« Republican Chris Christie Takes New Jersey | Main | C. Everett Koop's Letter Shuts Down Reid's Office »

November 4, 2009

Maine's Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Claim Victory

Early exit polls show Maine heading towards a repeal of a state law that would have allowed same-sex marriage.

The Legislature passed the law in May, but the election offered voters the chance to repeal the measure.

With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday, voters seeking to repeal the law claimed 53 percent of the vote.

In Washington state, early election results showed that voters were approving the state’s “everything but marriage” law, which gives registered domestic partners additional state-granted rights currently given only to married couples.

Early election returns showed Washington's referendum on same-sex marriage passing 51 percent to 49 percent. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld an order preventing Washington State from releasing the names of more than 120,000 people who signed petitions seeking the voter referendum. Protect Marriage Washington feared that releasing the names would result in harassment.

Social change may come for individual cities as well. In Houston, a lesbian candidate for mayor will head into a run-off with a plurality of the vote. A gay man was elected mayor of Chapel Hill, while Detroit elected a gay City Council president.

Comments

This decision disappointed myself, essentially since this was originally passed in May. Everyone should be allowed to live how they want, and marry who they want.

A sad night! All the harm this repeal does to the families of gays and lesbians in Maine, with *no one at all* benefitting (well, except for organizations like NOM). I'm not sure which is worse: that this evil was done at all, or that many of those who did it think they were doing God's will.

hyhybt, that's the point, It is God's Will. He (God) instituted marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman for the procreation of children and the benefit of society - it's sociologically beneficial, physiologically healthier and is exactly how God intended it to be.

It's sad that so many who claim the 'inclusivity' religion of today (because that's what you purport), fail to understand that God's word challenges, and condemns sin for what it is - it cannot be said any other way.

God condemns the sin of homosexuality, but the church and those who stand up for what God's word says, must also show love to the individuals and not condemnation.

We debate stuff in politics and belittle them to political debate. When we (the church) should be saying - "This is God's word - DEAL WITH IT"

I seem to recall something in the US Constitution about separation of Church and State. Doesn't that apply in this case? "Simon" says that the church (which?) should be saying that this is God's word, deal with it. What if someone doesn't go to his church and doesn't believe in his God? Does that person have to follow his rules, even if that person doesn't share "Simon's" beliefs?

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. So stop pretending this is his gig. It isn't.

This is sad, sad, sad. We should not be taking away marriage rights from consenting adults, when we enjoy those rights.

I believe gays should have the same marriage rights that I, as a straight female follower of Christ, have.

Re: the law and "deal with it" - not reflecting a Jesus attitude there at all; Do you believe adultery is a sin? Why are you not working to outlaw it as well? Why not laws about everything you call sin?
It's inconsistent at best.

But mostly, it's ridiculous, sad, and not loving at all.

BTW, I wanted to make it clear that my "stop pretending" comment was aimed at the "deal with it" poster, not the blogger.

A column I wrote regarding gay marriage a few months ago:

http://www.newchristianvoices.com/column/the-raving-redhead-got-milk

I think we are on a dangerous slope when the civil rights of a minority are left up to a vote by the majority.

Let us pray and hope that we are never placed in a position when it's our rights being voted on.

Great points made by so many of my fellow loving Christians here. The Bible does not mention marriage as a legal contract, but some religious extremists are exploiting the name of Jesus and God to further their political cause (and put money in their own wallets). In turn, their blind followers do as they're told because the result to them if they don't is Hell.
I do believe that marriage equality will happen in Maine and across the country. Just as the passage of Prop 8 last year in CA galvanized not only the LGBT community but their friends and family, the passage of 1 in Maine this week will cause these millions of justice-seeking Americans to DEMAND equal rights for all. Anyone who is celebrating this moment in our history is only contributing to the gay marriage and civil rights movements. For that, I thank those people.

That there is still so much political power and gain in being against a major American minority group is shameful.

It's Wednesday morning, and I'm sure there are plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that promoted Question 1 in Maine. So congratulations, you issued Gay couples in that state a setback ... for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally.

Exactly how is allowing Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted going to affect 'traditional marriage?" Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.

Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?

The anti-equality croud has won the battle, but not the war. Truth, justice and equality WILL prevail in the end...because THAT is God's will.

This decision disappointed myself, essentially since this was originally passed in May. Everyone should be allowed to live how they want, and marry who they want.

Posted by: Josh at November 4, 2009

Does that apply to those who want to marry animals too... Or religious cults that practice the plural marrying off of adolescent girls to lecherous old men?

If you are going to open the door for homosexuals to marry, you might as well take it off of it's hinges and allow all of the other paraphilias to have equal access to marital union according to their particular sexual deviancy..

.

A sad night! All the harm this repeal does to the families of gays and lesbians in Maine, with *no one at all* benefitting (well, except for organizations like NOM). I'm not sure which is worse: that this evil was done at all, or that many of those who did it think they were doing God's will.

Posted by: hyhybt at November 4, 2009

It is quite obvious that you ignore the fact that the issue was put to a vote of the people of the state of Maine...

It was not forced upon them against their will like the original mandate was...

What you are calling evil is democracy in action...

By your obvious contempt for both Christianity and democracy, I sabn plainly see that you would rather this country were run by a hedonistic, homosexual, olgarchy...

.

I seem to recall something in the US Constitution about separation of Church and State. Doesn't that apply in this case? "Simon" says that the church (which?) should be saying that this is God's word, deal with it. What if someone doesn't go to his church and doesn't believe in his God? Does that person have to follow his rules, even if that person doesn't share "Simon's" beliefs?

Posted by: Bob M. at November 4, 2009

Bob...

You are exposing your ignorance...

The passage of a resolution by a legal vote of a majority of citizens is not theocracy.. It is not an unconstitutional establisment of a religion by the government... It is democracy... It is the will of the people...

.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. So stop pretending this is his gig. It isn't.

This is sad, sad, sad. We should not be taking away marriage rights from consenting adults, when we enjoy those rights.

I believe gays should have the same marriage rights that I, as a straight female follower of Christ, have.

Posted by: Teresa Roberts Logan at November 4, 2009

Teresa...

Jesus said this...

Mark 7:19 Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

And Jesus also said this...

Matthew 15:24 Then he said to the woman, "I was sent only to help the people of Israel--God's lost sheep--not the Gentiles."

When you understand the human ministry of Jesus, you will note that His ministry was to the Jews only... The same Jews to whom the law of Moses was given... The Jews of Jesus' day would know that when Jesus said "sexual immorality" that it would be inclusive of all of the sexual prohibitions in Scripture, inclusive of this...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

I think we are on a dangerous slope when the civil rights of a minority are left up to a vote by the majority.

Let us pray and hope that we are never placed in a position when it's our rights being voted on.

Posted by: Justin at November 4, 2009

Justin...

Pedophiles, rapists, drunks and murderers are in the exact same type of minority as practicing homosexuals are...

Minority of numbers due to a free-will chosen behavior...

Free-will behaviors do not make an illegitimate constitutional minority into legitimate constitutional majority...

.

Just as the passage of Prop 8 last year in CA galvanized not only the LGBT community but their friends and family, the passage of 1 in Maine this week will cause these millions of justice-seeking Americans to DEMAND equal rights for all. Anyone who is celebrating this moment in our history is only contributing to the gay marriage and civil rights movements. For that, I thank those people.

Posted by: ProudFather at November 4, 2009

Don't thank me yet... I'm just getting warmed up...

Granting homosexuals favoritism under the law, via court order, is not justice... It is tyranny..

In both Proposition 8 and the current issue before the voters in Maine are but two of the rare examples of when the people have been allowed to have a voice in deciding whether or not to forward special privilidges for homosexuals...

I daresay that there are more millions of justice seeking Americans who are waking up to the reality that this constitutional republic is on a fast-track to oligarchical overthrow by public servants who have completely forgotten that it is the will of the people they serve that governs this nation...

The people of California and Maine have done what they can to stop the efforts of elitists from handing this country over to Satan on a platter...

We the people have not yet begun to have our voices heard...

.

That there is still so much political power and gain in being against a major American minority group is shameful.

Posted by: ChristianPam at November 4, 2009

Pam...

Your ignorace of what constitutes a legitimate constitutional minority is very apparent..

The practice of homosexuality is a free-will choice... the same as child abuse... The same as getting drunk... The same as adultery... The same as taking illicit drugs.. The same as rape... The same as robbery... The same as murder...

In order to recognize homosexuals as a minority... The constitution would have to be rewritten...

.

DEAR DAVID HARDY:

Your comparison of law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples to pedophiles, rapists, drunks and murderers is absurd enough by itself. Child molestation, rape, and murder are all criminal activities, so don't even go there. As for someone who is an alcoholic, he has his own issues. But the only difference between a Gay and Straight couple is the gender(s) of the two people in the relationship.

If it's your personal your belief that Gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that's your right. And I certainly would encourage you to conduct your own personal life as your conscience dictates. But co-opting the law to force people to do your bidding is the real abomination.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

"Same sex marriage will change the culture of the US as much as would the legalizing of polygamy. Or polyamourous marriage. Or the legalizing of beastialiy. Or of lowering the age of consent so older men/women can legally have sexual relations with children. Nobody has the right to tell others what is right or wrong in the area of sexual relationships. Correct? And as long as it has no effect on your marriage, you old bible thumping fuddie duddies, stop infringing on the rights of others, mind your own business and butt out." This is kind of what I hear the "other side" saying.

Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at November 4, 2009

Chuck...

Homosexuals are not a legitimate constitutional minority...

The practice of homosexuality is a free-will choice...

Homosexuals have and enjoy every one of the constitutional rights of any other citizen of this country...

To say that homosexuals are treated unfairly is the same as an adulterer(ess) being miffed because he/she can't put his/her sex toy on their insurance and get a tax break for them...

You can't rewrite the constitution or the laws to allow any type of legally excluded behavior without that same principal applying equally to all legally excluded behaviors...

.

The anti-equality croud has won the battle, but not the war. Truth, justice and equality WILL prevail in the end...because THAT is God's will.

Posted by: Jacob at November 4, 2009

Jacob...

God's will has prevailed...

God's will is prevailing...

And God's will, will always prevail...

In spite of what humans do...

.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at November 4, 2009

Chuck...

You would be incorrect...

Please refer to my direct answer to your previous post...

If you would desire for me to reiterate I will gladly oblige...

.

Opposing marriage equality is pure and unadulterated bigotry. The Bible doesn't say what David H. says it says, anyway. In any case, Gay people can and do "procreate," it just takes a bit more planning.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Ahhh Gregory...

Once again.. Just for your benefit...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous [fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [fn]

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

The Bible does not allow homosexuals to marry, just like it does not allow divorced persons to remarry. I think it's hard to justify one without the other. We either take all of scripture or none of it. We can't pick and choose because, oh, I might be divorced and want to marry again. In God's eyes one is as wrong as the other is. And yes, Jesus does mention that marriage is only for men and women. I can't help but wonder what version you all are reading.

