Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn

[deprofundis]

To answer Selene's question, there are plenty of religions and interpretations of religions, which do not condemn pre-marital sex. There are even denominations, admittedly rather small ones, of Christianity which do not do so, or which at least would condemn it to the extent of advocating any legal interdiction on sexual behavior, or even members of the faith "frowning on" it.

Also, as a student of neuroscience with a somewhat genetic focus, I find any instance of a "gay gene" very unlikely, but find it even more unlikely that sexuality could possibly be a conscious decision. Most likely, it's influenced by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors in brain development. I'm by no means a final authority, of course, but from my knowledge, that would be my belief.

Finally, to discuss the actual topic of the article, I have to say that I disagree with its assertion. There is a strawman being made of the ruling, I believe; there is a significant difference between expressing the belief that homosexuality is a sin in one's interpretation of the Bible and holding up signs that say "God Hates You-know-whats" at the funeral of a murder victim whose murder was, I would argue, definitely a hate crime, being purely on the basis of his sexuality. Further, I see nowhere in Christianity where judging the acts of others is an inherent part of the religion, in fact, as I recall, one is inclined not to judge, and those with sins to keep their stones in their hands. I doubt there is anyone among the Christians who so frequently judge gays and lesbians who has not, him- herself, sinned. In the very same book (Leviticus) that the condemnation of homosexuality is often cited, numerous acts the vast majority of Christians do quite often are included, similarly. However, being themselves guilty of these sins, they are not so self-righteous and judgmental about them. I'm glad someone pointed out the position of C.S. Lewis, earlier, who I feel had an enlightened view on the subject. Finally, the state and the church are separate entities, and can have different codes. If a church does not wish to allow same-sex marriages, that is fine, but I see no reason the government can deny them, given that they fundamentally do not cause anyone harm. Unless, of course, one believes the statements about them eroding the "sanctity of marriage" as a legal institution, which I find hard to swallow, given that essentially any heterosexual couple of legal age, with virtually any level of commitment or seriousness, can be married for essentially any reason.

Personally, I have my doubts as to the sinfulness of homosexuality, from my interpretation of the Bible and the history around it. More to the point, I am not God, nor can I as a fallible mortal make the pretense of truly understanding his will, and I am not wholly without sin, myself, so I see no ground from which I am to judge homosexuals, among others.

 

[[email protected]]

Further, I see nowhere in Christianity where judging the acts of others is an inherent part of the religion, in fact, as I recall, one is inclined not to judge, and those with sins to keep their stones in their hands. I doubt there is anyone among the Christians who so frequently judge gays and lesbians who has not, him- herself, sinned. In the very same book (Leviticus) that the condemnation of homosexuality is often cited, numerous acts the vast majority of Christians do quite often are included, similarly. However, being themselves guilty of these sins, they are not so self-righteous and judgmental about them. I'm glad someone pointed out the position of C.S. Lewis, earlier, who I feel had an enlightened view on the subject. Finally, the state and the church are separate entities, and can have different codes. If a church does not wish to allow same-sex marriages, that is fine, but I see no reason the government can deny them, given that they fundamentally do not cause anyone harm. Unless, of course, one believes the statements about them eroding the "sanctity of marriage" as a legal institution, which I find hard to swallow, given that essentially any heterosexual couple of legal age, with virtually any level of commitment or seriousness, can be married for essentially any reason.

Personally, I have my doubts as to the sinfulness of homosexuality, from my interpretation of the Bible and the history around it. More to the point, I am not God, nor can I as a fallible mortal make the pretense of truly understanding his will, and I am not wholly without sin, myself, so I see no ground from which I am to judge homosexuals, among others.

It has long been known that the abandonment of sexual taboos leads to the general disruption of society as well as the destruction of the family unit.

Outside the family, the lack of sexual inhibitions results in criminality, disease and the breakdown of good character.

The destruction of the family unit leads to pressures upon society that it cannot support in the long term.
Such pressures are; economic, education and support of children the elderly and infirm as well as health and mental problems which may arise.

Evidence of the abnormal and destructive impact upon society may be seen in present day attitudes of entitlement which threaten to bring down the entire economic system.

Evidence of flaws in character which are encouraged and expanded by the destruction of the family unit and sexual immorality are the loss of trust, truth, health, etc.

Where is it written that sexual immorality is a good thing?

The argument that 'everybody else is doing it therefore I can too' is juvenile at least and a glaring example of immoral attitudes and a bankrupt character at best.
No one who supports such activity can be trusted.

Accusations that an imperfect knowledge of God limits application of right behavior and attitude is unwarranted and just plain wrong.
This is a fallacy prompted by those who either value their own opinion above fact or who simply disrespect the Word of God.

One does not need to be perfect to preach the gospel, to know God or to give accurate and truthful testimony to His miracles.
Perfect knowledge is a fantasy. There is no such thing.

One does not need to have perfect knowledge of one's own body to live and exist in it.
There are all sorts of processes and reactions happening within us.
Most of us have no idea what's going on in there, yet we live nonetheless.

Medical science has not advanced to the point where all questions have been answered.
Does that mean that you cannot and should not seek a doctor when something goes wrong with your body?
A doctor does not have perfect knowledge of our bodies either, yet we seek his greater knowledge when help is needed.

Since we do not know ourselves perfectly and manage to get along quite well anyway, it logically follows that one may know God and His will without having to be an expert in quantum physics or theology.

