Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Discuss strengths and weaknesses of new pages added to the God And Science website
User avatar
Harry OK
Valued Member
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:12 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: The U.K.
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#106

Post by Harry OK » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:29 pm

Gman wrote:
cslewislover wrote:There have been a lot of protests by those who are angry over Prop 8 passing; amazingly, I could hear a huge racket from one group last night, and it was quite far away. Before the election I heard that quite a few people that had pro-Prop 8 signs in their yards got their houses egged. I really don't feel bad about voting yes on Prop 8.
Not to mention death threats... Sounds loving to me..

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613
*Ahem* I'd just like to chip in here.

Those death threats cannot be used as an example to judge all homosexuals. I'll play devil's advocate to prove that here:

Here in the UK, we had a huge controversy a while ago over an opera called The Jerry Springer Opera. This show contained alot of irreverant treatment of Judeo-Christian themes, surreal images like a troup of tap-dancing Ku Klux Klan members and a heck of A LOT of swear words (all sung in falsetto!) Now, Christians cringed and clucked their tongues here and there when it was showing in theatres, but it was nothing major.

Then the BBC, the world's largest broadcasting corporation and Britain's iconic governmentally funded broadcasting corporation, decided to broadcast the show, well after the watershed with a plethora of warnings beforehand, AND during the opera itself.... FULLY FUNDED BY THE BRITISH PUBLIC'S TAX MONEY!!!

The complaints POURED in - 55,000 in total. Then an organisation, "Christian Voice" posted BBC staff members' email addresses on their web sites, and encouraged Christians to send them death threats... which hundreds did. Christians paraded outside the BBC offices and burned their television lisences in the streets. Many BBC staff didn't turn up for work because they feared persecution.

Do you want to know what the funny thing was? EVERY ONE of the Christians who posted death threats to the BBC staff members had not seen the opera. They had the idea that Jesus was dressed in a nappy... which he wasn't. They had the idea that Eve was shown to be an overweight poledancer... which she wasn't. My point? SOME Christians behaved appallingly, but that in no way can be used as condemnation for all Christians. In the same vein, you cannot condemn open homosexuals because of the action of a few.

I know I watched the opera myself when it was broadcast. It was shocking, vulgar, it pushed the boundries in every direction, it had incalculable swear words (the bulk of one song consists of an ensemble chorus emmaculately harmonising the 'C' word 45 times in rapid succession). I loved it! I'm a Christian (obviously) and I laughed all the way through. I don't think people realise WHAT the show was satirising: it was satirising the talk-show set up and it mocked what the public constitutes as entertainment today, not the Christian religion. Plus it was good quality opera too (when the Ku Klux Klan engage in their Mel Brooks-esque tap dance routine, it brings the house down.)

Of course, a small minority of Christians got the wrong message, and behaved disgustingly. But don't blame all for the actions of a few. :wave:
If you're born once, you die twice; but if you're born twice, you die once.

cslewislover
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#107

Post by cslewislover » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:49 pm

That's pretty wild what happened there, Harry. And I agree with you. But I know you've read on this thread (and maybe others) about all that the militant homosexuals are doing here - in churches and in the courtroom. There's just a lot more of it going on from their end here - as far as I can tell. There're a lot of them involved in all of these activities. Yet, we Christians get judged by one televangelist who falls. Go figure, eh?
Last edited by cslewislover on Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#108

Post by BavarianWheels » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:13 am

Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Fact remains, disallowing "marriage" will not reduce health risks to homosexuals or heterosexuals.
And what about before marriage?
Exactly the point. It will not cause anymore harm to society than it already has.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Out of context. Since when does the State's endorsement = God's? The U.S. didn't turn into a Theocracy without me knowing did it?
Although it is dwindling, the moral principles that founded this nation were based on Biblical principles. Just pull out a dollar bill from your wallet and read sometime what it says about trusting God.
You keep accusing me of not understanding these things. You seem to forget that I also am a Christian…that I believe what you believe for the most part. I don't deny the principles this country was founded on…however nor do I deny where the country is at nor where the country is going. If you believe the Bible, you'd know that no amount of making same-sex marriage will keep this world (for that matter) safe from ANY harm, let alone homosexuality.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Believe what you may, I just don't see the point of being petty.
Petty? Then why do you oppose it so??
Because it makes no sense in opposing something of a natural step (or consequence as viewed from a religious stand point) of homosexuality of which SOCIETY has NOT made illegal. Put a ballot together to make being and participating in homosexuality illegal…and once the rest of the country has voted that in, THEN there's no need to outlaw same-sex marriage since homosexuality is done away with at the “root of the problem.”
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:You tell me. Since there isn't a Prop. stating so through legislation, one must assume society thinks it's ok.
Fornication is not good for society. Again, there are many risks of spreading diseases, and carries a lot of emotional baggage... In other words, you are directly opposed to God for ever issuing such a command for anyone or a state or any country.
No. I don't oppose God's commands…just irrational laws of man when using the State to legislate his own religious ideas.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I do...hardly the point. Point being Saturday (or Sunday for that matter) legislation through the State would be a religious law being forced on society where all of society is not of the same religious belief system. Wouldn't you oppose such a law? I would regardless of my religious beliefs!
You are confused about ceremonial laws vs moral laws.. The moral laws still should stand with us.. The ceremonial laws have passed. You are clearly against any moral laws then... How sad.
No. See remark above.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't we (those of us married) need a license to marry? Who gives those licences and under who's authority? Does a religious hetero couple need a State endorsed licence to be married in God's eyes? Likewise a marriage licence from the State does not necessarily imply God's blessing on a marriage. One doesn't endorse the other.
Again you are confused...Proposition 8 is not about rights or licenses, but is about protecting marriage and families against the destruction of traditional marriage.. If marriage includes gay marriage, then it must be taught in the schools regardless of what the parents think.
If you're so much about “protecting marriage” what are you proposing we do about the marriage problems within the proper boundaries? What ballot is anyone pushing on this matter to “protect marriage”? NOTHING AT ALL…seems if we can't even fix the proper marriage, why are we trying to keep anyone from marrying at all? Explain this without religious bias.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:God never legitimizes a homosexual "marriage" nor does He legitimize ALL actions within a hetero marriage. In other words, just because a man and woman are married, doesn't make everything they do within that marriage blessed by God.
You are missing the point... You are trying to pull the issue into extremes.. So just because God doesn't sanction all marriages therefore the government shouldn't sanction all marriages either.. It either all or nothing at all... I disagree.
Interesting…the God you claim to follow is all about ALL OR NOTHING.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Is it the close relationship between two like-gendered individuals that we as a society abhor or the intimate (sexual) relationship we abhor? Which is it for God? Is it the sex or the love? I'm against the sexual connection, but I'm not against same-sex love.
You are against sexual connection but not against same-sex love? In what way? We are talking about homosexuality here.. What are you talking about?
Don't you have men you “love” as friends? Do you have a best friend that is male you like to hang out with? Are there times you'd rather do the male thing and go out, golf, play cards, watch the fight, maybe drink…other than being with a woman?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Is what an Adventist belief? I think most, if not all, Adventists would oppose a State law of any worship day including Saturday...what are you offering as needed learning on this? I'm confused.
Confused about what? According to what we have been talking about, you and the Adventists believe that the government should NOT be upholding any moral laws.. It's no wonder why we have been seeing a moral decline in America with thoughts like this.
Me and the Adventists? Since when is it that what I believe is also attributed to Adventist belief? Am I not allowed to have my own mind and thinking on some things?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No, I can't prove it...never set out to do such. I just don't feel same-sex marriage endorses homosexuality in light of the point just prior to the above. Same-sex marriage does not harm society in the least if society is not willing to "protect" itself from homosexuals! If society felt homosexuality was a harm, society would outlaw BEING and/or going through the motions of homosexuality. Much like society hasn't outlawed BEING cleptomaniac...but the acts of cleptomania.
Again... It will allow (by law) homosexuality to be taught in our schools to our children... You don't think that as being damaging to society along with the spreading of sexual diseases? Also... "If the institution of marriage is declared a right for all individuals then any laws that restrict that right will be declared unconstitutional, requiring that polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriage be made legal."
Have you heard of private schools? Have you heard of home-schooling? What about plain ole parenting?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No, I think you're misunderstanding. Stop signs protect people from crashing into each other at intersections. Keeping homosexuals from marrying will not keep the harm homosexuality does to society from harming society.
Endorsing it, like you have, will allow it to be taught as an exceptable practice to society and to our children. And that God's Church will look increasing wrong or evil for ever opposing it.
Does God endorse it by allowing it? Do we endorse the place marriage is at in society now in it's “right” context between a man and a woman? Yet nothing is being done to “protect” it in it's correct usage.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:In a true community of true homosexuality...there would be no offspring thus killing itself off. That's all I'm trying to say. Homosexuality will never cease to exist in a society mixed with both.
If you are saying that we will always sin because we are sinners then I would agree with you on that... The problem is what message are we willing to convey to the masses. Stop signs themselves are not bad, and when they are used appropriately they save lives.
I agree…when used properly. The message we convey to society is already out there. Does not society know where Christians stand on homosexuality? I think the message is already out there…especially with some Christians protesting with signs that read, “God hates homos” and the like.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Yes...I agree. The diseases can spread to hetero society. No question. So is it the marriage of homosexuals that is spreading the disease now or the acts of homosexual sex?
Both... One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma (or cancer) which can be made present in either a married or unmarried gay males. Do you understand how the body is constructed and the way it functions? Going against mother nature (or God) has it's consequences.
And in today's society, there's none of this within the hetero world? If you haven't noticed, anal sex is quite the rage within the hetero sex world. Of course I understand…you keep insinuating I endorse homosexuality and homosexual sex…I don't understand why. I've stated many times I stand in the same belief as you on the matter, just not on making it unlawful THROUGH THE STATE LAWS WHEN THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BEING A HOMOSEXUAL AS A SOCIETY!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:...certainly...but are they not still homosexual? Much like the alcoholic that remains an alcoholic even if he/she abstains from drinking.
No they are not homosexual anymore.. I would suggest you read the following links about being "born" gay by NARTH...
I believe true homosexuality is a sin problem, not a psychological problem that can just be turned off. However I don't deny it has happened.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Can and has God healed a homosexual into a full-fledged heterosexual? Maybe. Can He? Yes. Does He wish that for homosexuals? I don't think so...otherwise He would change us all into non-sinners.
I disagree... God would heal us only if we would ALLOW Him too.
I disagree…there are many that wish to be healed from sin…yet they are not healed in this life. Again, I don't deny God can or that He hasn't. I just don't think it's the norm.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I believe we all have our sins and we all fall into and out of sin daily. I wouldn't wish the "sin" of homosexuality because to me, it's a true state of being, a double-whammy so-to-speak, on them. Not only are they natural sinners, but their lust can't even be justified within a marriage as the Bible suggests! A homosexual cannot just change what they find attractive (the gender). Sure they can abstain from the acts, but is not the thought of lust, be it homo or hetero the same as having performed the act itself?
All lusts and sins are considered wrong with God... Correct.. But just because I think about stealing doesn't mean that I've broken the state law. If I perform it however then it is wrong with the state.. With God it is both mind and body.
I agree…so what does this say about the State and it's law? The State has not made homosexuality illegal and then wants to deny “marriage” for homosexuals? Seems the emphasis is misplaced in the least!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:It is not God's law in question here. God forbids homosexual acts and thus is justified in not blessing homosexual marriage.
Wrong... Why do you think God forbids homosexual behavior?
As His creation, it makes no difference what His reasoning is. While God is not unreasonable nor illogical, His reason for it makes absolutely no difference here. I am talking about State law…not God's law.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:The State, on the other hand, has no moral leg to stand on when it resists outlawing that which is harmful to it's society...and worse yet, the society itself apparently refuses to make such an effort. What point is there in making a law that neither fixes the problem nor helps those affected by the problem?
How about endorsing the problem, say that it is good for society, and then spoon feeding the problem to our kids?? Not me...
Society already endorses the “problem”. What planet are you living on? Society already says homosexuality is not good…but society isn't willing to remove that which is “bad”. If you don't want it spoon-fed to your kids, then make use of a private Christian school or any private school that isn't mandated to teach it by State law. OR...TEACH YOUR KIDS AT HOME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG…what a concept! Why are we leaning on the State to teach our own morals to our own kids? I don't get it.

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#109

Post by Gman » Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:17 pm

Harry OK wrote: *Ahem* I'd just like to chip in here.