There is little reason to think that there are many teens and adults who actually choose their sexual orientations. Our multitasking genes, epigenitic genomes and recently discovered micro RNA expressions aren't near understood enough to make a confident claim that one "chooses" to be "homosexual" or not "homosexual."

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Ahhh Gregory...

Once more on this subject too...

Once upon a time, the sexualities—heterosexual, homosexual, even bisexual—were categorical and mutually exclusive. Further, sexual attraction/desire, sexual behavior and sexual identity were assumed to be congruent: same-gender sexual attraction/behavior presupposed a gay or lesbian or bisexual identity, and other-gender sexual attraction/behavior assumed heterosexuality. But results of sexuality research over the last 20 years have turned our paradigm of sexuality on its head. What we’ve learned is that while these assumptions may be true for some, they are not true for all.

The truth is, Kinsey was right: sexuality not only exists on a continuum, some people may (and do) move on that continuum across the lifespan. The truth is, sexuality can be fluid, varying across time and situation. The truth is, sexual orientation appears to be comprised of many variables, not just sexual behavior. And the truth is, desire/behavior and orientation/identity do not always line up neatly. Some completely straight individuals have unexpectedly found themselves falling in love with, and being sexual with, those of the same gender, and some happily gay people have unexpectedly become partnered with those of the other gender.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/sexual-fluidity/

Here's a bit more for you Gregory....

I know that you will attempt to maginalize it...

You always do...

During the last 40 years the majority of SSA studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. (1) Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked.(3-7) This includes the widely publicized brain research of Dr. Simon LeVay,(8) and the gay gene research of Dr. Dean Hamer(9-12)

There is, however, a somewhat greater incidence of SSA among identical versus fraternal twins, which suggests the presence of inherited predisposing traits at least for some. Data from multiple identical twin studies, however, proves that this inherited influence is minimal. (13-17)

In summary, SSA is determined by a complex interaction between familial and peer influences, unique events, social and biological factors. An attachment deficit, cross-gender behavior, rejection by same-sex peers, sexual abuse, involvement in pornography and sexual experimentation are associated with SSA for many, but do not unilaterally or universally cause it. In other words, not every person who has these experiences will develop SSA, and not every person with SSA will have a history of these experiences. This is likely where biological influences and unrecognized environmental or societal factors play a role. (1, 2, 13-16) What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.

http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

.

The Bible does not allow homosexuals to marry, just like it does not allow divorced persons to remarry. I think it's hard to justify one without the other. We either take all of scripture or none of it. We can't pick and choose because, oh, I might be divorced and want to marry again. In God's eyes one is as wrong as the other is. And yes, Jesus does mention that marriage is only for men and women. I can't help but wonder what version you all are reading.

Posted by: muse at November 4, 2009

Muse...

Two things...

First it is not a sin for men and women to get married in the first place... God also knows the heart and the reasons surrounding each divorce...

God knows when His standards have been breached by men an women regarding divorce and remarriage...

God is also in the business of forgiving those who repent of sin...

All of the above are aplicable in heterosexual relationships..

The only biblically applicable standard for the practice of homosexuality is that it is always a sin and to never engage in it in the first place...

And second...

Your statement about a prohibition of remarriage is incorrect...

Matthew 5:31 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, `A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce.'

Mathew 5:32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


1Corinthians 7:6 This is only my suggestion. It's not meant to be an absolute rule.

1Corinthians 7:7 I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness.

1Corinthians 7:8 Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows--it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am.

1Corinthians 7:9 But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

1Corinthians 7:10 Now, for those who are married I have a command that comes not from me, but from the Lord. A wife must not leave her husband.

1Corinthians 7:11 But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else go back to him. And the husband must not leave his wife.

1Corinthians 7:12 Now, I will speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command from the Lord. If a Christian man has a wife who is an unbeliever and she is willing to continue living with him, he must not leave her.

1Corinthians 7:13 And if a Christian woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to continue living with her, she must not leave him.

1Corinthians 7:14 For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not have a godly influence, but now they are set apart for him.

1Corinthians 7:15 (But if the husband or wife who isn't a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.)

1Corinthians 7:16 You wives must remember that your husbands might be converted because of you. And you husbands must remember that your wives might be converted because of you.

.

As the GLBT communities are likely, and will likely stay that way, a minority of most any population outside of a few "Gay Meccas;" that they should be always subject to majority rule for their petitions of redress is so very racist-like. Civil rights are not just "Constitutionally recognized minority" rights, but everyone rights...even for an "unofficial minority" of one or two.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Gregory...

Homosexuality has nothing in common with race...

The practice of homosexuality is a free-will behavior.. Just like drunkenness, adultery, rape, child and domestic abuse, murder etc...

To say that homosexuals are a legitimate minority who's agenda should be embraced by society is as bogus as petitioning for the rights to engage in all of the aforementioned, free-will choice behaviors...

.

@David Hardy

Ah, I was wondering where you were. I knew that sooner or later you would be here commenting

If you want to marry your dog and if your dog can say I do, I would fight for the rights of you and your Lassie to marry

David Hardy, methinks thou art full of bad beans. Do not dump on God's children, moosebreath!
To ALL of God's children:
This is indeed only the first salvo in the GLBT Marriage Equality scrimmage! I've watched this twisted radical religious rightwing political arena for the last 35 years! Do you honestly believe that the GLBT population is going to keep losing? Where are the up-and-coming RRR youth/children?? When they get to college and away from the horses' tunnel vision blinders and misinformation/lies/blackmail, they will see with their own eyes, what a mockery the RRR has made of both the political AND religious arenas in life and how miserable the RRR has made everybody.
Losses are a basic part of winning!!! Look at Abraham Lincoln!!! Never won a political office until he ran for Presidency of the USA! Winston Churchill was spot on when he said, "Never, never, never, never...NEVER give up!!!" The foes of GLBT equality will be long incapacitated and/or dead in the near future. Your wins are about to happen. Maybe not all over the nation, but a good majority of states, Realistically speaking, would you even WANT to live in backward, hillbilly thinking states? Nah, I thiought not. We are much brighter and intelligent to be that ignorant!
March on, GLBT people of God (or not...you are still covered!)
Blessings, Peace, Hope, Joy,
Dakotahgeo, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain

Oh Sweet Savior

As one poster already mentioned, David Hardy you have got to be a self hating homosexual. There is no other way around it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I seem to recall that this is the same thing that was said in 1967 when lawys prohibiting interracial marriages were struck down.

Are you David Hardy a member of the KKK or some such group? You have simply replaced NEGRO with GAY.
My my my how sick you are.

-----------------------------------------------------
David Hardy posted: If you are going to open the door for homosexuals to marry, you might as well take it off of it's hinges and allow all of the other paraphilias to have equal access to marital union according to their particular sexual deviancy..

Dave Hardy, I agree that you more or less quote one view of scripture. What I am trying to show here is that it is not just gay people who are not allowed to marry. Anyone who divorces for any reason other than abandonment or adultery are not allowed to remarry - per Scripture. While so many people were hung up on gay marriage, nobody paid much attention to the no-fault divorce laws that were passed in almost every state. If we want to enforce biblical teaching for gays, we have to enforce it for divorced persons as well. I don't understand how you can't see that.

Another thing, people are allowed to disagree. Stop calling someone sick just because they disagree with you.

Muse

I have posed the same question to David Hardy on many an occasion.

You will find that an answer is not forthcoming. I am left with the only conclusion that David Hardy does as so many do: appoint himself as the arbiter to determine what is or is not sin

David Hardy, why do you need to write so many words?
It works against you if you want to keep an audience.

Of course marriage between man and animal is silly. Marriage is a contract between two people who understand and communicate the commitment between them.
Because animals aren't capable of that cognitive function, it's not worth laying forward as an argument against same-gender marriage.

Losses are a basic part of winning!!! Look at Abraham Lincoln!!! Never won a political office until he ran for Presidency of the USA! Winston Churchill was spot on when he said, "Never, never, never, never...NEVER give up!!!"

Posted by: Dakotahgeo at November 4, 2009

Thank you for the words of encouragement....

They serve to invigorate me to continue to persevere in exposing the radical homosexual agenda for destructive force that it truly is...

.

As one poster already mentioned, David Hardy you have got to be a self hating homosexual. There is no other way around it.

Posted by: Justin at November 4, 2009

Oh but there is Justin...

John 15:18 "When the world hates you, remember it hated me before it hated you.

John 15:19 The world would love you if you belonged to it, but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you.

John 15:20 Do you remember what I told you? `A servant is not greater than the master.' Since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to me, they would listen to you!

John 15:21 The people of the world will hate you because you belong to me, for they don't know God who sent me.

.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I seem to recall that this is the same thing that was said in 1967 when lawys prohibiting interracial marriages were struck down.

Are you David Hardy a member of the KKK or some such group? You have simply replaced NEGRO with GAY.
My my my how sick you are.

-----------------------------------------------------
David Hardy posted: If you are going to open the door for homosexuals to marry, you might as well take it off of it's hinges and allow all of the other paraphilias to have equal access to marital union according to their particular sexual deviancy..


Posted by: Carlos D at November 4, 2009


Actually Carlos...

I am not at all ashamed...

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes...

So they considered interacial marriage to be a paraphilia?

And no... Race and homosexuality are not interchangeable... I have just kept true to the biblical condemnation of the practice of homosexuality...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous [fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [fn]

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

David Hardy is obviously impressed with himself. I am not impressed at all David. Your answers show a disdain for LGBT folk that taints anything that you might have to say.

I didn't think that the proposition would be shot down until I read the the text. It was vicious and the fact that people actually approved it means that they either didn't read it or that viciousness towards LGBT folk is acceptable. I prefer to believe the first.

Equating law abiding Gay people with drunkenness, adultery, rape, child and domestic abuse, murder is unconscionable slander. Drunkenness, adultery, domestic abuse, murder and rape, after all, are about "choosing' non consensual behavior.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Ahhh Gregory...

You must have a masters in obfuscation.....

Drunkenness is indeed a consentual personal choice...

Adultery is indeed a consentual personal choice...

And I daresay that if you asked the rapist the child/domestic abuser, or the murderer... They would respond with "They wanted me to do it"... "They deserved it".. Or "They had it coming to them"

All of the above behaviors are condemned in the Bible and the practice of homosexuality ranks right along beside them...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

.


Dave Hardy, I agree that you more or less quote one view of scripture. What I am trying to show here is that it is not just gay people who are not allowed to marry. Anyone who divorces for any reason other than abandonment or adultery are not allowed to remarry - per Scripture. While so many people were hung up on gay marriage, nobody paid much attention to the no-fault divorce laws that were passed in almost every state. If we want to enforce biblical teaching for gays, we have to enforce it for divorced persons as well. I don't understand how you can't see that.

