Australia bans same sex marriage.

[Foreigner]

I didn't say you couldn't.
But there are those here *cough* *cough* who support the view of the gays and their rights, but criticize the Christians and their rights.

Who feel that gays should be able to speak out and stand up for their views on the topic, but Christians should not because if they do, they are "violating the civil rights of gays."

 

[aspen]

speaking out against homosexuality is not a violation of anyone's civil rights. Voting to restrict another adult's God given right to the pursuit of happiness - a right guaranteed by the constitution - in the case of homosexuality is most certainly an attempt to restrict a civil right. Don't worry Foreigner, i know how compulsive you are about making sure Team Christian stays ahead so i promise to speak out against all attempts by homosexuals to take away the rights of Christians to get married. that is my promise to you, brother.

 

[Foreigner]

lol.....Wow.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you don't even know that 'the pursuit of happiness' is from the the Declaration of Independence and NOT the Constitution

The Declaration was just that - the delcaration of an intention, sent to His Majesty, the King of England. It was NOT "the law of the land."

Sorry Aspen but according to the United States Constitution and the United States Supreme Court, voting against redefining the definition of marraige is NOT a violation of anyone's civil rights. At least, not yet...

Gotta hand it to you. When you are wrong you are spectacularly wrong.

Perhaps because you have had so much practice....

Oh, and it says the PURSUIT of happiness. Not the guarantee of happiness.

Using your misguided understanding, that would mean that no one has the right to oppose anything that would interfere with ANYONE'S obtaining of their definition of happiness.

As I said.....spectacular.

 

[JackSafari]

Foreigner, From your Christian perspective what rights\freedoms should apply to LGBT individuals, and what additional limits should be placed on them?

Obviously you believe they should not be allowed to get married. What about children, do you feel LGBT couples should have the legal right to adopt children, be teachers in public schools, or simply not be allowed around children without at least one other adult around to ensure that LGBTS don't attempt to sexual molest children or try to convert them into being a LGBT?

Basically what legal boundaries should be placed specifically on LGBTs?

 

[Foreigner]

Jack, weren't you the one that said that God has no interest if people have sex outside of marraige, if married people commit adultery, if people have sex with multiple partners at once, or it Parents and their adult children have sex?

You've pretty well disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.

Have a nice day.

 

[aspen]

ha! You are probably right - I am wrong often -thank goodness for grace! Does the fact that i referred to the wrong document make the pursuit of happiness any less of a right? And, I never said that we are guaranteed happiness.

 

[JackSafari]

Jack, weren't you the one that said that God has no interest if people have sex outside of marraige, if married people commit adultery, if people have sex with multiple partners at once, or it Parents and their adult children have sex?

You've pretty well disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.

Have a nice day.

I asked because I wanted to know your perspective. You're entitled to have an opinion on the subject even if I disagree. I wanted to know what boundaries you feel should be placed on homosexuals. It would help me understand your values better. Example,should an (unmarried) homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children and\or use a segregated mother? Should they be allowed to be public school teachers? I don't understand the scope of what you find acceptable\unacceptable, so I asked you to clarify. Thanks.

What you summarized is incorrect. My perspective is what two consenting adults do in private is nobody's business. It is between them and God.

 

[Foreigner]

What I said is correct.
I asked you about each one point-by-point and your cumulative answer was that God has no problem with what consenting adults do in private.
That means that every one of those things I listed before for you fall under your "God has no problem with" heading.

When you feel your opinion of what God REALLY means supercedes what His Word actually says He means - to the point of direct contradiction of His Word - then there is no common ground to have any discussion whatsoever on morals.





.

ha! You are probably right - I am wrong often -thank goodness for grace! Does the fact that i referred to the wrong document make the pursuit of happiness any less of a right? And, I never said that we are guaranteed happiness.

-- Yes, pursuing happiness is a right. And if that happiness is based on wanting to preserve the current definition of marraige, that is a person's right to pursue, as well.

Wouldn't you agree? After all, even though the Constitution doesn't address 'the pursuit' of happiness, that pursuit of happiness - according to you - is a 'right' for all people, correct?

A person voting FOR gay marraige and a person voting AGAINST gay marraige both have the exact same right to do so - and this does happen to be a protected right under the Constitution.

 

[JackSafari]

What I said is correct.
I asked you about each one point-by-point and your cumulative answer was that God has no problem with what consenting adults do in private.
That means that every one of those things I listed before for you fall under your "God has no problem with" heading.

