The not-so-hidden agenda
Last week was packed with same-sex marriage news, beginning with a huge capitulation in New York state. Five state senators (three Democrats and two Republicans) who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage two years ago announced that they would vote for it this time around. The bill was sent to the Senate by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week with a “Statement of Necessity” attached, meaning there would be no time for the normal legislative process, including public hearings and extended debate. The idea is to get an up-or-down vote by the official end of the session—which happens to be today.
A rushed vote, a cacophony of comments denouncing the bigots and homophobes, a lack of due process and deliberation—that’s old news. What might be new is the bold statement by state Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn as to what this is all about: “What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.” Usually politicians wrap their opinions in the red, white, and blue of equal opportunity and fairness. Sen. Kruger, who may have been speaking more freely than he meant to, let the truth slip.
“Legislative humility is not exactly a widely practiced virtue in New York,” Archbishop Timothy Dolan wryly commented in an interview. He added that the purpose of the redefinition was “to satisfy a very tiny percentage of society—only 3 to 4 percent of the population defines themselves as gay or lesbian, and the Massachusetts experience [of legalized same-sex marriage] suggests that only a small percentage of them will ever even get ‘married.’”
The minuscule number of people who stand to directly benefit from such legislation suggests further that it’s not about marriage at all—it’s about breaking down all barriers to consenting adults living exactly how they please, with dissenting voices confined to the margins.
Last week, former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree stated his opposition to Cuomo’s bill in a video interview with the National Organization for Marriage. Tyree, best known for his legendary catch against the New England Patriots during Super Bowl XLII, is now catching heck. A Yahoo Sports headline read, “Super Bowl hero’s shocking same-sex marriage comments.” Shocking? Tyree said, “The moment we have [same sex marriage], if you trace back even to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society . . . loses its grip with what’s right. Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society.” He predicted anarchy otherwise, a fighting word if internet reaction to his interview is to be taken seriously.
And it should. We’re in a bare-knuckle fight with forces of anarchy, whether they know it or not. They think they’re about redefining the family, but it actually goes a step further: This is about undefining the family. The family becomes whatever they say it is, on any given day or legislative session. Kudos to the Republicans of the New York Senate (and one lone Democrat), and kudos to David Tyree for resisting the push.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top112 Comments to “The not-so-hidden agenda”
Can anyone show the data on who has married in the states where gay marriage is legalized? I suspect you will see a big imbalance. The lesbians will be way more likely than the men to marry unless we’re talking older gay men for whom finding a new sex partner has become difficult given the preference young gay men have for other gay men. [Exception being the Marc Christians of the world who gravitate to "Sugar Daddies" like Rock Hudson]
Report comment to moderator
“What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.”
—-
It has never been about civil rights or equal rights, it has always been about the GLBT Community forcing their moral values, views and ideas onto society.
Report comment to moderator
Then it really isn’t any big deal, is it? The amount of outrage and vitriol spilled over this issue is incredible.
Report comment to moderator
If it’s no big deal, there’s no reason to change either. What is incredible is that people who won’t be taking advantage of what they say is essential may actually prevail.
Report comment to moderator
3. It only takes one lawsuit to destroy the religious freedom of a business, charity or individual citizen.
Report comment to moderator
The Netherlands is the first country to allow same sex marriage, and only 2% of the marriages there have been same sex over the 10 years they have allowed it. So for the majority, it is no big deal — the “redfinition” of marriage, as it were, is small. Last year, for example, New York passed no fault divorce. With 50% of straight marriages ending in divorce, this law has a bigger impact on the definition of marriage than allowing same sex marriage. However, for the 2% of marriages that would be same sex, it makes all the difference in the world to them. Allowing couples to live their lives in peace, being able to visit partners in the hospital, make medical decisions for the partner when one is unable, the ability to have immigration rights, the ability to build a retirement together, the ability to own property jointly without complex legal and tax implications, the ability to have immigration rights, and the ability to say that my relationship is as legitimate as others’ relationships is what this is about. Evangelicals used to stigmatize Catholics and Jews, citing the bible, but eventually society saw that this was wrong and it is no longer acceptable. They did the same to Blacks, using the bible to defend slavery and segregation, and they did the same to women. We are the next group to gain our equal rights and it will be a long struggle, but in the end, Americans are fundamentally fair people, and as people who know me can see that I am as good a person as anyone else, and as more Americans come to realize that their friends, relatives, customers, business partners, and neighbors are gay and are good people, the stigma falls away and we progress in our rights.
Report comment to moderator
the American family does not need to be redefine by the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
but what can we say the enemy of God is at work trying to copy what God has created. In order to trap people into sinful life.
Report comment to moderator
6. I will agree that you have a right to decide who visits you in the hospital or make medical decisions and who you leave your stuff to and most of that other stuff, if you will agree that I don’t have to rent you a place to get married, photograph your wedding, help you adopt kids or help you find another partner when it all falls apart. Deal?
Report comment to moderator
or let you use the church for you to be married in.
Report comment to moderator
“The purpose of the redefinition was ‘to satisfy a very tiny percentage of society—only 3 to 4 percent of the population defines themselves as gay or lesbian.’”
I’m sick of this argument. While only 3 to 4% of the population is gay or lesbian a much, MUCH larger % of the population define themselves as the friends and family of gays and lesbians. And many (recently shown to be a majority of the US and certainly a majority of NY) of those Americans & New Yorkers are sick of their friends and family not having the same opportunities as every other American! The “redefinition” satisfies much more than a tiny segment of the population.
Report comment to moderator
@ 9 & 10) if there is one thing that I believe in, it is FREEDOM OF RELIGION… I personally do not care if you do not want to rent me a marriage hall… it may hurt my feelings to go somewhere and get turned down, but I can live with getting my feelings hurt. Moreover, no church should ever marry someone they do not want to marry — a church should not have to marry divorcees, people “living in sin,” prostitutes, mixed raced couples, couples where only one partner belongs to that church and not the other, or whatever their reason. For the same reasons, churches should not have to ordain women, or blacks, or anyone they do not want to ordain. But Freedom of Religion is not just about you, it is about me too. I should have the right to believe that God accepts homosexuals and that I can be a good Christian as a gay man and can live my life according to my beliefs just as you can live your life believing differently. Therefore, laws deciding who can legally marry should not be based on one person’s religious views over any other person’s religious views.
