House defeats bill to ban gender-based abortions

[avoice]

Democrats Defeat Bill to Ban Sex-Selection Abortions
Democrats in the House of Representatives prevented passage of a bill that would ban sex-selection abortions. The legislation needed a two-thirds vote and Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition.
With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass.

Republicans voted for the bill on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things:

(1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”;
(2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”;
(3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or
(4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, the bill says “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”

The bill also specifically states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based only on the sex or gender of the child.”

Leading pro-life groups were aghast that Democrats would stand in the way of passing what should be a common sense bill.

Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for Family Research Council Action (FRC Action), had the following to say: “We are deeply saddened that the U.S. House of Representatives would vote to keep sex-selection abortion legal in this country.

That anyone on either side of the political aisle would vote against a bill preventing gendercide in the United States is profoundly troubling. Given that CDC data suggests sex-selection abortion is occurring in our country, and a recent undercover video released this week by Live Action showing Planned Parenthood’s willingness to facilitate a sex-selection abortion, the American public cannot ignore this sexist practice.

“But because of lobbying by Planned Parenthood and the White House, the bill to protect against sex-selection abortion failed.

We applaud the 246 Members on both sides of the aisle who voted for the bill. We thank Rep. Trent Franks and the Republican leadership for holding a vote on this legislation to ban this tragic and discriminatory practice. We will continue to work with them to pass this legislation in the future, so that pre-born women across the nation will be protected from gendercide and sex discrimination,” McClusky concluded.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Thanks for the OP avoice!
Very insightful.

So do the Democratical chappies think one should be able to terminate on the grounds of sex? I suspect not on the grounds of sexuality

Can someone give me a definition of mental illness?

 

[tarmack09]

Why would anyone purpose gender based abortion in America in the first place. Abortion is wrong!

 

[avoice]

Why would anyone purpose gender based abortion in America in the first place. Abortion is wrong!

It happens all time tarmack unfortunatley recentley however
Planned Parenthood has had two undercover videos expose's done where they fully support and consil women to abort if they
are having a girl and wanted a boy or vise versa. So the bill was introduced to make this practice of gender abortion illeagal.
But Obama and Democrats blocked it.

 

[aspen]

No one expected the Bill to pass - that was not the reason it was proposed.

The Bill would have create a law that is impossible to enforce.

It is the abortionists word against the women having the abortion.

The abortionist could never prove or disprove that the client wanted the abortion for the purpose of gender.

Furthermore, the women getting the abortion could have regrets and sue the abortionist for preforming the procedure, by later claiming that she told the abortionist that she was trying for a certain gender and wanted to eliminate the unwanted gender-child.

The Bill was simply created as a straw man, which forced the democrats to strike it down in order to expose how 'rabidly pro-choice' they are in the eyes of conservatives. It was merely an election year stunt - sort of like the federal same sex marriage act during the Bush/Kerry election.

Sorry.

 

[avoice]

The Bill would create a law that is impossible to enforce.

It is the abortionists word against the women having the abortion.

The abortionist could never prove that the client wanted the abortion for the purpose of gender.

Furthermore, the women getting the abortion could have regrets and sue the abortionist for preforming the procedure, by later claiming that she told the abortionist that she was trying for a certain gender and wanted to eliminate the unwanted gender-child.

The Bill was simply created as a straw man, which forced the democrats to strike it down in order to show how rabidly pro-choice they are. An election year stunt - sort of like the federal same sex marriage act during the Bush/Kerry election.

Sorry.

That is just a lie Aspen only you could find a rational for this behavior of servent of Baal
but I wouldnt expect less from you.
You do nothing but water down Gods words and make every sin discussed ok ..
you defend the wrong side of everything .. Have you ever made a good decision ?
lets see you stopped being a prodestant to be a catholic ..but your not really supportive of things they find important ...
Are you aware the catholic church has declared war on Obama for his stance on Birth control and abortion ?
If so where is your loyalty to the faith you claim to love.
You support abominations as Ok Yet God says they are abominal to him. I seldom reply to you I just have watched you.
You are the single best example Ive ever seen for term LUKE WARM ... and if you want to know how God feels about look it up

 

[aspen]

That is just a lie Aspen only you could find a rational for this behavior of servent of Baal
but I wouldnt expect less from you.
You do nothing but water down Gods words and make every sin discussed ok ..
you defend the wrong side of everything .. Have you ever made a good decision ?
lets see you stopped being a prodestant to be a catholic ..but your not really supportive of things they find important ...
Are you aware the catholic church has declared war on Obama for his stance on Birth control and abortion ?
If so where is your loyalty to the faith you claim to love.
You support abominations as Ok Yet God says they are abominal to him. I seldom reply to you I just have watched you.
You are the single best example Ive ever seen for term LUKE WARM ... and if you want to know how God feels about look it up

how ugly......