When you feel your opinion of what God REALLY means supercedes what His Word actually says He means - to the point of direct contradiction of His Word - then there is no common ground to have any discussion whatsoever on morals.
?

A person voting FOR gay marraige and a person voting AGAINST gay marraige both have the exact same right to do so - and this does happen to be a protected right under the Constitution.

Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt, be school teachers, have contact with children? What limitations should be placed on them for be homosexual?

 

[KingJ]

ha! You are probably right - I am wrong often -thank goodness for grace! Does the fact that i referred to the wrong document make the pursuit of happiness any less of a right? And, I never said that we are guaranteed happiness.

You think grace exists for you when you pursue your own happiness?

 

[JackSafari]

You think grace exists for you when you pursue your own happiness?

Yes, but not at the expense of others.

 

[Foreigner]

Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt, be school teachers, have contact with children? What limitations should be placed on them for be homosexual?

-- Should someone who does not believe what God Himself has said in His Word really call himself a Christian?

 

[aspen]

You think grace exists for you when you pursue your own happiness?

absolutely! If it it did not, I would cease to exist the second I stopped receiving grace. Also, if grace was dispensed based on my behavior or ideas, it would be dependent on my power, not God.


Foreigner said:

-- Yes, pursuing happiness is a right.

Glad you finally see it! Now, if the pursuit of happiness is a right of every citizen (wait for it) it is therefore, a civil right!

And if that happiness is based on wanting to preserve the current definition of marraige, that is a person's right to pursue, as well.

So you are saying that stopping other people from getting married makes you happy? It certainly does nothing to perserve the definition of marriage - no more than owns slaves perserves the right to own possessions. BTW, your persuit of restricting marriage is fine if that makes you happy, but it does not change the fact that restricting another person's pursuit of happiness is a violation of their civil rights.


Wouldn't you agree? After all, even though the Constitution doesn't address 'the pursuit' of happiness, that pursuit of happiness - according to you - is a 'right' for all people, correct?

And according to you. "Yes, pursuing happiness is a right."

A person voting FOR gay marraige and a person voting AGAINST gay marraige both have the exact same right to do so - and this does happen to be a protected right under the Constitution.

Indeed. But it does not change that fact that any law inacted to restrict gay marriage is a restriction against a gay person's civil rights - so go ahead and pursue your happiness by voting.

-- Should someone who does not believe what God Himself has said in His Word really call himself a Christian?

Yes - if you are committed to loving God and others like Christ, our example.

 

[Selene]

No gay person should be discriminated against in employment, housing, or education. I know of a couple of gay teachers in my school, and they do not teach children to be gay. They teach that everyone of all races, gender, religion, and nationalities should be treated as equal. They don't get into homosexuality or heterosexuality. Like everyone else, they should be treated equally, and like everyone else, they should follow the marriage restrictions.

 

[JackSafari]

-- Should someone who does not believe what God Himself has said in His Word really call himself a Christian?

Christians often agree and often disagree, this is normal and common. What you believe to be the word of God is not always what all other Christians believe. Christians believe many different things on all topics, that does not means some are Christians, and some are not, it simply means they do not agree on everything. This is just one issue among many where Christians do not agree. I understand you believe you are right, and I disagree. I accept that we disagree and know you will not change your mind.

Its unclear to me to what level we disagree. Some Christians are very supportive of LGBT, but feel Marriage should remain between a man and woman. Others have stronger feelings about homosexuality, and do not want LGBT in schools or around Children. Some go as far as wanting homosexuality to be illegal. Everyone has their own opinion on how far laws should go to limit the rights of homosexuals. Extreme Fundamentalist Christians go much further, and believe God disapproves of most heterosexuality activity in the bedroom beyond the missionary position. The scope of what Christians believe covers a wide spectrum.

Could you clarify what rights homosexuals should, and shouldn't have according your religious beliefs and personal values?

 

[Selene]

-- Should someone who does not believe what God Himself has said in His Word really call himself a Christian?

If a person does NOT BELIEVE what God Himself said, then he/she is not in communion with God and therefore cannot call himself/herself a Christian. The key word here is "BELIEVE." A sinner can believes what God says despite the sin that he/she commits because all Christians are sinners. But when one stops believing in the word of God, how can one even call themselves 'a Christian?" A Christian is a person who believes in God and His word.

