Only in the same sense that a jaywalker and a serial killer both commit crimes.It doesn't matter, judging one, a few or many, judging is judging, it doesn't require an appointed position and black robe, everyone judges.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Only in the same sense that a jaywalker and a serial killer both commit crimes.It doesn't matter, judging one, a few or many, judging is judging, it doesn't require an appointed position and black robe, everyone judges.
So? Isn't societal acceptance the basic concept behind every civil rights movement?You need to know the background of the homosexual agenda to understand this sort of thing. They have said more than once that they want to influence the minds of children so that they can produce a generation that is accepting of homosexuality.
Regulation of marriage is generally left to the states. However, the states can't regulate marriages in a way that violates people's constitutional rights. With same-sex marriages, it comes down to the due process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution, and that the states failed to show how they had a legitimate secular interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry.Could you identify Anywhere in the US Constitution, that gives The "Federal" Government Authority to make Judgements regarding marriage?
That's your opinion.You quoted a Federal Law of a time frame, then said a Federal Judge ignored the Law, and made a Judgement superceeding the Law.
Twice in your post so far, you reveal Federal Judges making Rulings Outside of their Authority.
Supreme Court rulings apply to all 50 states.The USSC "recognizing" Same sex marriage, is Not a Dictatorial Ruling that Every Soverign State is thereafter Required to Authorize "Performing" Same sex marriages.
The states can't violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.The citizens of every Soveriegn State are willing to exercise their power to prohibit or authorize performance of Same sex marriages, So what?
Everyone has the right to exercise their power to live in whatever State "they" choose.
Sure, but that's only relevant to Christians.The entire TFT site is about homosexuality and what the Bible says about it.
There is a Christian position on homosexuality. It is found in the Bible. Because of false teachers who have distorted the gospel there are many people who believe they are Christians when they are not. They hold beliefs that are not based on the Bible.
Look through this thread. Every stereotype of the gay-hating Christian is on display here.We warn obese people about the bad consequences of their obesity. Christians was gay people about the dangers of their lifestyle. Our culture is so corrupt that those who warn against homosexuality are accused of hating gays even though those who warn against the dangers of obesity are not accused of hating fat people.
Only in the same sense that a jaywalker and a serial killer both commit crimes.
It's a matter of scale, just like the difference between judging an individual versus judging an entire group of people.So? I do see a difference of Harm caused by their acts.
Regulation of marriage is generally left to the states. However, the states can't regulate marriages in a way that violates people's constitutional rights. With same-sex marriages, it comes down to the due process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution, and that the states failed to show how they had a legitimate secular interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry.
That's your opinion.
Supreme Court rulings apply to all 50 states.
The states can't violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.
Why Change a Long Standing Meaning of a Word, turn it into a LIE, then try to Vomit that LIE upon young innocent minds?
Since those are your Christian beliefs, you should live by them. But the US is not a Christian theocracy, so no one else is obligated to live according to your Christian beliefs.Rights?
Marriage:
Scriptural: 6,000 + years ago
USA: 200 + years ago
USA: I wanna be Queer...so let's Redefine a 6,000 year old Word meaning!!!
Noun: (modern)
the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
200- 6,000 + years ago.
MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:2.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Revelation 19:7.
Seriously, IF queers want to be in a relationship with the same sex...Aren't they Smart enough to devise a Term for THEIR union, and petition Congress for "their Queer Union" to be included in particular Benefits afforded a Married man and woman?
Why Change a Long Standing Meaning of a Word, turn it into a LIE, then try to Vomit that LIE upon young innocent minds?
It is Disgusting and Wrong!
Can you show where you are being forced to "approve and celebrate" LGBTQs?Because it is not just tolerance that they demand, but the approval and celebration of their perversion as right and good.
Obviously, you don't have a valid answer.Only in the same way that legalizing interracial marriage "hurt" people who opposed it.
How are the two different? A lot of people (many Christians) felt very strongly that people should not be allowed to marry someone from a different race, and several states expressly forbid it. Eventually the SCOTUS ruled those bans were unconstitutional and people were subsequently free to marry someone outside their race, which "hurt" those who believed it was morally wrong.Obviously, you don't have a valid answer.
It's a matter of scale, just like the difference between judging an individual versus judging an entire group of people.
Because it is not just tolerance that they demand, but the approval and celebration of their perversion as right and good.
You can call an apple an orange, you can even browbeat and brainwash others into calling and believing the apple is an orange... But one bite settles the Truth of the matter...
Peace!
Since those are your Christian beliefs, you should live by them.
But the US is not a Christian theocracy, so no one else is obligated to live according to your Christian beliefs.
Can you show where you are being forced to "approve and celebrate" LGBTQs?
How are the two different? A lot of people (many Christians) felt very strongly that people should not be allowed to marry someone from a different race, and several states expressly forbid it. Eventually the SCOTUS ruled those bans were unconstitutional and people were subsequently free to marry someone outside their race, which "hurt" those who believed it was morally wrong.
How is that different than those who believe very strongly that people should not be allowed to marry someone of the same sex being "hurt" when the SCOTUS ruled that bans on same-sex marriages were unconstitutional?
As I have not studied every civil rights movement I will keep, my remarks to that which I have studied.So? Isn't societal acceptance the basic concept behind every civil rights movement?
Look through this thread. Every stereotype of the gay-hating Christian is on display here.
My first thought after seeing all that was to wonder why the mere inclusion of gay characters in a short film triggered this level of response from you, especially after you'd previously agreed that that sort of thing should remain legal. You might want to engage in some self-reflection and think on it a bit.
Oh, and I'd be careful about citing the Bible as a source of "objective morals", unless you want to argue that genocide, taking young girls as the spoils of war, having rape victims marry rapists, etc. are all "objectively moral".