Those death threats cannot be used as an example to judge all homosexuals. I'll play devil's advocate to prove that here:
Harry,

I think we all know that all homosexuals don't act this way, (being violent). In fact I would probably put more trust in my lesbian neighbors then some Christians I know... The point I'm trying to make is that neither side is squeaky clean when it comes to violence... BOTH sides do it, so to say that one is guilty of it and the other isn't is a moot point IMO...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#110

Post by Gman » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:04 pm

BavarianWheels wrote:Exactly the point. It will not cause anymore harm to society than it already has.
Baloney.. And where are your facts to back up your statements?
BavarianWheels wrote:You keep accusing me of not understanding these things. You seem to forget that I also am a Christian…that I believe what you believe for the most part.
Actually I don't think we think alike at all.. And I don't even think of myself as a conservative, but I can see through the fog on this one.
BavarianWheels wrote:I don't deny the principles this country was founded on…however nor do I deny where the country is at nor where the country is going.
Down the tubes with you clapping in approval on the sidelines it seems… What happens when you take the moral principles away from society? Why don't we just do as we please?
BavarianWheels wrote:If you believe the Bible, you'd know that no amount of making same-sex marriage will keep this world (for that matter) safe from ANY harm, let alone homosexuality.
Again, I've listed many problems that can arise from this practice.. I asked you to give me one good reason why we should solidify it into the state laws and you couldn't…
BavarianWheels wrote:No. I don't oppose God's commands…just irrational laws of man when using the State to legislate his own religious ideas..
No… Going against homosexuality is NOT a religious idea… It is a MORAL idea. Much like going against polygamy, rape or incest… Do you think these practices are good for society too?
BavarianWheels wrote:If you're so much about “protecting marriage” what are you proposing we do about the marriage problems within the proper boundaries? What ballot is anyone pushing on this matter to “protect marriage”? NOTHING AT ALL…seems if we can't even fix the proper marriage, why are we trying to keep anyone from marrying at all? Explain this without religious bias.
An all or nothing at all approach… AGAIN, we already are protecting marriage in numerous areas…

Here it is again…

“NUMEROUS laws exist that restrict the ability of certain people to enter into a marriage contract. First, marriage is only allowed between adults, not minors. Second, marriage is only allowed between two individuals. Multiple partner marriages (polygamy and polyandry) are not legal. Third, marriage is not allowed between closely related individuals (brothers, sisters, and first cousins). If marriage is declared a fundamental right of all individuals, then all restrictions to marriage would be declared unconstitutional, opening the doors to polygamy, polyandry, incest, and child marriage.”
BavarianWheels wrote:Interesting…the God you claim to follow is all about ALL OR NOTHING.
If we are talking about laws then yes… Do you think God's laws were a joke?
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't you have men you “love” as friends? Do you have a best friend that is male you like to hang out with? Are there times you'd rather do the male thing and go out, golf, play cards, watch the fight, maybe drink…other than being with a woman?
Huh?? Of course, but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. What on earth are you talking about and what does this have to do with the discussion?
BavarianWheels wrote:Me and the Adventists? Since when is it that what I believe is also attributed to Adventist belief? Am I not allowed to have my own mind and thinking on some things?
Ok, then it is YOU that believes that the government shouldn't be enforcing any moral laws..
BavarianWheels wrote:Have you heard of private schools? Have you heard of home-schooling? What about plain ole parenting?
Well I'm part of this society also... I pay taxes to it, and I want to send my children to a public school…
BavarianWheels wrote:Does God endorse it by allowing it? Do we endorse the place marriage is at in society now in it's “right” context between a man and a woman? Yet nothing is being done to “protect” it in it's correct usage.
That's not the point… Of course I don't allow someone speeding through my neighborhood at 100 miles per hour. That is why we make speeding laws and stop signs against it. People are free to do what they want, but when their actions start to affect others, then laws are established to protect others. It's that simple…
BavarianWheels wrote:I agree…when used properly. The message we convey to society is already out there. Does not society know where Christians stand on homosexuality? I think the message is already out there…especially with some Christians protesting with signs that read, “God hates homos” and the like.
Well God doesn't hate homos… He only hates the act. Like I've said before God's Church will look increasing wrong or evil for ever opposing it if it is ever accepted by society, like the abortion rights... And to correct you again it is NOT good for society.
BavarianWheels wrote:And in today's society, there's none of this within the hetero world? If you haven't noticed, anal sex is quite the rage within the hetero sex world. Of course I understand…you keep insinuating I endorse homosexuality and homosexual sex…I don't understand why. I've stated many times I stand in the same belief as you on the matter, just not on making it unlawful THROUGH THE STATE LAWS WHEN THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BEING A HOMOSEXUAL AS A SOCIETY!
Again that isn't the point… You wouldn't endorse it for yourself but you would for society? You must look down on society then.. Do I have to remind you that you live in this society? Also we all know there are no laws against being a homosexual here.. But you want to give them the same rights as heterosexual couples making them equal.. Why?
BavarianWheels wrote:I believe true homosexuality is a sin problem, not a psychological problem that can just be turned off. However I don't deny it has happened.
But it's a choice right? Think of it this way… If it were genetic, why would God establish laws against it if he knew that people couldn't refute it? Do you think that's fair of God?
BavarianWheels wrote:I disagree…there are many that wish to be healed from sin…yet they are not healed in this life. Again, I don't deny God can or that He hasn't. I just don't think it's the norm.
Well I beg to differ… I have witnessed people that have been cured of this sin and others. Maybe not all sins, but God doesn't just neglect us either if we are willing to follow Him.
BavarianWheels wrote:I agree…so what does this say about the State and it's law? The State has not made homosexuality illegal and then wants to deny “marriage” for homosexuals? Seems the emphasis is misplaced in the least!
Perhaps that should be adjusted as well…
BavarianWheels wrote:As His creation, it makes no difference what His reasoning is. While God is not unreasonable nor illogical, His reason for it makes absolutely no difference here. I am talking about State law…not God's law.
Again, you don't think the state's laws had any connection to God's laws?? Ever?
BavarianWheels wrote:Society already endorses the “problem”. What planet are you living on?
Not exactly… If they did, then why did prop 8 pass?
BavarianWheels wrote:Society already says homosexuality is not good…but society isn't willing to remove that which is “bad”. If you don't want it spoon-fed to your kids, then make use of a private Christian school or any private school that isn't mandated to teach it by State law. OR...TEACH YOUR KIDS AT HOME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG…what a concept! Why are we leaning on the State to teach our own morals to our own kids? I don't get it.
Why? Because I live in this society too… I pay taxes to it and I want to send my children to a public school as well... Maybe YOU should get your own private school to teach perverted acts...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#111

Post by BavarianWheels » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:26 am

Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Exactly the point. It will not cause anymore harm to society than it already has.
Baloney.. And where are your facts to back up your statements?
What facts would you like…that “protecting” marriage through the law homosexuality will not harm society? Are those the facts you want? They don't exist. They don't exist because regardless of not allowing same-sex marriage, the danger exists in our society.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:You keep accusing me of not understanding these things. You seem to forget that I also am a Christian…that I believe what you believe for the most part.
Actually I don't think we think alike at all.. And I don't even think of myself as a conservative, but I can see through the fog on this one.
Ok. If you wish to further alienate me because I happen to think it's silly of secular society to outlaw same-sex marriage when society hasn't outlawed homosexuality…or the root of the “disease”, as you put it. The disease is not in same-sex marriage. It no more endorses homosexuality than same-sex unions…and society in part has allowed this.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I don't deny the principles this country was founded on…however nor do I deny where the country is at nor where the country is going.
Down the tubes with you clapping in approval on the sidelines it seems… What happens when you take the moral principles away from society? Why don't we just do as we please?
I'm not clapping…just being a realist.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:If you believe the Bible, you'd know that no amount of making same-sex marriage will keep this world (for that matter) safe from ANY harm, let alone homosexuality.
Again, I've listed many problems that can arise from this practice.. I asked you to give me one good reason why we should solidify it into the state laws and you couldn't.
I've never denied the problems that can arise…just disagree with emphasis of the problem being placed on the “marriage” of homosexuals.

I don't think we should solidify it into state law…I simply think making same-sex marriage unlawful is silly given that society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful! I'm trying my darndest to get that point across. Prop 8 does absolutely NOTHING to “save” society from the “disease” of homosexuality…other than protect that which is ALREADY given little to no value in this society.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No. I don't oppose God's commands…just irrational laws of man when using the State to legislate his own religious ideas..
No… Going against homosexuality is NOT a religious idea… It is a MORAL idea. Much like going against polygamy, rape or incest… Do you think these practices are good for society too?
No…that's not what we're discussing here. Prop 8 is not against homosexuality! It is against same-sex marriage!! If society was so against homosexuality, it would outlaw it. I don't place polygamy anywhere near rape or incest. If women want to marry the same man, I don't see a huge problem with that…God apparently didn't have much of a problem with it either since it wasn't high on His list of “laws” in the OT. That's not to say God endorses polygamy…just an observation of facts. Incest and rape are both crimes against an unwilling victim. Can we not see the difference here between that and polygamy or even same-sex marriage? The latter two are between consenting adults.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:If you're so much about “protecting marriage” what are you proposing we do about the marriage problems within the proper boundaries? What ballot is anyone pushing on this matter to “protect marriage”? NOTHING AT ALL…seems if we can't even fix the proper marriage, why are we trying to keep anyone from marrying at all? Explain this without religious bias.
An all or nothing at all approach… AGAIN, we already are protecting marriage in numerous areas…

Here it is again…

“NUMEROUS laws exist that restrict the ability of certain people to enter into a marriage contract. First, marriage is only allowed between adults, not minors. Second, marriage is only allowed between two individuals. Multiple partner marriages (polygamy and polyandry) are not legal. Third, marriage is not allowed between closely related individuals (brothers, sisters, and first cousins). If marriage is declared a fundamental right of all individuals, then all restrictions to marriage would be declared unconstitutional, opening the doors to polygamy, polyandry, incest, and child marriage.”
And yet the percentage of divorce keeps going up every year…so much for all the “protecting” of this moral institute. Ironic since we want our public schools teaching this “marriage” to our kids…I find it slightly funny…sorry.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Interesting…the God you claim to follow is all about ALL OR NOTHING.
If we are talking about laws then yes… Do you think God's laws were a joke?
No…I'm talking about the whole thing…laws, sin, righteousness, unrighteousness, faith…God demands perfection! So much so, He sent His Son to die for the unrighteous so that we could be counted as perfect.

God's laws are not a joke to those that believe them to be God's will. America is not a theocracy and so cannot uphold God's law. It has in place restrictions between Church and State laws so that we can have religious equality in this society. The State cannot make a law against coveting, or honoring parents, or worshipping <insert your preference here>…it has limitations on the laws it chooses to legislate. So in a sense…society in this country must turn away from legislating God's law(s). I guess that could be a way of saying they're a joke.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't you have men you “love” as friends? Do you have a best friend that is male you like to hang out with? Are there times you'd rather do the male thing and go out, golf, play cards, watch the fight, maybe drink…other than being with a woman?
Huh?? Of course, but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. What on earth are you talking about and what does this have to do with the discussion?
Simply that men can find comfort in company with another man aside from the sexual…likewise women. So I was saying I'm for a same-sex “love” as it doesn't always have to be a love that includes sexual desires, but simple company and fun.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Me and the Adventists? Since when is it that what I believe is also attributed to Adventist belief? Am I not allowed to have my own mind and thinking on some things?
Ok, then it is YOU that believes that the government shouldn't be enforcing any moral laws.
True to a degree. I believe it is silly for society to make same-sex marriage unlawful when it allows same-sex unions and more so, doesn't even make homosexuality unlawful! This has nothing to do with my beliefs as a Christian. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin…trying to make it legitimate by pleading for marriage is also wrong in the context of a Godly marriage. In the context of a secular marriage, it is of no consequence when the society the homosexuals live in is not a Theocracy AND society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Have you heard of private schools? Have you heard of home-schooling? What about plain ole parenting?
Well I'm part of this society also... I pay taxes to it, and I want to send my children to a public school.
Then do so. I'm not taking that from you.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Does God endorse it by allowing it? Do we endorse the place marriage is at in society now in it's “right” context between a man and a woman? Yet nothing is being done to “protect” it in it's correct usage.
That's not the point… Of course I don't allow someone speeding through my neighborhood at 100 miles per hour. That is why we make speeding laws and stop signs against it. People are free to do what they want, but when their actions start to affect others, then laws are established to protect others. It's that simple.
It's not the point? Which law is protecting you against the dangers of homosexuality today? Answer: None.

Then how will “protecting marriage” from same-sex marriage protect society against the “disease” of homosexuality? Answer: It doesn't and it can't.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I agree…when used properly. The message we convey to society is already out there. Does not society know where Christians stand on homosexuality? I think the message is already out there…especially with some Christians protesting with signs that read, “God hates homos” and the like.
Well God doesn't hate homos… He only hates the act.
Which act…the sex or the life? Does God hate everything a homosexual does?
Gman wrote:Like I've said before God's Church will look increasing wrong or evil for ever opposing it if it is ever accepted by society, like the abortion rights.
I'm not sure I understand this. Do we care what the Church looks like? So what if the Church looks evil or wrong…why does that bother you?
Gman wrote:And to correct you again it is NOT good for society.
I really wish you'd quit making this claim for me. I'd like for you to show me where I've EVER said homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage is good for society. I'll ask you politely to stop insinuating this is my stance.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:And in today's society, there's none of this within the hetero world? If you haven't noticed, anal sex is quite the rage within the hetero sex world. Of course I understand…you keep insinuating I endorse homosexuality and homosexual sex…I don't understand why. I've stated many times I stand in the same belief as you on the matter, just not on making it unlawful THROUGH THE STATE LAWS WHEN THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BEING A HOMOSEXUAL AS A SOCIETY!
Again that isn't the point… You wouldn't endorse it for yourself but you would for society?
It is the point! Society IS ALREADY ENDORSING IT BY NOT MAKING HOMOSEXUALITY UNLAWFUL WITHIN SOCIETY! It's silly to make same-sex marriage unlawful when same-sex love (homosexuality) remains legal in society.
Gman wrote:You must look down on society then.. Do I have to remind you that you live in this society? Also we all know there are no laws against being a homosexual here.. But you want to give them the same rights as heterosexual couples making them equal.. Why?
Once again. It is not me that “wants” same-sex marriage. It is society that wants to make everyone equal EXCEPT WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED. This topic is about same-sex marriage and it being legal or not. It's not whether homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. We both agree it's wrong in God's eyes! Leave God out totally for a moment and think of yourself as a person with no religious bias to homosexuality. Now as a voter in a secular society, society agrees within it's circles that homosexuality is wrong and not good for society. Are we together here? However this belief within circles of mostly heterosexuals have not yet made homosexuality unlawful in their secular society. So they created a “marriage” of sorts and called it, “same-sex unions”. The heteros believe that their “marriage” is between a woman and man only. In some areas the same-sex unions are not allowed. So the homos (not in bad context) want marriage to be recognized as “legal” in society. What moral stance do the heteros have to say that the homos cannot “marry”? Remember, leave God outside this society. There is no basis for this stance…it is a game of semantics! One says po-tah-toe, the other says po-tay-toe.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I believe true homosexuality is a sin problem, not a psychological problem that can just be turned off. However I don't deny it has happened.
But it's a choice right? Think of it this way… If it were genetic, why would God establish laws against it if he knew that people couldn't refute it? Do you think that's fair of God?
I think for many it's a choice, but I think it can also be genetic. Is not sickness of any kind directly due to sin at it's root? Why would God establish laws that cannot be kept perfectly for salvation? Is it fair that a person must conform to God's perfection in order to be saved when there is not one human aside from Jesus Christ that has ever lived perfectly as a human? I don't want to get into a God's law discussion here.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I disagree…there are many that wish to be healed from sin…yet they are not healed in this life. Again, I don't deny God can or that He hasn't. I just don't think it's the norm.
Well I beg to differ… I have witnessed people that have been cured of this sin and others. Maybe not all sins, but God doesn't just neglect us either if we are willing to follow Him.
If God heals COMPLETELY from sins, why are there struggling alcoholics in our churches? Are alcoholics not as sincere as homosexuals in wanting healing? Is God more tolerant of the drunk than of the homosexual?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I agree…so what does this say about the State and it's law? The State has not made homosexuality illegal and then wants to deny “marriage” for homosexuals? Seems the emphasis is misplaced in the least!
Perhaps that should be adjusted as well.
Then maybe you're better understanding my whole point as to the silliness of “protecting” marriage.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:As His creation, it makes no difference what His reasoning is. While God is not unreasonable nor illogical, His reason for it makes absolutely no difference here. I am talking about State law…not God's law.
Again, you don't think the state's laws had any connection to God's laws?? Ever?
Sure. The ones that make sense in a secular society. Try legislating a “No Covet” law…or a “Do Not Take the name of the Lord in vain” law in a secular society.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Society already endorses the “problem”. What planet are you living on?
Not exactly… If they did, then why did prop 8 pass?
No…I'm spot on! Society endorses homosexuality as long as there is no push to make it unlawful as a whole.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Society already says homosexuality is not good…but society isn't willing to remove that which is “bad”. If you don't want it spoon-fed to your kids, then make use of a private Christian school or any private school that isn't mandated to teach it by State law. OR...TEACH YOUR KIDS AT HOME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG…what a concept! Why are we leaning on the State to teach our own morals to our own kids? I don't get it.
Why? Because I live in this society too… I pay taxes to it and I want to send my children to a public school as well.
Yet homosexuality exists in society. Yet while you disagree with evolution, it is taught in public schools. How on earth do you teach your kids about Creation?
Gman wrote:Maybe YOU should get your own private school to teach perverted acts...
More insults. You know this is not my stance or belief, yet you choose to throw it as a last ditch effort to discredit, smear, and exaggerate my stance that clearly is not on the side of homosexuality being good for society or even of value to teach in a private school. Thank you for your Christian kindness and consideration when I've not personally attacked you.
.
.

FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1684
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#112

Post by FFC » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:31 pm

I think you both make very good points this is a tough issue. Gman, you were a little tough on Bavarian Wheels. Don't get so caught up that you can't at least see his point. ;)
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom

Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#113

Post by Gman » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:59 pm

FFC wrote:I think you both make very good points this is a tough issue. Gman, you were a little tough on Bavarian Wheels. Don't get so caught up that you can't at least see his point. ;)
FFC,

That's the problem.. I DO see his point which is why I'm flat out against it... Sorry champ. As for being tough, he said I couldn't read, so now the test is on!!
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#114

Post by Gman » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:14 pm

BavarianWheels wrote:What facts would you like…that “protecting” marriage through the law homosexuality will not harm society? Are those the facts you want? They don't exist. They don't exist because regardless of not allowing same-sex marriage, the danger exists in our society.
Right… And now you want public schools to teach it to our kids? It's already happening in Massachusetts. You don't call that protecting marriage?
BavarianWheels wrote:Ok. If you wish to further alienate me because I happen to think it's silly of secular society to outlaw same-sex marriage when society hasn't outlawed homosexuality…or the root of the “disease”, as you put it. The disease is not in same-sex marriage. It no more endorses homosexuality than same-sex unions…and society in part has allowed this.
Again… You seem to deny that diseases can't exist in same-sex marriages… I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence that it is good for society and you couldn't. Then you went out on a limb to say that it isn't good for society also, and yet you endorse it and want to give special rights to those who perform it. Go figure…

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Health
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not clapping…just being a realist.
No… It seems that you are against God for ever issuing commands against it..
BavarianWheels wrote:I don't think we should solidify it into state law…I simply think making same-sex marriage unlawful is silly given that society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful! I'm trying my darndest to get that point across. Prop 8 does absolutely NOTHING to “save” society from the “disease” of homosexuality…other than protect that which is ALREADY given little to no value in this society.
That's right we live in a secular society that doesn't condemn the practices of homosexuality. You don't think anyone understands that concept? However, you had the power to protect traditional marriage and you decided not to… In other words it seems you would rather give a license of approval for anyone practicing it… You would rather give someone rights to teach it to children as just another acceptable alternative. Speaking of points, it seems that you have the problem in understanding this…
BavarianWheels wrote:No…that's not what we're discussing here. Prop 8 is not against homosexuality! It is against same-sex marriage!!
And what do you think same-sex marriages are? Heterosexual marriages?
BavarianWheels wrote:If society was so against homosexuality, it would outlaw it. I don't place polygamy anywhere near rape or incest. If women want to marry the same man, I don't see a huge problem with that…God apparently didn't have much of a problem with it either since it wasn't high on His list of “laws” in the OT. That's not to say God endorses polygamy…just an observation of facts. Incest and rape are both crimes against an unwilling victim. Can we not see the difference here between that and polygamy or even same-sex marriage? The latter two are between consenting adults.
Oh I see… So since some laws are not endorsed as much as other laws, we should abandon those moral laws that are not on God's high list? Again don't make me out to be the bad guy… Even you agreed with me that homosexuality was not good for society. So why empower it?
BavarianWheels wrote:And yet the percentage of divorce keeps going up every year…so much for all the “protecting” of this moral institute. Ironic since we want our public schools teaching this “marriage” to our kids…I find it slightly funny…sorry.
Oh, so since the percentage of divorce keeps going up every year anyways we should abandon traditional marriages? Just throw the whole thing out… It doesn't work anyways. Good logic…
BavarianWheels wrote:God's laws are not a joke to those that believe them to be God's will. America is not a theocracy and so cannot uphold God's law. It has in place restrictions between Church and State laws so that we can have religious equality in this society. The State cannot make a law against coveting, or honoring parents, or worshipping <insert your preference here>…it has limitations on the laws it chooses to legislate. So in a sense…society in this country must turn away from legislating God's law(s). I guess that could be a way of saying they're a joke.
Huh? You have already agreed with me that America was founded on Biblical principles.. Now it seems you want to make the gap greater between Church and State. Society in this country MUST turn away from legislating God's law(s)?? Against God's moral laws?? Do you wish anarchy on society?
BavarianWheels wrote:Simply that men can find comfort in company with another man aside from the sexual…likewise women. So I was saying I'm for a same-sex “love” as it doesn't always have to be a love that includes sexual desires, but simple company and fun.
So you think homosexuals are getting married so that they can have someone to play golf with??
BavarianWheels wrote:True to a degree. I believe it is silly for society to make same-sex marriage unlawful when it allows same-sex unions and more so, doesn't even make homosexuality unlawful! This has nothing to do with my beliefs as a Christian. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin…trying to make it legitimate by pleading for marriage is also wrong in the context of a Godly marriage. In the context of a secular marriage, it is of no consequence when the society the homosexuals live in is not a Theocracy AND society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful.
And that is where we split… Again, what's left of the MORAL laws still stand… Where does it stop? Next it will be polygamy, men marrying boys, you want to keep adding to the list?
BavarianWheels wrote:It's not the point? Which law is protecting you against the dangers of homosexuality today? Answer: None.

Then how will “protecting marriage” from same-sex marriage protect society against the “disease” of homosexuality? Answer: It doesn't and it can't.
Again, you are missing the point. It would allow it to be TAUGHT to the younger children as an acceptable practice.. It will influence others that the practice is ok and is endorsed or protected by law..
BavarianWheels wrote:Which act…the sex or the life? Does God hate everything a homosexual does?
Of course not… Stop putting words in my mouth.
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not sure I understand this. Do we care what the Church looks like? So what if the Church looks evil or wrong…why does that bother you?
When God's moral laws don't become societies laws it will cause a rift. It starts with homosexuality then moves to other practices such as man-boy love.. Next thing you know anything that opposes this practice is looked upon as evil. It's the same thing that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.
BavarianWheels wrote:I really wish you'd quit making this claim for me. I'd like for you to show me where I've EVER said homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage is good for society. I'll ask you politely to stop insinuating this is my stance.
Thanks for the conformation… Again, you know it is bad for society, and yet you oppose laws that are against it… Makes sense to me.. y:-?
BavarianWheels wrote:It is the point! Society IS ALREADY ENDORSING IT BY NOT MAKING HOMOSEXUALITY UNLAWFUL WITHIN SOCIETY! It's silly to make same-sex marriage unlawful when same-sex love (homosexuality) remains legal in society.
No… You ARE missing the point… In our secular world it is not unlawful, true. However, now you are asking taxpayers to give them LEGAL rights to marry and to LEGALLY promote it as an acceptable teachable practice to children and society at large.. You are literally EMPOWERING the practice by giving them state rights as heterosexual couples.
BavarianWheels wrote:Once again. It is not me that “wants” same-sex marriage. It is society that wants to make everyone equal EXCEPT WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED. This topic is about same-sex marriage and it being legal or not. It's not whether homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. We both agree it's wrong in God's eyes!
But you would rather see society suffer?
BavarianWheels wrote:Leave God out totally for a moment and think of yourself as a person with no religious bias to homosexuality. Now as a voter in a secular society, society agrees within it's circles that homosexuality is wrong and not good for society. Are we together here? However this belief within circles of mostly heterosexuals have not yet made homosexuality unlawful in their secular society. So they created a “marriage” of sorts and called it, “same-sex unions”. The heteros believe that their “marriage” is between a woman and man only. In some areas the same-sex unions are not allowed. So the homos (not in bad context) want marriage to be recognized as “legal” in society. What moral stance do the heteros have to say that the homos cannot “marry”? Remember, leave God outside this society. There is no basis for this stance…it is a game of semantics! One says po-tah-toe, the other says po-tay-toe.
Baloney!!! In this secular society heteros cannot legally banish homosexual practices… However, they probably would if they would have studied it more… Again… Marriage was originally setup many years ago in America ON BIBLICAL PRINICIPLES between a man and a woman. That has increasingly been changed as more and more people have left the Church or other practices have taken over. So what do you do?? Well you say, if society says it's ok, then it's ok… Until when??

But let's take God out of the equation then… Let's look at the sodomy laws that were enforced in the U.S. before the 2003 Supreme Court decision. That was only 5 years ago!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

What do you think that tells you?
BavarianWheels wrote:I think for many it's a choice, but I think it can also be genetic. Is not sickness of any kind directly due to sin at it's root? Why would God establish laws that cannot be kept perfectly for salvation? Is it fair that a person must conform to God's perfection in order to be saved when there is not one human aside from Jesus Christ that has ever lived perfectly as a human? I don't want to get into a God's law discussion here.
Why not?? So God creates laws that only a few can handle? So it applies to some but not others who have a genetic deficiency? In other words, if I go and steal, I can say that the law doesn't apply to me if I can prove it was genetic? Wow!!!
BavarianWheels wrote:If God heals COMPLETELY from sins, why are there struggling alcoholics in our churches? Are alcoholics not as sincere as homosexuals in wanting healing? Is God more tolerant of the drunk than of the homosexual?
You haven't seen anyone cured of their alcoholism??? Good grief, ever hear of alcoholics anonymous? My friend has been cured of it and completely lost his craving for it… Believe it or not..
BavarianWheels wrote:Then maybe you're better understanding my whole point as to the silliness of “protecting” marriage.
Or the silliness of the sodomy laws…
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure. The ones that make sense in a secular society. Try legislating a “No Covet” law…or a “Do Not Take the name of the Lord in vain” law in a secular society.
Oh, so there are laws (from God) that DO make sense in our secular society… I see… Picking only the ones you like huh?
BavarianWheels wrote:No…I'm spot on! Society endorses homosexuality as long as there is no push to make it unlawful as a whole.
Incorrect… The United States did NOT endorse sodomy UNTIL the supreme court decision in 2003. And today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world.. Of course more of that will change as society moves away from God and His laws are destroyed..
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet homosexuality exists in society. Yet while you disagree with evolution, it is taught in public schools. How on earth do you teach your kids about Creation?
How?? By teaching the truth that evolution doesn't have all the answers…
BavarianWheels wrote:More insults. You know this is not my stance or belief, yet you choose to throw it as a last ditch effort to discredit, smear, and exaggerate my stance that clearly is not on the side of homosexuality being good for society or even of value to teach in a private school. Thank you for your Christian kindness and consideration when I've not personally attacked you.
Insults?? Oh come now.. What's the matter? You can't take a little heat? Earlier you said that I couldn't even read and that I was silly and ignorant for voting for Prop 8. You even said it was an ad homenion (a personal attack) yourself. Remember?
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
B. W.
Board Moderator
Posts: 8354
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 259 times

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#115

Post by B. W. » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:53 pm

Again, recent news reports show the militant Homosexual's protesting outside Saddleback Church and again attacking an older woman carrying a cross. A lot of their signs read things about the nobility of love not promoting hate. Yet, their actions betray any meanings of love.

The point is not marriage. It is to pull on peoples heart strings so they can turn marriage into a right and not an institution so that they can come back to churches, like Saddleback and demand that the pastor marry them and if not — they'll sue the crap out the organization.

The deception is plain to see. Take away the incentive to sue churches under the disguise of rights discrimination and the issue will go away…

Instead of Prop 8 there should be legislation designed to protect Pastors and Churches from being sued for refusing to marry homosexuals. This would uncover and expose their true agenda and open public dialogue on this matter.

Also, Marriage is an institution and not a right or civil right. It is a covenant between God, man, and woman to honor and cherish each other. To say otherwise is mocking God who designed it that way. Many marriages mock God too by keeping God out of the marriage altogether…but that's another subject for another thread..
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1684
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#116

Post by FFC » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:32 am

Gman wrote:
FFC wrote:I think you both make very good points this is a tough issue. Gman, you were a little tough on Bavarian Wheels. Don't get so caught up that you can't at least see his point. ;)
FFC,

That's the problem.. I DO see his point which is why I'm flat out against it... Sorry champ. As for being tough, he said I couldn't read, so now the test is on!!
I understand. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of people, Christian and non, who are reading and may not understand that you are just being passionate in your point of view. ;)
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom

Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#117

Post by BavarianWheels » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:42 pm

Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:What facts would you like…that “protecting” marriage through the law homosexuality will not harm society? Are those the facts you want? They don't exist. They don't exist because regardless of not allowing same-sex marriage, the danger exists in our society.
Right… And now you want public schools to teach it to our kids? It's already happening in Massachusetts. You don't call that protecting marriage?
Right? Then we agree. Making same-sex marriage unlawful will not protect society from homosexuality and/or it's diseases.