The idea that one's statement of Biblical truth is not acceptable because of a lack of some pretentous perfect knowledge is absurd.

Rejection of Biblical truth is acceptable when one wishes to continue in the pursuit of sin and lawlessness as defined in its pages.
Rejection of Biblical truth is useful when one wishes to disguise the revealed personality of God and superimpose one's immorality upon it.

God IS. God IS known as is His word.

What is also true is that sin is very popular and the wicked will do whatever is necessary to hide their sins or argue their way out of condemnation.

Extramarital sex and homosexuality is wrong.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants."
Lev 18:22-25

One thing that is also true is that the unpenitent sinner will do everything possible to ignor warnings about divine judgment.

But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.
Num 32:23

These things are clearly the word and intent of God, but it is the messenger who is often killed for passing it on.
Killing the messenger doesn't despoil the word.

Sin is sin whether you like it or not and it will take its toll upon you whether you want it to or not.
The choice is to repent and live or continue in sin and die.

"Choose wisely"
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

 

[deprofundis]

It has long been known that the abandonment of sexual taboos leads to the general disruption of society as well as the destruction of the family unit.

Known by whom? Plenty of places which didn't have historical taboos against homosexuality had intact family units. In fact, China and Japan had a stronger tradition of familial reverence and respect than contemporary Europe, yet did not demonize homosexuality. Similarly, Native American culture had a specific social role for homosexuals and other "queer" identities integrated into their social units.

Outside the family, the lack of sexual inhibitions results in criminality, disease and the breakdown of good character.

Sure, the lack of inhibition does, but homosexuality with the same exact inhibitions as heterosexuality (those of consent, safety, and good sense) doesn't necessarily involve any of those things, except perhaps an arbitrary and unjust criminality, depending on the law.

The destruction of the family unit leads to pressures upon society that it cannot support in the long term.
Such pressures are; economic, education and support of children the elderly and infirm as well as health and mental problems which may arise.

I agree entirely, I feel a family is not only the most important, but essentially the only important, component of any society.

Evidence of the abnormal and destructive impact upon society may be seen in present day attitudes of entitlement which threaten to bring down the entire economic system.

I see no reason to see homosexuality, or even really sexuality, as the cause of those attitudes. Consumerism, and a media which constantly tells us we are entitled construct the sense of entitlement, if you ask me.

Evidence of flaws in character which are encouraged and expanded by the destruction of the family unit and sexual immorality are the loss of trust, truth, health, etc.

A homosexual couple can have a family that is honest, trusting, and healthy.

Where is it written that sexual immorality is a good thing?

That's an unfair way to ask the question; nobody really says any kind of immorality is a good thing. Some people do, however, say that different kinds of sexual behavior are, or are not, immoral. Including among Christians.

The argument that 'everybody else is doing it therefore I can too' is juvenile at least and a glaring example of immoral attitudes and a bankrupt character at best.
No one who supports such activity can be trusted.

Well, I guess it's good that I never made that argument, then.

Accusations that an imperfect knowledge of God limits application of right behavior and attitude is unwarranted and just plain wrong.
This is a fallacy prompted by those who either value their own opinion above fact or who simply disrespect the Word of God.

Those who "value their own opinion above fact," are those who believe they can judge in God's place, if you ask me. It's simply not my place to judge others, and I try to refrain from doing so.

One does not need to be perfect to preach the gospel, to know God or to give accurate and truthful testimony to His miracles.
Perfect knowledge is a fantasy. There is no such thing.

Certainly not, and I never said this was the case. I view Christianity as a positive faith, not a negative one. I celebrate the Lord and His miracles, but it is His place, not mine, to pronounce judgment on others.

One does not need to have perfect knowledge of one's own body to live and exist in it.
There are all sorts of processes and reactions happening within us.
Most of us have no idea what's going on in there, yet we live nonetheless.

Medical science has not advanced to the point where all questions have been answered.
Does that mean that you cannot and should not seek a doctor when something goes wrong with your body?
A doctor does not have perfect knowledge of our bodies either, yet we seek his greater knowledge when help is needed.

Do all doctors agree on what is the best course of action to fix what is wrong with your body? Is it never wise to get a second opinion? Are doctors always right?

Since we do not know ourselves perfectly and manage to get along quite well anyway, it logically follows that one may know God and His will without having to be an expert in quantum physics or theology.

I agree, again, I'm saying only that none of use are in any place to be casting stones, not being ourselves without sin, and, further, judgment being His place, not ours.

The idea that one's statement of Biblical truth is not acceptable because of a lack of some pretentous perfect knowledge is absurd.

I'm not arguing that it is not acceptable, I'm arguing that it is one's own personal understanding and interpretation of Biblical truth; others will have different understandings and interpretations of that truth. Being fallible and mortal, we can't know exactly what God meant by His Word when His Will was written in mortal words, and repeatedly translated between our languages. We can only seek his guidance and try to do what we believe He says is right.

Rejection of Biblical truth is acceptable when one wishes to continue in the pursuit of sin and lawlessness as defined in its pages.
Rejection of Biblical truth is useful when one wishes to disguise the revealed personality of God and superimpose one's immorality upon it.

I'm not rejecting any truth, I'm rejecting material, active hatred and discrimination based on an interpretation of that truth. It is up to God to give the final say as to whether anyone's deeds are right or wrong.