Posted by: muse at November 4, 2009

Muse...

If we are going to discuss the Bible it is abundantly clear that the practice of homosexuality is condemned outright... There is absolutely no biblical justifivcation for even entering into a homosexual relationship, much less to even consider marriage...

As for heterosexual marriage...

I in no way condone the attitude of a throw away relationship... The breakdown of martial responsibility and fidelity in this country has paved the way for the downward spiral of ethics and morals in this country and the world...

That said...

For a man and a woman to enter into a serious relationship is not a sin..

Marriage between a man and a woman, who have entered into a serious relationship is not a sin...

Dissolution of a marriage under the right circumstances is not a sin....

What you are driving at is the intentions of the heart and only God knows that for certain...

To attempt to compare a relationship cursed by God, to a relationship blessed by God is to compare a pig with a swan...

.

To all of those who think being gay is a choice, I have one question for you. Why would someone knowingly choose to be a part of something that you would be marginalized and kept from having rights. where you could be killed for being a certain way.

That just doesn't make logical sense to be a choice.

Secondly, quoting scriptures is an abomination. If you feel you need justification so you can sleep at night it might be time to look in the mirror. At the end of the day, we are all children of God. Let Him be the judge and jury. Don't misconstrue His message of love for hate.

Muse

I have posed the same question to David Hardy on many an occasion.

You will find that an answer is not forthcoming. I am left with the only conclusion that David Hardy does as so many do: appoint himself as the arbiter to determine what is or is not sin

Posted by: Justin at November 4, 2009

Justin...

Bogus statement...

God has given us His Word...

I at all times defer to that word and cite and quote from it....

Your problem is with God...

Not with the messenger boy...

.

David Hardy, why do you need to write so many words?
It works against you if you want to keep an audience.

Of course marriage between man and animal is silly. Marriage is a contract between two people who understand and communicate the commitment between them.
Because animals aren't capable of that cognitive function, it's not worth laying forward as an argument against same-gender marriage.

Posted by: wazza at November 4, 2009

Wazza...

David Hardy quotes many words from the Bible... Because of this fact...

Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while you can find him. Call on him now while he is near.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the people turn from their wicked deeds. Let them banish from their minds the very thought of doing wrong! Let them turn to the LORD that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Isaiah 55:8 "My thoughts are completely different from yours," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isaiah 55:9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:10 "The rain and snow come down from the heavens and stay on the ground to water the earth. They cause the grain to grow, producing seed for the farmer and bread for the hungry.

Isaiah 55:11 It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.


And if you consider bestiality te be silly... I can assure you that God doesn't share you sentiments...

Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual intercourse with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed.

Leviticus 20:16 If a woman approaches a male animal to have intercourse with it, she and the animal must both be put to death. Both must die, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

God feels much the same way about the practce of homosexuality...

Lev 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

You will notice that the additional word detestable is included in the verse pertaining to homosexuality...

I would say that God makes a pretty good argument against the concept of homosexual marriage...

.

There is no radical homosexual agenda. There are no "homosexuals," to start with. "Homosexuality" is a figment of bigoted imaginations, a straw man, a pathetically confabulated scapegoat. There is a rather loose movement, supported by moral people, for full citizen equality for all.

confabulate - unconsciously replace fact with fantasy in one's memory (The Free Dictionary)

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Gregory...

Confabulate must be your middle name...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous [fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

To all of those who think being gay is a choice, I have one question for you. Why would someone knowingly choose to be a part of something that you would be marginalized and kept from having rights. where you could be killed for being a certain way.

That just doesn't make logical sense to be a choice.

Secondly, quoting scriptures is an abomination. If you feel you need justification so you can sleep at night it might be time to look in the mirror. At the end of the day, we are all children of God. Let Him be the judge and jury. Don't misconstrue His message of love for hate.

Posted by: Mike S at November 4, 2009


Mike...

False premise...

If what you postulate about homosexuality and choice is true than why are there murderers, rapists, drug dealers, car jackers, armed robbers, burglars?

Why is their a criminal justice system?

As for quoting Scripture...

Your insult is directed at God...

Not at me...

You might wish to retract it...

.

I made it very clear that the victim of drunk driving, not the drunk, did not consent to being run over. That the other spouse did not likely consent to being a victim of adultery. Blaming the victim as having "asked for it" is most likely an after the fact self-justification for one's reprehensible actions, and a highly unacceptable one at that. On the other hand, a sociopath might actually really believe it, but that doesn't mean that the victim had actually "asked for it." Are you making excuses for rapists?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Gregory...

I am in not making anymore of an excuse for the behavior of murderers, abusers and rapists as you are in making excuses and attempting to justify homosexual behavior...

They are all free-will choices and the are all contrary to biblical directives...

To say that the actions of Lot's daughters was condoned by God is to be putting yourself above God and then believing yourself justified in passing jugement against God Himself....

You really do think highly of yourself Gregory...

.

at my current count, 25 posts out of 55 have been Mr Hardy. Kudos to you. That's alot of copy-and-pasting of scripture! :)
And yes...there's some wonderful scriptures there.
But end of the day, you can only demand holyness and maturity from yourself, and you can only HOPE for it in others, regardless of how you believe holyness should be outworked.

I am one of the persons who just voted in Maine to repeal the gays marriage.

I have been reading the back and forth on this topic and there are some things I just never gave thought to. I want to thank everyone for sharing their point of views.

I also would like to beg my fellow brothers and sisters for their forgiveness.

I am now sorry to say that I voted for the wrong side.

There are no "homosexuals," to start with. Just because you think there are "homosexuals," doesn't mean that there actually are "homosexuals." It doesn't matter what irresponsible translations of the Bible say, either. One has an obligation to the Bible's authority to respect Biblical context, which I think you clearly don't.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 4, 2009

Gregory...

You can deny...

You can attempt to obfuscate...

But the truth remains...

Homosexual expression is irrevocably condemned across the board in the Bible...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous [fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

Shorter David Hardy on both Christianity and sexual orientation: What's love got to do with it?

So sad, on both counts.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 4, 2009

Love has everything to do with it....

Luke 14:26 "If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:27 And you cannot be my disciple if you do not carry your own cross and follow me.


To lie to someone about what is in the Bible is not love...

To scratch their ears is not love either...

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.

2Timothy 4:3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear.

2Timothy 4:4 They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

First, I want to say that I agree with everything David Hardy has said. Now, Greg, you might as well face it: contrary to what many gay-marriage activists believe, a democracy is about citizens being able to vote for what they believe. The majority in 31 states have voted against gay marriage when it was put on the ballot, proving that the majority do not support gay marriage as some have alleged.

Also, I was just curious, you used the term "racist" multiple times to describe people who do not support gay marriage. I don't seem to recall African-American, Asian, Native American, and others listed alongside homosexual, gay, etc. Could you please explain how homosexuality is a race? Homosexuals have a choice, members of actual races do not. You and others insult the people who really have suffered racism by using this tactic.

Muse, you said a while back that those who have a different opinion should not be called sick. I seem to notice name-calling and anger coming from liberals on this board and elsewhere, while those like David Hardy remain calm, trying to act in a Christ-like fashion.

Pam, you didn't vote for the wrong side if you voted to repeal gay marriage.

To reiterate, before anyone complains about the current system, in which the majority rules, that's how a democracy works. I've noticed many liberals like it when things go their way but hate it when the majority disagrees with them. If you don't like it, then you're more than welcome to go to one of the many nice dictatorships or other non-democratic governments around the world. I'm sure they'd really love to hear your opinions.

Since same-sex marriage proponents cannot produce let alone rationally defend a biblical position, they resort to wishful thinking, historical/biblical/theological revisionism, name calling, and sophistry. Would it not be more honest - not to mention easier - to simply admit that you don't believe that the Bible has any relavance or authority in your lives? And really, same sex marriage supporters, your hatred of David Hardy is misplaced. You are shooting the messangers. Why don't you direct your hatred and vitriol toward the author of those scriptures. That would be God the Holy Spirit. C'mon. Let's hear you blaspheme Him. But I don't recommend it.

I was surprised by the Maine vote; I thought Question 1 would fail. That said, I don't think 53% of Maine voters are hateful bigots just because they don't want same-sex unions to be called marriage. State after state, the people are saying they don't want same-sex marriage, from California to Florida to Maine, and the momentum of same-sex marriage has yet again stalled for the time being.
For more analysis on the recent elections, check out my blog (link on name above).

Comments like the following always amaze me: "David Hardy, you have got to be a self hating homosexual."

I find it disconcerting that someone who claims to be respectful of the rights and dignity of homosexuals would at the same time use the word "homosexual" as a deprecating term! Yes, the "self hating" part is a popular cliche and adds to the insult, I suppose, but it is difficult to ignore the hypocrisy of claiming to respect homosexuals while also using the word in an outburst of childish name-calling! ("Yeah, well you ARE one!" is the level of sophistication of this kind of taunt.)

Visit most any Internet discussion forum on this topic and one will find similarly juvenile rantings. How sad that respect for others is trampled in such ways while in the very process of pretending to be a defender of human rights.

People in Maine cared deeply about this on both sides.

Bangor voted for the law 54%-45%, Rockport voted for the law 58%-42%, Kennebunkport voted for the law 61%-39%, Bath voted for the law 65%-35%, Oqunquit voted for the law 67%-32%, Bar Harbour voted for the law 71%-29% and Portland voted for the law 74%-26%.

So it seems to be clear that educated people can see that consenting adults should be allowed to marry who they desire.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is really no Gospel warrant for acceptance of homosexual acts. The Gospels do not record that Jesus sais anything about it, and all the rest of his teachings do not suggest that he would license novel sexuality.

As someone who knows many gay couples that are loving and stable, I am naturally torn. I want it to be otherwise, but I can't find warrant for gay marriage or sexual license. However, I love my gay friends and respect their sincerity and faithfulness.

DEAR DAVID HARDY:

It is not my intention to contradict church teachings on the subject of marriage equality for Gay couples (even though those teachings vary widely between denominations). Nor is it my intention to contradict Scripture (even though most Christians believe that Scripture is open to certain amounts of contextual interpretation).

Instead, I would prefer to approach this subject from a purely Constitutional viewpoint. And from that viewpoint, you arguments fall apart.

The word "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution. From the fed's perspective there is no right for ANYONE, Gay or Straight, to get married. However, the federal govt. has muddied the waters by taking a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of tax law and Social Security. Therefore, under the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, a couple married in Iowa remains married if they move to West Virginia.

EXCEPT ... the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution, because a Gay couple married in Iowa becomes UN-MARRIED if they move to West Virginia. And even if they stay in Iowa, the federal govt. does not honor that marriage for tax law and Social Security.