Do I want public schools to teach it to our kids? No, but I'll be honest…I don't care what the public schools teach “our” kids. My kids are not in public schools. However even if they did go to public schools, I wouldn't care because RELIGIOUS MORALS ARE TAUGHT AT HOME, NOT BY THE STATE.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Ok. If you wish to further alienate me because I happen to think it's silly of secular society to outlaw same-sex marriage when society hasn't outlawed homosexuality…or the root of the “disease”, as you put it. The disease is not in same-sex marriage. It no more endorses homosexuality than same-sex unions…and society in part has allowed this.
Again… You seem to deny that diseases can't exist in same-sex marriages… I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence that it is good for society and you couldn't. Then you went out on a limb to say that it isn't good for society also, and yet you endorse it and want to give special rights to those who perform it. Go figure…
Yes. I deny diseases exist in same-sex marriage…in the context of a marriage of same-sex couples having always abstained from sex. Diseases that exist are from their previous acts of homosexuality…not because of being “married.” The point is that the “diseases” exist NOT BECAUSE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, but because of HOMOSEXUALITY. You want me to provide evidence for a stance that neither exists, nor I have made as my stance. Now you're misquoting my words and putting your own spin on it. What I went out on a limb on was:
BavarianWheels wrote: I will go out on a limb and predict: Not one person will be brought to Christ as a result of Prop. 8 being voted in and thus "saving marriage."
I'm making an effort to quote you as accurately as possible. If I misinterpret your words, then it's because of my inability to read your mind. However if I make accusations of your words by inserting my own ideas of what I hope you're saying after you've plainly stated your belief, then I'm just playing twister with your words to get my own point across…which is what I think you're trying to do to mine. I've said you apparently have a problem “listening, reading and understanding” because you are accusing me of saying homosexuality is good for society. I would ask that YOU as a moderator of this forum, when making such accusations that you then later use as grounds for a personal attack, use my “attack” of not being listening…would provide my exact words where I stated homosexuality is good for society. You'd be hard-pressed to find those words because they do not exist. In fact, the statement went:
BavarianWheels wrote: Show you proof? We are in agreement on the unGodliness of homosexuality! LOL. You don't listen/read/understand very well apparently.
What you are not reading nor understanding in my words here is that you and I both agree. Homosexuality is not good for society, nor is same-sex marriage. My stance is that it is silly for a secular society that has not condemned homosexuality as bad for society and thus unlawful to practice a homosexual lifestyle, would deny the marriage of homosexuals on the basis of “protecting marriage” when I think we both agree that marriage is a religious union of two people (in God's eyes blessed between male and female) that the State has adopted as a legal union and given certain benefits for such a union.
Wikipedia wrote: The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.
My stance therefore is that secular society cannot legislate same-sex marriage as unlawful because marriage is a “religious” ceremony that was adopted into the State as a legal union afforded some benefits by the State that are not afforded to those that are not married. Even you have stated that marriage is God's idea, and I assume you think it's the God-fearing people that need to “protect” it, he fact of the matter is…whether the State allows or denies same-sex marriage, the PROBLEM of DISEASE and whatever else is attributed to homosexual sex, remains in society regardless of homosexuals not given the right to marry! To abolish same-sex marriage neither removes homosexuals nor the problems their lifestyle brings into society.

If same-sex marriage is ever legalized and thus “taught” in public school…I don't care. I wouldn't and don't expect my religious morals to be taught in a public school. In fact, I wish they didn't teach ANY religious morals.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not clapping…just being a realist.
No… It seems that you are against God for ever issuing commands against it.
So now you're accusing me of being against God for issuing commands? Show me where I've EVER said I'm against God's commands or alluded to being against God's command! If you're gonna make such an assumption, at least provide the words I used that you interpreted as such.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I don't think we should solidify it into state law…I simply think making same-sex marriage unlawful is silly given that society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful! I'm trying my darndest to get that point across. Prop 8 does absolutely NOTHING to “save” society from the “disease” of homosexuality…other than protect that which is ALREADY given little to no value in this society.
That's right we live in a secular society that doesn't condemn the practices of homosexuality. You don't think anyone understands that concept?
What I think is not being understood is that the society is SECULAR and not a Theocratic society where laws based on religious beliefs would be appropriate. The first line of this SECULAR SOCIETY's 1st Amendment to its Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…
Gman wrote:However, you had the power to protect traditional marriage and you decided not to… In other words it seems you would rather give a license of approval for anyone practicing it.
Your assumptions are wrong and I thought you might understand it already since I've only repeated myself more times than it would seem necessary.

I would not vote FOR same-sex marriage, but I would vote AGAINST same-sex marriage being unlawful in a secular society that has NO LAW against being homosexual. In other words, society has yet to prove to itself that homosexuality is bad for society! Secular society! I'm looking at this from a secular point of view despite my religious beliefs being against homosexuality!
Gman wrote:You would rather give someone rights to teach it to children as just another acceptable alternative. Speaking of points, it seems that you have the problem in understanding this.
And again I would say this; I don't care what the State teaches State children. My kids, as a parent that does care what they are taught, are sent to a private school. I have more control over what is taught them as I am free to use or not use the public school system.

What about those that cannot afford private school? First of all, I struggle to make those payments, but it's important to my wife and I so we do it…secondly, there are free alternatives to private school, one being home-schooling.

Most important, if a parent(s) simply cannot afford private school nor has the time for home schooling, there is that one pesky alternative. TEACH RELIGIOUS MORALS IN THE HOME and don't expect Uncle Sam to do it for you when Uncle Sam shouldn't have ANY religious bias!

I understand it quite well. It seems to me you would rather have the State teach your religious ideas and thus IT is responsible for their lifestyle choices rather than YOU be responsible for their religious beliefs and therefore their lifestyle choices.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No…that's not what we're discussing here. Prop 8 is not against homosexuality! It is against same-sex marriage!!
And what do you think same-sex marriages are? Heterosexual marriages?
So are you saying a vote for Prop. 8 is voting to make homosexuality illegal? Fact is you're wrong here. Prop. 8 is about not allowing two same-sex people to “marry” in order to “save” traditional marriage.

The Prop is against homosexuality on the fringe, but does not make homosexuality illegal.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:If society was so against homosexuality, it would outlaw it. I don't place polygamy anywhere near rape or incest. If women want to marry the same man, I don't see a huge problem with that…God apparently didn't have much of a problem with it either since it wasn't high on His list of “laws” in the OT. That's not to say God endorses polygamy…just an observation of facts. Incest and rape are both crimes against an unwilling victim. Can we not see the difference here between that and polygamy or even same-sex marriage? The latter two are between consenting adults.
Oh I see… So since some laws are not endorsed as much as other laws, we should abandon those moral laws that are not on God's high list? Again don't make me out to be the bad guy… Even you agreed with me that homosexuality was not good for society.
Yet you ask me to prove my so-called stance of it being good for society?
Gman wrote:So why empower it?
I'm not! Society is twisted in wanting to make SAME-SEX MARRIAGE unlawful WHILE NOT MAKING THE PROBLEM (as we agree is homosexuality) ILLEGAL! So it is society on the whole that without such a stand empowers it (homosexuality). It's a matter of being able to separate secular from religious. If in fact homosexuality is so damaging to society has not society made the lifestyle illegal?…and if it hasn't done so, HOW does the “marriage” of homosexuals ADD to this problem? Would it encourage otherwise heterosexual males and/or females to choose homosexuality? It would neither create nor discourage the lifestyle. No one (at least if they do the number must be tiny) simply chooses to be homosexual having normal heterosexual tendencies. “Normal” being a religious bias in my mind. If society views life and the governing of life apart from religion, it must do so from the stand point that since this universe happened by chance, so did homosexuality and therefore both homosexuality and heterosexuality are “normal” lifestyles…both being a result of chance!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:And yet the percentage of divorce keeps going up every year…so much for all the “protecting” of this moral institute. Ironic since we want our public schools teaching this “marriage” to our kids…I find it slightly funny…sorry.
Oh, so since the percentage of divorce keeps going up every year anyways we should abandon traditional marriages? Just throw the whole thing out… It doesn't work anyways. Good logic.
Traditional Marriage…again where does this originate? No don't throw marriage out…I never even alluded to this! What I'm saying is that people that oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of “protecting” the sanctity of marriage have yet to “protect” marriage already in its right context of between male and female! The sanctity of marriage is tossed around as a joke by marriages all around us! Where is the Prop for that “protection” if it SO NEEDS OUR PROTECTION?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:God's laws are not a joke to those that believe them to be God's will. America is not a theocracy and so cannot uphold God's law. It has in place restrictions between Church and State laws so that we can have religious equality in this society. The State cannot make a law against coveting, or honoring parents, or worshipping <insert your preference here>…it has limitations on the laws it chooses to legislate. So in a sense…society in this country must turn away from legislating God's law(s). I guess that could be a way of saying they're a joke.
Huh? You have already agreed with me that America was founded on Biblical principles.. Now it seems you want to make the gap greater between Church and State.
Don't blame me for the laws of the country or it's Constitution for this! I happen to agree on Church/State separation. Yes, I did agree and still agree this country was founded on Biblical principles. Freedom of Religion! It is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that separates Church and State…not me!! According to Wikipedia, (and I realize it's not the greatest of sources for some things) it is Thomas Jefferson that first made the conclusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment put a “wall of separation between Church and State”. Don't go trying to pin this on me…however I totally agree with it and would support any measure to reinforce this idea!
Gman wrote:Society in this country MUST turn away from legislating God's law(s)?? Against God's moral laws??
YES! This society is not a Theocracy.
Gman wrote:Do you wish anarchy on society?
Have we as a society gone into anarchy? Yet none of the laws for society are SOLELY based on religious bias. Notice there is no law to legislate honoring father and mother, or a law against coveting. There is no law determining which day is the “correct” day of worship. (although it's been alluded to and my belief is that it will come at some point) and yet the society hasn't gone into anarchy…amazing. Murder is a God-law, but murder involves an unwilling victim. Stealing is a God-law, but stealing also involves an unwilling victim…and so on. Homosexuality is a God-law, however indirectly involves victims…and yet society has seen it unnecessary to make a law against it. Same-Sex Marriage is against a God-law, however it has no unwilling victims and is NOT THE CAUSE OF INDIRECT VICTIMS OF THE DISEASES THAT COME AS A RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. In fact there is no known case of anyone catching a disease as a direct result of the paper value of two same-sex people in a committed “union”. If there is…I'd sure like to see it.

I'll reiterate. It is the sexual contact between homosexuals that creates the diseases…not the paper that gives them State benefits for being in a committed relationship.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Simply that men can find comfort in company with another man aside from the sexual…likewise women. So I was saying I'm for a same-sex “love” as it doesn't always have to be a love that includes sexual desires, but simple company and fun.
So you think homosexuals are getting married so that they can have someone to play golf with??
LOL…no you miss the point. The point is…I'm not against having or “loving” a male friend in light of friendship apart from sexual love. Harry OK was asking and wanting to have a committed relationship with another man APART from the sexual contact. That in itself proves the point.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:True to a degree. I believe it is silly for society to make same-sex marriage unlawful when it allows same-sex unions and more so, doesn't even make homosexuality unlawful! This has nothing to do with my beliefs as a Christian. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin…trying to make it legitimate by pleading for marriage is also wrong in the context of a Godly marriage. In the context of a secular marriage, it is of no consequence when the society the homosexuals live in is not a Theocracy AND society hasn't made homosexuality unlawful.
And that is where we split.
That's fine, but your stance is only substantiated when the society as a whole decides homosexuality is bad for society. It will then make it illegal to partake in ANYTHING homosexual…and not limited simply to a “marriage”. Until then, keeping same-sex illegal to “protect” marriage and thus “protect” us against homosexual diseases is SILLY! It serves no real purpose other than to DISCRIMINATE.
Gman wrote:Again, what's left of the MORAL laws still stand.
Sure…but society has yet to make homosexuality legally and thus “morally” immoral.
Gman wrote:Where does it stop? Next it will be polygamy, men marrying boys, you want to keep adding to the list?
As Christians we only know when it will stop and can only assume things will get worse before they get better. The Bible calls these “Birth Pains”. By nature they get worse and worse and there's no stopping them until the Birth.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:It's not the point? Which law is protecting you against the dangers of homosexuality today? Answer: None.

Then how will “protecting marriage” from same-sex marriage protect society against the “disease” of homosexuality? Answer: It doesn't and it can't.
Again, you are missing the point. It would allow it to be TAUGHT to the younger children as an acceptable practice.
As much as you protest, it doesn't remove the fact that homosexuality IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE IN SECULAR SOCIETY. Again, I tell you, who cares what the State is allowed to teach the children! What consequence is it to a child in a strong Christian home if the parent(s) have and teach Christian morals?
Gman wrote:It will influence others that the practice is ok and is endorsed or protected by law.
NEWSFLASH: The practice of homosexuality is endorsed and is protected by law regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8 or the like.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Which act…the sex or the life? Does God hate everything a homosexual does?
Of course not… Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't…I asked a question of you.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not sure I understand this. Do we care what the Church looks like? So what if the Church looks evil or wrong…why does that bother you?
When God's moral laws don't become societies laws it will cause a rift. It starts with homosexuality then moves to other practices such as man-boy love.. Next thing you know anything that opposes this practice is looked upon as evil. It's the same thing that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The rift already exists…that rift began prior to Creation. It started with pride.

The Church only looks evil when it employs tactics other than those, which Christ used in His earthly ministry. When the Church and its members decide to make “God Hates Homos” banners and instead of embracing the movement in love and compassion…relaying our similarities instead of our differences…then the Church is seen as evil. Think of the Inquisition as an example.