Christians often agree and often disagree, this is normal and common. What you believe to be the word of God is not always what all other Christians believe. Christians believe many different things on all topics, that does not means some are Christians, and some are not, it simply means they do not agree on everything. This is just one issue among many where Christians do not agree. I understand you believe you are right, and I disagree. I accept that we disagree and know you will not change your mind.

Its unclear to me to what level we disagree. Some Christians are very supportive of LGBT, but feel Marriage should remain between a man and woman. Others have stronger feelings about homosexuality, and do not want LGBT in schools or around Children. Some go as far as wanting homosexuality to be illegal. Everyone has their own opinion on how far laws should go to limit the rights of homosexuals. Extreme Fundamentalist Christians go much further, and believe God disapproves of most heterosexuality activity in the bedroom beyond the missionary position. The scope of what Christians believe covers a wide spectrum.

Could you clarify what rights homosexuals should, and shouldn't have according your religious beliefs and personal values?

Christians often disagree on things like baptism, salvation, justification, and other theological concepts. This is fine. But in regards to morality, it should be clear that homosexuality is a no-no in God's eyes. There are people who deliberately chose to ignore God's word just so they could justify their sins.

 

[JackSafari]

No gay person should be discriminated against in employment, housing, or education. I know of a couple of gay teachers in my school, and they do not teach children to be gay. They teach that everyone of all races, gender, religion, and nationalities should be treated as equal. They don't get into homosexuality or heterosexuality. Like everyone else, they should be treated equally, and like everyone else, they should follow the marriage restrictions.

I like what you wrote, it reasonable and expects people to live by laws, not the moral expectations others.

A few years ago a Fundamentalist Christian organization sued a local school district for not revealing the sexual orientation of all teachers so that parents could make sure their children did not come in contact with LGBT people. The basis of the lawsuit was that parents had the right to prevent their children coming into contact with LGBTs for religious reasons, and they quoted the bible in their lawsuit to show there was unquestionable evidence that God did not want children to come in contact with LGBT individuals. The Christian organization lost the law suit because it would be sexual discrimination to require teachers to reveal their sexual orientation. Currently school districts do not tract the sexual orientation of teachers, thus they can't reveal information they do not have. Its also unlikely they would reveal that information if it were known for any teacher. Such as, if a parent asks "Is that teacher a heterosexual?" the school district would not reveal the answer even if known.

Christians often disagree on things like baptism, salvation, justification, and other theological concepts. This is fine. But in regards to morality, it should be clear that homosexuality is a no-no in God's eyes. There are people who deliberately chose to ignore God's word just so they could justify their sins.

Christians disagree on what is moral and immoral as well. Morality is often the most debated topic of them all.

Fundamentalist Christians have some very strict moral values. Such as women not wearing a long dress is considered to be showing signs of (Sexual) immorality from the view point of Fundamentalist Christians. That is their religious belief, which is fine for those who make it their personal choice, but of course they feel their relgious beliefs IS the unquestionable word of God, and their standards applies to you, me, and everyone else because they belief God is a Fundamentalist God and he demands extremely high standards of personal conduct, and any signs of sexuality goes against God, thus girls\women are expected to hide their sexuality as all times because sexuality is a very horrible more crime against God. Some even expect that sex must only occur in dark bedroom where the husband and wife never see each other nude, for them to see each other nude even during sex, would be a sin.

 

[Selene]

I like what you wrote, it reasonable and expects people to live by laws, not the moral expectations others.

Christians disagree on what is moral and immoral as well. Morality is often the most debated topic of them all.

Fundamentalist Christians have some very strict moral values. Such as women not wearing a long dress is considered to be showing signs of (Sexual) immorality from the view point of Fundamentalist Christians. That is their religious belief, which is fine for those who make it their personal choice, but of course they feel their relgious beliefs IS the unquestionable word of God, and their standards applies to you, me, and everyone else because they belief God is a Fundamentalist God and he demands extremely high standards of personal conduct, and any signs of sexuality goes against God, thus girls\women are expected to hide their sexuality as all times because sexuality is a very horrible more crime against God. Some even expect that sex must only occur in dark bedroom where the husband and wife never see each other nude, for them to see each other nude even during sex, would be a sin.

Perhaps, that is true for our Protestant brothers for there are many denominations among them. But that is not true for the Roman Catholic Church. There is a teaching authority in the Catholic Church, so any Catholic confused about the readings in the Bible should adhere to the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Any Catholic who deliberately and with full intentions go against the teaching magisterium can be excommunicated.

