts. I still don't see the connection. Does ones sexual conduct somehow incur specific "legal rights" outside of normal activity?

 

[Lovely Lane]

Equal protection means equal access to the legal system, law and courts. I still don't see the connection. Does ones sexual conduct somehow incur specific "legal rights" outside of normal activity?

In the eyes of our law, all men are created equal. Even if they are LGBT.

 

[Texan40]

In the eyes of our law, all men are created equal. Even if they are LGBT.

This means that when involved in the legal system they cannot be specifically condemned or convicted in a prejudicial manner. The 14th amendment was specifically created to deal with social behavior that continued to abuse freed slaves. This was not because of any action or practice on their part but on their very physical composition. This was not penned or passed to be a vehicle for the homogenization of what is socially acceptable. If the federal government uses its power to shape such things it is directly violating its stated function in the Constitution regardless of whether or not some deem it a "necessity."

Are there bathrooms designated "gay" or "non-gay" in all public institutions? Do gay people have to ride in the back of the bus? Are the prisons full of gay people? Is there a real and active movement to "round up the gays and send them..."? Those making the loudest and most inaccurate parallels between historic civil rights issues and LGBT ones are not doing so out of moral outrage but specific agenda. When the abuse and horror of slavery and its lingering issues is held against gay marriage it is immediately obvious they do not share common ground.

 

[Zaac]

You know the saddest thing about this sermon, is you can remove the gay epithets and substitute any racial epithet from the last 100 years and the message is exactly the same, verbatim. And it's ALWAYS religious folks. Starting to feel like hell was created for "Christians".

Yet in another thread you don't want people to judge. If only liberals trumpeted God's word as enthusiastically as they do gay rights.

 

[WinBySurrender]

EEOC, Fair Housing, Fair Lending all of these things apply to all citizens. The way you say it only the LGBT have these benefits/rights/laws.

Didn't read the post, did you? I posed the question, "Do they need more rights?" You ignored that question. They have equal rights to ours now. They don't need more. If they want a "marriage" let them get it in contractual form. That is how heterosexual unmarried couples outside of common law states have to do it. Therefore the cry of "unequal" is not only wrong, it is legally and constitutionally wrong.

More? Their rights, as are yours and mine, are in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says only one man/one women. If it is, show me.

Perhaps not in the Constitution, but the multitude of laws arising from the tradition of one man/one woman have set in place a concrete barrier to inclusion of more "non-traditional" unions under that umbrella. There is no "special favor" to heterosexual relationships that extends to all such unions. Unmarried couples of the tradtional type are not afforded any of the protections of married couples in most states, simply because they haven't engaged in a spiritual or civil ceremony and therefore do not qualify for the entitlements of marriage. I find it interesting there is no inclusion among the goals of LGBT activists for these couples. These activists could care less, in the long run, most not only not being monogamous but also not caring about preserving the rights of heterosexuals, so they don't campaign for their inclusion under their umbrella while trying to pry our "umbrella" out of our hands.

The Howard Center: The Family In America

An opinion issued by Richard Wilkins, J.D., of the John L. Swan Library on Family and Culture concludes:

"Must the various legal preferences conferred on traditional marriage be extended to alternative partnership arrangements? The answer is no. The legal lines that have been drawn to protect and encourage the marital union of a man and a woman are principled and essential to furthering society’s compelling procreative interest. Indeed, once outside the union of a man and a woman, there is no principled constitutional basis for distinguishing between (or among) any form of consensual sexual behavior. Recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, therefore, would open the door to legally mandated conferral of all legislative preferences now reserved for marriage upon any form of consensual sexual coupling, no matter how idiosyncratic. Society should not encourage (nor perhaps could it endure) such an outcome."​

 

[Lovely Lane]

This means that when involved in the legal system they cannot be specifically condemned or convicted in a prejudicial manner. The 14th amendment was specifically created to deal with social behavior that continued to abuse freed slaves. This was not because of any action or practice on their part but on their very physical composition. This was not penned or passed to be a vehicle for the homogenization of what is socially acceptable. If the federal government uses its power to shape such things it is directly violating its stated function in the Constitution regardless of whether or not some deem it a "necessity."

Are there bathrooms designated "gay" or "non-gay" in all public institutions? Do gay people have to ride in the back of the bus? Are the prisons full of gay people? Is there a real and active movement to "round up the gays and send them..."? Those making the loudest and most inaccurate parallels between historic civil rights issues and LGBT ones are not doing so out of moral outrage but specific agenda. When the abuse and horror of slavery and its lingering issues is held against gay marriage it is immediately obvious they do not share common ground.

ok, I agree that you have a different opinion and use examples that are not pertinent to the question of gay marriage.

 

[MattM521]

I think the main point of the OP has been missed. I think the OP was simply saying that while, as Believers in Christ, we cannot support same sex marriage, we can disagree in love. I do not believe Christ would approve of same-sex marriage, however, I think He would oppose it in a loving way. We serve a just and righteous King, but also a loving and long-suffering one, as well.

P.S. - That gentleman is not representative of the "American South" or "Southern Conservatives". I find that offensive as a Southerner, a Conservative, and a Christian. Take care lest you paint with too wide a brush, sir.

 

[Zaac]

I think the main point of the OP has been missed. I think the OP was simply saying that while, as Believers in Christ, we cannot support same sex marriage, we can disagree in love. I do not believe Christ would approve of same-sex marriage, however, I think He would oppose it in a loving way. We serve a just and righteous King, but also a loving and long-suffering one, as well.

Yep and His loving way has already been given by Him:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

He repeats what is said in Genesis 2. God never changes.

 

[AACJ]

Worley actually used the word "queers" in the pulpit.

Wow.

Needless to say, I rebuke this man and everything he stands for.

That's one of the problems with much of today's Church, they are disallowing language that carries negative connotation when describing homosexuality and the queer lifestyle. As a result much of the Church's argumentation and preaching against such godless lifestyles and practices as been weakened and watered down.

Some of this is the result of modern Bible perversions that have altered and watered down the Gospel message and preaching.

Negatively connotated Labels describing homosexuality and that lifestyle should be used in appropriate ways and times because such practice and lifestyle is negative! I also use the word queer at times.

Have you not read of some of the very strong labels and language used by Christ and the apostles?