S&G was not exactly the same. God's people were warned to come out of her and be separate…that God would bring wrath on them. How many of God's people were burned in S&G? God calls His people to come out, be separate.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I really wish you'd quit making this claim for me. I'd like for you to show me where I've EVER said homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage is good for society. I'll ask you politely to stop insinuating this is my stance.
Thanks for the conformation… Again, you know it is bad for society, and yet you oppose laws that are against it… Makes sense to me.. y:-?
You can't see the argument is based on SECULAR ideas rather than religious? You can't see that Prop. 8 doesn't remove homosexuality and its diseases or influence already on society? You don't see that Prop. 8 is discrimination with no legal basis other than religious bias?

I am not for same-sex marriage nor do I advocate homosexuality as a lifestyle blessed by God, but more importantly, I'm against all legislation of secular law based solely on religious bias!

I believe Prop 8 to be one example of a law based solely on religious bias.

If you assert that claim on my part again, I'll simply have to plead to a higher authority here as I've made my stance clear yet again. I think if I were doing this, you would already have done something on your own.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:It is the point! Society IS ALREADY ENDORSING IT BY NOT MAKING HOMOSEXUALITY UNLAWFUL WITHIN SOCIETY! It's silly to make same-sex marriage unlawful when same-sex love (homosexuality) remains legal in society.
No… You ARE missing the point… In our secular world it is not unlawful, true. However, now you are asking taxpayers to give them LEGAL rights to marry and to LEGALLY promote it as an acceptable teachable practice to children and society at large.. You are literally EMPOWERING the practice by giving them state rights as heterosexual couples.
Taxpayers have made no claim that homosexuality is wrong or illegal. I'm not asking, the homosexual movement is asking. I simply agree with the homosexuals that marital rights shouldn't be withheld since there is no law against homosexuality and additionally, same-sex “unions” are lawful in some areas of the country.

They (homosexuals) already —LEGALLY- promote their lifestyle…there is no law prohibiting them from doing so…is there?

Again…you equate State rights as the measure of right and wrong. If it is, then they (homosexuals) DO and should have the empowerment of their practice since there is no such law against their practice of homosexuality!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Once again. It is not me that “wants” same-sex marriage. It is society that wants to make everyone equal EXCEPT WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED. This topic is about same-sex marriage and it being legal or not. It's not whether homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. We both agree it's wrong in God's eyes!
But you would rather see society suffer?
We're living in a utopia now? There are no homosexual diseases in society among the heterosexuals?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Leave God out totally for a moment and think of yourself as a person with no religious bias to homosexuality. Now as a voter in a secular society, society agrees within it's circles that homosexuality is wrong and not good for society. Are we together here? However this belief within circles of mostly heterosexuals have not yet made homosexuality unlawful in their secular society. So they created a “marriage” of sorts and called it, “same-sex unions”. The heteros believe that their “marriage” is between a woman and man only. In some areas the same-sex unions are not allowed. So the homos (not in bad context) want marriage to be recognized as “legal” in society. What moral stance do the heteros have to say that the homos cannot “marry”? Remember, leave God outside this society. There is no basis for this stance…it is a game of semantics! One says po-tah-toe, the other says po-tay-toe.
Baloney!!! In this secular society heteros cannot legally banish homosexual practices.
It banished alcohol…sodomy…murder…stealing…you name it all of these things secular society has banished. Do the laws banish it absolutely? One need only take a look into a prison and get that answer.
Gman wrote:However, they probably would if they would have studied it more… Again… Marriage was originally setup many years ago in America ON BIBLICAL PRINICIPLES between a man and a woman. That has increasingly been changed as more and more people have left the Church or other practices have taken over. So what do you do?? Well you say, if society says it's ok, then it's ok… Until when??
No…I've said society in ESSENCE has said it's ok. If society by a majority thought homosexuality was bad, it could banish homosexuality much like it banishes murder, stealing…
Gman wrote:But let's take God out of the equation then… Let's look at the sodomy laws that were enforced in the U.S. before the 2003 Supreme Court decision. That was only 5 years ago!!!

What do you think that tells you?
It simply tells me that those countries with laws against sodomy have more right to make such claims as those that promote Prop 8 here in the U.S.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I think for many it's a choice, but I think it can also be genetic. Is not sickness of any kind directly due to sin at it's root? Why would God establish laws that cannot be kept perfectly for salvation? Is it fair that a person must conform to God's perfection in order to be saved when there is not one human aside from Jesus Christ that has ever lived perfectly as a human? I don't want to get into a God's law discussion here.
Why not?? So God creates laws that only a few can handle?
Only perfect beings can keep God's law perfectly. God's law simply points at sin and shows a penitent man the right path to be on. So the answer is; No one can handle God's law. We all break it daily…and when we break one aspect of it, we are guilty of breaking it all.
Gman wrote:So it applies to some but not others who have a genetic deficiency? In other words, if I go and steal, I can say that the law doesn't apply to me if I can prove it was genetic? Wow!!!
Are we talking secular law or God's law?

From the standpoint of God's law, we are all guilty as law-breakers from the time of conception.

From the standpoint of secular law, it's not against the U.S. law to be homosexual…genetically or by choice so I'm not sure what your point is here.

My original point in that thought was that *I think* homosexuality is a genetic perversion of sin. God can heal/correct genetic problems, no doubt. The question is whether God hates the homosexual or the acts of homosexuals as pertain to sex and intimacy? I was also saying how difficult it must be for homosexual Christians in that even as heterosexuals, we can play out or sexual desires within a marriage, but a homosexual “must” abstain from fulfilling their sexual desires totally to be right with God…and I'm not even ABSOLUTELY sure that is true considering we are all infected with sin and continue to sin in spite of our standing. Our state is sinful, but our standing is righteous in Christ.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:If God heals COMPLETELY from sins, why are there struggling alcoholics in our churches? Are alcoholics not as sincere as homosexuals in wanting healing? Is God more tolerant of the drunk than of the homosexual?
You haven't seen anyone cured of their alcoholism??? Good grief, ever hear of alcoholics anonymous? My friend has been cured of it and completely lost his craving for it… Believe it or not.
Craving? Sure…I don't doubt that…but chances are if you put a few in him, I'm willing to bet his “disease” comes out of remission. Having said that, I do believe as I've stated before, God can heal completely. It is possible. Maybe your friend is among those completely healed of the “disease” of alcoholism…
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Then maybe you're better understanding my whole point as to the silliness of “protecting” marriage.
Or the silliness of the sodomy laws…
Are you attributing sodomy as something I uphold as good or are you saying sodomy laws are silly? Maybe a little clarity would make for a better response.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure. The ones that make sense in a secular society. Try legislating a “No Covet” law…or a “Do Not Take the name of the Lord in vain” law in a secular society.
Oh, so there are laws (from God) that DO make sense in our secular society… I see… Picking only the ones you like huh?
Putting words in my mouth again are you? You seem to be well versed in this. I guess you fail to see the inability of a secular society to make laws such as coveting and honoring father and mother. The whole point is the laws SOCIETY can pick to legislate while in a society that claims separation of Church and State.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No…I'm spot on! Society endorses homosexuality as long as there is no push to make it unlawful as a whole.
Incorrect… The United States did NOT endorse sodomy UNTIL the supreme court decision in 2003. And today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world.. Of course more of that will change as society moves away from God and His laws are destroyed.
And until this is made so in the U.S., Props/laws such as Prop. 8 will remain acts of discrimination by the State when passed without a clear line of illegal acts.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet homosexuality exists in society. Yet while you disagree with evolution, it is taught in public schools. How on earth do you teach your kids about Creation?
How?? By teaching the truth that evolution doesn't have all the answers.
What a novel idea! Good for you!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:More insults. You know this is not my stance or belief, yet you choose to throw it as a last ditch effort to discredit, smear, and exaggerate my stance that clearly is not on the side of homosexuality being good for society or even of value to teach in a private school. Thank you for your Christian kindness and consideration when I've not personally attacked you.
Insults?? Oh come now.. What's the matter? You can't take a little heat? Earlier you said that I couldn't even read and that I was silly and ignorant for voting for Prop 8. You even said it was an ad homenion (a personal attack) yourself. Remember?
Sure…I can give and take heat, but when I've been warned before for doing as you're taking the liberty to do, I then make the point. Yes, insults. Personal attacks. If anyone wish to see the context of your attacks, one need only to read a few pages. I've clearly stated almost from the beginning that I'm against the homosexual lifestyle and against same-sex marriage, but more so, against the legislation of laws based solely on religious bias. It is my opinion that it remains so as long as society is unwilling to outlaw homosexuals and their acts that are not good on society.

After having stated this numerous times, you ask me for proof that same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality is good for society? And demand it!
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:Show you proof?
Yes show me the proof that these acts are good for society.. Now.
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:We are in agreement on the unGodliness of homosexuality! LOL.
No we are not…Why? Because YOU seem to believe that homosexuality is good for society. I don't.
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:You don't listen/read/understand very well apparently.
Oh, an ad hominem.. What the matter?? Ok, well then I'll give you just one more chance to redeem yourself then…
.
.

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#118

Post by Gman » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:28 am

BavarianWheels wrote:Right? Then we agree. Making same-sex marriage unlawful will not protect society from homosexuality and/or it's diseases.
No… We don't agree.. Making same-sex marriage lawful will not protect society from homosexuality and/or it's diseases. It will destroy it..
BavarianWheels wrote:Do I want public schools to teach it to our kids? No, but I'll be honest…I don't care what the public schools teach “our” kids. My kids are not in public schools. However even if they did go to public schools, I wouldn't care because RELIGIOUS MORALS ARE TAUGHT AT HOME, NOT BY THE STATE.
What about those kids that are in public schools? Also where is this magical line between God's laws and the secular laws? The separation between church and state occurred a number of years ago. It's already separated…
BavarianWheels wrote:Yes. I deny diseases exist in same-sex marriage…in the context of a marriage of same-sex couples having always abstained from sex. Diseases that exist are from their previous acts of homosexuality…not because of being “married.”
No… Again the body was not made for sodomy. Do I need to show graphs?? Homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent).. This can happen in marriage also..

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... nal_Cancer
BavarianWheels wrote:The point is that the “diseases” exist NOT BECAUSE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, but because of HOMOSEXUALITY. You want me to provide evidence for a stance that neither exists, nor I have made as my stance.
So if diseases exist because of homosexuality, then why promote it?
BavarianWheels wrote:Now you're misquoting my words and putting your own spin on it. What I went out on a limb on was:
No.. I said you went out on a limb to say that you don't think homosexuality is good for society, but yet you think it should be protected as such...
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm making an effort to quote you as accurately as possible. If I misinterpret your words, then it's because of my inability to read your mind. However if I make accusations of your words by inserting my own ideas of what I hope you're saying after you've plainly stated your belief, then I'm just playing twister with your words to get my own point across…which is what I think you're trying to do to mine. I've said you apparently have a problem “listening, reading and understanding” because you are accusing me of saying homosexuality is good for society. I would ask that YOU as a moderator of this forum, when making such accusations that you then later use as grounds for a personal attack, use my “attack” of not being listening…would provide my exact words where I stated homosexuality is good for society. You'd be hard-pressed to find those words because they do not exist. In fact, the statement went:
No… You don't understand.. Of course you have been saying that homosexuality isn't good for society. The twisting comes in your own words when you say that it isn't good for society but yet you believe in same-sex marriage. In other words, you KNOW it is bad for the person and yet you give them protection to do it. As a example instead of pushing someone away from a speeding car, it seems that you would rather see them get hit. Again, I don't think you are consciously doing this or want this, perhaps it is out of ignorance too.. I don't know.
BavarianWheels wrote:What you are not reading nor understanding in my words here is that you and I both agree. Homosexuality is not good for society, nor is same-sex marriage. My stance is that it is silly for a secular society that has not condemned homosexuality as bad for society and thus unlawful to practice a homosexual lifestyle, would deny the marriage of homosexuals on the basis of “protecting marriage” when I think we both agree that marriage is a religious union of two people (in God's eyes blessed between male and female) that the State has adopted as a legal union and given certain benefits for such a union.
Ok, that is clearer, but the problem I think here saying that society hasn't condemned homosexuality outright. Society at large has condemned homosexuality, the problem is the way they are doing it.. Saying that God hates homos or beating them up.. That is wrong and for a Christian to ever do that is really bad IMO.. This is what empowers them and so when anyone opposes homosexuality, they automatically think that you are a homosexual beater or something. Again, this is why no one wants to oppose them… Maybe the act but not the person. The problem is how to convey that… Most people now don't even want to address it.
BavarianWheels wrote:My stance therefore is that secular society cannot legislate same-sex marriage as unlawful because marriage is a “religious” ceremony that was adopted into the State as a legal union afforded some benefits by the State that are not afforded to those that are not married. Even you have stated that marriage is God's idea, and I assume you think it's the God-fearing people that need to “protect” it, he fact of the matter is…whether the State allows or denies same-sex marriage, the PROBLEM of DISEASE and whatever else is attributed to homosexual sex, remains in society regardless of homosexuals not given the right to marry! To abolish same-sex marriage neither removes homosexuals nor the problems their lifestyle brings into society.
That is where we disagree.. Because if we do allow them, or give them legal rights to marry, it sends that message that we agree with the practice. This will actually make it more mainstream… Again, many of these homosexuals are saying that they are being denied the same rights as the blacks were. Imagine that, homosexuals saying that they are on par with how blacks were treated?? Blacks are still despised today WAY more than a homosexual ever will. They were turned into slaves, beaten to a pulp, and were basically crapped on by the whites..
BavarianWheels wrote:If same-sex marriage is ever legalized and thus “taught” in public school…I don't care. I wouldn't and don't expect my religious morals to be taught in a public school. In fact, I wish they didn't teach ANY religious morals.
Again… You think that our government has it's own moral compass? Where is this magical division?
BavarianWheels wrote:o now you're accusing me of being against God for issuing commands? Show me where I've EVER said I'm against God's commands or alluded to being against God's command! If you're gonna make such an assumption, at least provide the words I used that you interpreted as such.
No… I said it “seems” that you are against God by voting against Prop 8. If God's laws aren't good enough for society, are society's laws better than God's laws? If so, society's laws take precedence over God's laws.
BavarianWheels wrote:What I think is not being understood is that the society is SECULAR and not a Theocratic society where laws based on religious beliefs would be appropriate. The first line of this SECULAR SOCIETY's 1st Amendment to its Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
And what if my religion was to promote homosexuality? Some religions do you know…
BavarianWheels wrote:Your assumptions are wrong and I thought you might understand it already since I've only repeated myself more times than it would seem necessary.