Ultimately the Supreme Court is going to have address this issue, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to. Because of federal tax law and Social Security, you simply can't have a patchwork of marriage regulations across the country.

So it seems to be clear that educated people can see that consenting adults should be allowed to marry who they desire.

Posted by: Carlos D at November 5, 2009

Carlos...

Here's a bit of insight for you...

Acts 4:13 The members of the council were amazed when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, for they could see that they were ordinary men who had had no special training. They also recognized them as men who had been with Jesus.


1Corinthians 1:19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

1Corinthians 3:18 Stop fooling yourselves. If you think you are wise by this world's standards, you will have to become a fool so you can become wise by God's standards.

1Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "God catches those who think they are wise in their own cleverness."

1Corinthians 3:20 And again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are worthless."

.

Ultimately the Supreme Court is going to have address this issue, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to. Because of federal tax law and Social Security, you simply can't have a patchwork of marriage regulations across the country.

Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz at November 5, 2009

Chuck...

Marriage is not a right granted under the constitution...

In order to be recognized by the state marriage requires licensure...

Marriage is a legal and binding contract that is then recognized by the state...

If a person does not meet the legal criteria for licensure, they cannot enter into a contract...

Marriage between a man and a woman is the accepted form of union in all 50 of these United States... Therefore... Like a drivers licence... The marriage licence is recognized interstate...

Because individual states have recognized homosexual "marriage" and other individual states have not, the "marriage" is not transferable interstate...

You cannot enforce a contract written in the state of Iowa in the state of West Virginia.. Particularly if the state of West Virginia does not even accept the original contract as legal and binding in the first place...

.

As someone who knows many gay couples that are loving and stable, I am naturally torn. I want it to be otherwise, but I can't find warrant for gay marriage or sexual license. However, I love my gay friends and respect their sincerity and faithfulness.

Posted by: Christian at November 5, 2009

Christian...

I understand your sense of brokenness in the matter... I would encourage you to continue to show love towards your friends... However, in order to be faithful to what the Bible teaches us, you cannot bless their union...

You say that your friends are sincere and faithful...

Remember that Saul of Tarsus was very sincere and faithful in his persecution of the early church before his conversion on the Damascus road...

As the Bible records and Paul confesses.. He was sincerly wrong..

He later wrote this...

Romans 10:1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is that the Jewish people might be saved.

Romans 10:2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal.

Romans 10:3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Instead, they are clinging to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. They won't go along with God's way.

Romans 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.

I know that it is not easy... However you must realize this...

2Timothy 3:5 They will act as if they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. You must stay away from people like that.


Jude 1:23 Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. There are still others to whom you need to show mercy, but be careful that you aren't contaminated by their sins.

Luke 14:26 "If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:27 And you cannot be my disciple if you do not carry your own cross and follow me.

.

"I am one of the persons who just voted in Maine to repeal the gays marriage...I am now sorry to say that I voted for the wrong side."
---It's all right. And it looks like it will start all over again next year, so you'll get a do-over :)

hyhybt, The majority of people have shown that they do not support gay marriage in Maine. Don't be surprised if the result is the same next year. Chuck, I know you were writing to David, but please elaborate on how you believe that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution. I'm looking at a copy now and don't see anything that supports your claim.

Consentual sex between 2 adults is their business; marriage is God's.

Consentual sex between 2 adults is their business; marriage is God's.

Posted by: Jim M. roane, PhD at November 5, 2009


Are you implying the God answeres to you?

It certainly comes across as such.

.

"hyhybt, The majority of people have shown that they do not support gay marriage in Maine. Don't be surprised if the result is the same next year. "
---Disappointed, yes; surprised, not really. But one day it *will* pass.

@CL - "Third,...(It remains an open question whether this will be applied to same sex marriage." Apparently your legal analysis is not shared by all legal scholars either, as it is not an "open" question in MO. As long as conservative, bible believing Christians have any say in govt. policy, same sex marriage will not become a reality in our country at large.

@ David Hardy

Here's a bit of insight for you. If it were left up to people like you

We would still believe that the world is flat and that the sun moves around the moon etc.

And when a female is seeing her period, she would be thrown out of villages and towns and cities

And children would be killed for disobeying their parents.

And we would not have discovered cures for leprosy. We would just have leper colonies.

And perish the thought that we would have modern medicine. Absolutely not - there would be no need. We would just pray for healing from God. And when you happen to die - well it was just meant to be.

I'm so glad I don't live in your world


Bangor voted to for the law 54%-45%,
Rockport voted for the law 58%-42%,
Kennebunkport voted for the law 61%-39%,
Bath voted for the law 65%-35%,
Oqunquit voted for the law 67%-32%,
Bar Harbour voted for the law 71%-29%
Portland voted for the law 74%-26%.

So it seems to be clear that educated people can see that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they desire.

Once again the un-educated and the willful ignorant have had their say, but as they are a dying breed, expect things to change

Hyhybt

I agree that it will pass and soon as well. It's a matter of education.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/431284

With hetrosexual marriages approaching the 60% mark in divorces. And with so many Christians finding reasons to divorce just like sinners.

Shouldn't you be fighting to have divorce become illegal?

I mean, would not doing so protect the institution of marriage?

@ David Hardy

Here's a bit of insight for you. If it were left up to people like you

We would still believe that the world is flat and that the sun moves around the moon etc.

And when a female is seeing her period, she would be thrown out of villages and towns and cities

And children would be killed for disobeying their parents.

And we would not have discovered cures for leprosy. We would just have leper colonies.

And perish the thought that we would have modern medicine. Absolutely not - there would be no need. We would just pray for healing from God. And when you happen to die - well it was just meant to be.

Posted by: Carlos D at November 6, 2009

Carlos...

I find it interesting how disgusted you are by those of us who take the Bible to be the Divinely inspired Word of God...

And how much contempt that you show for those of us who depend upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth...

John 15:26 "But I will send you the Counselor --the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will tell you all about me.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not be presenting his own ideas; he will be telling you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.

John 16:14 He will bring me glory by revealing to you whatever he receives from me.

John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; this is what I mean when I say that the Spirit will reveal to you whatever he receives from me.

And Carlos...

God's people are not a dying breed and they are not going away...

Get used to it...

.

Hyhybt

I agree that it will pass and soon as well. It's a matter of education.

Posted by: Carlos D at November 6, 2009

Well then carlos...

What say that we start the education process...

AIDS is by far most common among the homosexual population in the United States, primarily because the type and frequency of sexual contact, combined with STDs, is the perfect method of spreading a body-fluid borne virus.

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths.

We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children?


http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

.

Re: Christian Lawyer,
I'm just going to say it: I object to your second point, that
"marriage is not a "contract" between two parties, and has not been since the time when husbands essentially bought their wives as chattel from their father-in-law."

Marriage in the ancient context was (and in many places today is), as you said, not a man-woman contract like we have in the US, but it was not man-buy-wife-as-chattel, either - you're unfairly caricaturing the past without understanding that marriage relationship at all!

Marriage was a complex cultural and economic partnership between two extended kinship structures for mutual benefits, most importantly survival. "Bought their wives as chattel"? That's degrading Western supremacism, chronological snobbery and unilinear cultural evolutionary theory at their worst, all of which has no place in decent conversation. This is all basic anthropology, and I'm shocked someone normally as civil, wise and impeccable as you would say something so outrageous.

Whew!

Christian Lawyer, while I still need to study Lawrence et al. v. Texas further, I noticed that Loving v. Virginia is actually about race, which goes back to one of my earlier arguments.

My point was a simple one. Marriage is no longer a legal contract.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 7, 2009

Baloney.....

Or I could say that you are "bizarrely incorrect."


A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators. Now comes the state of Louisiana, determined to expand its citizens' options. Henceforth, Louisianians will be able to choose between two prefabricated contracts, each with very different provisions for divorce. The first option is similar to the no-fault contract that is standard in other states. The second--the so-called "covenant marriage"--makes divorce far more difficult.

slate.com/id/2042/

Marriage in California is a valid civil contract between a man and a woman who are both free and capable of marriage and consent. Marriage is considered a partnership that is permanent and dissoluble only judicially, not by the consent of the partners. In California, it must be licensed, witnessed and registered. Our state has not accepted common law marriages arising within its jurisdictional boundaries. Mere cohabitation in and of itself has no legal significance and no bearing upon any rights in property that the partners may acquire.

divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art04

To the bride and groom, marriage is a loving contract between two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. In the eyes of the law, marriage is also a contract between two people … not about love, but about a variety of financial rights and obligations.

It’s hard to talk about marriage as if it were “business,” but when it comes to creating a prenuptial agreement, that’s exactly the approach you should take. A prenuptial agreement isn’t a well-planned “exit strategy” or evidence of a lack of faith in the relationship. It is simply protection against an unlikely and unforeseen “what if” circumstance … an important “insurance policy” on the legal issues of the marriage contract.

prenuptialagreements.org/prenup-strategies/

.

(Your bizarre notion that contract are not enforceable across state lines would, if true, bring our economy to a screeching halt.) The freedom to contract is vast and is protected by the Constitution. Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 7, 2009

A contract that is legal in one state and void in another is not necassarily transferable across state lines...

Example...

There are several states that allow conceal carry permits for firearms, that while legal in the state of issue and recognized in states that also allow conceal carry are in fact null and void in states that do not allow the permitting of conceal carry...

Oh yes...

In the spirit of dignified debate...

Your notion to the contrary is bizzare...

So there...

Nanner, Nanner, Nanner...

.

Christian Lawyer, I see your point about marriage not being a contract. Of course, the legal nature of marriage – and even the nature of law as such – have changed substantially over the years. The point that many make is merely that, whatever else marriage has been, it has always been a union of a man and a woman, and I think that is a good point. Whether the state wants to recognize other kinds of unions is another matter, but changing the man-woman union aspect of marriage would be a truly remarkable development.

As regards the treatment of women, the "bride-price" concept is a lot more complicated than it sounds to our ears, with far-ranging social and economic connections being formed between families. Projecting old English modes of thinking about marriage onto bride-price societies is without merit, just as incorrect saying women's veils and the 4-wives customs in the Koran is degrading to women. In fact, even non-Muslim scholars tell us Muhammad's teachings were a step forward in protecting women in that culture. Likewise, the old English coverture is more restrictive to women than in the ancient near-east: look at Proverbs 31, describing the ideal wife as economically supporting the household, selling and buying land, etc. So, women did have far fewer rights than in today's society, but bride-prices as such do not connote such awful treatment of women as the old English coverture system did; indeed, a bride-price system may provide a much better treatment of women than the "civilized" English system. That's what I'm getting at.

@David Hardy

No, you do not take the bible to be the inspired word of God. You are lying.

You take the parts of the bible that you think prove your point to be divinely inspired and you blatantly choose to ignore the rest that is not so convenient to follow. That is known as hypocrisy and that is what I am disgusted with-hypocrites.

