Restrictions since homosexual marriage legalised

  • 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!

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
No worries. ;)


Well, freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, no matter what. Like all our freedoms, there are limits.
Religions have a precedent of marrying heterosexuals for the entire history of this country, not to mention the last few thousand years. This is hardly a matter of them doing "whatever you want, no matter what". Furthermore, there is the law itself that has, at least up until the present day; protected them in their ability to practice their faith. "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW...restricting the free exercise (of religion)." Fortunately for those who can't wait to see the churches fold, there's the Supreme court, which will have no problem setting a new precedent that the legislature will undoubtedly not notice or care.
 

KCKID

Member
Feb 14, 2013
351
5
18
Townsville, QLD. Australia
Our Prime Minister is a promoter of heterosexual marriage. However, he's under pressure from some in his own party to get the people to decide in either a plebiscite or referendum.

That's not the issue I'm raising. In countries that have endorses homosexual marriage, e.g. Canada, NZ, USA, Ireland, etc, what are the consequences for people who support traditional marriage and oppose homosexual marriage? Will debate on the topic be closed down?

My response to this question would be ...WHY oppose homosexual marriage to begin with? What is to be gained by 'digging in one's heels' re opposing what will eventually become the inevitable?


I've just written to a couple Qld Senators, encouraging them to vote for traditional marriage.

What do you mean 'encouraging them to vote for traditional marriage'? Traditional marriage will be unaffected by 'gay' marriage.


Here is part of what I wrote:
The result in Ireland is an example of what happens when a plebiscite-like non-compulsory vote is taken. The result in Ireland was 62.1% in favour of homosexual marriage, BUT what wasn't given prominent publicity was that this was NOT a compulsory vote and turnout for voting was between 50 and 70% (approx 60%).

This means that approx. 38% of adults favoured homosexual marriage, but it was called a 62% majority. This is wrong when a minority of adults voted.

I urge you to back a compulsory referendum if the Coalition wants to make it a popular vote.

Was that the final part of your letter to the QLD senators or was the next paragraph also included?

However, my view is that marriage should never be determined by popular vote or government legislation. God decided who should be joined together in the beginning of time: 'A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24).

Well, if we're going by a story where Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from a rib (where did the rib come from?) of Adam then I think we should relegate the entire 'creation of man' story to be no more than that. Humans today are 'created' by a very different method. And, their personal lives involving who they fall in love with and with whom they choose to marry are not programmed to follow the rules and the regulations of anyone else. This is what sets human beings apart from robots.

Jesus Christ confirmed this position of heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:5)

Well, this is the old chestnut that is used by many Christians to somehow imply that Jesus was in support of heterosexual marriage and therefore against homosexual marriage. And, since Jesus actually said NOTHING about homosexuality or gay marriage, Matthew 19.5 is the ONLY straw that they can clutch at. The ONLY reason that Jesus is recorded to have said what He said was in response to a question asked of Him by the Pharisees (always out to trick Jesus) about divorce. Yes, marriage WAS between a man and a woman (or, should I say, a man and his property!) so how else would Jesus respond since a man and a woman were those involved in the question? There is NOTHING in Matthew 19:5 that would even suggest a reference to homosexuality or gay marriage. That text, however, DOES raise a pertinent question. How many Christian churches forbid membership to those who are divorced and remarried? How many bakers refuse to bake a cake for those on their second or third marriage? Likewise, how many state employees refuse a marriage license to those on their second or third marriage?

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality. He DID, however, condemn divorce and remarriage. The problem with one's quoting out-of-context Bible passages is that they often result in one's shooting themselves in the foot!


and it was affirmed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31).

Oh yes, the unmarried, male chauvinistic Paul would be the one to go to for marital advice! :rolleyes:

Australia was built on Christian foundations and heterosexual marriage is God's plan. It should not be changed by government or the people.