Extramarital sex and homosexuality is wrong.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants."
Lev 18:22-25

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Lev 19:19

"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Lev 19:27

Have you ever worn a garment made of mixed fabrics? Have you ever shaved or cut your hair? Leviticus clearly states that both of those acts are similarly wrong. Furthermore, do you keep kosher? How about eating plants grown from mixed seed, such as virtually any corn purchased in America? All those provisions are in the very same book you cite. Many Christians seem to believe that Christ's "New covenant" erased on the parts of Leviticus which are inconvenient to them, which fits with what you were saying before about sinners finding excuses, doesn't it? People just seem to keep the ones they can use to enact self-righteous judgment upon others and ignore those they personally violate.

 

[aspen]

Known by whom? Plenty of places which didn't have historical taboos against homosexuality had intact family units. In fact, China and Japan had a stronger tradition of familial reverence and respect than contemporary Europe, yet did not demonize homosexuality. Similarly, Native American culture had a specific social role for homosexuals and other "queer" identities integrated into their social units.


Sure, the lack of inhibition does, but homosexuality with the same exact inhibitions as heterosexuality (those of consent, safety, and good sense) doesn't necessarily involve any of those things, except perhaps an arbitrary and unjust criminality, depending on the law.


I agree entirely, I feel a family is not only the most important, but essentially the only important, component of any society.


I see no reason to see homosexuality, or even really sexuality, as the cause of those attitudes. Consumerism, and a media which constantly tells us we are entitled construct the sense of entitlement, if you ask me.


A homosexual couple can have a family that is honest, trusting, and healthy.


That's an unfair way to ask the question; nobody really says any kind of immorality is a good thing. Some people do, however, say that different kinds of sexual behavior are, or are not, immoral. Including among Christians.


Well, I guess it's good that I never made that argument, then.


Those who "value their own opinion above fact," are those who believe they can judge in God's place, if you ask me. It's simply not my place to judge others, and I try to refrain from doing so.


Certainly not, and I never said this was the case. I view Christianity as a positive faith, not a negative one. I celebrate the Lord and His miracles, but it is His place, not mine, to pronounce judgment on others.


Do all doctors agree on what is the best course of action to fix what is wrong with your body? Is it never wise to get a second opinion? Are doctors always right?


I agree, again, I'm saying only that none of use are in any place to be casting stones, not being ourselves without sin, and, further, judgment being His place, not ours.


I'm not arguing that it is not acceptable, I'm arguing that it is one's own personal understanding and interpretation of Biblical truth; others will have different understandings and interpretations of that truth. Being fallible and mortal, we can't know exactly what God meant by His Word when His Will was written in mortal words, and repeatedly translated between our languages. We can only seek his guidance and try to do what we believe He says is right.


I'm not rejecting any truth, I'm rejecting material, active hatred and discrimination based on an interpretation of that truth. It is up to God to give the final say as to whether anyone's deeds are right or wrong.



"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Lev 19:19

"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Lev 19:27

Have you ever worn a garment made of mixed fabrics? Have you ever shaved or cut your hair? Leviticus clearly states that both of those acts are similarly wrong. Furthermore, do you keep kosher? How about eating plants grown from mixed seed, such as virtually any corn purchased in America? All those provisions are in the very same book you cite. Many Christians seem to believe that Christ's "New covenant" erased on the parts of Leviticus which are inconvenient to them, which fits with what you were saying before about sinners finding excuses, doesn't it? People just seem to keep the ones they can use to enact self-righteous judgment upon others and ignore those they personally violate.

Amen - it is nice to read such a thoughtful and reasonable post on this subject.

 

[deprofundis]

Amen - it is nice to read such a thoughtful and reasonable post on this subject.

Thanks, I've really enjoy reading your posts, as well. I'm actually thinking of the best ways to formulate a few questions for your thread on Catholicism. God bless!

 

[[email protected]]

Known by whom? Plenty of places which didn't have historical taboos against homosexuality had intact family units. In fact, China and Japan had a stronger tradition of familial reverence and respect than contemporary Europe, yet did not demonize homosexuality. Similarly, Native American culture had a specific social role for homosexuals and other "queer" identities integrated into their social units.


Sure, the lack of inhibition does, but homosexuality with the same exact inhibitions as heterosexuality (those of consent, safety, and good sense) doesn't necessarily involve any of those things, except perhaps an arbitrary and unjust criminality, depending on the law.


I agree entirely, I feel a family is not only the most important, but essentially the only important, component of any society.


I see no reason to see homosexuality, or even really sexuality, as the cause of those attitudes. Consumerism, and a media which constantly tells us we are entitled construct the sense of entitlement, if you ask me.


A homosexual couple can have a family that is honest, trusting, and healthy.


That's an unfair way to ask the question; nobody really says any kind of immorality is a good thing. Some people do, however, say that different kinds of sexual behavior are, or are not, immoral. Including among Christians.


Well, I guess it's good that I never made that argument, then.


Those who "value their own opinion above fact," are those who believe they can judge in God's place, if you ask me. It's simply not my place to judge others, and I try to refrain from doing so.


Certainly not, and I never said this was the case. I view Christianity as a positive faith, not a negative one. I celebrate the Lord and His miracles, but it is His place, not mine, to pronounce judgment on others.