Report comment to moderator
But Freedom of Religion is not just about you, it is about me too. I should have the right to believe that God accepts homosexuals and that I can be a good Christian as a gay man and can live my life according to my beliefs just as you can live your life believing differently.
shevmonster — The problem is God’s Word does not support your view. An the Word of God for a Christian is more important then Freedom of Religion….
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, laws deciding who can legally marry should not be based on one person’s religious views over any other person’s religious views.
—-
We have laws stopping people from being many reasons….. Christian’s can not support same sex marriage. The Word of God is clear about support sin.
Report comment to moderator
Society has debated time and time again in this Nation as to what marriage should look like. An society has always decide it should be one man and one woman only.
Report comment to moderator
Also, I would like to point out that my partner is Australian, and having been with him for 2 years, I am convinced that he is the person with whom I want to spend the rest of my life. But our lack of legal standing means that our only option for staying together in this country is a complex (and very expensive) series of employment visas that have come unglued one after the next. If visa # 5 falls apart, as I expect it will, I will be forced to choose between my career, family, friends, and country of my birth on the one hand and my partner on the other. So I will be forced into exile. This will hurt not just us but many others. My father, a devout Catholic and WWII vet, now has dementia, and my family really needs me here to help him out physically and financially. Plus I have an orphaned cousin who looks to me for moral and financial support. Plus my elderly mother does not want to be separated from her son by 10,000 miles, and I have 3 straight employees, all of whom may lose their jobs if I move to Australia. Plus I paid $220,000 in income taxes last year, and was glad to make my contribution to society, which I think should count for something as well. My marriage is not going to hurt anyone. It’s not going to cause some children who would otherwise have a father or mother to not have one. However, it will make my life, my partner’s live, and the lives of a number of family, friends, and work colleagues, much better. My ancestors and relatives fought in the revolution and every war this nation has ever fought. I served as a diplomat for the Treasury for 8 years and built the economic models that got Iraq a 98% debt reduction when I worked for the Bush administration — and believe me, not getting the economics right in Iraq will mean that all that sacrifice will have been in vain — so my family and I have contributed to this country and I should not be forced into exile.
Report comment to moderator
12. You seem to support the rights of Churches to their freedoms but what about private businesses and individuals. They are being sued for not wanting to participate and affirm your decisions. Kill these laws and you can live with who ever you want, as far as I’m concerned.
Report comment to moderator
@15 — society has not always agreed that marriage should be one man and one woman — 11 nations and 5 states now recognize total marriage equality — and even if it were true, the argument you are making is the ultimate un-Christian argument. Ethical relativism is the idea that right and wrong are defined by the beliefs of society, as opposed to eternal truth. The fact that society defines something one way has never, under Christian theology, meant that it was true. If there were no eternal truths, and the way society defines things were by definition correct, then there would have been no reason for Christ to come in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
shevmonster – I am sorry for the problem facing you. Me and other here will be praying for you.
But that does not mean the GLBT Community has the right to force their views onto society. An redefine what marriage is to meet their needs.
Report comment to moderator
the argument you are making is the ultimate un-Christian argument.—
No may argument is based on the CHristian Faith when it comes to Christian actions… We can not support same sex marriage. It is a copy produce by the enemy of God. Marriage for a CHristian is between one man and one nation.
As for the 5 States, 2 were order by judges, 3 were decided not by the people but by paid people in power, most of those states are fighting to let the people vote on the issue.
Report comment to moderator
@ 17: I do not think you can sue and individual for being prejudiced, just a business. As far as private vs. public firms, I am not an expert on the law. However, I personally have no issue with the carve-outs that Republicans want in the NYS marriage law to protect private firms or non-profits from somehow affirming same sex marriages.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that society defines something one way has never, under Christian theology, meant that it was true. If there were no eternal truths, and the way society defines things were by definition correct, then there would have been no reason for Christ to come in the first place.
—
You must never heard of the Social Gospel or Social Justiced that is destroying Churchs.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, if LGBTQ’s can’t force their views on society than what gives opposing parties right to force views upon them?
Report comment to moderator
21. If the individual is a photographer or caterer than he can be sued.
“I personally have no issue with the carve-outs that Republicans want in the NYS marriage law to protect private firms or non-profits from somehow affirming same sex marriages.”
Then you seem to be in the minority. Many will use these laws to force acceptance or get revenge on those who can not accept. It has already started.
Report comment to moderator
FrankensteinGirls – how can someone be forcing something onto someone, when it is alway the law of the land? Aka marriage right now is between one man and one woman only. Saying no, to same sex marriage is not forcing marriage of one man and one woman onto any one.
but demanig the marriage be changed to support same sex marriage and using the courts to do it, is forcing same sex marriage onto society.
Report comment to moderator
@Shev: For what it’s worth, it is not the case that Christians break down into one group that regards homosexuality as sinful and opposes marriage equality and another group that thinks homosexuality is just fine and supports marriage equality.
For instance, I support the traditional understanding with respect to the sinfulness of homosexual acts but nevertheless support marriage equality.
Report comment to moderator
REDWALL 11 – So what?
FRANKENSTEIN 23, it doesn’t sound like you actually understand what you’re asking. Your questions are not very clear. Please elaborate so that we can understand your logic without any confusion or guessing.
Report comment to moderator
#23 Frankenstein, for example, you don’t REALLY want to FORCE your views on the rest of society do you?
Report comment to moderator
Louise- What?
Report comment to moderator
Shevmonster, I do agree with you about eternal truths. Where do you believe we find out what these are?
Report comment to moderator
I am asking, why can some christian conservatives force their views upon society? what gives them that right? and why don’t people who oppose them (the LGBTQ crowed for example) have the same right to push their views?
Report comment to moderator
I am asking, why can some christian conservatives force their views upon society? what gives them that right?
–
How are we forcing our views onto society?