If you took the bible to be the inspired word of God you would be out there preaching against adultery. With the divorce rate approaching 60% and with gay people not being allowed to marry then many christians have to be part of this divorce phenomenon. Which would indicate adultery is rampant in churches and among Christians. Christians are therefore practicing selective morality. Your efforts would be better served with the 98% of the population rather than the 2% gay population, don’t you think?

If you took the word of God as being divinely inspired you would be out there preaching against women preachers. Because God said that women are to shut their mouths in church and not to speak.

If you took the word of God as being divinely inspired you would be preaching out against women who go to church with their head uncovered.

If you took the word of God as divinely inspired you would be speaking out against gun violence.

If you took all of the bible as being divinely inspired you would not oppose evil.
Matthew 5:39 “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

(Deuteronomy 25:5-6). “A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife. Where do you stand on this?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce. What’s your stance on this?

Deuteronomy 22:11” A garment composed of two different types of material cannot be worm. So you better not live in anywhere that is cold and hath need of a cashmere wool overcoat.

l Timothy 2:9 “Christian women are supposed to dress discreetly l Timothy 2:9 (“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”-- RSV; and “Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing”-- 1 Peter 3 :3). Look at any of the congregations on Sunday morning service on TV. What a joke!! Does the name Tammy Faye ring a bell.


But worry not. You and many others are not doing anything different that hypocrites have not done from day one.

@Carlos - And yet there are those pesky little verses DH quotes so quietly and regularly. Care to deal with them? Hmmm?

@ Dan

Don't you read or don't you understand what you read?

Would you like me to CAPITALIZE it for you? I said that he and obviously now you

TAKE THE PARTS OF THE BIBLE THAT YOU THINK PROVE YOUR POINT TO BE DIVINELY INSPIRED AND YOU BLATANTLY CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE RESET THAT IS IS NOT SO CONVENIENT TO FOLLOW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602953.html?hpid=topnews

I would hardly call someone making 50 of 95 posts quiet. You live in quite a strange universe, don't you.

@ Dan

By any other words DH is unhealthily obsessed.

But as another poster said, if he wants to marry his dog or his pet pig. And if his pets can say I do, I too would fight for his rights

Now come to think of it, with divorce rates being where they are perhaps some heterosexuals should indeed marry their pets. From the looks of things they couldn’t do any worse and who knows perhaps marriages would last a lot longer.

@Carlos: And yet you refuse to deal with the verses he quotes. I wonder why? And after all, the topic of the article is on same sex marriage - not divorce or the other red herrings you tossed in. Soooo...why not stick to the topic? Unless, of course, you have no rational/reasonable/intelligent answer. Which is what I suspect may be the case. I've noticed that whenever same-sex marriage proponents cannot answer intelligently, they usually resort to ad hominem attacks. Haven't seen DH do that. Just you and your ss marriage proponents. He just goes on ad infinitum posting the same verses - verses that tell you that homosexual behavior will separate you from God - verses that you will never answer. Here's some free advice: just be honest and admit that the Bible condemns your lifestyle - b/c it does - and that you simply don't agree with it. That's an honest response that I can at least respect, tho I would disagree with.

You haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 8, 2009

I can assure you that I have the same sentiments about you...

.

David Hardy -- Except that all you've got is "sentiment." I have citations to, you know, actual law.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 8, 2009

My understanding of the Bible is enough for me to see that your deft use of copious amouts of obfuscation, in order to attempt to justify the practice of homosexuality proves you to be no kind of Christian counsel that I would ever recommend or seek...

You had better get all of your briefs in order counsellor....

Romans 3:4 Of course not! Though everyone else in the world is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say, "He will be proved right in what he says, and he will win his case in court."
.

Your strikingly racist-like and idolatrous abuse of the Bible, David H., simply disgusts moral people. (I'm in a bad mood, admittedly, a very tough week and a half...but I don't think I'll be apologizing any time soon.)

Your strikingly racist-like and idolatrous abuse of the Bible, David H., simply disgusts moral people. (I'm in a bad mood, admittedly, a very tough week and a half...but I don't think I'll be apologizing any time soon.)

Posted by: Gregiry Peterson at November 8, 2009

Gregory....

I totally understand your sentiments, based upon your penchant for dismissing Scripture and your obvious situational ethics morality....

.

Christian Lawyer, I will agree that women are badly mistreated in muslim society and that there were ancient societies in which women possessed few rights. However, not all ancient societies were this way. Also, on a side-note, I find a clause from your last post to me interesting: "Both laws were passed by majorities in their respective state's legislatures and were supported by a majority of the citizens of those states." By this same token, the laws passed in 31 states rejecting gay marriage were supported by a majority of the citizens in each state, providing them with the same legitimacy as those you reference.

(cont.) Also, you stated, "The U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, contains many freedoms or rights that cannot be abridged by a simple majority vote. Seriously, do you really think that either a federal or state law, passed by a simple majority, or even by public referendum, can take away freedom of the press or of religion or of assembly?" No, I don't think that a federal or state law passed by a simple majority/public referendum can take away constitutional freedoms. However, because there has been no conclusive scientific proof of a biological basis for homosexuality, homosexuals cannot be consider a legitimate minority. Therefore, gay marriage does not fall under the same category as the Bill of Rights or other amendments and is not protected under the Constitution.

@Cybereagle:"...there has been no conclusive scientific proof of a biological basis for homosexuality, homosexuals cannot be considerd a legitimate minority." Ah hah! But there has been conclusive scientific proof of a biological basis for alcoholism. So, let's make alcoholics a legitimate and protected minority. Let's give them special rights. They are "normal" precisely b/c there IS a biological basis for their sickness...er...uh...I mean orientation. Yeah, orientation. I meant orientation. That would be "orientation" not "sickness." 'Cuz I don't want any alcoholic posting here and saying Dan is a big meanie b/c "It [alcoholism] can't be wrong ["falling down drunk"]'cuz it feels so right!" And you know how barflies form such loving and committed relationships with other barflies. (You should get to know them before you condemn them.) They get drunk together, fall off barstools together, help each other get home together,etc. You intolerant bible believing Christians (especially DH) should not stand in the way of loving, committed drunken relationships among alcoholics. Tolerance is the word of the day, you nasty Christians. Your belief system is outmoded and based upon some kind of sucky outmoded western european and middle eastern marriage rituals that exclude people like homosexuals and alcoholics who...and...therefore... and you should all just go jump in the Chesapeake Bay and die of global warming. ;-P Now, back to the same sex marriage conversation...er..uh... whatever it was.

Addendum: Oh, and did I mention that it is the conservative white protestant european males who oppress everyone including white conservative protestant european women and other minorities. (Men: face it, we really suck.) All I can say is that I'm glad I purchased my wife when she was relatively inexpensive. Her dad had five models and she was the last one so I got her cheap. She has really appreciated in value, tho, over the years. Try getting a model like her nowadays for a cheap price would be nearly impossible. ;-P

"However, because there has been no conclusive scientific proof of a biological basis for homosexuality, homosexuals cannot be consider a legitimate minority."

So religion has a biological basis now?

"However, because there has been no conclusive scientific proof of a biological basis for homosexuality, homosexuals cannot be consider a legitimate minority."

So religion has a biological basis now?

Posted by: hyhybt at November 9, 2009

Check your US Constitution.... Freedom of religion is a right.... In order for homosexuals to be considered a minority, the Constitution would have to be re-written to include the free-will practice thereof...

And I am certain that you will find willing allies among the adulterers(esses), alchoholics, drug addicts and practitioners of bestiality to assist you in that endeavor...

.

.

@hyhybt: Dang! I am impressed! You have somehow stumbled upon the truth. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (New International Version)
11 ...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." You are da man, h-y-h-y-b-t! Yes! Nice work. I don't care what the rest of them say about you, I think you nailed it here at least. Yes! religion is part of humanity's very warp and woof! For who knows where the biological ends and the spirit begins. And our founding fathers recognized it and inscribed it in the constitution of the USA ensuring religious beliefs are protected by the state. Hooray for hyhybt! Hooray! (help, somebody stop me! pleeeease! I can't stop!) Hooray for hyhybt! Hyhbt got it right ...Hooray!!! Oooo Eeee oo oo ah, ting, tang, walla walla bing bang etc. Break out the root beer and chips! We are going to PARTAY! Huh...What's that you say? Hyhybt's was an interrogative statement? Not a declarative statement? You mean, he doesn't necessarily believe Eccl. 3:11 means what it says? You mean, he was just trying to be a wise guy? Well, now I'm just bummed out! Guess I'll just have to knock off this this root beer by myself. Somebody wants some chips? Pretty good chips, here.


Re: CL's comment: "So, yes, these anti-gay-marriage initiatives should be accorded the same level of constitutional legitimacy as the anti-interracial marriage statute and the anti-sodomy statute, which is, actually, "none."
Protecting LGBT's from being preyed upon by thugs is one thing. Legitimizing their behavior through same sex marriage is quite another. And legitimizing perversion is not in society's best interest. If it were it seems like the SC would have already struck down our marriage laws allowing, then, same sex marriage. Why haven't they? But if it does happen - or when it happens - there will be no reason why other perversions won't sue for redress, as well. The FLDS folks will feel vindicated b/c they will say their peculiar proclivities should be legitimated, too. I mean, after all, if you let the homosexuals get married, you must be fair and just and let Jacob marry the three women he wants to. If they say "yes" to him, who are you to say "no". They will insist it is a matter of fairness and justice. And what of the pedophiles? Who are you to say, then, they are wrong? How can you say they are wrong, now? You may say what they do is illegal, but upon what basis can you say it is immoral? (What is legal and what is moral maybe two different issues.) So who are you to interfere with their happiness. It will be a matter of fairness and justice, they will say. The SC may well open this Pandora's Box, and they may change the definition of marriage. But the consequences won't be pretty. And if the SC does decide to overturn millenia of cultural/religious traditions the results won't be pretty. And the idea of domestic tranquility will be a thing of the past. But the SC has screwed up before, and I'm sure they will again.

So, yes, these anti-gay-marriage initiatives should be accorded the same level of constitutional legitimacy as the anti-interracial marriage statute and the anti-sodomy statute, which is, actually, "none."

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 9, 2009

As a believer in Jesus and also as a believer that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, it is my observation that you exhaustive attempts to justify the practice of homosexuality are no more legitimate than Fruit of the Poisonous Tree....

As A Christian you would know that....

And as a professed Christian lawyer it would be incongruous for you to make such an impassioned plea to declare the guilty to be innocent...

Methinks thou art nothing more than a homosexual activist in disguise....

.