Do all doctors agree on what is the best course of action to fix what is wrong with your body? Is it never wise to get a second opinion? Are doctors always right?


I agree, again, I'm saying only that none of use are in any place to be casting stones, not being ourselves without sin, and, further, judgment being His place, not ours.


I'm not arguing that it is not acceptable, I'm arguing that it is one's own personal understanding and interpretation of Biblical truth; others will have different understandings and interpretations of that truth. Being fallible and mortal, we can't know exactly what God meant by His Word when His Will was written in mortal words, and repeatedly translated between our languages. We can only seek his guidance and try to do what we believe He says is right.


I'm not rejecting any truth, I'm rejecting material, active hatred and discrimination based on an interpretation of that truth. It is up to God to give the final say as to whether anyone's deeds are right or wrong.



"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Lev 19:19

"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Lev 19:27

Have you ever worn a garment made of mixed fabrics? Have you ever shaved or cut your hair? Leviticus clearly states that both of those acts are similarly wrong. Furthermore, do you keep kosher? How about eating plants grown from mixed seed, such as virtually any corn purchased in America? All those provisions are in the very same book you cite. Many Christians seem to believe that Christ's "New covenant" erased on the parts of Leviticus which are inconvenient to them, which fits with what you were saying before about sinners finding excuses, doesn't it? People just seem to keep the ones they can use to enact self-righteous judgment upon others and ignore those they personally violate.

Changing the subject to avoid the consequences of rebellion against God does not disqualify HIS command.

I notice that you are quick to accuse Christians, but use the very methods you condemn to justify your own point of view (picking and choosing scriptures which are irrelevant to the subject).
This is generally known as hypocrisy.
Judge not (Christians) in this way lest YOU be judged a hypocrite yourself.

My post DID NOT address fabric, hair styles or horticulture.
Those who wish to dilute the commandments of God usually resort to such tactics.

Rebellion against God is sin.

That which was written still stands.

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.

How plain does it have to be?
Yet there are many who LIE about this and claim the Bible makes no such statement.
Why do they do this? Simply to mask their rebellion and hide their sin.
IN TRUTH the only ones they are fooling are themselves.

Gods sees and knows and is not distracted by attempts to justify SIN.
You may be able to persuade children that this abhorrent life style is good, but God most certainly does not buy it.
He has said so very plainly in His word.

Well, there it is boys and girls (or whatever else you claim to be) written in black and white.

Obey or disobey. Those are our only choices.

As for me, I have discovered that if I want to have the blessings of God I WILL OBEY HIS COMMANDS.

It is wise to do so since it is not man's approval I seek.

PS
If you still think that God approves of the homosexual life style, why don't you ask Him to edit the text?
You can't do it, so you pretend it doesn't say what it does. Yet I'd like to see you try.
HINT: The only prayer that God hears from a rebellious sinner is one of penitent humility.

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.

Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord;

Acts 3:19 and Acts 8:22

 

[veteran]

Preaching against homosexuality is already considered a hate crime. And Christians are being arrested for presenting the bible's position on homosexuality.

Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn
Monday, August 16, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Religious leaders warn that if an Aug. 6 ruling by a federal judge on same-sex marriage is upheld, it could wind up putting a gag on Christians speaking out about homosexuality – a gag that a top Southern Baptist leader says his denomination will not accept.

In a 136-page decision barring California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University Law School and chairman of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, said Walker's finding is shocking, and, if upheld, would have ominous implications for Christians wanting to present the Bible’s position on homosexuality.

“It’s an astounding statement by a judge, and if that finding were to be upheld, it would criminalize Christian beliefs, because the Bible and Christian beliefs historically have clearly indicated that homosexuality is sex outside of marriage – and is contrary to God’s design,” Staver told CNSNews.com.

He added: “For this judge to say that Christian beliefs or religious beliefs contrary to homosexuality are actually harmful -- what that essentially says is, that if that’s the case, then you’ve got to change your religious beliefs, and if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized as result. That is a very dangerous aspect of this court decision.”

The judge based his finding on testimony of witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and on quotations from documents from the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

One Catholic document that the judge said “hurts” homosexuals, published by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” states: “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’”

Another document he cited -- a resolution the Southern Baptist Convention passed in June of 2003 -- says: “Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge's finding was disturbing, but predictable -- his denomination had filed a “friend of the Court” to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.

“We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups ‘create an animus’ and were ‘the products of centuries of hate,’” Land said.

The biblical position on homosexuality isn't “hate speech,” he said.

“The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage – those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe -- God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth,” Land said.

“It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God,” he said. “It would be indifference – or worse – to not tell them.”

Christian counselor Joe Dallas, who operates a center that uses Scripture to counsel people on homosexuality, is concerned about the implications of the judge's finding.

“For a judge to say that it is literally damaging to homosexual people when churches simply express and maintain a clearly defined biblical approach to homosexuality, is to introduce the concept that the ‘damage’ that’s being done to homosexuals needs to be stopped. That damage will have to be stopped by silencing the Church,” Dallas said. “There’s really no other way to read that particular finding.”

A former gay activist, Dallas said he came out of the homosexual lifestyle in 1984 precisely because of the Bible’s injunction against homosexuality.

“By 1984, I had been an active member of the gay community for about six years. I also was a Christian and I realized I was going to have to make a choice between obedience to the teachings of the Scripture – or expression of my sexual feelings,” he told CNSNews.com.