Report comment to moderator
Frankie,
Christian conservatives are not doing what you accuse them of. The views of society in state after state that puts it to a vote just happen to agree with our version of marriage. It has been the view of society for thousands of years, despite what some posters say a new poll says. We aren’t seeking to change the definition, the homosexual lobby is. Society, thru the voting booth, has been quite clear on gay marriage. They seem to like the traditional version, as do christian conservatives. The ones attempting to force their view is the gay lobby. You seem to have missed this distintion.
Report comment to moderator
The Supreme Court has been citing to the dictionary lately in its opinions a good deal lately. One can but pray that normality prevails.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, the “so what” is that there is a concentrated effort by the intolerant branch of our faith to portray marriage equality as a capitulation to a small but politically forceful group of people. But that representation is a lie. They are basing their argument to keep us in the dark ages on the failed assertion that I don’t have a stake in the freedom of my fellow Americans (not to mention my friends and family), and they are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, the “so what” is that there is a concentrated effort by the intolerant branch of our faith to portray marriage equality as a capitulation to a small but politically forceful group of people.
—
I see standing up against sin and say no to the enemey copy make us the intolerant branch. Since God’s Word is clear on what is a marriage and what is not a marriage. Are you calling God’s Word the intolerant branch of the Christian Faith?
Report comment to moderator
They are basing their argument to keep us in the dark ages on the failed assertion that I don’t have a stake in the freedom of my fellow Americans (not to mention my friends and family), and they are wrong.
—
How does standing up for marriage being between one man and woman keeps us in the dark ages?
Report comment to moderator
Romans 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Is a warning to those who calls themselves Christian but are supporting same sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
The death Paul is talking about is a spiritual death not a phyiscal death.
Report comment to moderator
How does standing up for marriage being between one man and woman keeps us in the dark ages?
That’s a good question, Pastor Roy, but it could also be asked, “How does standing up for marriage being between one man and woman NOT keep us in the dark ages, *or any other age, for that matter*? Was there some golden age of human existence when “marriage equality” was recognized as including same sex unions?
Redwal, personally, I reject your characterization of me as “intolerant” as intolerance on your part.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – becaused there is no proof the supporting marriage between one man and one woman would keep us as a scoiety in the dark ages.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: according to your definition of a “Christian,” Christians may define a marriage as only between a man and a woman, but there are many people who call themselves Christian who believe differently. As far as “forcing” our views on society, well, if we were taking guns and shooting people, then I would regard that as forcing, but the reality is that the public’s view of same sex marriage has changed because we have worked long and hard to convince people that the current laws are unfair. Moreover, neither I nor anyone else is trying to force you to change your view — you may continue to believe homosexuality is a sin if that is what you want. But if you are like the vast majority of men, then you have spent your life attracted to women and not to men, so it is really easy for you to call something a sin when you have never had to deal with it. Both my partner and I grew up in conservative Christian families and spent many years praying for help to be straight, but it did not work. If you believe that it is possible to pray away being gay, then that is for you to believe. I have no interest in telling you how to run your life and whom you can and cannot marry. If you find happiness in your faith, then I think that is wonderful. I think that if you were around gay people and really got to know us better, your views on homosexuality might change, but they might not. But in the end, my marriage will never harm you or anyone else in any way. I am not asking for restrictions on your life. I am not telling you to believe what I believe. I just want the right to marry the person I want to marry. You have the right to marry the one you love, because you are straight. I would never want to take that right away from you or anyone else. I just want to same right to marry the one I want to marry.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: according to your definition of a “Christian,” Christians may define a marriage as only between a man and a woman, but there are many people who call themselves Christian who believe differently.
–
An they are in conflict with the Word of God. Which puts them in conflict with God….
Genesis 2:24 (New International Version)
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh
Report comment to moderator
As far as “forcing” our views on society, well, if we were taking guns and shooting people, then I would regard that as forcing, but the reality is that the public’s view of same sex marriage has changed because we have worked long and hard to convince people that the current laws are unfair.
—
No you use the Courts Like a Gun… To Force your will onto people.
Report comment to moderator
shevmonster
First your conflict is with God and His Word.
Second you want your idea of marriage to be the standard of society and you have no problem using the courts for force it on people.
Third as a Christian the Word of God is the standard by which Christian’s are to live by. Any sexual behavior out side of marriage is a sexual sin.
Report comment to moderator
I would never want to take that right away from you or anyone else. I just want to same right to marry the one I want to marry.
—
Society has the right to debate the issue of same sex marriage and society has the right to say NO, with out a threat of Courts forcing your views onto society.
As I point aboue marriage again for a Christian is between one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
I would never want to take that right away from you or anyone else. I just want to same right to marry the one I want to marry.
—
Society has the right to debate the issue of same sex marriage and society has the right to say NO, with out a threat of Courts forcing your views onto society.
As I point aboue marriage again for a Christian is between one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
The views of society in state after state that puts it to a vote just happen to agree with our version of marriage.
Suppose the prevailing view was that gay marriage is just fine. Maybe in a given state in which you live. That state’s legislators change the law to reflect prevailing opinion. Would you support that change being reversed?
The clear trend is toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage and, indeed, greater acceptance of homosexual relationships in general. If your excuse for wanting to keep same-sex marriage unavailable is that it’s just what the public wants…then what happens when it’s not what the public wants?
As an aside, the rhetoric employed by those who oppose same-sex marriage (including on this thread) certainly seems to suggest their opposition is based on more than just a desire to see the laws coincide with the prevailing public view.
Romans 1:32 … Is a warning to those who calls themselves Christian but are supporting same sex marriage.
Except it isn’t. I don’t approve of same-sex relationships, including those with a marriage certificate. I do support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone seems to have an opinion regarding, or even disregarding, God’s opinion. Guess when that “twinkling of an eye” occurs, the answer will be known. And, from what I can tell, He is not as concerned about what we want as He is concerned about what He wants. Kinda selfish on His part, but, as Watchman Nee states “God doesn’t tolerate competition.”
Report comment to moderator
ShevMonster, regarding your comments in #42. A sincere question:
What would you say to someone who had the same experience and convictions you describe but with regard to polygamy, incest, or bestiality? I assume there are many people involved in such relationships who could speak as passionately about their situation as you have of yours.