@GP: "I respect scripture..." For the life of me I don't know how. You impose a dark and grimey interpretation on God's word that cannot be supported by authentic biblical scholarship nor even common sense. You accuse religious conservatives of imposing a literalistic interpretation on passages that require a literalistic interpretation and then complain when they interpret them literally. You brand them as religious bigots akin to racists. You may play in you post-modern playpen where truth is what you define it as, but your interpretations of the bible that you have posted here and elsewhere betray you as someone who has "...exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." You seek to justify your life style by changing what God's word means. Perhaps, you find the preaching of the cross of Christ a stench. Postmonderism/liberalism does't like to hear about the blood of Christ. As it's so yucky and bloody. And yet Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." And if you want to follow Christ you must pick up your cross and follow Him. No matter how much you would like Him to change, He won't - for you or for me. Neither will His word - for you or for me. He says in Jer. 23:29 "Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" Neither will His moral teaching. Those "clobber" verses you so often object to include everyone, GP, in their purview. They clobber us all. No, I don't think you respect scripture. Unless, you're referring to some other scripture you're not telling us about.

But if it does happen - or when it happens - there will be no reason why other perversions won't sue for redress, as well. The FLDS folks will feel vindicated b/c they will say their peculiar proclivities should be legitimated, too. I mean, after all, if you let the homosexuals get married, you must be fair and just and let Jacob marry the three women he wants to. If they say "yes" to him, who are you to say "no". They will insist it is a matter of fairness and justice.

Posted by: Dan at November 9, 2009

Dan.... It's already happening in Canada, where they recognize homosexual "marriage."

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal in Canada, the province's attorney general announced Thursday.

Attorney General Mike de Jong said he believes polygamy is against the law and should remain so, but he said the justice system needs clarity about whether Canada's law barring multiple marriages is constitutional.

Two Canadian laws stand in contradiction: Polygamy is banned, and religious freedoms are firmly protected.

The move comes a month after a judge quashed polygamy charges against two leaders of a polygamous community in western Canada. The judge ruled the province did not have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the cases of Winston Blackmore and James Oler after previous prosecutors recommended against charges.

The government has decided to seek the British Columbia Supreme Court opinion rather than appeal that court ruling. De Jong said the case may ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The men maintain their polygamous practices are covered by Canada's protection of freedom of religion.


.

And what of the pedophiles? Who are you to say, then, they are wrong? How can you say they are wrong, now? You may say what they do is illegal, but upon what basis can you say it is immoral? (What is legal and what is moral maybe two different issues.) So who are you to interfere with their happiness. It will be a matter of fairness and justice, they will say. The SC may well open this Pandora's Box, and they may change the definition of marriage. But the consequences won't be pretty. And if the SC does decide to overturn millenia of cultural/religious traditions the results won't be pretty. And the idea of domestic tranquility will be a thing of the past. But the SC has screwed up before, and I'm sure they will again.

Posted by: Dan at November 9, 2009

Dan... Pedophiles are already pushing for their "Rightful place at the table" And lest we forget NAMBLA is an intrinsic part of the homosexual movement...

UNTIL VERY, VERY RECENTLY, public questioning of the social prohibition against pedophilia--to say nothing of positive celebration of child molestation--was practically non-existent in American life. The reasons why are not opaque. To most people, the very word "pedophilia" summons forth a preternatural degree of horror and revulsion; and the criminal law that reflects those reactions has consistently treated the sexual molestation of minors as a serious and eminently punishable offense. So it is small wonder that, historically speaking, the taboo against using legal minors for sex was no more publicly controversial in the United States than the prohibitions against, say, cannibalism or bestiality. Those few partisans of the idea who did sometimes sally forth customarily found themselves regarded as the lowest of the social low, even by the criminal class.

This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however--unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest--is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex--more accurately, man-boy sex--is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places--therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores--where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/329pdstm.asp?pg=1

.

And Dan....

I wonder if "Christian Lawyer" will take up the gauntlet to have this law thrown out on the basis of "They are a minority too."

NASHVILLE — Two years ago, the Tennessee legislature put into statute what most people assumed should go without saying — it is illegal to have sex with an animal in this state.

But prosecutors across Middle Tennessee have cause to be glad that someone spelled that felony out. No less than three bestiality cases have come up in separate counties in recent months.

Three people stand accused of engaging in sex acts with farm animals in Maury County. In Humphreys County, a youth football coach was already under investigation for child rape when police reportedly found images of bestiality on his cellphone.

And in Nashville, police charged a man and a woman under the new statute after a tipster turned over photos of them having sexual contact with a dog.......


Maggart and groups like the Humane Society of the United States point to studies that show

the high correlation between sexual abuse of animals and sexual abuse of children. She said she sponsored the bill at the urging of local law enforcement officials.

One study, linked on the Humane Society Web page, found that 96% of juveniles who engaged in sexual abuse of animals also admitted to sex offenses against humans. In another study, some 37% of sexually violent juvenile offenders were found to have a history of animal sexual assault. An FBI study found that serial killers have a high rate of animal sexual abuse as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-29-tn-beastiality-law_N.htm

Christian Lawyer, on your comments that:

"there are NO circumstances in which bride-price arrangements are NOT degrading to women. ... Same with the veils in Muslim society. Same with the fact that the New Testament teaches masters to treat their slaves well. ...TREATMENT... doesn't change the demeaning nature of their legal STATUS... This is like trying to decide whether it's better to be killed with a clean head shot or to be gutted with a knife."

Hmmm. You're setting up the modern egalitarian ideal (men and women legally equal) and pointing out that past and different societies all failed to attain that ideal. As one who holds to the egalitarian ideal myself, I empathize. But it's unjust to judge people by a standard that could never apply to them. Some standards are universal, some temporally and societally conditioned, and we should be careful to use the one and temper the other.

While equality under law is good, I would argue it is a temporally and societally limited idea, and not the universal principle itself, the goal to which people in all times and places can and should strive for. Equality under law is just a way to realize the goal. The goal is loving others as God has loved us.

I believe masters can love their slaves in this way; no doubt in a future society people will look back and denounce the paradox of employers loving their employees. The two relationships differ only by degree. But Jesus (and Paul) were not fighting to overthrow human hierarchy, they were fighting to save souls from the greatest tyrant, sin. Though, they were undermining hierarchy by urging equal love for all. This will always take different forms in different times and cultures, but is by no means impossible in hierarchical societies.

Even so, the New Testament is more egalitarian (in our terms) than you might think. Paul urged slaves to win their freedom if they could, ordered husbands to submit to their wives (as wives submit to their husbands, which is really egalitarian) and the rich to treat the poor as equals in worship, and worked alongside people of every ethnicity, economic status and gender as equals. James takes on the exploitative rich mercilessly. Not only is the Gospel open to all, it gives equal status to all the children of God.

(and re: your comments that SCOTUS can invalidate state laws as against the US Constitution is well enough true, but I can't think of any precedent (you might) of SCOTUS ever overturning a state constitution based on the US Constitution, but merely state law.)

That's a rather long post; my apologies.

I respect scripture,the religious right activist, however, abuses it shamelessly, and in a very racist like manner. Haven't they learned anything thing from American history?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 9, 2009

Ahhh Gregory and his crutches of Scriptural abuse and racism...

Quoting Scripture is niether abuse, nor racism....

Gregory.... You don't have a leg to stand on...


Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

People who use clobber verses, without Biblical context and historical usages, are pretty contemptible, don't you think, David?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 9, 2009

Actually Gregory...

Those who when given the opportunity to study both the historical and biblical context overwhelmingly agree that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God... Unless of course, they are homosexual activists, like yourself...

Folks like you, are why Jesus said this...

Matthew 13:14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'

.


Of course, the charge of "situational ethics" is a shabby one, and something with which the religious right practices itself. Religious right organizations brag about upholding American ideals of freedom, liberty and equality, but when situations aren't as they wish, they jettison ethics and ideals for base greed and bigotry, in a heartbeat.

They preach compassion, but when situations call for empathy, empathy is forgotten when they collide with greed and bigotry.

When situations call for charity, the religious right instead uses charity to manipulate people into denouncing their personal and cultural dignity.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 9, 2009


And here we have Gregory's long-winded, factoidal conjecture filled, rendition of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Sorry Gregory.... You're selling.... I'm not buying....

.

And yet Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." And if you want to follow Christ you must pick up your cross and follow Him. No matter how much you would like Him to change, He won't - for you or for me. Neither will His word - for you or for me. He says in Jer. 23:29 "Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" Neither will His moral teaching. Those "clobber" verses you so often object to include everyone, GP, in their purview. They clobber us all. No, I don't think you respect scripture. Unless, you're referring to some other scripture you're not telling us about.

Posted by: Dan at November 10, 2009

Dan...

I do like the Jeremiah quote....

More importantly.... Jesus does not change, not even for himself....

Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will, not mine."

Philippians 2:6 Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God.

Phl 2:7 He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.

Phl 2:8 And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross.

Phl 2:9 Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name,

Phl 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Phl 2:11 and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

.

@Dan

Because David Hardy is like the village idiot. And you are fast approaching his affliction.

I will say this one more time only.

I do not have to deal with the scriptures that David Hardy is quoting. I have already stated that he and you like many Christians pick and choose what they like and dismiss the rest that is not convenient.

That is hypocrisy and I find hypocrites disgusting and revolting. And by the way so did Jesus.

If you are going to adhere to the two verses in Paul's writings that talk about men not sleeping with men - that's ok good for you. Then you adhere to all the other parts of the bible no matter how bad a picture it may paint. You don't get the luxury of dismissing any parts of it. That's not how it works

But that's what you and DH have continued to do and it does nothing, but make your pov weak

Just as weak as Mr. Prejean and her sex tapes. I'm sure you know her.

What a joke some of you Christians prove to be.


@Christian Lawyer

You have more patience than I do. I salute you. God bless you brother.

Thank you for your very informative view on the law as it applies to this particular issue. I guess we will have to wait and see what the court decides.

I know the issue is coming up in NYC now, and 700 clergy members have signed a petition advocating for gay marriage.

Also if I remember correctly, a former counsel for either ex presidents Bush or Reagan is supposed to be filing a motion to have the courts repeal California’s Prop 8. Do you have any idea where in the legal process this has reached?

@ David Hardy - you need to stop and consider that Christian Lawyer is talking about the law as it applies to a legal process in the land. This is not a theocratic society and consequently the USA is not run by bible verses. You must have heard of the separation of church and state, no?

I agree with Anthony. Countries aren't generally run (anymore) based on bible verses etc.
To say same-sex marriage should be eradicated because "God says so" is unfair to the vast number of people who either choose not to follow a religious order, OR who interpret "God says so" differently to some other individuals.
Is it 'our' religious duty to keep non/other religious groups from living with their integrity intact, in a mutually consenting and monogamous relationship with someone who they love?
Does the notion that 'steve and john' down the road are married to each other effect 'our' lives in any particular way, other than having to practice grace and tolerance if we disagree with it?
I can't imagine how it's any of my business.
If you believe God disagrees with it, pray He speaks to their concience.