Your OP has nothing to do with abortion. The only reason you posted it is to expose the 'bad' liberals.

This Bill is a joke and was proposed to polarize people - in your case, I see it has worked perfectly.

BTW, which sins have I 'made ok'? Is this assumption on your part, due to the fact that I do not want to criminalize all sin? or enforce my belief system on nonbelievers? Take it up with God - He allows sinners to sin every day.

Just because I am not a black and white thinker doesn't mean that I am wishy-washy. I can see more perspectives than just one, but I have strong opinions about what I believe.

Finally, your opinion about my church and my relationship to that church is based in ignorance. You have no idea what I believe about Catholic doctrine.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

The Bill was simply created as a straw man,

How can a bill be a straw man? If it had passed would it not mean law?
How ugly!

Your OP has nothing to do with abortion.

Ugh? How can a bill about abortion not be about abortion?

The only reason you posted it is to expose the 'bad' liberals.

And good thing too. Liberalism is evil obviously.

This Bill is a joke and was proposed to polarize people - in your case, I see it has worked perfectly.

People are already polarised and good thing too, there are lives at stake.

But on the other hand you have one point, why should people who support pro-choice abortion worry about whether it is a male or a female that is terminated? Good point hey? But not a homosexual perhaps. LOL.

 

[Strat]

America has made its choice and judgement is not far behind...we are drowning in innocent blood that cries out daily to God.

 

[avoice]

how ugly......

I didnt address what you believe I addressed your actions .... your right however the truth is often ugly ...

Scripture teaches that we are to view ourselves as soldiers stationed in a foreign country and, thus are not to let ourselves get overly entangled in civilian affairs (II Timothy 2:4).
Whatever country we may naturally belong to, Paul says, we are to remember always that our real citizenship is in heaven ( Philippians 3:20). Whatever opinions we have about how to solve society’s problems, we are to remember always that we cannot serve two masters (Luke 16:13).

You cant support God and make excuses for man to sin. When God says something is an abomination in his kingdom it is ... If your citizenship is in his kingdom not this one there is no question.
Murder of inocents is trangression of law ...the end its a sin ... there is no in between. It is black and white.
your enforcement excuses shouldnt even be your concern as a Christian.wrong priority

If it makes one person reconsider what they thought to do .. Its a good law .. It saved one life and and one person from committing a grievious sin.
If your head was in Gods kingdom you wouldnt need this explained to you. However when you serve two masters you get luke warm, wishy washy. thats just the facts of it.

 

[aspen]

I didnt address what you believe I addressed your actions .... your right however the truth is often ugly ...

Clever. It is a real shame that our society has traded being wise for being clever.

Scripture teaches that we are to view ourselves as soldiers stationed in a foreign country and, thus are not to let ourselves get overly entangled in civilian affairs (II Timothy 2:4).

So why are you telling the natives how to live? Seems a bit arrogant to me since we are merely foreigners.

Whatever country we may naturally belong to, Paul says, we are to remember always that our real citizenship is in heaven ( Philippians 3:20). Whatever opinions we have about how to solve society’s problems, we are to remember always that we cannot serve two masters (Luke 16:13).

Great! So why are you surprised that the natives of this world are not living according to the laws of Heaven?

You cant support God and make excuses for man to sin.

You just don't get it. First, God does not need our support - He needs our obedience. Secondly, I am not making excuses for nonbelievers to sin - I expect it! It is the ugly reality of the Fallen state of humanity. All I am called to do is share my hope in Christ with the nonbeliever and love them until God converts their heart. Doing this on the federal or state level and expecting people to be legislated into obeying a God they reject is a waste of time.

When God says something is an abomination in his kingdom it is

Of course. But, I thought you said we are foreigners in a foreign land?

If it makes one person reconsider what they thought to do .. Its a good law .. It saved one life and and one person from committing a grievious sin.

Will it save their soul without Jesus? Good table manners will not matter in Hell.

If your head was in Gods kingdom you wouldnt need this explained to you. However when you serve two masters you get luke warm, wishy washy. thats just the facts of it.

Unfortunately, you have explained nothing - instead, you have made a good argument for Christians to remain politically neutral in a foreign land. Since when are foreigners allowed to vote? Or should we make the same mistakes of the 16th - 19th centuries and enforce our laws on the natives? If you are a student of history, you know that never ends well.

Aspen2,
How can a bill be a straw man? If it had passed would it not mean law?
How ugly!

Excuse me, it is a red herring.

Ugh? How can a bill about abortion not be about abortion?

Are you that naive about how Congress operates? All Congress wants to do is create blame, wedge issues, and gridlock - best chance for them to remain in office. You really think Republicans are going to ban abortion? HA! The legalization of abortion was the best thing to ever happen to the Republican party - if they gutted the law or stopped funding to abortion centers, they would be putting their jobs at risk.