“A clear look at the Scripture and a re-evaluation of my faith reminded me that my relationship with God was far more important than sexual satisfaction. And so, I pursued a life of repentance from homosexuality and abstinence from any sort of sexual behavior outside of marriage,” he said.

The author of 11 books on Christianity and sexuality, Dallas said he would not want to see a law passed requiring all people to make the same decision he did.

“But believe me there are many other men and women who have made a similar decision and I have had the honor of working with them over the years,” Dallas said.

“Clear biblical teaching on human sexuality did not damage us,” he said. “And let me say this plainly: clear biblical teaching on human sexuality does not damage anyone. Can that teaching be misapplied? Can people use it as an excuse to harm people? Well, of course – but the same could be said about clear biblical teaching on parenting children.

“Most people, whether Christian or non-Christian, would agree that parents should have authority over their children and that there should be consequences for misbehavior when children misbehave. Now some people have misused that authority as an excuse to physically abuse their children, but we wouldn’t be silly enough to say that because a small minority has misused that teaching and caused harm, that therefore the majority should abandon that teaching – and the same is true here.”

The ERLC's Land, meanwhile, said Southern Baptists will not change their position on homosexuality, and will not bow to political correctness -- even if U.S. courts ever rule that they must.

“Let me spell it out for you, If they say that telling what the Bible says about homosexuality is hate speech, and cannot be allowed -- we will be arrested in our pulpits. We will obey God rather than man,” he told CNSNews.com.

CNSNews.com - Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn

Well founded article. Activists working against The Bible as "hate speech" is a working against God, since for Christians, God is The One Who has declared what is moral and what is immoral.

Now those who want to be outside God's camp, they can claim whatever they want to believe. But lawyers and judges have no right to claim The Bible as hate speech, nor those who heed The Bible as proponents of hate speech. To do otherwise in the U.S. is to violate the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution of The United States. Preaching what God in His Word The Bible declares against immoral behaviour is a protected 1st Ammendment right. We don't see laws being proposed that prevent speech hatred against Christians and Christinaity and The Bible. It's because under the 1st Ammendment the unbelievers also have the right to voice their disbelief in The Bible and even their hatred against Christianity and Christians. Nor are they required to attend a house of worship where immoral behaviour is taught against within The Bible.

The ploy to declare The Bible as "hate speech" is actually a ploy against ALL freedom of speech. It's a ploy designed to end ALL people's 1st Ammendment rights per the U.S. Constitution, INCLUDING those of immoral behaviour. If even ONE violation of the 1st Ammendment can be used as a precedent for judges, then ANY speech in America can then be controlled! What type of countries in past history imprisoned their citizens for speaking against the state and its leaders? Understand that and you'll know who's really behind the "hate speech" idea.

 

[TexUs]

I'll just hit on a few things, I haven't read the whole thread.

The Federal Government is interested in Constitutional matters. The Constitution applies to all people, so if this matter is deemed a violation of freedom of religion, then the Federal Government does have an interest in it. This is not the case, however.

Without going into a legal discussion, suffice it to say "right to marry" is loosely founded upon the Constitution's Equal Protection clause as well as the Due Process clause.
There's really not been enough firm rulings on the matter to say one way or the other. An amendment is definitely in order to clarify the situation.


My opinion is that the 10th, rights to the states, kicks in here and marriage is left to the states, which is exactly how this is seen. The federal judge ruling in this case is IMO unconstitutional. However I see nobody willing to tackle that perspective (has anyone tried, anyone know???).

Judges, in checks and balances, are good to keep "corrupted" representatives from running ary. My issue is that judges keep that branch in check. The issue is that THE PEOPLE directly voted this measure in, the judge is working directly contrary to the will of the people- who is he supposed to represent? We see the same thing in Oklahoma regarding Sharia law, which was approved by 70% majority.




Now my personal opinion is we need an amendment that forbids state or federal involvement in marriage. Period. Leave marriage to churches. If the Mormons want to marry five wives, let them.

 

[JarBreaker]

In America, all people already have the right to marry including homosexuals. The thing is.... marriage comes with restrictions. One cannot marry a person of the same sex, a person who is under-age (you can't marry a child), or a person of close relation (you can't marry your own brother or sister). A person also cannot be married to more than one person. What homosexuals want is not the right to marry for they already have that right, but rather to remove a restriction. There is a reason why those restrictions were put there in the first place. If one removes the restriction of marrying a person of the same sex, are the polygamists going to come out and say that they should also have the right to marry more than one person? Where is it going to end?

Where is it going to end?


a woman married the Eiffel Tower


seriously ...

 

[deprofundis]

Changing the subject to avoid the consequences of rebellion against God does not disqualify HIS command.

When did I change the subject? I directly addressed each point you brought up individually. Perhaps I did not express myself well, I can clarify if you would like.

I notice that you are quick to accuse Christians, but use the very methods you condemn to justify your own point of view (picking and choosing scriptures which are irrelevant to the subject).
This is generally known as hypocrisy.
Judge not (Christians) in this way lest YOU be judged a hypocrite yourself.