I would not vote FOR same-sex marriage, but I would vote AGAINST same-sex marriage being unlawful in a secular society that has NO LAW against being homosexual. In other words, society has yet to prove to itself that homosexuality is bad for society! Secular society! I'm looking at this from a secular point of view despite my religious beliefs being against homosexuality!
Again… The United States did NOT endorse sodomy UNTIL the supreme court decision in 2003. AND most people in the U.S. whether they are Christian or not STILL see it as unnatural. However, we have a FEW judges that seem to disagree with that. Why? Probably some rich gay lobbyist getting their way..
BavarianWheels wrote:And again I would say this; I don't care what the State teaches State children. My kids, as a parent that does care what they are taught, are sent to a private school. I have more control over what is taught them as I am free to use or not use the public school system.

What about those that cannot afford private school? First of all, I struggle to make those payments, but it's important to my wife and I so we do it…secondly, there are free alternatives to private school, one being home-schooling.

Most important, if a parent(s) simply cannot afford private school nor has the time for home schooling, there is that one pesky alternative. TEACH RELIGIOUS MORALS IN THE HOME and don't expect Uncle Sam to do it for you when Uncle Sam shouldn't have ANY religious bias!

I understand it quite well. It seems to me you would rather have the State teach your religious ideas and thus IT is responsible for their lifestyle choices rather than YOU be responsible for their religious beliefs and therefore their lifestyle choices.
No… Uncle Sam does not "teach" our children right now that a man MUST be married to a woman… HOWEVER, the homosexual agenda wants Uncle Sam to teach our children that it is ok for a child to have two daddies or two mommies. They are pushing their agenda, not the other way around. As for isolating children from society and home schooling, I believe it is a sad thing to do since we all live in society. Instead of teaching that the world is evil, why not get involved and try to change it?? What would Jesus do?
BavarianWheels wrote:So are you saying a vote for Prop. 8 is voting to make homosexuality illegal? Fact is you're wrong here. Prop. 8 is about not allowing two same-sex people to “marry” in order to “save” traditional marriage.

The Prop is against homosexuality on the fringe, but does not make homosexuality illegal.
Of course it doesn't make homosexuality illegal. Only marriage… It promotes traditional marriages.
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet you ask me to prove my so-called stance of it being good for society?
There aren't any.. That's the point.
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not! Society is twisted in wanting to make SAME-SEX MARRIAGE unlawful WHILE NOT MAKING THE PROBLEM (as we agree is homosexuality) ILLEGAL! So it is society on the whole that without such a stand empowers it (homosexuality). It's a matter of being able to separate secular from religious. If in fact homosexuality is so damaging to society has not society made the lifestyle illegal?…and if it hasn't done so, HOW does the “marriage” of homosexuals ADD to this problem? Would it encourage otherwise heterosexual males and/or females to choose homosexuality? It would neither create nor discourage the lifestyle. No one (at least if they do the number must be tiny) simply chooses to be homosexual having normal heterosexual tendencies. “Normal” being a religious bias in my mind. If society views life and the governing of life apart from religion, it must do so from the stand point that since this universe happened by chance, so did homosexuality and therefore both homosexuality and heterosexuality are “normal” lifestyles…both being a result of chance!
Again, what is this separate society thing? I'm really starting to get the feeling that you have completely separated yourself from society.. You see, we are all part of society… We make up society... Society is not bad until we make it bad. You can't separate the religious from the secular BECAUSE THE WHOLE LAW was derived from God's law from the very beginning. There is no divide.. And most people still don't believe we got here by chance… In fact most U.S. adult citizens identify themselves as Christians (76.5 - 78.5%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_i ... ted_States
BavarianWheels wrote:Traditional Marriage…again where does this originate? No don't throw marriage out…I never even alluded to this! What I'm saying is that people that oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of “protecting” the sanctity of marriage have yet to “protect” marriage already in its right context of between male and female! The sanctity of marriage is tossed around as a joke by marriages all around us! Where is the Prop for that “protection” if it SO NEEDS OUR PROTECTION?
It is protected… That is why we still have laws that only promote marriages between a man and a woman…
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't blame me for the laws of the country or it's Constitution for this! I happen to agree on Church/State separation. Yes, I did agree and still agree this country was founded on Biblical principles. Freedom of Religion! It is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that separates Church and State…not me!! According to Wikipedia, (and I realize it's not the greatest of sources for some things) it is Thomas Jefferson that first made the conclusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment put a “wall of separation between Church and State”. Don't go trying to pin this on me…however I totally agree with it and would support any measure to reinforce this idea!
Oh… Ok, since you believe that the separation between church and state happened at the time of Thomas Jefferson, then ANY law after that (laws that see marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman) are NOT based on religion but on the state.. Great… Sounds like what I've been saying all along.
BavarianWheels wrote:Have we as a society gone into anarchy?
In some places yes... Even worse in third world countries..
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet none of the laws for society are SOLELY based on religious bias. Notice there is no law to legislate honoring father and mother, or a law against coveting. There is no law determining which day is the “correct” day of worship.
Honoring one's mother and father was not a legal rule, but rather a moral imperative. We already have laws that say how many days or hours we can work a week, etc..
BavarianWheels wrote:(although it's been alluded to and my belief is that it will come at some point) and yet the society hasn't gone into anarchy…amazing. Murder is a God-law, but murder involves an unwilling victim. Stealing is a God-law, but stealing also involves an unwilling victim…and so on. Homosexuality is a God-law, however indirectly involves victims…and yet society has seen it unnecessary to make a law against it. Same-Sex Marriage is against a God-law, however it has no unwilling victims and is NOT THE CAUSE OF INDIRECT VICTIMS OF THE DISEASES THAT COME AS A RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. In fact there is no known case of anyone catching a disease as a direct result of the paper value of two same-sex people in a committed “union”. If there is…I'd sure like to see it.
And what about if they were sleeping around before or anal cancer?? Also you are forgetting another factor.. What about PROCREATION? If society went all homo, society would most likely parish as a whole..
BavarianWheels wrote:I'll reiterate. It is the sexual contact between homosexuals that creates the diseases…not the paper that gives them State benefits for being in a committed relationship.
But the paper also gives them the rights to promote it more and more too..
BavarianWheels wrote:LOL…no you miss the point. The point is…I'm not against having or “loving” a male friend in light of friendship apart from sexual love. Harry OK was asking and wanting to have a committed relationship with another man APART from the sexual contact. That in itself proves the point.
Which really has nothing to do with marriage…
BavarianWheels wrote:That's fine, but your stance is only substantiated when the society as a whole decides homosexuality is bad for society. It will then make it illegal to partake in ANYTHING homosexual…and not limited simply to a “marriage”. Until then, keeping same-sex illegal to “protect” marriage and thus “protect” us against homosexual diseases is SILLY! It serves no real purpose other than to DISCRIMINATE.
Society did think the homosexuality was bad for society before the courts repealed the sodomy laws back in 2003. Society also at large still thinks the same way until we had jerks who decided to beat up homosexuals.. Also this has nothing to do with discrimination only the act…
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure…but society has yet to make homosexuality legally and thus “morally” immoral.
See above..
BavarianWheels wrote:As Christians we only know when it will stop and can only assume things will get worse before they get better. The Bible calls these “Birth Pains”. By nature they get worse and worse and there's no stopping them until the Birth.
So in other words we perpetuate the pain so that we get the birth?
BavarianWheels wrote:As much as you protest, it doesn't remove the fact that homosexuality IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE IN SECULAR SOCIETY.
No… Secular society as a whole does NOT teach this..
BavarianWheels wrote:Again, I tell you, who cares what the State is allowed to teach the children! What consequence is it to a child in a strong Christian home if the parent(s) have and teach Christian morals?
And what about those who are not Christian? You already said that homosexuality was bad for society…
BavarianWheels wrote:NEWSFLASH: The practice of homosexuality is endorsed and is protected by law regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8 or the like.
Endorsed only by a few…
BavarianWheels wrote:The rift already exists…that rift began prior to Creation. It started with pride.

The Church only looks evil when it employs tactics other than those, which Christ used in His earthly ministry. When the Church and its members decide to make “God Hates Homos” banners and instead of embracing the movement in love and compassion…relaying our similarities instead of our differences…then the Church is seen as evil. Think of the Inquisition as an example.
Yah, that was a dumb thing to do.. But that still doesn't mean we accept the practice..
BavarianWheels wrote:S&G was not exactly the same. God's people were warned to come out of her and be separate…that God would bring wrath on them. How many of God's people were burned in S&G? God calls His people to come out, be separate.
So God is telling his people to come out of America now?? Separate from the evil doers? I thought we were suppose to love the evil doers?
BavarianWheels wrote:You can't see the argument is based on SECULAR ideas rather than religious? You can't see that Prop. 8 doesn't remove homosexuality and its diseases or influence already on society? You don't see that Prop. 8 is discrimination with no legal basis other than religious bias?

I am not for same-sex marriage nor do I advocate homosexuality as a lifestyle blessed by God, but more importantly, I'm against all legislation of secular law based solely on religious bias!

I believe Prop 8 to be one example of a law based solely on religious bias.

If you assert that claim on my part again, I'll simply have to plead to a higher authority here as I've made my stance clear yet again. I think if I were doing this, you would already have done something on your own.
Sorry, but you can't say that. Because the separation between church and state happened at the time of Thomas Jefferson. The switch already happened.. There are no more religious laws today..
BavarianWheels wrote:Taxpayers have made no claim that homosexuality is wrong or illegal. I'm not asking, the homosexual movement is asking. I simply agree with the homosexuals that marital rights shouldn't be withheld since there is no law against homosexuality and additionally, same-sex “unions” are lawful in some areas of the country.

They (homosexuals) already —LEGALLY- promote their lifestyle…there is no law prohibiting them from doing so…is there?

Again…you equate State rights as the measure of right and wrong. If it is, then they (homosexuals) DO and should have the empowerment of their practice since there is no such law against their practice of homosexuality!
Again.. The sodomy laws DID forbid it until it was recently repealed.. It was part of our secular world and many still hold those values..
BavarianWheels wrote:We're living in a utopia now? There are no homosexual diseases in society among the heterosexuals?
I'm sure they have spread to the heterosexuals via the bisexuals.. And who is to say that more diseases aren't coming??
BavarianWheels wrote:It banished alcohol…sodomy…murder…stealing…you name it all of these things secular society has banished. Do the laws banish it absolutely? One need only take a look into a prison and get that answer.
No laws don't banish all bad practices absolutely.. But we still need them.. To teach right from wrong. So you want to banish all the laws again? After all we don't follow them... Right?
BavarianWheels wrote:No…I've said society in ESSENCE has said it's ok. If society by a majority thought homosexuality was bad, it could banish homosexuality much like it banishes murder, stealing…
No they do not think in ESSENCE that it is ok.. Most people don't want to admit that it is bad or they will be labeled as a gay basher.. Most people know it is NOT a natural practice. Even the ones that don't go to church...
BavarianWheels wrote:Only perfect beings can keep God's law perfectly. God's law simply points at sin and shows a penitent man the right path to be on. So the answer is; No one can handle God's law. We all break it daily…and when we break one aspect of it, we are guilty of breaking it all.
I don't believe that at all.. God commanded not to do it.. He would not give his commands unless people couldn't abstain from it. That is the point.
BavarianWheels wrote:Are we talking secular law or God's law?
Both..
BavarianWheels wrote:From the standpoint of God's law, we are all guilty as law-breakers from the time of conception.

From the standpoint of secular law, it's not against the U.S. law to be homosexual…genetically or by choice so I'm not sure what your point is here.

My original point in that thought was that *I think* homosexuality is a genetic perversion of sin. God can heal/correct genetic problems, no doubt. The question is whether God hates the homosexual or the acts of homosexuals as pertain to sex and intimacy? I was also saying how difficult it must be for homosexual Christians in that even as heterosexuals, we can play out or sexual desires within a marriage, but a homosexual “must” abstain from fulfilling their sexual desires totally to be right with God…and I'm not even ABSOLUTELY sure that is true considering we are all infected with sin and continue to sin in spite of our standing. Our state is sinful, but our standing is righteous in Christ.
Of course God only hates the sin and not the sinner.. Of course we need to abstain from sin still… Just the same way we have to stop coveting our neighbors stuff..
BavarianWheels wrote:Craving? Sure…I don't doubt that…but chances are if you put a few in him, I'm willing to bet his “disease” comes out of remission. Having said that, I do believe as I've stated before, God can heal completely. It is possible. Maybe your friend is among those completely healed of the “disease” of alcoholism…
Well you are wrong.. He still has not come out of remission and can still drink a bit. I use to drink a lot too… And I have come out of it too.. It IS possible.
BavarianWheels wrote:Are you attributing sodomy as something I uphold as good or are you saying sodomy laws are silly? Maybe a little clarity would make for a better response.
I don't know.. It seems that maybe you were thinking they were silly..
BavarianWheels wrote:Putting words in my mouth again are you? You seem to be well versed in this. I guess you fail to see the inability of a secular society to make laws such as coveting and honoring father and mother. The whole point is the laws SOCIETY can pick to legislate while in a society that claims separation of Church and State.
What are you talking about.. Putting words in your mouth? I already addressed this…
BavarianWheels wrote:And until this is made so in the U.S., Props/laws such as Prop. 8 will remain acts of discrimination by the State when passed without a clear line of illegal acts.
I wouldn't worry about it… Once the old guard dies off I'm sure you will get your wish.. Do you really think that props like Prop 8 will succeed in the future? Fat chance..
BavarianWheels wrote:What a novel idea! Good for you!
What that evolution doesn't have all the answers? And yet it is still taught as an undeniable fact..
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure…I can give and take heat,
Doubtful…
BavarianWheels wrote:but when I've been warned before for doing as you're taking the liberty to do, I then make the point. Yes, insults. Personal attacks. If anyone wish to see the context of your attacks, one need only to read a few pages. I've clearly stated almost from the beginning that I'm against the homosexual lifestyle and against same-sex marriage, but more so, against the legislation of laws based solely on religious bias. It is my opinion that it remains so as long as society is unwilling to outlaw homosexuals and their acts that are not good on society.