The fundamental question, since you represent yourself as a Christian, is how do you know that your attitudes and behaviors are blessed by God?
Report comment to moderator
I do support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate.
buddyglass -
But you do approve of it. The moment you stated you support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate. Puts you in conflict with God’s Word.
” but also approve of those who practice them.”
Report comment to moderator
The fundamental question, since you represent yourself as a Christian, is how do you know that your attitudes and behaviors are blessed by God?
—-
Show it threw the Word of God
Report comment to moderator
Shevmonster, I don’t see an answer to my question about where you think we find what are eternal truths. I do agree with you, but wonder where you think we find these?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, was away at a bbq and played some more cribbage..
I seem to be mostly in agreement with Shevmonster.
Report comment to moderator
REDWAL 35, please. You know that same-sex sex is a sin. And a doubly sinful slap in God’s face is denying it and doing it with no shame ever, only to change the conversation to carnal love. A downfall easily offered by Satan to our unthinking flesh. Feels so good, though, eh? For now.
Report comment to moderator
SHEVMONSTER
Report comment to moderator
Same-sex marriage is discrimination. It discriminates against Polygamy, Polygyny, Polyandry, Polyamory, Polyfidelity, Bigamy, Pedogamy, Henogamy, Sambandha (temporary marriage), Open marriage, Concubinage, Matrilineality, Matrilocality, Beena Marriage, Celestial Marriage, Child Marriage, Spirit Marriage, Endogamy, Exogamy, Female husband marriage, Clandestine marriage, Chinese Ghost marriage, Line marriage, Handfasting, Heqin marriage, Human-animal marriage, Interspecies Marriage, Nikah mut‘ah marriage, Open marriage, Plaçage, Posthumous marriage, Shim-pua marriage, Sister exchange, Sororate marriage, Trial marriage, Walking marriage, Widow inheritance, androgynous marriage, people who want to marry themselves (autogamy?), or vegetables or their cars or the moon.
When are all of these people going to obtain special civil rights too?
Report comment to moderator
SHEVMONSTER, and other homosexuals seems to think that the government relabeling a civil union a marriage is the highest goal of the civil rights handed down by the State. How pathetic that a blatant sin and slap in the face of a Christian tradition should be whined about and begged for acceptance by those who reject it. Bigoted anti-Christian homosexuals do not gain any support with the poor-me attitude. How pathetic and passive aggressive. Shame on all of them.
Report comment to moderator
Fr
Report comment to moderator
Fr
Report comment to moderator
FRANKENSTEINgirl, since you mostly agree with him, where exactly do you disagree with SHEVMONSTER? And why?
Report comment to moderator
Apologies for my posting quirks. Think I know why now. Tomorrow
Report comment to moderator
But you do approve of it. The moment you stated you support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate. Puts you in conflict with God’s Word.
I assume you support the legality of fornication? By the above logic, does that not place you in conflict with God’s word?
Do you support the continued legality of drunkenness? Blasphemy?
What about homosexual acts themselves, irrespective of the marriage question?
To think that a thing shouldn’t be a crime does not amount to approval of that thing.
Report comment to moderator
#63 Drunks and blasphemers and fornicators aren’t celebrated and granted special minority status. They don’t become a special class of people lauded with public benefits and protections just because of how they behave.
The homosexual agenda is not really about marriage, but about power and acceptance. It is pursuing a whole cadre of new laws which give them special civil rights and protections including minority status, hate speech laws, housing laws, affirmative action and so on.
Homosexuality will be written into text books, school plays, songs and will infringe on the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech. While Christian expression in all of these areas is banned, homosexuality will be sung from the rooftops.
It involves special advancement, special benefits, special taxpayer funding, just like other minorities obtain now. If you aren’t a minority then everyone else will be promoted before you. All of this power and wealth and influence just because of unnatural things they like to do with their genitals.
Personally I’d like to see the government just leave everyone alone and stop its racist, socialistic classification of people into victim groups to receive special redistribution of benefits.
But if you are going to honor certain kinds of behavior, then you may as well honor drunkenness and fornication. Drunks should be praised and promoted before everyone else. Fornicators and adulterers should receive special tax breaks and special civil rights and student loans and so on.
Report comment to moderator
If the homosex “community” can go to St Patrick’s cathedral and disrupt normal operations there as a way of protesting, whenever there is a same sex ceremony and the pastor asks “If there be anyone… let him speak now or forever hold his peace” does that give me the write to recite Levitical injunctions against homosex thru a bullhorn?
I think not.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I think that the behaviors you mentioned ARE not only accepted, but even celebrated to a degree in our society.
Report comment to moderator
“Also, I would like to point out that my partner is Australian, and having been with him for 2 years, I am convinced that he is the person with whom I want to spend the rest of my life.”
? And in two years he didn’t bother to go through the citizenship process?
All those political connections and you can’t get a visa either?
“Plus I paid $220,000 in income taxes last year, and was glad to make my contribution to society, which I think should count for something as well.”
Why?
Income taxes are your duty. Doing your duty doesn’t make you more deserving.
“I served as a diplomat for the Treasury for 8 years and built the economic models that got Iraq a 98% debt reduction when I worked for the Bush administration.”
Which esp surprises me you paid that much in taxes. For someone who is good at finances, you don’t seem to know how to deduct.
And if you make that much money that you had to pay 220k, it would seem you have plenty of money to fly back and forth.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 4:17-19
Instructions for Christian Living
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass – no one is saying that it should be a crime… the fact is clear Christians are not to support sin. Your conflict is with God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 4:22-24
Is where those who are involved in the gay life style and those who call themselves Christian but support the gay life style are struggle at. They do to want to put of the old self. They are being deceived by the enemy of God in believe that the GLBT Community sexual desires are ok with God. It breaks my heart to see so many people being lead astray from the Word of God into captive / enslavement to false teaching and sin.
I pray you wuold turn away from such teaching and ideas, repent and come back to Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Before it is to late.
Report comment to moderator
“I assume you support the legality of fornication? By the above logic, does that not place you in conflict with God’s word?”