I think you've misunderstood me if you think this is what I'm doing. My citations from the scripture were chosen because you ignored them; there was no need to cite the scriptures you had already cited. My point was not to quote the entirety of Leviticus, but to ask you who you were to judge another being yourself not without sin. I am not judging you, I have not called you wicked or immoral. I have never said I have not sinner, for surely this is false. I honestly don't see my hypocrisy. I have only asked you to consider your own sins before taking a tone of self-righteous condemnation towards those of others. You are not a homosexual, but that does not give you a right to judge them, just as the fact that I have not cut my hair in years does not give me the right to judge you. That is His right and His place alone.

My post DID NOT address fabric, hair styles or horticulture.
Those who wish to dilute the commandments of God usually resort to such tactics.

Those who wish to dilute the commandments of God resort to the tactics of citing scripture? I suppose I should have also cited Matthew 7:1-7:5. The Lord tells us not to judge another, for we are not without sin, and so to lay judgment upon another is hypocrisy, which is what I have been saying all along.
The second relevance of my scriptural citations is to note that no-one objects to laws that let different kinds of cattle graze together, seeds or fabrics to be mixed, hair to be cut, and beards to be shaved. Each of these things is legal, and no-one is troubled by this. Why, then, are they troubled by homosexuals being allowed to marry? If you believe it is a sin, fair enough, but are there not sins you commit each day without criminal prosecution? I know I look at others in anger, and I am not arrested. In my teenage years, I'm certain I failed to respect my mother and father, but this was not illegal. I haven't cut my hair in quite a while, but I shave, and have received no legal censure. Why should they suffer mortal prosecution for their sins when you and I do not?

Rebellion against God is sin.

That which was written still stands.

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.

How plain does it have to be?
Yet there are many who LIE about this and claim the Bible makes no such statement.
Why do they do this? Simply to mask their rebellion and hide their sin.
IN TRUTH the only ones they are fooling are themselves.

How is this any different from condemning the sins of another to show one's righteousness and mask one's sin?

PS
If you still think that God approves of the homosexual life style, why don't you ask Him to edit the text?
You can't do it, so you pretend it doesn't say what it does. Yet I'd like to see you try.
HINT: The only prayer that God hears from a rebellious sinner is one of penitent humility.

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.

Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord;

Acts 3:19 and Acts 8:22

I will ask the Lord for forgiveness tonight, if my refusal to judge and hate has truly offended Him, for I try only to do His Will to the best of my ability and understanding of His Word. Before you point fingers or cast stones, though, feel your chin and look in your cupboard, and ask if, from the same book you cite, you, too, are not a rebellious sinner. I cannot say, for it is not my place to judge.

Where is it going to end?


a woman married the Eiffel Tower


seriously ...

No, she legally changed her name and declared herself married to the Eiffel Tower. There is no legal bond of marriage between the two. She will not receive alimony if she divorces the Eiffel Tower, nor have any say in "medical" matters should it need repair. The issue is not to whom (or, evidently, what) one can say one is married, but with whom one may confer the legal benefits of marriage. Your article has nothing to do with this, merely sensationalizes the issue without giving it any serious consideration. I could say I married an alligator, that doesn't mean I would have any grounds for an adultery suit if she ran off with another 'gator. The issue is legal marriage and the rights accorded to it, and nothing more. Each religion or individual can choose to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

 

[aspen]

You know, somebody deciding to marry the Eiffel Tower is hilarious. It is funny, people!

Sometimes I think you guys have forgotten how to laugh - everything is life or death. Everything is about your rights being violated and what you are losing and how people who disagree with you are attacking you. Is this the life of victory you are living? Because it sure smells a lot like death and decay.

 

[JarBreaker]

No, she legally changed her name and declared herself married to the Eiffel Tower. There is no legal bond of marriage between the two. She will not receive alimony if she divorces the Eiffel Tower, nor have any say in "medical" matters should it need repair. The issue is not to whom (or, evidently, what) one can say one is married, but with whom one may confer the legal benefits of marriage. Your article has nothing to do with this, merely sensationalizes the issue without giving it any serious consideration. I could say I married an alligator, that doesn't mean I would have any grounds for an adultery suit if she ran off with another 'gator. The issue is legal marriage and the rights accorded to it, and nothing more. Each religion or individual can choose to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

DARN ... rumor was those towers have great dental coverage! too bad for her

hey profundis, maybe look into finding yourself a bridge or a shed or something ---- maybe you'll inherit a sense of humor

Is this the life of victory you are living?

Thanks for the support Aspen, just keep your napalm away from Profundis's bridge!

 

[deprofundis]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post; it's hard to sense sarcasm on the internet, sometimes, and I thought you were seriously bringing up a woman's "marriage" to the Eiffel Tower as comparable to same-sex marriage. I definitely agree that it's funny, I just thought you were posing it as a serious argument and event. I truly and humbly apologize for my misunderstanding, I'm just so used to seeing people make arguments like the one in your post quite seriously that I assumed too quickly you were posing it as such an argument, not making a humorous comment. That wasn't fair of me to do, and I should've clarified before giving a response.

 

[JarBreaker]

Profundis, understood about misreading things - as good a tool as the net can be, people often miss the things they could learn most from just because of the difficulty of grasping the sense of things. It's not even so much about a grammar thing or whatever as it is about a cultural / regional thing, you might live 150 miles away and totally misread a local attitude or joke that I typed.

All that aside, I did mean it in a comic sense --- and then a serious sense also.