And good thing too. Liberalism is evil obviously.

Or brother.....what a world you must live in - all in your head! Liberalism is evil and Conservatism is good - it blows me away how many people trade reason for safety.....

People are already polarised and good thing too, there are lives at stake.

Just keep that head in the sand....

But on the other hand you have one point, why should people who support pro-choice abortion worry about whether it is a male or a female that is terminated? Good point hey? But not a homosexual perhaps. LOL.

geez...that wasn't even clever

 

[brightmorningstar]

[sup]Aspen2, [/sup]

[sup]Avoice wrote

You cant support God and make excuses for man to sin.

You just don't get it. First, God does not need our support –

But that has little to do with us making excuses for sin. [/sup]
[sup]

He needs our obedience.

Contradiction, If He doesn’t need our support He wouldn’t need anything from us, including obedience. But in fact He does require our obedience (want is different from need) if we are to do His will. His will is that we share the gospel and part of that is repentance. [/sup]
[sup]Now this is the problem with liberalism, repentance is mentioned just over 50 times in the NT (NIV), "the poor" is mentioned just over 40 times. Liberalism always promotes looking after the poor as the core of the gospel. True Christian faith is, what liberalism often calls conservative/fundamental/orthodox is about both, equally. [/sup]
[sup]

All I am called to do is share my hope in Christ with the nonbeliever and love them until God converts their heart.

We agree, absolutely, the good news is the hope and the glory of who Jesus Christ is and what He has done, this is our message. But in reality one of the results of that is repentance, and many when they come to that insist they can have the rest without repentance. They either confess rejection of the gospel, or they claim it regardless which is counterfit christianity and what a lot of ‘liberal christianity’ is. [/sup]
[sup]The other problem for believers in the west is that repentance is an objection raised initially and in such circumstances it is like the rich man who came to Jesus, Jesus told him to go away and deal with his conditions before he could follow.[/sup]
[sup]

Doing this on the federal or state level and expecting people to be legislated into obeying a God they reject is a waste of time.

Still you miss the point 100%. It is democracy that forces people, not God. In a democracy the citizen has the right to vote for what he/she believes, and society as a whole will get what the majority votes for. Thus democracy will force laws on us, as citizens why should we not let democracy force laws on others? It is democracy which results in people being legislated for or against, not faith. If as a citizen we do not vote in accordance with God’s purposes we are not really doing His will. Remember all the nations will account for their actions. [/sup]
[sup]And as said before you would vote to force some people not to do things that you think totally unacceptable. This is what liberalism does, it is happy to force people not to do things it considers unacceptable but not to force other things it also says is unacceptable. Thus it has its own hierarchy of wrongs that it is and isn’t prepared to vote against.[/sup]

 

[Strat]

Feminist fight for a woman's "right" to an abortion only to find out future women are being aborted...sounds like somebody fell into a pit they dug for somebody else.

 

[aspen]

But that has little to do with us making excuses for sin.

How am I making an excuse for sin? by acknowledging that nonbelievers live in sin? It is common knowledge.

Contradiction, If He doesn’t need our support He wouldn’t need anything from us, including obedience.But in fact He does require our obedience (want is different from need) if we are to do His will. His will is that we share the gospel and part of that is repentance.

Agreed.

Now this is the problem with liberalism, repentance is mentioned just over 50 times in the NT (NIV), "the poor" is mentioned just over 40 times. Liberalism always promotes looking after the poor as the core of the gospel. True Christian faith is, what liberalism often calls conservative/fundamental/orthodox is about both, equally.

Wrong. People that you are generalizing as liberals simply acknowledge that we cannot repent for other people. Some one on this board recently compared sin to addiction - I agree. If you struggle with alcoholism, a commitment to abstinence (repentance - turning away from) from alcohol (by submitting to God, 1-3rd steps) is the only way to be free from the slavery to the addiction. The problem is, many sinners and alcoholics have spent years blaming everyone, but themselves for their disobedience and destructive behavior, so when they try to stop their behavior, many still try to put the responsibility for stopping on other people! When this happens, the sinner or alcoholic either realizes that they are responsible and repent or they eventually die in their sin/addiction. No one is going to repent for them.

So, are we all responsible for stopping the sinner from sinning or the alcoholic from drinking? Nope. All we can do is walk with them. They have been given the freedom to drink by God - and even if we tried to legislate them into sobriety (see Prohibition), it simply will not stop them. Only God can save them from their sin and lead them to repentance.

We agree, absolutely, the good news is the hope and the glory of who Jesus Christ is and what He has done, this is our message. But in reality one of the results of that is repentance, and many when they come to that insist they can have the rest without repentance. They either confess rejection of the gospel, or they claim it regardless which is counterfit christianity and what a lot of ‘liberal christianity’ is.