Fornication isn’t asking for special benefits, nor are co-habitors asking for married benefits.
“Do you support the continued legality of drunkenness?”
You can be arrested for public drunkeness. Drunk actions (like while driving) are also major offenses.
Buddy, I fail to see how you can not approve of gay marriage, and then support their ability to be certifiably married.
It’s kinda like saying you hate the Yankees while sending a donation every month.
Frankly, no one cares what others do in their bedroom, but there is no reason any gay person needs to governmentally “equal” with marriage. None. There are no benefits to society for being gay. NONE.
It’s an entirely selfish and self destructive way of life.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, I fail to see how you can not approve of gay marriage, and then support their ability to be certifiably married.
—
I believe that think is called a double minded person.
Report comment to moderator
It’s an entirely selfish and self destructive way of life.
—-
18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
Report comment to moderator
no one is saying that it should be a crime… the fact is clear Christians are not to support sin. Your conflict is with God’s Word.
You said, “the moment you support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate”. So supporting the state “allowing” something amounts to “approving” of it.
Do you support the state “allowing” fornication, blasphemy, drunkenness, immodest dress, pornography, sodomy, etc.? I mean, those things could always be “not allowed”.
If you support their continued “allowance” then how does that not bring you into conflict with God’s word, per your understanding of it?
Drunks and blasphemers and fornicators aren’t celebrated and granted special minority status.
They’re generally not persecuted to the same degree either. In the case of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples aren’t seeking “special status” they’re seeking “the same status enjoyed by heterosexual couples”.
They don’t become a special class of people lauded with public benefits and protections just because of how they behave.
Actually they do. Firing someone for “blasphemy” would likely bring you into conflict with federal law. Likewise several states have fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination based on marital status (e.g. unmarried couple). You can’t fire someone for getting pregnant, which is the result of specific behavior. Or for attempting to organize a union. The government, at least, can’t fire someone for his or her political views.
Report comment to moderator
In a related story, a judge in Wisconsin has upheld that state’s Domestic Partnership Registry, which provides Gay couples with some (though by no means all) of the legal benefits and protections of marriage.
Wisconsin Family Action (an anti-Gay organization) had filed suit to overturn the registry, saying that it conflicted with a state amendment banning marriage equality for Gay couples. But in his ruling, Circuit Court Judge Daniel Moeser said the following:
“The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage. Moreover, domestic partners have far fewer legal rights, duties, and liabilities in comparison to the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of spouses.”
Wisconsin Family Action says it will appeal. All this tells me is that it’s really not the word “marriage” that has social conservatives in an uproar, but ANY legal protections for Gay couples. Even in places where something as innocuous as hospital visitation rights for Gay couples has been proposed, it’s always been viciously opposed by the usual “family values” groups.
“Why would you take that little protection away from same-sex couples?” asked Madison attorney Lester Pines, one of the attorneys by Gay couples to defend the registry. The only answer to that question, Pines said, is “that you have a problem with Gay and Lesbian people.”
Report comment to moderator
You said, “the moment you support allowing same-sex couples to obtain such a certificate”. So supporting the state “allowing” something amounts to “approving” of it.
Do you support the state “allowing” fornication, blasphemy, drunkenness, immodest dress, pornography, sodomy, etc.? I mean, those things could always be “not allowed”.
If you support their continued “allowance” then how does that not bring you into conflict with God’s word, per your understanding of it?
—-
Christian should not be supporting such actions, if they are they are in conflict with God’s Word. This is what you are failing to understand.
Report comment to moderator
Drunks and blasphemers and fornicators aren’t celebrated and granted special minority status.
They’re generally not persecuted to the same degree either. In the case of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples aren’t seeking “special status” they’re seeking “the same status enjoyed by heterosexual couples”.
—–
No, they are seeking to make their understand of marriage the law of the land. An supporting such action does put you in conflict with God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Gays and lesbians aren’t looking for “special minority status.” They want to be treated the same as everyone else — including the right to marry the person they love.
Report comment to moderator
“same-sex couples aren’t seeking “special status” they’re seeking “the same status enjoyed by heterosexual couples”.”
Marriage is a special status.
Report comment to moderator
They don’t become a special class of people lauded with public benefits and protections just because of how they behave.
Actually they do. Firing someone for “blasphemy” would likely bring you into conflict with federal law. Likewise several states have fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination based on marital status (e.g. unmarried couple). You can’t fire someone for getting pregnant, which is the result of specific behavior. Or for attempting to organize a union. The government, at least, can’t fire someone for his or her political views
—-
I hate to tell you if you are running a Christian Buisness (like Focus on the Fmaily etc) and in your hiring paper work you clear about certain actions. You can fire people for sinful actions.
Report comment to moderator
“They want to be treated the same as everyone else — including the right to marry the person they love.”
But they aren’t the same as everyone else…
Should we just start calling “yellow” by the name of “blue” for the sake of those who have jaundice?
Should we render the world rid of roses just for the one guy who can’t abide the smell?
Report comment to moderator
Domestic Partnership Registry is an end around to give marriage rights to Gay Community.
Report comment to moderator
ROY 83, I think you’re right. But as a legal framework for contracts we’ll probably have to live with that. Homosexuals have already maneuvered themselves into a special minority status among the politically correct, which helps them push to be regarded as culturally normal instead of sinful. It’s just pretend.
Report comment to moderator
Christian should not be supporting such actions, if they are they are in conflict with God’s Word.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to have sex with someone to whom he or she is not married?
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to have sex with someone (or multiple someones) of the same gender?
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to get falling down drunk?
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ?
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to wear immodest clothing that incites others toward lust?
Do you support state recognition of the legal right of movie producers to market and screen films that contain nudity or sex?
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to adopt a level of food intake and exercise that results in his or her becoming grossly obese?
Just a “yes” or “no” for each question. If you answered “yes” to any of them, explain how your support for the state allowing its citizens to sin against God does not conflict with your understanding of the passage from Romans.
Our government currently gives people leeway to sin in a multitude of ways. That’s because its chief aim is not to mitigate sin behavior, but (at least in theory) to ensure domestic tranquility and ensure personal liberty.