The original question I think was "where will it end ? ... gay marriage, then polygamy and such and such so on so forth"

So yeah, the deceptive human reasoning behind gay marriage leading into the Eiffel Tower thing was a joke and serious at the same time ... is that the essence of irony ? maybe that's why it didnt read so well over the internet.


edit for further note --- you are pretty new here, and I tend to post here for a time then retreat from the internet for a few months so I also tend to forget people may not have seen me being a goofball before : -)

 

[deprofundis]

I think it's because when you're talking to somebody in person, you can see their face, hear their tone, etc., while on the internet, you just have text to go by without necessarily much context. It can be hard to tell until you get to know somebody.

I still have the same problems with using it in any serious sense as I did before, though. It just doesn't apply to the issue at hand, especially from a legal perspective; the Eiffel tower will never be able to sign a legally binding agreement. Gay people are human beings who can make informed, adult decisions (even if you don't agree with them), so they have every right to choose to make commitments to one another and have those commitments honoured and respected by the law. Homosexual partnerships, especially among lesbians, are statistically mor stable than heterosexual marriages, even in parts of the country where they haven't ever been legally allowed to marry. If anything, the LGBTQ community has demonstrated at least a legal sanctity of marriage a lot better than the heteronormative community has. Like I said, a church can recognize or not recognize the marriage, as they like, but that's not the government's place. If everyone involved can be said to give informed consent, I wouldn't necessarily say I believe polygamy should be illegal, either. It's murkier, since it provides more opportunity to abuse the system (to marry as many individuals as possible purely for the accumulation of benefits), and actually fitting it within the system would be logistically extremely problematic.

Really, I think the government regulating or being involved with marriage in any way was a misstep. It should have stayed a community decisions which particular communities defined and treated in their own way. End-of-life decisions should respect the patient's desires, rather than who is "next-of-kin," without regard for them. Tax and insurance benefits for marriage encourage people to get married for all the wrong reasons. It would also help to end this incessant, divisive, and fruitless debate. There are so many problems in this country and the world as a whole, that worrying about who marries whom just seems like a trivial usage of the government's time.

 

[JarBreaker]

" If anything, the LGBTQ community has demonstrated at least a legal sanctity of marriage a lot better than the heteronormative community has."


This is because they are equally yoked --- being comfortable with their own human decisions and supporting each other in them is a lot easier than 2 people who both may be striving to follow Yah's word amidst all the confusion satan has thrown at us, in not wanting things to be as they once were.



and I agree about not being able to see someone's face etc etc --- it leaves us with nothing but our own perceptions and we color our thoughts and reactions with our internal feelings, the thing to remember here is that are we to have and act in the love of messiah then no partiality can be in us.

And actually, it is easier to exercise that attitude of non-partiality on the internet than it might be face to face.

 

[[email protected]]

" If anything, the LGBTQ community has demonstrated at least a legal sanctity of marriage a lot better than the heteronormative community has."


This is because they are equally yoked --- being comfortable with their own human decisions and supporting each other in them is a lot easier than 2 people who both may be striving to follow Yah's word amidst all the confusion satan has thrown at us, in not wanting things to be as they once were.

They aren't all that comfortable with their yoking.
Now that gay marriage is legal, we are seeing the very real human tendency to break the bond by means of divorce.

Divorce isn't pretty no matter what the scenario, but its a story that is not frequently broadcast by the media.
They concentrate on the happy faces of gays being coupled in matrimony - not the sad and broken hearts of the same people months or years later when inter personal differences tear the relationship to bits.

They are, after all, people and people tend to follow their lusts regardless of stereotype.

Left to our own devices humanity is essentially self-absorbed and self-destructive.
The only hope we have as a society and a species is help from outside ourselves.

The best and greatest hope is Christ Jesus who did a lot more than just die on a cross.
He teaches us how to live with each other as well as before God.

Teaching involves acting on the advice and the advice includes DO and DON'T.

Gays as a group are no more comfortable with their decisions than anybody else and are just as fallible as anybody else.
They need Christ and His guidance as much as anybody else.

Those in favor of same sex unions are going to use Amendment 14 (the Rights of Citizens Amendment). The word "marriage" does not appear in the US Constitution, but homosexuals feel that their rights were being denied because they are unable to marry a person of the same sex. So, in this case, I would not be surprised if they use the 14th Amendment to try and get same-sex marriage approved at the Federal level.

AGREED

I wouldn't be surprised if gays used Amendment 14 or any other justification as ammunition to support their argument.
It doesn't have to be logical or even legal, just sufficient for use.

My point is Federal intervention in the matters of a specific state where it is not specifically defined in the Constitution is illegal.

For example, here in Florida our legislature passed a bill to submit an amendment to the state constitution regarding Obama's health insurance mandate.
The bill would have been added to the list of other amendments for Florida voters to ratify or decline during the general election of November 2010.
It is a common practice for our legislature to put major issues before the people for their decision.
The boys and girls in Tallahassee thus effectively pass any hot potatoe to the voters - keeping their hands clean.
Because it was to be an amendment, passage would have required a 60% majority vote.
Most such proposals do not pass here.

A Federal judge pulled the amendment (#9) off the ballot prior to election day, thus effectively removing the right of the citizens of our state to have any voice in the issue whatsoever.

America as we know it is dead.

Welcome to the new and improved USA.

"Sieg Heil Sieg Heil Sieg Heil"
(popular chant in NAZI Germany 1930's)

"USA USA USA"
(popular chant in America circa twenty first century)

Different language, similar repression.