What you are calling liberal Christianity is not Christianity, at all. Christians must make a commitment to turn from their self focus to God. Nonbelievers are not under this obligation. Also, Christians are not called to impose morality on nonbelievers - we are here to love nonbelievers and lead them to Jesus, who will lead their hearts to repentance during sanctification. Repentance without Jesus is futile because the nonbeliever is still focused on themselves - this is true pride.

The other problem for believers in the west is that repentance is an objection raised initially and in such circumstances it is like the rich man who came to Jesus, Jesus told him to go away and deal with his conditions before he could follow.

I disagree. Jesus sent the rich man away because he was not ready to submit to Jesus so that Jesus could help him deal with his condition. It is like a counselor sending away a client because they are not emotionally ready to be vulnerable enough to accomplish anything during counseling and to continue would be a waste of time and money.

Still you miss the point 100%. It is democracy that forces people, not God. In a democracy the citizen has the right to vote for what he/she believes, and society as a whole will get what the majority votes for. Thus democracy will force laws on us, as citizens why should we not let democracy force laws on others? It is democracy which results in people being legislated for or against, not faith. If as a citizen we do not vote in accordance with God’s purposes we are not really doing His will. Remember all the nations will account for their actions.

There is part of this statement that I agree with completely and I find it refreshing. You are correct - we do believe we live in a democracy (when actually we live in a Republic) and as citizens, we have an obligation to vote. It is not God that obligates us to vote, but our country. I have found that many people who post here do not get this distinction.

The problem I have with your statement is when you state that 'in a democracy people force laws on us so why can't we force laws on them?' IMO, the best part of living in a free society is the possibility of creating fair and equal protection under the law for all citizens. I am Catholic and I think communally. I reject the idea that one special interest group - the loudest group should dictate the morality or behavior of another group or the community as a whole. The problem I see with conservatism is that many people in that special interest group (which used to be the majority) want to be in charge of the moral code of other groups who live here, but do not share conservative ideals. Also, I do not like the tactics of politically active conservatives when they claim that the interests of other groups are taking rights away from themselves. Gay marriage is framed as taking something away from traditional values when actually it is just expanding the definition. Heterosexual couples do not have to change or give up anything if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

The fact is, we live in a pluralist society and conservatives seem to want to fight this reality and turn back the clock to the 1950s - it is not possible.

And as said before you would vote to force some people not to do things that you think totally unacceptable. This is what liberalism does, it is happy to force people not to do things it considers unacceptable but not to force other things it also says is unacceptable. Thus it has its own hierarchy of wrongs that it is and isn’t prepared to vote against.

Liberalism does have a moral code - you are right. Equality is the highest form of morality in Liberal thought. I think conservatives believe the inclusion of other ideas and culture threatens their way of life. Conservatives need to learn to share their toys. I understand that it is hypocritical for a liberal person to claim that they are openminded about everything and everyone and then condemn people they view as closedminded. All people have hypocritical ideas and moral codes. I think conservatives spend a lot of time trying to prove liberals are hypocrites, as if proving it, makes conservatives immune from being just as hypocritical about different issues.

What do liberals force conservatives not to do? I am just wondering.

Feminist fight for a woman's "right" to an abortion only to find out future women are being aborted...sounds like somebody fell into a pit they dug for somebody else.

Is that all feminism is about? Well, besides promoting Satanism....

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Wrong. People that you are generalizing as liberals simply acknowledge that we cannot repent for other people.

I didn’t say that. I outlined that repentance is equally a part of the gospel which liberals don’t like to acknowledge, and neither did you in your response.

and even if we tried to legislate them into sobriety (see Prohibition), it simply will not stop them.

well it would do if they were penalised and prevented from drinking.

Only God can save them from their sin and lead them to repentance.

That is true. But again on what basis does society decide which things that are wrong are to be prevented, and which things that are wrong should not?

What you are calling liberal Christianity is not Christianity, at all.

I agree, its not Christianity but it calls itself ‘christianity’ and often ‘liberal christianity’.

The problem here is Christians must make a commitment to turn from their self focus to God.

They say this but they dont recognise the sin, so what they say isnt the case.

Nonbelievers are not under this obligation.

Not according to God, but they may be as citizens according to the state legislation.

Also, Christians are not called to impose morality on nonbelievers -

Why not? Christians can not force people to faith or repentance, but please say why Christians cannot impose morality on others? If the majority of the government were Christians and passed a law against theft, would you be against it?

I disagree. Jesus sent the rich man away because he was not ready to submit to Jesus so that Jesus could help him deal with his condition.

This is the crux of the matter and the problem with liberalism. He clearly didn’t want to have any of his wealth affected so how was Jesus not actually dealing with his condition by telling him to go away and sell his possessions? His condition was that none of his wealth should be affected.
Both Christ and liberalism are saying come as you are, only liberalism is saying come with your baggage.