Report comment to moderator
The government does give people in sin rights and the Church speaks out against it. You again are trying to find a reason to support sin by pointing to society views. Which puts you into conflict with God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – The enemy of God can only produce a copy of What God has created.
Report comment to moderator
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to have sex with someone to whom he or she is not married? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to have sex with someone (or multiple someones) of the same gender? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to get falling down drunk? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to wear immodest clothing that incites others toward lust? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of the legal right of movie producers to market and screen films that contain nudity or sex? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Do you support state recognition of a man or woman’s legal right to adopt a level of food intake and exercise that results in his or her becoming grossly obese? THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
You see can not see that the Church has spoken out aginst such actions because of your support of sin,
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY 85, the State cannot stop any of those things from happening any more than it can stop murderers from killing. We do not live in a theocracy. Repealed laws against some things on your list does not mean that the State approves of them, only that under our Constitution our moral behaviors are up to each of us.
ROY, yes, including a counterfeit theology by twisting God’s own words. All the more important to know Him.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – I try my best to point people back to God’S Word for a Christian it is the standard we are to live by.
Report comment to moderator
in re:85
Where do we recognize any of those things?
Such issues are not promoted.
We don’t give incentives for co-habitation. We don’t give incentives for getting drunk.
Schools ban immodest or questionable clothing…at least on record they do.
“Our government currently gives people leeway to sin in a multitude of ways. That’s because its chief aim is not to mitigate sin behavior, but (at least in theory) to ensure domestic tranquility and ensure personal liberty.”
Please explain how allowing leeway, means giving promotion of sins???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We don’t promote any of the above you mentioned (although your obesity comment is a bit absurd).
We don’t give a drunk, the name “sober”. We don’t give co-habitation the title “married”.
This is the complaint against you Buddy. You don’t approve of the lifestyle and then you agree they should be able to get a certificate saying the lifestyle is just fine and dandy…
In other words, you don’t agree with it, but your just fine promoting it.
So I fail to see how post 85 has any point.
Hetero sexual marriage has cultural, historical, statistical backing as the foundation of any society.
If the government is about “general welfare” then this is a reasonable promotion. However, I could agree to drop government incentives to it…What no one will agree with, is giving anything else it’s benefits.
THEY DON’T QUALIFY. A sheet of paper can’t alter that.
Report comment to moderator
THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Please give me a yes or no answer for each one.
the State cannot stop any of those things from happening any more than it can stop murderers from killing.
Sure. I’m not asking whether the state can “prevent” fornication; I’m asking whether it should even try. In the case of murder our treating it as a crime doesn’t completely prevent it from ever happening but it most likely mitigates the frequency.
We do not live in a theocracy.
Fully agree. Which is why I don’t understand those who are dedicated to ensuring the state’s conception of “marriage” matches up with the Christian conception of “marriage”.
Repealed laws against some things on your list does not mean that the State approves of them, only that under our Constitution our moral behaviors are up to each of us.
Fully agree. Roy, however, seemed to suggest that for a Christian to support the legality of a thing amounts to approving of that thing. So if I support the legality of fornication then I approve of fornication, which brings me into the biblical teaching in Romans 1:32. I do not think one need “approve” of a thing in order to support its legality.
Where do we recognize any of those things?
In Lawrence v. Texas the courts recognized a right to have sex with the consenting adult of your choosing, regardless of whether he’s the same gender as you.
Such issues are not promoted.
I don’t see same-sex marriage as promoting or incentivizing homosexuality.
We don’t give co-habitation the title “married”.
Because co-habitation is not marriage. A couple who co-habits but hasn’t married does not have the rights and obligations of marriage. If, at some point, they decide they wish to enter into the marriage contract and take on those rights and obligations then they have that prerogative. But only if they’re not of the same sex.
This is the complaint against you Buddy. You don’t approve of the lifestyle and then you agree they should be able to get a certificate saying the lifestyle is just fine and dandy…
The certificate doesn’t say the lifestyle is “just fine and dandy” any more than allowing fornication says that choice is “just fine and dandy”.
Report comment to moderator
“With 50% of straight marriages ending in divorce, this law has a bigger impact on the definition of marriage than allowing same sex marriage”
When you have no argument, make something up. As bad as the divorce rate is, it has never remotely approximately approached this statistic. At its worse, there was one divorce for each wedding in a given year. The entire population of married people did not wed in that same year. The contrasting of weddings with divorces instead of marriages says very little about the health of marriage in any given society. In fact more than two thirds of married couples remain married to the same partner for a lifetime.
Because some people push for liberalized divorce laws does not mean that those who oppose the specious reducing of marriage to its lowest denominator support that trend.
Conan, #79, no one has the right to marry anyone they love. Marriage is avaialable only to mentally competent nonmmarried and not too closely related adults of opposite sexes. If you keep to the facts here it is evident that there is already absolute equality when it comes to marriage eligibility. The argument for “gay marriage” depends on avoidance of the facts.
Buddy Glass, your arguments miss the point entirely. The state has always regulated marriage. Your examples could only relate if your examples were seeking the redefinition of their behavior into something other than what it was in order to secure public approval.
Report comment to moderator
THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT. Is the answer to your question. It is the answer that address the issues.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t see same-sex marriage as promoting or incentivizing homosexuality.”
Well it sure isn’t discouraging it. And they already have the opp to live together however long they wish.
So what else could it be doing?
It’s like giving a drunk, a certificate that says “Congradulations, it’s okay to be drunk!”
Report comment to moderator
Ken
I am getting the impression that buddyglass is looking for a reason to justify his views. He seems to have problem with me, for point out the danger of supporting sexual sins.
Report comment to moderator
It’s like giving a drunk, a certificate that says “Congradulations, it’s okay to be drunk!”
Thorn, I got one of those certificate before I became a Christian, I was a drunk in the Army.
Report comment to moderator
#95: It isn’t going to cause people who are heterosexual to become homosexual.
It will allow homosexuals to live normal lives in society.
Report comment to moderator
It will allow homosexuals to live normal lives in society.