After having stated this numerous times, you ask me for proof that same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality is good for society? And demand it!
Again, I'm just calling you out on your twisting of logic.. Forget about what you think society thinks... We are talking about what YOU think.
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:Show you proof?
Yes show me the proof that these acts are good for society.. Now.
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:We are in agreement on the unGodliness of homosexuality! LOL.
No we are not…Why? Because YOU seem to believe that homosexuality is good for society. I don't.
BavarianWheels wrote:
Gman wrote:You don't listen/read/understand very well apparently.
Oh, an ad hominem.. What the matter?? Ok, well then I'll give you just one more chance to redeem yourself then…
Yah... real ad hominems...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#119

Post by BavarianWheels » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:07 pm

Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Right? Then we agree. Making same-sex marriage unlawful will not protect society from homosexuality and/or it's diseases.
No… We don't agree.. Making same-sex marriage lawful will not protect society from homosexuality and/or it's diseases. It will destroy it.
I guess you're saying it will destroy society. Homosexual unions already exist...and guess what? We're still here. Amazing! By your assumption, changing the name of the union to "marriage" will destroy society? Might you have some proof of this claim?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Do I want public schools to teach it to our kids? No, but I'll be honest…I don't care what the public schools teach “our” kids. My kids are not in public schools. However even if they did go to public schools, I wouldn't care because RELIGIOUS MORALS ARE TAUGHT AT HOME, NOT BY THE STATE.
What about those kids that are in public schools? Also where is this magical line between God's laws and the secular laws? The separation between church and state occurred a number of years ago. It's already separated.
What about the kids in public schools? Don't they have parents? What about orphans? I suppose they'll have to pick up a book and do some reading...but wait, further down you actually claim 75% of society is Christian...and sanctioned marriage is being "protected" from...?? (btw...I don't argue the % claim...)
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Yes. I deny diseases exist in same-sex marriage…in the context of a marriage of same-sex couples having always abstained from sex. Diseases that exist are from their previous acts of homosexuality…not because of being “married.”
No… Again the body was not made for sodomy. Do I need to show graphs?? Homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent).. This can happen in marriage also.
I said it couldn't? You seem to have missed the little part about having ALWAYS abstained from sex. Homosexual diseases cannot exist in a relationship where neither partner has had sex at all...homo OR hetero. By pointing out the fact that the body was not made for sodomy...are you implying I'm saying it s? If so, once again I'll have to say you haven't heard nor understood my words.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:The point is that the “diseases” exist NOT BECAUSE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, but because of HOMOSEXUALITY. You want me to provide evidence for a stance that neither exists, nor I have made as my stance.
So if diseases exist because of homosexuality, then why promote it?
Me...promoting homosexuality? Not at all! I stand on your side. Homosexuality is a sinful act. What I'm "promoting" here is that "marriage" of homosexuals does absolutely nothing in "saving" marriage nor helps society in the erradication of diseases attributed to homosexual contact. Laws and/or Props such as Prop 8, simply provide a reason for Christians to pat themselves on the back and say, "We've saved marriage and have kept those homos from marrying..." Other than that...it does nothing for society.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Now you're misquoting my words and putting your own spin on it. What I went out on a limb on was:
No.. I said you went out on a limb to say that you don't think homosexuality is good for society, but yet you think it should be protected as such.
Still putting words in my mouth. I guess you have license to do that. Show me where I've said we should protect homosexuality. And since you're allowed to demand certain things, I'll demand it also. Prove with my words that I've stated anywhere that I want homosexuality (or even same-sex marriage) protected! You wont find it...what you will find is me saying it's silly for society to "protect marriage" from same-sex couples when society hasn't made homosexuality illegal!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm making an effort to quote you as accurately as possible. If I misinterpret your words, then it's because of my inability to read your mind. However if I make accusations of your words by inserting my own ideas of what I hope you're saying after you've plainly stated your belief, then I'm just playing twister with your words to get my own point across…which is what I think you're trying to do to mine. I've said you apparently have a problem “listening, reading and understanding” because you are accusing me of saying homosexuality is good for society. I would ask that YOU as a moderator of this forum, when making such accusations that you then later use as grounds for a personal attack, use my “attack” of not being listening…would provide my exact words where I stated homosexuality is good for society. You'd be hard-pressed to find those words because they do not exist.
No… You don't understand.. Of course you have been saying that homosexuality isn't good for society. The twisting comes in your own words when you say that it isn't good for society but yet you believe in same-sex marriage. In other words, you KNOW it is bad for the person and yet you give them protection to do it. As a example instead of pushing someone away from a speeding car, it seems that you would rather see them get hit. Again, I don't think you are consciously doing this or want this, perhaps it is out of ignorance too.. I don't know.
ANOTHER example of mincing my words. Prove by my words that I've ever said I believe in same-sex marriage!! I demand this proof now! Me give them protection? Show proof that I've protected them!!

Your analogy of homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage being a speeding car hitting an unsuspecting person JUST DOESN'T FIT!! The person being hit IS A VICTIM! Where is the "victim" in homosexuality or same-sex marriage??! Are you now saying I'm ignorant to the consequences of homosexuality and how it can and does affect society? If society, in your scenario, is the person being hit by the car, then it makes it all the more silly since it is society that can make or break laws in this country! If it is the homosexual that is the person being hit by the car, it fails to make your point since the homosexual is a willing participant and thus not a victim.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:What you are not reading nor understanding in my words here is that you and I both agree. Homosexuality is not good for society, nor is same-sex marriage. My stance is that it is silly for a secular society that has not condemned homosexuality as bad for society and thus unlawful to practice a homosexual lifestyle, would deny the marriage of homosexuals on the basis of “protecting marriage” when I think we both agree that marriage is a religious union of two people (in God's eyes blessed between male and female) that the State has adopted as a legal union and given certain benefits for such a union.
Ok, that is clearer, but the problem I think here saying that society hasn't condemned homosexuality outright. Society at large has condemned homosexuality, the problem is the way they are doing it.. Saying that God hates homos or beating them up.. That is wrong and for a Christian to ever do that is really bad IMO.. This is what empowers them and so when anyone opposes homosexuality, they automatically think that you are a homosexual beater or something. Again, this is why no one wants to oppose them… Maybe the act but not the person. The problem is how to convey that… Most people now don't even want to address it.
Society has only condemned homosexuality by giving it lip-service. It has not banded together as of yet to make the practice of homosexuality illegal. Society, if it doesn't want to address this, cannot (should not) legislate laws all around the issue while not addressing THE ISSUE. It's kind of like making a law banning shot glasses because you (society) think drinking alcohol is bad for society.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:My stance therefore is that secular society cannot legislate same-sex marriage as unlawful because marriage is a “religious” ceremony that was adopted into the State as a legal union afforded some benefits by the State that are not afforded to those that are not married. Even you have stated that marriage is God's idea, and I assume you think it's the God-fearing people that need to “protect” it, he fact of the matter is…whether the State allows or denies same-sex marriage, the PROBLEM of DISEASE and whatever else is attributed to homosexual sex, remains in society regardless of homosexuals not given the right to marry! To abolish same-sex marriage neither removes homosexuals nor the problems their lifestyle brings into society.
That is where we disagree.. Because if we do allow them, or give them legal rights to marry, it sends that message that we agree with the practice. This will actually make it more mainstream… Again, many of these homosexuals are saying that they are being denied the same rights as the blacks were. Imagine that, homosexuals saying that they are on par with how blacks were treated?? Blacks are still despised today WAY more than a homosexual ever will. They were turned into slaves, beaten to a pulp, and were basically crapped on by the whites.
Our (society's) agreement with the practice is already given since we have not made homosexuality illegal. It already IS mainstream. I agree, if homosexuals are drawing that parallel, I agree...it's also silly.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:If same-sex marriage is ever legalized and thus “taught” in public school…I don't care. I wouldn't and don't expect my religious morals to be taught in a public school. In fact, I wish they didn't teach ANY religious morals.
Again… You think that our government has it's own moral compass? Where is this magical division?
It should. The division exists...however it's becoming more blurred as time goes by.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:o now you're accusing me of being against God for issuing commands? Show me where I've EVER said I'm against God's commands or alluded to being against God's command! If you're gonna make such an assumption, at least provide the words I used that you interpreted as such.
No… I said it “seems” that you are against God by voting against Prop 8. If God's laws aren't good enough for society, are society's laws better than God's laws? If so, society's laws take precedence over God's laws.
Oh so now a vote 'no' on Prop 8 is a vote against God? God's laws ARE best for society...when the society votes itself into a Theocracy or is forced into one.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:What I think is not being understood is that the society is SECULAR and not a Theocratic society where laws based on religious beliefs would be appropriate. The first line of this SECULAR SOCIETY's 1st Amendment to its Constitution reads:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
And what if my religion was to promote homosexuality? Some religions do you know.
In these United States, it is against the law to discriminate against homosexuals. Plain. What if there is such religions that promote homosexuality? There is nothing illegal about it. There is no law in this land that makes such a practice illegal. This secular fact doesn't make God's stance on the matter any less.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Your assumptions are wrong and I thought you might understand it already since I've only repeated myself more times than it would seem necessary.I would not vote FOR same-sex marriage, but I would vote AGAINST same-sex marriage being unlawful in a secular society that has NO LAW against being homosexual. In other words, society has yet to prove to itself that homosexuality is bad for society! Secular society! I'm looking at this from a secular point of view despite my religious beliefs being against homosexuality!
Again… The United States did NOT endorse sodomy UNTIL the supreme court decision in 2003. AND most people in the U.S. whether they are Christian or not STILL see it as unnatural. However, we have a FEW judges that seem to disagree with that. Why? Probably some rich gay lobbyist getting their way.
"some rich gay lobbyist"

It's pretty amazing such things could happen in a country that is...what's your percentages of Christians in this country? Oh...further down. You say we Christians are about 75% of the country...and yet homosexuality is still tolerated? And you want same-sex marriage made illegal because it's damaging to society...hmm. Let's not play in make-believe bubbles. (That being that society abhors homosexuality...it doesn't otherwise there would be a law against being a homosexual or practicing homosexuality.)
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:And again I would say this; I don't care what the State teaches State children. My kids, as a parent that does care what they are taught, are sent to a private school. I have more control over what is taught them as I am free to use or not use the public school system.

What about those that cannot afford private school? First of all, I struggle to make those payments, but it's important to my wife and I so we do it…secondly, there are free alternatives to private school, one being home-schooling.Most important, if a parent(s) simply cannot afford private school nor has the time for home schooling, there is that one pesky alternative. TEACH RELIGIOUS MORALS IN THE HOME and don't expect Uncle Sam to do it for you when Uncle Sam shouldn't have ANY religious bias! I understand it quite well. It seems to me you would rather have the State teach your religious ideas and thus IT is responsible for their lifestyle choices rather than YOU be responsible for their religious beliefs and therefore their lifestyle choices.
No… Uncle Sam does not "teach" our children right now that a man MUST be married to a woman… HOWEVER, the homosexual agenda wants Uncle Sam to teach our children that it is ok for a child to have two daddies or two mommies. They are pushing their agenda, not the other way around. As for isolating children from society and home schooling, I believe it is a sad thing to do since we all live in society. Instead of teaching that the world is evil, why not get involved and try to change it?? What would Jesus do?
First of all, It's not ok to have two moms or two dads? Would be really confusing to kids with divorced and remarried parents now wouldn't it. I'm being critical of course of your words, the point is that there is not secular proof that a child cannot grow normal having two dads or two moms raise him/her. In fact there is no proof that homosexual unions produce homosexual kids...the exact opposite in fact is true, that being ONLY HETEROSEXUAL SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS HAVE PRODUCED HOMOSEXUAL CHILDREN!

Second...the "What Would Jesus Do" thing you promote as our incentive to change society...?? Please name one thing Jesus came and changed in secular society through secular law and more so something that wasn't already in His law...God's law!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:So are you saying a vote for Prop. 8 is voting to make homosexuality illegal? Fact is you're wrong here. Prop. 8 is about not allowing two same-sex people to “marry” in order to “save” traditional marriage. The Prop is against homosexuality on the fringe, but does not make homosexuality illegal.
Of course it doesn't make homosexuality illegal. Only marriage… It promotes traditional marriages.
Traditional marriage...of which society (75% of which is Christian) is doing an exellent job at "protecting" the integrity thereof.