Not quite It is like a counselor sending away a client because they are not emotionally ready to be vulnerable enough to accomplish anything during counseling and to continue would be a waste of time and money.

So what did Jesus do with the rich man apart from send him away because he wasn’t ready to follow? I dont think so.

Coming to Christ is coming to the truth, the way and the life, one can’t come with conditions. The unconditional means anyone can come just as they are, but they cant come to the truth with their own truth as non-negociable.

Aspen2,

IMO, the best part of living in a free society is the possibility of creating fair and equal protection under the law for all citizens.

Ok but for things that we feel are wrong or things that others feel are wrong? Where there is a contradiction someone is going to have something imposed on them right?

Gay marriage is framed as taking something away from traditional values when actually it is just expanding the definition. Heterosexual couples do not have to change or give up anything if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Sorry no. What about ‘paedophile marriage’? At the moment marriage is defined for society and in law as man and woman. There is no such recognition in law for ‘gay marriage’ or any other type of relationship one might expand marriage to. If a group proposed incestual marriage or paedophile marriage would you vote for it or against?
I suggest you would vote against if you thought such an expansion of the definition was unacceptable and for if not. So what is your answer to this?

 

[aspen]

BMS said:

I didn’t say that. I outlined that repentance is equally a part of the gospel which liberals don’t like to acknowledge, and neither did you in your response.

I talk about repentance all the time. Every time I write the word love, I am talking about repentance. Christian love is simply turning from focus on self gratification/glorification towards God. What liberals have a problem with is all the guilt and self-flagellation that often accompanies conservative ideas about repentance. All of that garbage actually hinders us from turning towards God.

well it would do if they were penalised and prevented from drinking.

Yeah, we tried that - which is why I referred you to Prohibition. Trying to stop alcohol consumption is unenforceable and leads to bootlegging, corruption and racketeering.

That is true. But again on what basis does society decide which things that are wrong are to be prevented, and which things that are wrong should not?

All activity and behavior, which presents an immediate threat to the safety of society - murder, rape, assault, molestation, kidnapping, you get the idea.

I agree, its not Christianity but it calls itself ‘christianity’ and often ‘liberal christianity’.

So what? Mormons call their doctrine Christian too - doesn't mean it is true.

They say this but they dont recognise the sin, so what they say isnt the case.

Who are 'they'? And why does it matter what 'they' think? God is the judge of sin, not us.

Not according to God, but they may be as citizens according to the state legislation.

I agree. All citizens have an obligation to follow the laws of their country, but nonbelievers do not have to follow God's laws.

Why not? Christians can not force people to faith or repentance, but please say why Christians cannot impose morality on others? If the majority of the government were Christians and passed a law against theft, would you be against it?

I didn't say Christians cannot impose morality on nonbelievers - they do it all the time. I said that Christians are not called to impose morality on nonbelievers; nor should they. Theft presents an immediate threat to the safety of society. Liberals and Conservatives agree that we cannot live together in a society where stealing is allowed to exist without punishment.

I do not have a problem with individual Christian communities passing laws or creating norms that impose morality on their members - like the Amish, for example.

My problem is when Christians or any other group decides that the entire state or country should be living under a moral code, which is not accepted by a large portion of the population. For example, there are large population of Muslims in France who want to impose Sharia law on the entire population - this is wrong.

The problem with conservatives is that many would agree that imposing Sharia law on the entire population of France is wrong, but only because Sharia law is viewed as Satanic, not because it violates the rights of the nonmuslims in France. If it was a Christian moral code - it would not only be celebrated by conservatives, nonbelievers would be ridiculed for not accepting it.

This is the crux of the matter and the problem with liberalism. He clearly didn’t want to have any of his wealth affected so how was Jesus not actually dealing with his condition by telling him to go away and sell his possessions?

Jesus was dealing with it - sending the rich man away was exactly what needed to happen. The mushy liberal method you like to ostracize would be for Jesus to give the rich man a nice warm hug and tell him that he money didn't matter at all - God loves him just the way he is!

His condition was that none of his wealth should be affected.

He was a greedy man - or more likely a frightened man who clung to his wealth instead of focusing on God.

Both Christ and liberalism are saying come as you are, only liberalism is saying come with your baggage.

Huh? First, I do not get what you are trying to say. Second, how do you come to Christ without baggage? The question is, will you be allowed to keep it and serve Christ.

So what did Jesus do with the rich man apart from send him away because he wasn’t ready to follow? I dont think so.

Coming to Christ is coming to the truth, the way and the life, one can’t come with conditions. The unconditional means anyone can come just as they are, but they cant come to the truth with their own truth as non-negociable.

I agree that it is impossible to focus on God and self at the same time - I think that is what you are trying to say.

Aspen2,
Ok but for things that we feel are wrong or things that others feel are wrong? Where there is a contradiction someone is going to have something imposed on them right?