 

[Harry3142]

We Christians do have a code of conduct which we are to abide by:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

When we truly accept the salvation which God offers us, we are given the Spirit as an additional gift. It is through the Spirit that the motivations which originally controlled our actions (the acts of the sinful nature) are subdued, and a new set of motivations implanted. It is this new set of motivations (the fruit of the Spirit) which is to control what we say and do as Christians.

If another claims to be a fellow Christian, then he is to accept these motivations as the proper origin of his actions. However, if he does not claim to be a fellow Christian, then we are to reserve judgement:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (I Corinthians 5:9-13a,NIV)

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner said:

-- Yes, pursuing happiness is a right.

Glad you finally see it! Now, if the pursuit of happiness is a right of every citizen (wait for it) it is therefore, a civil right! - Aspen

-- Aww, Aspen. You try so hard. I almost feel bad having to do this to you...

Homosexuals have the right to pursue gay marraige. Never once said otherwise.
But what you simply seem unable to grasp is that the guaranteed pursuit of happiness is not (wait for it) a guarantee of achieving that happiness. Never has been. Ever.

Or to put it another way: The guaranteed right to pursue something is not the guaranteed right to that something.
That means that while homosexuals have every single right to try to PURSUE the chance to marry via legal means, that does not mean they automatically have the RIGHT to marry.

Translation: While it is your 'civil right' to pursue whatever you want, it is NOT your 'civil right' to automatically be given whatever you want.
Because (as I said and you ignored before) if 'pursuit of happiness' actually translated as 'guarantee of happiness,'
then
no
one
would
ever
have
the
right
to
oppose
anything
anyone
else
ever
wanted.......ever.

By using your definition, that would mean that if a group of parents wanted sky diving as a required course for 5th graders, NO ONE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPPOSE THEM. Why? Because they have the civil right to pursue that happiness, and thus - according to YOUR thinking - have the civil right to expect that to happen and those who oppose them are actually violating their civil rights by doing so.


Also, and please try to grasp this, that 'civil right to pursue happiness' also extends - by your own definition - to those who wish to keep the definition of marraige unchanged.

Now eventually when the ballot box and/or the Supreme Court decide gay marraige is legal, THEN ANY ONLY THEN will gay marraige actually be a civil right. Not before.

Civics 101, my friend.



And if that happiness is based on wanting to preserve the current definition of marraige, that is a person's right to pursue, as well.

So you are saying that stopping other people from getting married makes you happy? - Aspen

-- LOL Oh my goodness...
Using your own standard here I can just as sincerely ask you:
"So you are saying that actively helping people sin against God and thus helping to further ensure their eternal damnation makes you happy?"
Honestly, Aspen...


BTW, your persuit of restricting marriage is fine if that makes you happy, but it does not change the fact that restricting another person's pursuit of happiness is a violation of their civil rights. - Aspen


-- Again, you miss the point completely lol
Using your own words - YOUR OWN WORDS - you just confirmed that it is a 'violation of their civil rights' if you actively oppose - even through legal means - those who work to keep the definition of marraige unchanged.

Congratulations, you JUST admitted that you violate people's civil rights.


Again, BY WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, it means opposing those who wish to keep the definition of marraige unchanged is a violation of their civil rights.

As I said before....spectacular LOL


A person voting FOR gay marraige and a person voting AGAINST gay marraige both have the exact same right to do so - and this does happen to be a protected right under the Constitution.

Indeed. But it does not change that fact that any law inacted to restrict gay marriage is a restriction against a gay person's civil rights - so go ahead and pursue your happiness by voting. - Aspen

-- Finally! You admit that VOTING against gay marraige does not violate ANYONE'S civil rights.
And you also admitted that those who vote to keep marraige unchanged actually have a civil right to do so. GOOD FOR YOU!
As for the law, if it was voted into law it is up to the Supreme Court alone to decide if it violates anyone's civil rights.
But - as you finally admitted - exercising your Constitutional right to vote does NOT violate anyone's civil rights. Well done.


-- Should someone who does not believe what God Himself has said in His Word really call himself a Christian?

Yes - if you are committed to loving God and others like Christ, our example. - Aspen

-- Christ said, "Go and sin no more."
You yourself have said on this board that what homosexuals do is a sin and is against God's desire.
Encouraging and supporting just the opposite of what Christ requires can hardly be called "committed to loving God."




.