Interesting, to say the least.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet you ask me to prove my so-called stance of it being good for society?
There aren't any.. That's the point.
Ok...like I've said. We agree. I'm not sure what your point is if we agree.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not! Society is twisted in wanting to make SAME-SEX MARRIAGE unlawful WHILE NOT MAKING THE PROBLEM (as we agree is homosexuality) ILLEGAL! So it is society on the whole that without such a stand empowers it (homosexuality). It's a matter of being able to separate secular from religious. If in fact homosexuality is so damaging to society has not society made the lifestyle illegal?…and if it hasn't done so, HOW does the “marriage” of homosexuals ADD to this problem? Would it encourage otherwise heterosexual males and/or females to choose homosexuality? It would neither create nor discourage the lifestyle. No one (at least if they do the number must be tiny) simply chooses to be homosexual having normal heterosexual tendencies. (“Normal” being a religious bias in my mind.) If society views life and the governing of life apart from religion, it must do so from the stand point that since this universe happened by chance, so did homosexuality and therefore both homosexuality and heterosexuality are “normal” lifestyles…both being a result of chance!
Again, what is this separate society thing? I'm really starting to get the feeling that you have completely separated yourself from society.. You see, we are all part of society… We make up society... Society is not bad until we make it bad. You can't separate the religious from the secular BECAUSE THE WHOLE LAW was derived from God's law from the very beginning. There is no divide.. And most people still don't believe we got here by chance… In fact most U.S. adult citizens identify themselves as Christians (76.5 - 78.5%).
You're asking me or telling me? If we can't separate religious from secular...what are we doing with that idiotic 1st Amendment? I guess our forefathers were stupid it thinking it could be done...it sounds like you're saying the forefathers of this country were stupid in this.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Traditional Marriage…again where does this originate? No don't throw marriage out…I never even alluded to this! What I'm saying is that people that oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of “protecting” the sanctity of marriage have yet to “protect” marriage already in its right context of between male and female! The sanctity of marriage is tossed around as a joke by marriages all around us! Where is the Prop for that “protection” if it SO NEEDS OUR PROTECTION?
It is protected… That is why we still have laws that only promote marriages between a man and a woman.
It is? Are you by this saying that God is happy with our "protection" of marriage so far? Marriage is in its right context AND working perfectly therein? LOL!! Let's not kidd ourselves...
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't blame me for the laws of the country or it's Constitution for this! I happen to agree on Church/State separation. Yes, I did agree and still agree this country was founded on Biblical principles. Freedom of Religion! It is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that separates Church and State…not me!! According to Wikipedia, (and I realize it's not the greatest of sources for some things) it is Thomas Jefferson that first made the conclusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment put a “wall of separation between Church and State”. Don't go trying to pin this on me…however I totally agree with it and would support any measure to reinforce this idea!
Oh… Ok, since you believe that the separation between church and state happened at the time of Thomas Jefferson, then ANY law after that (laws that see marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman) are NOT based on religion but on the state.. Great… Sounds like what I've been saying all along.
More of inserting your assumptions in my mouth/words. I NEVER made such a claim. I simply stated, as

Wiki does, that T. Jefferson made this conclusion based on the 1st Amendment wording. I NEVER said church/state separation began at that time...church/state separation began long before that! At least by Jesus' words. See Matthew 22:21.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Have we as a society gone into anarchy?
In some places yes... Even worse in third world countries.
Some of them even make homosexuality illegal as a "state" law!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Yet none of the laws for society are SOLELY based on religious bias. Notice there is no law to legislate honoring father and mother, or a law against coveting. There is no law determining which day is the “correct” day of worship.
Honoring one's mother and father was not a legal rule, but rather a moral imperative. We already have laws that say how many days or hours we can work a week, etc.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. There is no societal law(s) for parts of God's law that do not impact society by creating unwilling victims. That might've not made sense. Secular society does not make it a practice to create or establish laws when there is no victims. I'm still not sure I'm able to convey this thought of mine into words correctly. I'll think more on how to word this thought.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:(although it's been alluded to and my belief is that it will come at some point) and yet the society hasn't gone into anarchy…amazing. Murder is a God-law, but murder involves an unwilling victim. Stealing is a God-law, but stealing also involves an unwilling victim…and so on. Homosexuality is a God-law, however indirectly involves victims…and yet society has seen it unnecessary to make a law against it. Same-Sex Marriage is against a God-law, however it has no unwilling victims and is NOT THE CAUSE OF INDIRECT VICTIMS OF THE DISEASES THAT COME AS A RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. In fact there is no known case of anyone catching a disease as a direct result of the paper value of two same-sex people in a committed “union”. If there is…I'd sure like to see it.
And what about if they were sleeping around before or anal cancer?? Also you are forgetting another factor.. What about PROCREATION? If society went all homo, society would most likely parish as a whole.
The point is, a piece of paper that says two individuals are "married" is not the cause of diseases.

What about procreation? Homosexuals cannot procreate in same-sex marriages or at all unless a homosexual male and a homosexual female engage in natural sex.

Again, homosexuality is not new to our era...
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:I'll reiterate. It is the sexual contact between homosexuals that creates the diseases…not the paper that gives them State benefits for being in a committed relationship.
But the paper also gives them the rights to promote it more and more too.
The marriage paper does NOT do this...the 1st Amendment does this ALREADY!!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:LOL…no you miss the point. The point is…I'm not against having or “loving” a male friend in light of friendship apart from sexual love. Harry OK was asking and wanting to have a committed relationship with another man APART from the sexual contact. That in itself proves the point.
Which really has nothing to do with marriage.
What?? Harry OK is saying he would like to be in a committed relationship with another man APART from the homosexual sex. THAT IS CALLED A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. It's two people committed to each other. It makes no difference if they are sexually involved or not.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:That's fine, but your stance is only substantiated when the society as a whole decides homosexuality is bad for society. It will then make it illegal to partake in ANYTHING homosexual…and not limited simply to a “marriage”. Until then, keeping same-sex illegal to “protect” marriage and thus “protect” us against homosexual diseases is SILLY! It serves no real purpose other than to DISCRIMINATE.
Society did think the homosexuality was bad for society before the courts repealed the sodomy laws back in 2003. Society also at large still thinks the same way until we had jerks who decided to beat up homosexuals.. Also this has nothing to do with discrimination only the act.
And so far the act is legal regardless of the courts...which are made up of people in society!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure…but society has yet to make homosexuality legal and thus “morally” immoral.
See above.
Saw...and all I see is that homosexuality, sodomy (within limits) is legal.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:As Christians we only know when it will stop and can only assume things will get worse before they get better. The Bible calls these “Birth Pains”. By nature they get worse and worse and there's no stopping them until the Birth.
So in other words we perpetuate the pain so that we get the birth?
"...let the weeds grow among the wheat..." As long as the weeds (society) allows homosexuality, same-sex marriage is nothing of (more) consequence to society than homosexuality already is.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:As much as you protest, it doesn't remove the fact that homosexuality IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE IN SECULAR SOCIETY.
No… Secular society as a whole does NOT teach this.
Wait!! You keep saying that I promote homosexuality supporting a 'no' on Prop 8...but then society does not teach homosexuality is an acceptable practice when it doesn't make homosexuality illegal? I see you pick and choose the areas in which you like to broad-stroke your bias ideas.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Again, I tell you, who cares what the State is allowed to teach the children! What consequence is it to a child in a strong Christian home if the parent(s) have and teach Christian morals?
And what about those who are not Christian? You already said that homosexuality was bad for society.
What about them?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:NEWSFLASH: The practice of homosexuality is endorsed and is protected by law regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8 or the like.
Endorsed only by a few.
Sorry...society endorses it.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:The rift already exists…that rift began prior to Creation. It started with pride.The Church only looks evil when it employs tactics other than those, which Christ used in His earthly ministry. When the Church and its members decide to make “God Hates Homos” banners and instead of embracing the movement in love and compassion…relaying our similarities instead of our differences…then the Church is seen as evil. Think of the Inquisition as an example.
Yah, that was a dumb thing to do.. But that still doesn't mean we accept the practice.
"We" don't. Secular society does.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:S&G was not exactly the same. God's people were warned to come out of her and be separate…that God would bring wrath on them. How many of God's people were burned in S&G? God calls His people to come out, be separate.
So God is telling his people to come out of America now?? Separate from the evil doers? I thought we were suppose to love the evil doers?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand what "being separate" means in the Christian sense. It's not necessarily a physical separation, but a separation of beliefs and actions.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:You can't see the argument is based on SECULAR ideas rather than religious? You can't see that Prop. 8 doesn't remove homosexuality and its diseases or influence already on society? You don't see that Prop. 8 is discrimination with no legal basis other than religious bias?I am not for same-sex marriage nor do I advocate homosexuality as a lifestyle blessed by God, but more importantly, I'm against all legislation of secular law based solely on religious bias!

I believe Prop 8 to be one example of a law based solely on religious bias.

If you assert that claim on my part again, I'll simply have to plead to a higher authority here as I've made my stance clear yet again. I think if I were doing this, you would already have done something on your own.
Sorry, but you can't say that. Because the separation between church and state happened at the time of Thomas Jefferson. The switch already happened.. There are no more religious laws today.
I can't? I've already addressed the T. Jefferson thing.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Taxpayers have made no claim that homosexuality is wrong or illegal. I'm not asking, the homosexual movement is asking. I simply agree with the homosexuals that marital rights shouldn't be withheld since there is no law against homosexuality and additionally, same-sex “unions” are lawful in some areas of the country.They (homosexuals) already —LEGALLY- promote their lifestyle…there is no law prohibiting them from doing so…is there?

Again…you equate State rights as the measure of right and wrong. If it is, then they (homosexuals) DO and should have the empowerment of their practice since there is no such law against their practice of homosexuality!
Again.. The sodomy laws DID forbid it until it was recently repealed.. It was part of our secular world and many still hold those values.
Sorry, the sodomy laws did not forbid homosexuals, it forbid one aspect of homosexual intimacy. Point being more is that it's not part of the law now.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:We're living in a utopia now? There are no homosexual diseases in society among the heterosexuals?
I'm sure they have spread to the heterosexuals via the bisexuals.. And who is to say that more diseases aren't coming??
Bisexuals? What about blood transfusions...needles...etc. Lots of ways these diseases spread, not only by bisexuals. Right! More disease might be coming...who knows.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:It banished alcohol…sodomy…murder…stealing…you name it all of these things secular society has banished. Do the laws banish it absolutely? One need only take a look into a prison and get that answer.
No laws don't banish all bad practices absolutely.. But we still need them.. To teach right from wrong. So you want to banish all the laws again? After all we don't follow them... Right?
So you agree...Good. We need laws to teach us right from wrong? Nope...sorry. First of all, right from wrong when it comes to same-sex marriage cannot be taught by society as wrong when society has not made homosexuality illegal. Second, right from wrong when speaking of religious morals and/or bias should not be taught by the State! Please take responsibility for your own children. Don't leave that or entrust the State to teach them your religious beliefs.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:No…I've said society in ESSENCE has said it's ok. If society by a majority thought homosexuality was bad, it could banish homosexuality much like it banishes murder, stealing…
No they do not think in ESSENCE that it is ok.. Most people don't want to admit that it is bad or they will be labeled as a gay basher.. Most people know it is NOT a natural practice. Even the ones that don't go to church.
Ever heard that saying that "actions speak louder than words." ?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Only perfect beings can keep God's law perfectly. God's law simply points at sin and shows a penitent man the right path to be on. So the answer is; No one can handle God's law. We all break it daily…and when we break one aspect of it, we are guilty of breaking it all.
I don't believe that at all.. God commanded not to do it.. He would not give his commands unless people couldn't abstain from it. That is the point.
I'd say this is perfectionist thinking. Does this thinking permeate to all His commands? God commanded to do and not do a few things at least...
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Are we talking secular law or God's law?
Both.
One must separate between God's law and man's law when making laws for a secular society that endeavors to keep Church and State apart.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:From the standpoint of God's law, we are all guilty as law-breakers from the time of conception.

From the standpoint of secular law, it's not against the U.S. law to be homosexual…genetically or by choice so I'm not sure what your point is here.My original point in that thought was that *I think* homosexuality is a genetic perversion of sin. God can heal/correct genetic problems, no doubt. The question is whether God hates the homosexual or the acts of homosexuals as pertain to sex and intimacy? I was also saying how difficult it must be for homosexual Christians in that even as heterosexuals, we can play out or sexual desires within a marriage, but a homosexual “must” abstain from fulfilling their sexual desires totally to be right with God…and I'm not even ABSOLUTELY sure that is true considering we are all infected with sin and continue to sin in spite of our standing. Our state is sinful, but our standing is righteous in Christ.
Of course God only hates the sin and not the sinner.. Of course we need to abstain from sin still… Just the same way we have to stop coveting our neighbors stuff.
But do you really want a law on the secular books about coveting a neighbor's "stuff"? Why or better yet, why not?!
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Craving? Sure…I don't doubt that…but chances are if you put a few in him, I'm willing to bet his “disease” comes out of remission. Having said that, I do believe as I've stated before, God can heal completely. It is possible. Maybe your friend is among those completely healed of the “disease” of alcoholism…
Well you are wrong.. He still has not come out of remission and can still drink a bit. I use to drink a lot too… And I have come out of it too.. It IS possible.
You're just fooling yourself...you're still feeding your disease. Just because you are able to "control" the problem doesn't mean you've solved the problem. You apparently cannot give up drinking...much the same, I say a true homosexual's plight is that he/she, unlike you, is not allowed to indulge their vice even under "control." Lucky you, aye?
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Are you attributing sodomy as something I uphold as good or are you saying sodomy laws are silly? Maybe a little clarity would make for a better response.
I don't know.. It seems that maybe you were thinking they were silly.
It seems you might fare better if you understand my point before making one for me.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Putting words in my mouth again are you? You seem to be well versed in this. I guess you fail to see the inability of a secular society to make laws such as coveting and honoring father and mother. The whole point is the laws SOCIETY can pick to legislate while in a society that claims separation of Church and State.
What are you talking about.. Putting words in your mouth? I already addressed this.
Well, lets hope you better understand it. No one says you have to agree, just understand that Christians are not called to propose laws in secular society to promote God's laws that are already established within a Christian.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:And until this is made so in the U.S., Props/laws such as Prop. 8 will remain acts of discrimination by the State when passed without a clear line of illegal acts.
I wouldn't worry about it… Once the old guard dies off I'm sure you will get your wish.. Do you really think that props like Prop 8 will succeed in the future? Fat chance.
Again you attribute this thinking as "my wish." Ad hominem you say?

Hopefully NO religiously bias law ever passes in secular society.

Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Sure…I can give and take heat,
Doubtful.
I haven't played the game with you. You however are afforded the freedom to do so without retribution from anyone.
Gman wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:but when I've been warned before for doing as you're taking the liberty to do, I then make the point. Yes, insults. Personal attacks. If anyone wish to see the context of your attacks, one need only to read a few pages. I've clearly stated almost from the beginning that I'm against the homosexual lifestyle and against same-sex marriage, but more so, against the legislation of laws based solely on religious bias. It is my opinion that it remains so as long as society is unwilling to outlaw homosexuals and their acts that are not good on society.After having stated this numerous times, you ask me for proof that same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality is good for society? And demand it!
Again, I'm just calling you out on your twisting of logic..

Forget about what you think society thinks... We are talking about what YOU think.
I've told you what I think...many times.

Twisting of logic? What is twisted? Twisted is society wanting to make a law against same-sex marriage when society has not yet made homosexuality illegal...THAT is contrary to logic, or twisted.
Gman wrote:Yah... real ad hominems...
Gman wrote:Once the old guard dies off I'm sure you will get your wish.
Yah... real ad hominem...
.
.

User avatar
Harry OK
Valued Member
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:12 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: The U.K.
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

#120

Post by Harry OK » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:40 pm

There's a huge difference between legalising homosexuality and recognising same sex marriage.

One is NOT intereferng (aka making illegal) with certain lifestyles.
The other is actively giving privelage and protection to certain lifestyles.

Come on people, there IS a difference.
If you're born once, you die twice; but if you're born twice, you die once.

Locked