 

[deprofundis]

They aren't all that comfortable with their yoking.
Now that gay marriage is legal, we are seeing the very real human tendency to break the bond by means of divorce.

Divorce isn't pretty no matter what the scenario, but its a story that is not frequently broadcast by the media.
They concentrate on the happy faces of gays being coupled in matrimony - not the sad and broken hearts of the same people months or years later when inter personal differences tear the relationship to bits.

I'm not saying divorce never happens, but statistically speaking, divorces and "break-up"s of homosexual life partners are proportionally a lot less common than in married couples.

I wouldn't be surprised if gays used Amendment 14 or any other justification as ammunition to support their argument.
It doesn't have to be logical or even legal, just sufficient for use.

Arguing same-sex marriage is included in the fourteenth amendment is actually pretty logical and reasonable, given legal precedents in both the due process and equal protection clauses, especially the latter. Further, the equal protection clause since Brown v. Board of Education declared separate-but-equal institutions as harmful even in cases of perfect equality.
The text reads of the equal protection clause reads " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (emphasis mine), which means that if marriage is to be considered a privilege of United States citizens (basically, if we have a right to marry to begin with, for which precedent exists in Zablocki v. Redhail) it must be granted to all citizens not only equally, but in the exact same manner; "separate but equal" rights or privileges are unconstitutional. Also, this right must apply to all citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. There are several examples of how this could be said apply to same-sex marriage, some of which don't even relate to homosexuality directly; one of the latter being that to give a man a right to marry a woman only, and a woman a right to marry a man only, means that men and women do not have the same rights to marry as one another and thus that one must have a right to marry a person, not a man or a woman, for everyone to have equal rights. From this view, it's not even an issue of discrimination against homosexuals, but, in fact, is an issue of gender discrimination. Legal precedent related to marriage rights was esablished with Loving v. Virginia, which declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. That decision was part of the basis for the recent Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision that California's proposition eight was unconstitutional. Lawrence v. Texas is also important, since it established precedent that intimate, consensual sexual conduct is a "liberty" of which it is unconstitutional to deprive someone.

It's interesting that you bring up the tenth amendment (indirectly), though, with regard to other issues, since it makes the federal Defense of Marriage Act arguably unconstitutional, as well, since the decision of marriage rights is not a power delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, thus meaning the matter should be left by the states and, thus, if states vote to legalize same-sex marriage, federal, as well as state, rights of marriage should be given to same-sex marriages. A trial on the subject is in place in Massachusetts, but currently at a stay.

 

[web]

Sorry my post should have went on another board.

 

[archaeologist5]

look for the **************

Hi Selene,

Thanks for your response.

"They are very much aware that the act of homosexuality is labeled a sin in the Bible."

So, once again, why do we feel such a great burden to tell homosexuals that homosexuality is a sin?
*********because it is but the homosexual community tends to ignore that fact while trying to justify their preference by using the 'God is love' phrase to feelaccepted byGod when they are not.


"Hence, that is why they say it's a genetic trait."

Sexuality is a complicated and basic - hardwired from a young age - trait. If you doubt this just think about how basic Personality disorders are then think about how hard they are to treat.

*********no it is not, people make it to be because they do not understand it.

"There is no scientific evidence of a "gay" gene."

True. We are not sure what the contributing factors are in the development of sexuality.

***********i do. there is no 'gay' gene

"There is also no scientific evidence of a 'pedophile' gene."

True. We do not know what causes pedophilia.
***********i do.


"Yet, we have people in our society who are not only physically attracted to the same sex but even attracted to very young children. Pedophiles are not given a free pass to do what they want, and they shouldn't. A pedophile should restrain his urge and refrain themselves from indulging in their urges because not only is it a sin, but a criminal offense."

Of course, pedophilia is different from homosexuality because it is sex between a minor and an adult, rather than two consenting adults. It is sort of like comparing rape with consensual sex between adults.

**********uhm...pedophilia is techincally rape if it is not consensual.

"Those who are attracted to the same sex should also restrain themselves because it is a sin. Furthermore, fornication is also labeled a sin in the Bible; therefore, those who are attracted to the opposite sex should also resist the urge from having sexual relations with those of the opposite sex because fornication is a sin. Sexual relations are only permitted within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman."

Even for non-Christians? Why? All I am saying is that it seem like a lot for me to demand non-Christians to live a celibate life because the doctrine I believe to be true is interpreted by some Christians to be sinful. Even Solomon suggested that if this is all there is to 'eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die' in Ecclesiastes. Finally, it is interesting to me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality even though the practice was commonplace in the Roman Empire.

**********Jesus may not have used the exact word 'homosexual/homosexuality but believe me He touched on the issue.

All I am saying is, that this issue gets in the way of real government reform and it has the potential to alienate people.
*********what is being reformed here? the willof thepeople spoke and rejected same sex marriage, the homosexual community didn't hear what it wanted to hear thus it is usurping the will of the people and trying to get their own way like a bunch of spoiled children. there is NO sympathy for the homosexual communityfor they refuse to follow the rules when the rules go against them.

Peace

oh and, the homosexual has the right to marry, they are free to marry any heterosexual person on the planet, they have not had their rights denied, they want to change the rights to fit their preference but their preference is not a minority issue nor a 'rights' issue. they have no right to demand same sex marriage.