@Carlos: Incovenient truth, the bible is. Well, I understand your reluctance to exegete those pesky passages DH continues to post. Kind of hard to do when it is so obvious what they mean, and you don't want them to mean what they mean. Much easier to call names at the people who posted them. I've read DH's posts and I don't ever recall him responding with anything but honesty. He disagrees. But he doesn't verbally berate you. But, see, I've worked with inner city high school kids for years. You are a lightweight when it comes to name calling. (Now you should take that as a complement, b/c that means you were probably raised in a civil home.) But back to my point: Carlos, you are morally accountable to God - not DH or me. (Romans 14:12 - "So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.") But you do seem to have a hard time accepting others with differing viewpoints without ending up calling them names. I understand your frustration, too. I was at one time dead in my trespasses and sins, without hope, without forgiveness, w/o the ability to live like I had been taught to. But I found Christ (rather He found me!) and I repented of my sins and began a new life in Christ. (II Cor. 5:17) It hasn't always been easy living an obedient Christian life. But I've always found that God is sufficient. So, really, Carlos, don't shoot the messenger - DH. Take to task the One who inspired those passages; the One you claim created you with a homosexual orientation. His word is accessible. Pick it up and read it. Ask Him to show you truth. God can deliver you from all unrighteousness.

I think I'm still learning to understand all this marriage stuff biblicaly
God is the same through history (I'm told) yet what He 'allows' seems to vary through history.
When do I know He has stopped?
Or where the leaders of our ancient faith got things right or wrong?

I'm told that incest is wrong between aunty/nephew (Moses tells us in Lev 18:12), But what do I do with the information that moses' OWN parents are aunt/nephew (Exodus 6:20)?
Was Moses parents relationship legitimate before the law but illegitimate AFTER the law?
Were they always illegitimate the whole time since God is the same before the law?
Should they divorce after the law is given if they are still alive?
Do they get judged for their incest if they died before that law was given?

Do i reason that polygamy is wrong (1 Tim 3:12 - at least for deacons), but ALSO accept that David/Jacob/Moses get to practice it AND they get to remain integral to the foundation of my faith? Or are they judged for it?
What do i do with Deut 17:17 which says the king must not take 'many' wives. (doesn't say only one)? Do i ignore it? Do i assume it means one wife only?

With divorce, do i concede that divorce for any reason other than adultery is wrong (Matt 5:32), but ask no questions when Ezra's mass divorce for the sake of religious differences was, I'm assuming, God-inspired? (Ezra chapter 9&10)

All i can deduce so far is that i REALLY DON'T know anything much, for certain.
I'm learning, growing, establishing ideas...
I but this God of mine is a particularly quirky fellow He seems.
I can't put a full-stop where God may have put a comma.
Until i have more confidence in what He expects of me, who am I to tell someone how God expects them to live? I'm not even sure myself! :)

@Anthony: re: @ David Hardy - you need to stop and consider that Christian Lawyer is talking about the law as it applies to a legal process in the land. This is not a theocratic society and consequently the USA is not run by bible verses. You must have heard of the separation of church and state, no?"
First, I think DH is well aware of what Ms. CL is talking about. Second, you are correct regarding in that the legal reasoning is certainly different than what one finds in the bible. But Ms. CL has also interjected her personal theological opinion many times along with her legal reasoning. Third, our country has never been a theocracy, but it was a haven for those seeking refuge from religious intolerance, a place where people could practice their religious beliefs which meant they understandably injected a lot of Christian ethos into the laws of our land. Unfortunately, over the past 50 years or so the courts have become increasingly liberal and have taken our country down a road never envisioned by the founding fathers. Why has this happened? B/c the very core of liberalism is a defiance of God. Most of what the homosexual's/liberals postings in essence have said here is what Satan said to Eve in the Garden: Gen. 3:1 - Now the serpent...said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" He questioned the veracity and integrity of God's word. "Indeed, has God said...?" DH has merely posted what is in the bible. The bible has influenced our laws (I'm repeating myself.) Liberalism seeks to overturn those certain Christian perspectives imbedded within the law and have basically said to Christians, "Your world view no longer has the right to help form the laws of the US. Only secular views need apply now. So, how does secularism's belief system differ from a religious belief system? It all depends upon whom the gatekeeper is.

@Wazza: "All i can deduce so far is that i REALLY DON'T know anything much, for certain."
Here is a good place to start - the word of God. Homosexuals and their political sympathizers would have you believe God made a very unjust and unfair decision about same sex couples in Gen. 2:22-24 -The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,...
Notice: God did not create Adam and Steve as partners; He created Adam and Eve. Homosexuals try their darndest to re-interpret those verses but they mean what they seem to mean.

Then Jesus made the very same unfair and unjust comment about same sex couples:
Matt. 19: And He [Jesus} answered and said, "Have you not read (E)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

5and said, '(F)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (G)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Now if you can't trust Jesus, who can you trust?"

Now, Wazza, you can believe God's word from Genesis through Revelation. Jesus articulated what God's will is. Marriage is between a man and a woman - not between two men or between two women. How does that work out in our legal system? Well, as you can see, its a pretty heady subject. But in my opinion a Christian should not vote to legitimatize a perversion. You may reasonably ask, "Who decides what a perversion is?" That would be in God's job description. And DH has provided a nice working list of scripture. You may wonder if you can trust God's word. II Tim. 3:16,17 says it is what equips to for good works. Dig into the word. The Holy Spirit will lead you and teach you. God bless.

I've been reading through the post and I'm very surprised. I see one side of the argument posting scripture. The other side saying that select scripture is being chosen to prove the point, but the other scriptures are being ignored.

Can I ask what scriptures are there to support homosexuality (or being ignored)? Do Christians no longer believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

I guess I've been under a rock, I find it hard to imagine that any Christian can find Biblical support for homosexuality.

Hey Dan, I can appreciate your time and thoughts on the questions/observations i've jotted down from my understanding of scripture.
I understand that scripture can be trusted from genesis to revelation.
I believe in God and love Him to bits.
But i guess my curiosity lies not in the fact that the Bible HAS given laws for/against certain things through time, but more my curiosity lies in the moments in scripture when God seems to bless those things that don't operate in the 'ideal' world for Christians.
Moses parents had (what we discover in the Law) an immoral union (aunty/nephew)
Moses/david/jacob (among others) had polygamous marriages
Ezra the prophet brought up the need for repentance and mass divorce of the Hebrew men from their 'other religion' wives, despite it not being an act of adultery (as Jesus later seems to state is the only valid 'christian' reason for divorce)

these are all people who love God and are commended in scripture for the closeness to God.

I guess what i'm saying is, even THOUGH the Bible might express an ideal or a rule of thumb, what do we do when God seems to use those VERY integral people of our faith (and commends them for their faith) when what i see is them living a life that doesn't follow the instructions that we christians place on ourselves today?

are we missing something? Am I??!

@Dan

Because David Hardy is like the village idiot. And you are fast approaching his affliction.

I will say this one more time only.

I do not have to deal with the scriptures that David Hardy is quoting. I have already stated that he and you like many Christians pick and choose what they like and dismiss the rest that is not convenient.

That is hypocrisy and I find hypocrites disgusting and revolting. And by the way so did Jesus.

Posted by: Carlos D at November 10, 2009

Carlos....

Yeah Dan and me, we were on opposite sides of the river the other day and Dan hollers across, "Hey! How do I get to the other side of the river!".... I laughed at him for being so silly and hollered back, "You already ARE on the other side of the river!" I noticed that he had some root beer and chips with him.... I guess he was going to a PARTAY, or something....

.

I do not have to deal with the scriptures that David Hardy is quoting. I have already stated that he and you like many Christians pick and choose what they like and dismiss the rest that is not convenient.

That is hypocrisy and I find hypocrites disgusting and revolting. And by the way so did Jesus.

If you are going to adhere to the two verses in Paul's writings that talk about men not sleeping with men - that's ok good for you.

Posted by: Carlos D at November 10, 2009

Carlos...

It is indeed interesting how you accuse me of picking and choosing and then you make the overt statement.. "I do not have to deal with the scriptures that David Hardy is quoting."

You have a free-will.... You can choose to ignore them...

For now...

Then you go on to refer to Dan and I as hypocrites...

You're a funny guy Carlos...

Actually there are more than two verses dealing with homosexuality in the Pauline writings....

For your conveinience...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

@ David Hardy - you need to stop and consider that Christian Lawyer is talking about the law as it applies to a legal process in the land. This is not a theocratic society and consequently the USA is not run by bible verses. You must have heard of the separation of church and state, no?

Posted by: Anthony at November 10, 2009

Actually Anthony…

I am in total agreement with you that the United States of America is not a theocracy… It is a constitutional republic…. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people… In the USA, the citizens are Caesar.

Whether or not the idea sets well with you... Every adult human being has both a religion AND a god…

religion

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

god

a person or thing of supreme value

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

And whether you wish to acknowledge the fact, or not…. Every law in this country is religious in nature, i.e. “principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and is enacted in order to honor a god, I.e. “a person or thing of supreme value.”

Because we have a Constitution replete with a first amendment which reads….

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In effect every law respects a religion, however, no law is able to establish a particular religion, i.e. “Fill in the blank… Is the mandatory religion of the citizens of the USA.”

So you see…. By definition of religion and god…. It is impossible to separate church and state…

Also you will note, that the citizenry has the constitutional right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

You will note my previous assertion that the citizenry is in fact Caesar, so it becomes our duty as Christian Caesars, to not hand this nation over to Satan on a platter…

.

All i can deduce so far is that i REALLY DON'T know anything much, for certain.
I'm learning, growing, establishing ideas...
I but this God of mine is a particularly quirky fellow He seems.
I can't put a full-stop where God may have put a comma.
Until i have more confidence in what He expects of me, who am I to tell someone how God expects them to live? I'm not even sure myself! :)

Posted by: wazza at November 10, 2009

I would strongly suggest that you get to know God better and you will then realize just what a foolish statement you have made about Him by refering to Him as... "a particularly quirky fellow"

Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while you can find him. Call on him now while he is near.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the people turn from their wicked deeds. Let them banish from their minds the very thought of doing wrong! Let them turn to the LORD that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Isaiah 55:8 "My thoughts are completely different from yours," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isaiah 55:9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:10 "The rain and snow come down from the heavens and stay on the ground to water the earth. They cause the grain to grow, producing seed for the farmer and bread for the hungry.

Isaiah 55:11 It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.

1Corinthians 1:19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

1Corinthians 3:18 Stop fooling yourselves. If you think you are wise by this world's standards, you will have to become a fool so you can become wise by God's standards.

1Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "God catches those who think they are wise in their own cleverness."

1Corinthians 3:20 And again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are worthless."


.