Wrong. I think we are told this message all the time, however. If someone gets their way, another person has to lose - this view is very limited. It is sort of like the issue of job creation - some people think there are only a static number of jobs out there and if one person gets a job, another will not get one - illegals are taking our jobs! Other people recognize that Americans are innovative and create new industry and technology and brand new areas of employment everyday - and there are always going to be possibilities for employment for those who want to work.

Liberals want a place at the table. They want the same number of chairs for everyone. Equal pay for equal work. Equal representation in universities and in the job sector.

Sorry no. What about ‘paedophile marriage’?

How many times do we have to re-visit this? There is no comparison between an adult-child sexual relationship and an equal partnership between two consenting adults.

At the moment marriage is defined for society and in law as man and woman. There is no such recognition in law for ‘gay marriage’ or any other type of relationship one might expand marriage to.

Have you heard of Europe? Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,New York, and Vermont, or Washington, D.C? How about Washington State? Maryland?

If a group proposed incestual marriage or paedophile marriage would you vote for it or against?

Incestuous marriage is illegal because it presents a danger to society - our gene pool is at risk so I would vote against it. Pedophilia is a crime against children.

I suggest you would vote against if you thought such an expansion of the definition was unacceptable and for if not. So what is your answer to this?

My vote to restrict another person's behavior is reserved for those who want to violate another persons freedom, equality, or safety.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

I talk about repentance all the time. Every time I write the word love, I am talking about repentance.

But to non-believers, love is not the Christian love, and thus not repentance. The context was witnessing the gospel.

What liberals have a problem with is all the guilt and self-flagellation that often accompanies conservative ideas about repentance. All of that garbage actually hinders us from turning towards God.

Like what exactly?

Yeah, we tried that - which is why I referred you to Prohibition. Trying to stop alcohol consumption is unenforceable and leads to bootlegging, corruption and racketeering.

Ok but if you lock someone up in prison and prevent access from alcohol?

All activity and behavior, which presents an immediate threat to the safety of society - murder, rape, assault, molestation, kidnapping, you get the idea.

The question was on what basis. Society doesn’t do that, abortion by choice for example is murder, but society doesn’t stop that. So you would vote against pro-choice abortion on that basis and thus force a morality on others?

Theft presents an immediate threat to the safety of society.

But that wasn’t the point. The point is that a government made up of a majority of Christians would pass a law against theft, or a law against pro-choice abortion and thus impose those prohibitions on practicing thieves and women who want abortions by choice.
Who decides that one is a threat and the other isnt?

Jesus was dealing with it - sending the rich man away was exactly what needed to happen.

But that’s not quite what you said. You said he “so that” Jesus could help him deal with his condition. The sending away was dealing with his condition.

My vote to restrict another person's behavior is reserved for those who want to violate another persons freedom, equality, or safety.

Ah so when the NT says all others sin are against others, but sexual sin is against ones own body (1 Cor 6) your own personal definition already falls short of God’s purposes right? So would you vote against same sex marriage and thus oppose a morality on others?

 

[aspen]

BMS

But to non-believers, love is not the Christian love, and thus not repentance. The context was witnessing the gospel.

Then we need to make sure to define it for nonbelievers. However, when I am speaking to a believer, I do not feel obligated to define love for them every time it is mentioned - as a Christian, they should know what love is.

Like what exactly?

Really? You have never encountered sermons and alter calls and medieval history, which focuses on how wretched and worthless we are without Christ? The Christian tradition of mortification? The promotion of wailing and guilt and shame heaped onto the heads of the congregation - just in case there are lapsed sinners present or a nonbeliever? Christian or not, you still have to hear how worthless and backslidden you have become. You have never heard preachers talking about women dressing like prostitutes and leading Godly men astray (as if women are responsible for men's lust) or tramping around like Jeezabels? How about preachers who like to blame the victims of molestation or rape? How about focusing on the agony of the crucifixion in order to incite strong emotions rather than talking about how much God wants to be in relationship with us? How about the people on this board who only talk about God's wrath and claim that anything less is wimpy Christianity? If not, you are not paying attention.

Ok but if you lock someone up in prison and prevent access from alcohol?

It is an alcoholism fact that:

• Alcohol is the number one drug problem in America.
• There are more than 12 million alcoholics in the U.S.
• Three-fourths of all adults drink alcohol, and 6% of them are alcoholics.
• Americans spend $197 million each day on alcohol.
• In the United States, a person is killed in an alcohol-related car accident every 30 minutes.
• A 2000 study found nearly 7 million persons age 12 to 20 were binge drinkers.
• Three-fourths of all high school seniors report being drunk at least once.

The US is currently holding just over 2 million and a half prisoners - nearly twice as many as China, which is the next closest country. Our prisons are overcrowded. Where do you plan to put another 12 million people? Do you plan on outlawing liquor companies who supply these alcoholics with their drug? How do you plan on making up the revenue liquor companies provide in taxes?

