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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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 was asking and wanting to have a committed relationship with another man APART from the sexual contact. That in itself proves the point.
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.
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.
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.
The practice of homosexuality is endorsed and is protected by law regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8 or the like.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Gman wrote:Show you proof?
Yes show me the proof that these acts are good for society.. Now.
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.
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…