Oz

Your saying that Australia was built on Christian foundations is just pure rhetoric and no more than that. What does that even mean??? Moreover, there IS no preset 'plan' involved when two people fall in love with one another and choose to commit their lives to one another in the form of marriage. This is no one else's business but the parties concerned. It's not even any of God's business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua☩

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Your saying that Australia was built on Christian foundations is just pure rhetoric and no more than that. What does that even mean??? Moreover, there IS no preset 'plan' involved when two people fall in love with one another and choose to commit their lives to one another in the form of marriage. This is no one else's business but the parties concerned. It's not even any of God's business.

KCKID,

As a fellow Aussie, you know that the laws of our land - against murder, stealing, false testimony (the Westminster system of govt.) - are based on the Christianity that the first fleet brought to Australia through Chaplain Richard Johnson in 1788. You may not like it, but our foundation as a nation is Christian. We are a British colony and the British worldview was Christian when Aust was colonised in the 18th century.

If I'm to take your view of no preset plan when 'two people fall in love', why should it be restricted to 2? If marriage is 'no one else's business but the parties concerned', then you are setting your own rules and there is no reason to complain against anyone who takes children as brides or grooms.

The government of Australia sets the boundaries around marriage. To this point the limit is heterosexual marriage but there are plenty of activists wanting homosexual marriage. If your view is accepted, there should be no reason to reject polygamy and polyandry.

Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?

Oz
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
spoken like a true blue fascist. As if people who wanted to enter into spiritual contracts are currently abstaining because of the state anyway, lol.
 
Jul 6, 2011
447
12
18
I think Christians and the church have been too slow to realise that the western societies such as UK have become increasingly secular liberal even at the expense of nominal Christianity. The Equality and Human Rights Acts have dealt with the clash of beliefs lgbt v Christian by siding with lgbt beliefs, even though the Equality Acts do state equality with religious conscience and practice, and the UN Human Rights declarations articles 16 & 18 protect the religious beliefs but no mention of anything lgbt. The believing Christian could have assumed the state would give them equality, but not only has it not, but it doesnt even realise it.
The problem now is that the church/Christianity should have acknowledged the way the world thinks and tried not to be seen judging the world, instead dealing with the unbelief growing within the church. The scripture is clear, God created man and woman to be in faithful union, and same sex acts are error and sin. (ie Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, Romans 1). Those in the church who call themselves Christians but promote homosexual relations (1 Cor 5) should be disassociated with. I have a number of friends in same sex relations and we obviously dont fall out just because we disagree, but I so called 'gay christians' celebrating homosexual acts are not only celebrating sin, undermining God's creation purpose through man and woman, but also lying about what the Bible says.

As to the secular liberal world, well its based on feelings so it likes what 'gay christians' say and sides with them against true Bible believing Christianity.
 
Jul 6, 2011
447
12
18
Beware. Look at all the Christians (and indeed Muslims and Jews) in the media such as the BBC. Look at the guest vicars on topical programs. They all support homosexual practice. Whilst the Bible is clear, God created man and woman to be in union and same sex acts are error and sin, the media merely wants to hear what its itching ears... The media wont tolerate what Tim Farron may think about it, but points to Ruth Davidson.
Secular liberalism is indoctrinating people with its own definitions of religion and at each stage it becomes more secular liberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzSpen

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I beg your pardon! o_O

Why don't you engage me with the issues I raised instead of name calling (ad hominem)?
lol, sorry, bad hair day maybe? But i would ask what consequences you envision here:

"Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?"

and ty.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
?

why don't you answer the question?

Your question was: "Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?"

Nowhere in this thread have I ever suggested that marriage is 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'. That's a straw man fallacy.

Oz
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?

Oz
so now i am really lost, might be my fault though, coffee gives out about this time of day lol, sorry.
Yes, i understood that you do not agree @ "no one else's business but the parties concerned."

MY question was "what consequences?"
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
so now i am really lost, might be my fault though, coffee gives out about this time of day lol, sorry.
Yes, i understood that you do not agree @ "no one else's business but the parties concerned."

MY question was "what consequences?"

I asked that question of KCKID: Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?

I in no way hinted or stated that that was my position.

Oz
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I asked that question of KCKID: Are you prepared to accept the deleterious consequences of marriage being 'no one else's business but the parties concerned'?

I in no way hinted or stated that that was my position.

Oz
i in no way suggested that you did though, Oz; i just asked what consequences.