The question was on what basis. Society doesn’t do that, abortion by choice for example is murder, but society doesn’t stop that. So you would vote against pro-choice abortion on that basis and thus force a morality on others?

Abortion is a terrible blight on our society. It needs to be reformed. However, in some cases (probably 5% of the current cases) abortion is the lesser of two evils. I am against the death penalty as it is carried out today, as well.

But that wasn’t the point. The point is that a government made up of a majority of Christians would pass a law against theft, or a law against pro-choice abortion and thus impose those prohibitions on practicing thieves and women who want abortions by choice.
Who decides that one is a threat and the other isnt?

Ok - there are some laws that infringe on the liberties of others. There are others that do not. In our country the majority gets to decide. My problem is when propagandists try to convince the majority that laws which do not infringe on the rights of others, actually do. Homosexual marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights, despite what FOXNEWS likes to trumpet to America.

But that’s not quite what you said. You said he “so that” Jesus could help him deal with his condition. The sending away was dealing with his condition.

Good thing I clarified, huh? I practically felt the flames of Hell, licking at my feet!

Ah so when the NT says all others sin are against others, but sexual sin is against ones own body (1 Cor 6) your own personal definition already falls short of God’s purposes right? So would you vote against same sex marriage and thus oppose a morality on others?

Ah so when a person overdoses on drugs or drinks himself to death, he is sinning against society? Do you really think that Paul was speaking absolutely or literally? You literalists have no appreciation for hyperbole. Do you realize how similar your game of semantic cat and mouse is to the Pharisees that tried to trap Jesus? How did Jesus respond? He responded with His heart, and applied scripture - not more literal interpretations. Homosexual marriage for unbelievers does not break God's laws for believers; nor does it take away rights from heterosexuals. Sorry.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Then we need to make sure to define it for nonbelievers.

Ok, I agree and as you said we cant repent for others.
The point I am making is it doesn’t matter how lovingly one may tell non-believers about the gospel, some reject it because of repentance. Of course others are convicted, praise God.
What liberals have a problem with is all the guilt and self-flagellation that often accompanies conservative ideas about repentance. All of that garbage actually hinders us from turning towards God.

Really? You have never encountered sermons and alter calls and medieval history, which focuses on how wretched and worthless we are without Christ?

Well you tell me. We can hardly be worthless if Christ loved us so much to die for us, but we must be wretched for that to happen, after all Christ said without Him we can do nothing, without Him we perish, like branches cut off and burned in the fire.

Christian or not, you still have to hear how worthless and backslidden you have become.

On the contrary I have never heard that, quite the opposite in fact, how wretched I was and through Christ how glorious I have become reconciled to God.

You have never heard preachers talking about women dressing like prostitutes and leading Godly men astray (as if women are responsible for men's lust) or tramping around like Jeezabels?

Well both would be responsible wouldn’t they?
My point about alcohol was that if one prevents an alcoholic from drinking they wont suffer from the affects of inebriation will they. Would that not be a benefit overall?
The question was on what basis. Society doesn’t do that, abortion by choice for example is murder, but society doesn’t stop that. So you would vote against pro-choice abortion on that basis and thus force a morality on others?

Abortion is a terrible blight on our society. It needs to be reformed. However, in some cases (probably 5% of the current cases) abortion is the lesser of two evils. I am against the death penalty as it is carried out today, as well.

But again you didnt answer the question, you just gave me your opinion on abortion, which I am glad to say I agree with. The question was would you vote against pro-choice abortion on that basis and thus force a morality on others?

Ok - there are some laws that infringe on the liberties of others. There are others that do not. In our country the majority gets to decide. My problem is when propagandists try to convince the majority that laws which do not infringe on the rights of others, actually do.

Again you have not answered the question.
You acknowledged that in the US the majority get the right to decide. So if the majority are Christians they may or may not pass laws that a minority see as an infringement of the rights of others. Are you complaining about this, because if the majority are atheist they may pass laws which infringe on the rights of Christians. Someone looks likely to get infringed on.

Homosexual marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights, despite what FOXNEWS likes to trumpet to America.

Now there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage’ in either the UN Declaration of Human Rights nor the European Human Rights. Indeed both define the right of man and woman to marry and found a family , which indicates marriage is man and woman, and the European Court has affirmed it is not a right. So if you want to talk about rights and infringement of rights first understand what it entails before you bring it to the discussion.

Ah so when a person overdoses on drugs or drinks himself to death, he is sinning against society?

The point was sexual sin is according to 1 Cor 6 a sin against ones own body, your definition was only against others.

Do you really think that Paul was speaking absolutely or literally?

Yes of course, its in line with God’s creation purpose for man and woman throughout the Bible and offer ones body as a living sacrifice for all God’s purposes.

You literalists have no appreciation for hyperbole.