—
First, off since when do they need society approvable or the churches approvable to that life stlyle. They have the freedom to embrace their sexual sins.
Second, Who decides if their life style is a normal life style? As a Christian the Word of God determines what is and is not a normal life style. For society that is subject to wind of public options’.
Report comment to moderator
First, off since when do they need society approvable or the churches approvable to LIVE that life stlyle. They have the freedom to embrace their sexual sins
Report comment to moderator
Second, Who decides if their life style is a normal life style?
As a Christian the Word of God determines what is and is not a normal life style. For society that subject to wind of public options’.
Report comment to moderator
“It will allow homosexuals to live normal lives in society.”
You think a civil war allowed blacks to do so? Some letter by Lincoln?
It took another 100 years before people caught up to the realization that blacks are people too.
The funny thing about homosexualism though, is that YOU ALREADY CAN LIVE A NORMAL LIFE.
Nothing is stopping you. And no certificate is needed to give you anything.
If you wanna be normal, go marry someone of the opposite sex.
Doing it with the same sex, is ABNORMAL.
No homosexual is being denied a normal life. And you have just as every opportunity to work, to play, and to keep what you do in the bedroom to yourself.
Report comment to moderator
#92 BuddyGlass “I assume you support the legality of fornication? By the above logic, does that not place you in conflict with God’s word? Do you support the continued legality of drunkenness? Blasphemy? What about homosexual acts themselves, irrespective of the marriage question? To think that a thing shouldn’t be a crime does not amount to approval of that thing.”
Here is the point you are missing: Allowing fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy and homosexual acts is about the government doing nothing about something considered not good.
That is quite different than celebration and sanctioning some perversion by the state giving it official recognition and legal status. Drunkards and adulterers are not celebrated and sanctioned by the state except maybe in Congress.
I am in favor of the government doing nothing. The best thing government has ever done is ‘nothing’. In this case, government is giving its stamp of approval to people obsessed with the excretory system. People with an anal fixation are being handed special minority status and will be promoted faster and receive more benefits than anyone else. They will be protected in housing and by hate speech laws.
I don’t care much about the “gay marriage” issue. Government specializes in the absurd. Let people make whatever ludicrous contracts they want. Who cares? But I am fascinated to no end by the psychotic reasoning which says that the most vile things people can think should become celebrated American values.
Just because a minority likes playing with feces doesn’t mean the whole nation should place its seal of approval on scatology. Why should everyone have to hear about it? Why should it be taught in schools? Why should we embrace it as normal and healthy? Why should it become illegal to speak against it?
Report comment to moderator
As bad as the divorce rate is, it has never remotely approximately approached this statistic.
See Table 3 here. They claim 50% of first marriage are disrupted (divorce or separation) after 20 years.
The state has always regulated marriage. Your examples could only relate if your examples were seeking the redefinition of their behavior into something other than what it was in order to secure public approval.
The state has also frequently regulated sex. Recently that regulation has ceased to prohibit homosexual sex. That seems pretty analogous to the marriage situation. In other words, by Roy’s logic, a Christian who supports a court decision that strikes down state prohibition of homosexual acts is “approving” those acts and is thereby in conflict with Romans 1:32.
Similarly blasphemy used to be illegal in many/most states. So a Christian who supports ending the criminalization of blasphemy would, by Roy’s logic, be “approving” said blasphemy.
According to this guy ten states currently have anti-fornication laws on the books. Per Roy, any Christian who supports taking these laws off the books necessarily approves of fornication.
THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT. Is the answer to your question. It is the answer that address the issues.
That is not an answer to the question, “Do you support making (or keeping) fornication/sodomy/etc. illegal?”
Why won’t you just answer yes or no?
Well it sure isn’t discouraging it. And they already have the opp to live together however long they wish.
I’d say it does neither. I don’t think anyone ever decided not to be gay because marriage wasn’t an option. Similarly if same-sex marriage ever became a reality I don’t think anyone would decide to be gay (who wouldn’t have otherwise) because marriage was on the table.
It’s like giving a drunk, a certificate that says “Congradulations, it’s okay to be drunk!”
It really isn’t. Is allowing heterosexual couples with open relationships to marry equivalent to giving them a certificate that says “open relationships are okay”?
Or how about divorce. Is allowing divorce equivalent to giving each partner a certificate that says “divorce is okay”?
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass you seem to have a hard time understanding that fact what you are promoting is going aganist God’s Word. An that it does put you in conflict with Romans 1:32.
All the question that you have thrown out THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH THOSE ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT. The different is the GLBT Community that you are defending and promoting are trying to change the standards of God’s Word also.
Report comment to moderator
I will have to post a bit that shows how marriage has CHANGED over the years once I get to the library….depending on their site filter.
Report comment to moderator
“Is allowing heterosexual couples with open relationships to marry equivalent to giving them a certificate that says “open relationships are okay”?”
You mean like polygamy?
“Is allowing divorce equivalent to giving each partner a certificate that says “divorce is okay”?”
You sign for a divorce, which annuls your marriage. We find divorce acceptable under certain circumstances, such as adultery.
Papers or a certificate acknowledge the legality of the divorce.
I fail to see how your argument is valid or that it even has a credible point.
Being a gay couple, doesn’t need approval or equality with marriage. You acknowledge it isn’t right, so why would you ever promote it to a status that is the same.
It’s like trying to make an apple pie with oranges instead…It doesn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
you seem to have a hard time understanding that fact what you are promoting is going aganist God’s Word.
You seem to have a hard time giving me a simple yes/no answer to the questions I’ve asked. Why is that?
All the question that you have thrown out THE CHURCH SPEAKS OUT AGINST SUCH THOSE ACTION AND WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
Yes. The Church speaks out against homosexuality and has warned people about it. I fully agree. That does not answer the question of whether you support the legality of homosexuality. Do you? If you do, then how does that not bring you into conflict with Romans 1:32 (as you understand it)?
You mean like polygamy?
No, I mean like couples who are swingers. We basically allow any man and woman to marry regardless of how they conduct themselves sexually. By allowing heterosexual couples whose sexual behavior is wholly incompatible with the Christian concept of marriage to legally marry are we not, by your logic, granting tacit approval to their lifestyle?