And you illiteralists have no appreciation of holistic Biblical understanding.

Do you realize how similar your game of semantic cat and mouse is to the Pharisees that tried to trap Jesus?

No. The Pharisees disputed what Jesus said, and 1 Cor 6 is what was received from Jesus, so what you have said is a contradiction.

How did Jesus respond?

Well Jesus didn’t respond to Himself. He didnt argue with Himself.

with His heart, and applied scripture - not more literal interpretations.

So did Jesus literally mean the opposite of what is said in 1 Cor 6? How did you work that out?

 

[aspen]

BMS

Ok, I agree and as you said we cant repent for others.
The point I am making is it doesn’t matter how lovingly one may tell non-believers about the gospel, some reject it because of repentance. Of course others are convicted, praise God.

We are not called to love others just so that we can tell them about the gospel. We are called to love all people, regardless, because that is what we were created to do. God wants all people to be saved, but His love is not conditional

Well you tell me. We can hardly be worthless if Christ loved us so much to die for us, but we must be wretched for that to happen, after all Christ said without Him we can do nothing, without Him we perish, like branches cut off and burned in the fire.

How often are we supposed to be feeling wretched?

On the contrary I have never heard that, quite the opposite in fact, how wretched I was and through Christ how glorious I have become reconciled to God.

Well, I have been to a lot of churches and spoken with a lot of people.

Well both would be responsible wouldn’t they?

for the man's lust? Nope. The man is responsible for his own sin. Sounds like Adam blaming Eve for the Fall......

Is McDonald's responsible for making customers fat?

My point about alcohol was that if one prevents an alcoholic from drinking they wont suffer from the affects of inebriation will they.

Yes. In the same way that forcing everyone on the planet to accept Christ through torture would make believers out of all of them.

Would that not be a benefit overall?

Healthwise, perhaps - although addicts usually switch substances. Psychological, no.

The question was on what basis. Society doesn’t do that, abortion by choice for example is murder, but society doesn’t stop that. So you would vote against pro-choice abortion on that basis and thus force a morality on others?

Actually, I would not vote against abortion - I would continue to fight abortion by working to change adoption laws and really providing women with a choice. Abortion is a reflection of the breakdown in our society and needs Christians to provide solutions rather than legislation.

You acknowledged that in the US the majority get the right to decide. So if the majority are Christians they may or may not pass laws that a minority see as an infringement of the rights of others. Are you complaining about this, because if the majority are atheist they may pass laws which infringe on the rights of Christians. Someone looks likely to get infringed on.

I think this conversation has gone way of the track. I do not believe in passing laws that restrict behavior of other adult citizens, which does not affect me or harm society. I think this is a reasonable statement. It seems as if you advocate for passing laws that restrict behavior of other adult citizens that goes against your understanding of God's laws. IMO, this is unreasonable in a country that is not a theocracy.

Now there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage’ in either the UN Declaration of Human Rights nor the European Human Rights. Indeed both define the right of man and woman to marry and found a family , which indicates marriage is man and woman, and the European Court has affirmed it is not a right. So if you want to talk about rights and infringement of rights first understand what it entails before you bring it to the discussion.

So what? Since when do you recognize the UN? If they did, would you recognize it? The fact is, the US is a sovereign nation and when the citizens vote to allow homosexuals to get married, like they have done in 6 states, it becomes the 'right' of all homosexuals living in those states to be married. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

The point was sexual sin is according to 1 Cor 6 a sin against ones own body, your definition was only against others.

Definition of what? None of 1 Cor 6 applies to nonbelievers so how does it apply to the legalization of homosexual marriage?

Yes of course, its in line with God’s creation purpose for man and woman throughout the Bible and offer ones body as a living sacrifice for all God’s purposes.

And yet, Paul also said that it is better to remain celibate. Seems to me that celibate people are still physically equipped to be in a relationship with the opposite sex, yet it is better for them not to marry? How about people who are not physically equipped to bare children? If your argument for heterosexual marriage is based on certain parts being designed for the purpose of procreation, should you be consistent?

And you illiteralists have no appreciation of holistic Biblical understanding.

Ha! I've never been called an illiteralist before - hilarious! The Bible is the inspired word of God - every word is supposed to be there.

No. The Pharisees disputed what Jesus said, and 1 Cor 6 is what was received from Jesus, so what you have said is a contradiction.

Actually, the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus using the law. Jesus corrected them with the spirit of the law. The point is that the law is dead without understanding how to apply it - people are supposed to be controlled by the law or the Bible - the Bible is supposed to point people to God. Legislation of the Bible, specifically including nonbelievers is forcing people to comply with the law without pointing them to God.

So did Jesus literally mean the opposite of what is said in 1 Cor 6? How did you work that out?

Who said the spirit of the law is the opposite of the law? Like Jesus said, He came to fulfill the law.