You sign for a divorce, which annuls your marriage. We find divorce acceptable under certain circumstances, such as adultery.
Sure. But we allow people to divorce for any reason (or no reason) at all. Does the fact that we legally certify such immoral divorces amount to tacit approval of immoral divorce?
You acknowledge it isn’t right, so why would you ever promote it to a status that is the same.
Blasphemy isn’t right either, but it’s lumped in with other sorts of speech when it comes to our first amendment rights. Should it not have been “promoted to a status that is the same” as other non-blasphemous speech?
Marriage, so far as the state is concerned, is purely a legal designation. Like a contract. We don’t require anything special of heterosexual couples seeking to enter into this contract. They don’t need to declare their love for one another. They don’t have to be sexually exclusive. They don’t have to produce children. They don’t have to cohabit. They don’t even have to have sex.
What is the rationale for prohibiting same-sex couples from entering into this same sort of contract? All I hear from the opposition side is that they want to build the Christian conception of marriage into the secular legal requirements for entering into that sort of contract.
I’m a big fan of religious freedom. As such, I can’t oppose same-sex marriage solely on the basis that same-sex relationships are wrong. (Which they are.)
Back in the day, plenty of folks thought interracial marriage was morally wrong. They fought against the elimination of miscegenation laws on the basis that allowing mixed-race couples to marry represents the state “approving” of these morally wrong relationships. Their argument (and yours) is that the state should refuse to allow couples to marry whose relationships are deemed “morally wrong” by a sufficient portion of the citizenry. That’s where we disagree. I don’t think the state should be utilized as a mechanism to enforce a particular group’s morality, even if that group is in the majority.
Report comment to moderator
“No, I mean like couples who are swingers. We basically allow any man and woman to marry regardless of how they conduct themselves sexually.”
Your still confusing “allowing” with promoting or recognizing the behavior. Marriage doesn’t recognize such open behavior, nor can it stop it should couples chose to engage in such a practice.
We do not give them any benefits for their side practices.
Your trying to confuse being given admittance to an amusement park with having free reign to destroy it while there, instead of enjoying the park the way it was intended.
“But we allow people to divorce for any reason (or no reason) at all. Does the fact that we legally certify such immoral divorces amount to tacit approval of immoral divorce?”
People’s hearts are hard. Moses faced the same issue the state does. However, that is not what was intended from the beginning.
“Blasphemy isn’t right either, but it’s lumped in with other sorts of speech when it comes to our first amendment rights. Should it not have been “promoted to a status that is the same” as other non-blasphemous speech?”
Freedom doesn’t negate responsibility. Because you can say what you want doesn’t promote profain words to the same status. It’s still frowned upon, discouraged.
Are you still trying to suggest that the lack of a law against something, promotes it or justifies it?
“Marriage, so far as the state is concerned, is purely a legal designation. Like a contract.”
I would say they consider it more than that, as they give benefits for being married (taxes for instance).
“What is the rationale for prohibiting same-sex couples from entering into this same sort of contract?”
They aren’t opposite sex. Why is that so hard to understand?
“I’m a big fan of religious freedom. As such, I can’t oppose same-sex marriage solely on the basis that same-sex relationships are wrong.”
What does same-sex marriage have anything to do with religion? Especially if it’s just a state contract?
“Back in the day, plenty of folks thought interracial marriage was morally wrong.”
More apples and oranges? Interracial is not a sex type issue. It was a race issue. Which was abolished by the vast majority of the states (not courts) after WWII.
“Their argument (and yours) is that the state should refuse to allow couples to marry whose relationships are deemed “morally wrong” by a sufficient portion of the citizenry.”
Is that my argument? You aren’t listening then. See race doesn’t change the givens of man and woman leaving father and mother and becoming one flesh.
My argument is that we will not call blue, green and red, orange for the sake of those who hate the American Flag, nor for those who want to replace it.
Likewise we won’t change the definition of marriage to satisfy a few, especially when those are already free to abide by the definition.
Why should we let you in to the park, when you’re already acknowledging your going to tear it down?
“I don’t think the state should be utilized as a mechanism to enforce a particular group’s morality, even if that group is in the majority.”
Who’s morality should it rest on though?
The state has to anchor it’s morality somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
Eph 5
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 06.20.11 AT 5:06 PM
The Supreme Court has been citing to the dictionary lately in its opinions a good deal lately. One can but pray that normality prevails.
On that note, did you know that 37 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that “gay marriage” was NOT a constitutional right in the Baker v. Nelson. Interestingly, this decision occurred AFTER the Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage:
http://www.citizenlink.com/2009/09/24/the-supreme-court-rejected-same-sex-marriage-37-years-ago-surprised/
So, once again, the “gay marriage = interracial marriage” meme is exposed as the sham it is.
P.S.
Here is a copy of the Supreme Court’s original argument:
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/minnesota/bakervnelson/BakervNelsonJurisdictionalStatement.pdf
Report comment to moderator
Shevmonster wrote
Evangelicals used to stigmatize Catholics and Jews, citing the bible, but eventually society saw that this was wrong and it is no longer acceptable. They did the same to Blacks, using the bible to defend slavery and segregation, and they did the same to women.
As a Black man, the “civil rights = gay rights” arguments is one of the major reasons I am disgusted with homosexual activism. Blogger LaShawn Barber perfectly summed my feelings of this dumbing down of oppression and bigotry:
Nothing gets me riled up quite like a homosexual, especially a white male, whining about his inability to legally “marry” another male and comparing himself to blacks who were forbidden to sip from “Whites Only” water fountains or made to go through back doors of business establishments like restaurants.
It makes me want to vomit, too.
Imagine traveling back in time and telling some of those church-going folks getting beat upside the head, sprayed with firehoses, attacked by dogs, drenched with soda and food at Woolworth’s during a sit-in demonstration, and called “Niggers” that they’re enduring all this nonsense so that one day, two men could make a mockery of marriage.
Give me a freakin’ break! Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/10/30/race-and-lifestyle-choice-a-blood-boilingly-bad-comparison/
Amen, sister.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!