And, finally, once more, for "Dave Hardy" and Master Dan: the difference between homosexuality (or gay relationships, for Gregory Peterson), and pedophilia and bestiality, is that neither the children nor the beasts can consent. Intimate, private conduct between consenting adults is protected from criminal prosecution by the US Constitution. Pedophilia and bestiality, because there can be no consent, are not protected.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 10, 2009

Well then... It seems that you have your work cut out for you by taking up the cause to blaze a godless trail with homosexuality that will allow all of the paraphilias to follow...I am certain that NAMBLA appreciates all of your hard work already...

With the generous help of people like yourself the practice of homosexuality has gone from Hell to mainstreet.

.


(Somehow I missed that part of Christ's teaching, but, that's for another day.)

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 10, 2009

Today's good...

Matthew 23:24 Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel!

.

I guess what i'm saying is, even THOUGH the Bible might express an ideal or a rule of thumb, what do we do when God seems to use those VERY integral people of our faith (and commends them for their faith) when what i see is them living a life that doesn't follow the instructions that we christians place on ourselves today?

are we missing something? Am I??!

Posted by: wazza at November 10, 2009

Wazza...

You will notice a central theme in the Bible.... Even the greatest champions of the faith had feet of clay...

Jesus is the only one who has ever walked the earth blamelessly....

The reality is this...

John 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful apart from me.

John 15:5 "Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing.

Throughout the Bible men and women attempted to go it alone and failed miserably..

The Bible pulls no punches and shows both the high and low points of every man since Adam...

And by being so honest, it also demonstrates God’s great love and mercy to those who repent and return to Him…

Romans 3:22 We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard.

Romans 3:24 Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins.

Romans 3:25 For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.

Romans 3:26 And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus.

Romans 3:27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith.

.


@Surprised: "Can I ask what scriptures are there to support homosexuality (or being ignored)? Do Christians no longer believe that the Bible is the Word of God?" Well said, Surprised!

Anyone would think this is a Christian website. Whats the matter with you people.

@Wazza: "...are we missing something? Am I??!" Mark Twain once said, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I DON'T understand that bother me; it's those parts that I do understand." First, those parts of the bible that seem obscure consume your thoughts, put them on the back-burner of your mind and then as you have opportunity, do a little research and try to resolve them. I think you'll find that in the long run they are easily explained with a little more information. Learning God's word is a life long journey. I'm still learning and I've been a Christian since 1973. Second, one question I think you asked is what parts of the bible are authoritative for us today? Good question. As you know, God's people in the OT were the Israelites. He gave to them certain civil laws, dietary laws, and ceremonial laws. But they also had the moral law of God summarized in the 10 commandments. The civil, dietary, and ceremonial laws were types and shadows meant to prepare the Israelites to receive the Messiah, Jesus, who was the fulfillment of the Law. (Paul's extended treatment in Rom. and Galatians elaborate upon what Jesus said in the Gospels.) But the moral law of God predates the other laws. God's moral law is an expression of His character. God's moral nature doesn't change, and neither does His moral law. Gen. 3 (God's words) and Matt. 19 (Jesus quoting Gen.) both restrict sexual relationships to only those between a man and a woman. No matter what the ss activists want us to believe, their sexual practices are judged by God to be sinful. Does that mean heterosexuals are in the free and clear? By no means. Even in a hetero. marriage, taking advantage of the other for his/her own selfish sexual gratification is a sin. I'm sure you're familiar with I Cor. 13. There Paul points us to Christlike love as our goal - but obviously we don't always attain it.

@DH: Thanks for those references you listed above.

@Ms. CL: And, finally, once more, for "Dave Hardy" and Master Dan: the difference between homosexuality (or gay relationships, for Gregory Peterson), and pedophilia and bestiality, is that neither the children nor the beasts can consent. Intimate, private conduct between consenting adults is protected from criminal prosecution by the US Constitution. Pedophilia and bestiality, because there can be no consent, are not protected.

CL: Master Dan, am I? So when I ask my dog if she wants a dog biscuit and she wags her tail and stands up on her hind legs, thats not a way of giving consent? You see those who practice beastiality will find it very easy to gain their pet's consent. "Okay, Black Beauty, do you take Bubba here as your ah...your...ah husband?...Give consent by pawing the ground once." "Ya see thar justice o' peace, she do love me. She pawed tha ground." Bubba, you may give your four footed bride her sugar cube."

@Ms. CL: "I believe the Bible, properly interpreted, is not incompatible with gay marrieage. (Dan must have had his hands over his ears all those times this was being explained to him. He might want to rethink who's teaching what to whom in his sixth grade classes.)"
Golly, CL, aren't we just an itsy bitsy witchy this morning. And here I thought your were above those little catty comments - you being a lawyer and all. (Thought lawyers had thick skins. Guess not.) But that's okay, I forgive you - since you say you are a Christian, I must and I do. Now as to your comment: "...the Bible, properly interpreted, is not incompatible with gay marrieage." Please CL would you be so kind as to point me to those passages that support your belief in ss marriage? Just 1 passage will do. DH has posted and reposted and reposted those multiple passages that differ. He is not reticent; why should you be? Also, your comment "the Bible, properly interpreted" is a very familiar phrase to me. Oh, I know where I heard it. I grew up in a cult and that's what they said all the time to support their unorthodox theological beliefs. But if you look over the past 20 centuries of Christian thought/tradition/history/theology/writings homosexual behavior has always been condemned. So, maybe you're not so orthodox as you suppose. To think, a Christian would support a legitimization of immorality and seek to have it become law. That is troubling. And just b/c you are involved in your church as a trustee and sing in the choir makes you a Christian about as much as me walking into my garage makes me a car. Whether or not you are a Christian is known ultimately by God. But Jesus did say a tree is known by its fruit. Since I only know you by your posts here, I really don't have enough info. I only have your word for it. But it is obvious you don't know your bible. But you are pretty good at explaining the law. (See, I paid you a compliment.)

Anyone would think this is a Christian website. Whats the matter with you people.

Posted by: Stuart at November 11, 2009

Stuart...

I just can't help myself....

.


@DH: Thanks for those references you listed above.

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2009

You are most welcome...

I appreciate your input as well...

.

To DH, mostly: why do you assume that the meaning you get out of either the Bible as a whole or specific passages of it is THE Christian way; that anyone who disagrees is not Christian or doesn't take the Bible seriously or maybe is deliberately twisting it to say what they want? For example: Bible translators came across a word in Paul's letters, the meaning of which had been lost. They added "homosexuality," or words to that effect depending on what version you read, in in its place. The story of Lot leaving Sodom may have had nothing to do with sex, and if it did, well, raping angels is nothing like consensual sex between humans anyway. I believe that the Holiness Code applies only to Jews, and that it's a misapplication to take Jesus' answer to a question about divorce and pretend it has anything to do with homosexuality. But most importantly, I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and accepted Jesus long ago. That has not changed, and will not.

@Hyhybt: "...why do you assume that the meaning you get out of either the Bible as a whole or specific passages of it is THE Christian way..." That is a fair question. I'm glad you asked it. As it pertains to sexual morality, first, all you need to do is read the word of God regarding sexual purity. It's pretty clear. But you can also look at the past 20 centuries of Christian teaching on sexual morality. It's pretty consistent, too. But then look at the devastation sexual immorality has caused in our society today. Also, the word of God is not so difficult to understand. God's commands are so articulated even illiterate people could understand and obey when they taught.
"I believe that the Holiness Code applies only to Jews, and that it's a misapplication to take Jesus' answer to a question about divorce and pretend it has anything to do with homosexuality." And yet Jesus still restricted marriage to between men and women. Gen. 3/Matt. 19. And see DH's post regarding Paul's teaching about homosexuality. Or maybe you'd rather cut those verses out of the bible so it would more conform to your theology. God doesn't stutter.

Hey Mr Hardy,
kinda hurts, that you said I made a 'foolish' statement by saying God seems to be a fairly quirky fellow.

Is it wrong to express that God acts in ways I don't understand?
What I thought was me admitting my LACK of understanding, you've interpreted as my arrogance and negligence to give God reverence.

I know they (and we) are accountable to God for their actions, but...given the example of Moses, for instance, we KNOWWWW how his future judgement goes.
matthew 17:3 Peter saw Jesus Moses and Elijah discussing something (in jesus' time, yonks after Moses death)...so I dare say Moses judgement turns out well.
Moses declared himself in Numbers 12:3 to be more humble on the face of the earth,
and it seems the only time God scolds Moses was when he struck the rock for water the second time.

His polygamy doesn't seem to have any negative bearing in scripture, INFACT God defends Moses when Miriam/Aaron backstab him about it.
His polygamy doesn't effect his salvation (he's in the 'heroes of the faith' in Heb 11), and doesn't seem to be why he never enters the holy land...YET, it's something we'ld have him removed from leadership in church, if he were around today. We'ld declare him unGodly

So I think God is quirky, and i don't understand Him. For sure I don't. Why would I?
.
DAN: thanks for your thoughts :)

I know that this blog thing is talking about same-sex marriage from a legality issue...so i apologise for my possible diversion, but...with so many bible verses floating about on the blog, it's hard to ignore the fact that religion/morality effects alot of voters reasons for pro or anti.

To DH, mostly: why do you assume that the meaning you get out of either the Bible as a whole or specific passages of it is THE Christian way; that anyone who disagrees is not Christian or doesn't take the Bible seriously or maybe is deliberately twisting it to say what they want?

Posted by: hyhybt at November 11, 2009

Hyhybt....

You assume that I assume and then you presume....

Interesting...

The Bible is either the revealed word of God, or it is just a piece of literature...

Paul said this...

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.

2Timothy 3:17 It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

It is a pretty safe course to believe that if something is mentioned in Scripture, that God would have us to examine it with all due diligence...

To get upset with me or with anyone who points to the Bible is rather perplexing... If you are handed a map and a compass, why would you get upset with the one who handed them to you should you get lost?

Acts 17:11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth.

.


Hey Mr Hardy,
kinda hurts, that you said I made a 'foolish' statement by saying God seems to be a fairly quirky fellow.

Is it wrong to express that God acts in ways I don't understand?
What I thought was me admitting my LACK of understanding, you've interpreted as my arrogance and negligence to give God reverence.

Posted by: wazza at November 11, 2009

Wazza...

Let's put it in simpler terms...

If you had a job and you did not understand company policy, would you have the audacity to walk up to your employer and say.. "Hey Boss... You are kinda quirky, because I don't understand company policy."

Yeah...

Let me know how that works for ya...

Matthew 20:1 "For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the owner of an estate who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard.

Matt 20:2 He agreed to pay the normal daily wage [fn] and sent them out to work.

Matt 20:3 "At nine o'clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing.

Matt 20:4 So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day.

Matt 20:5 At noon and again around three o'clock he did the same thing.

Matt 20:6 At five o'clock that evening he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, `Why haven't you been working today?'

Matt 20:7 "They replied, `Because no one hired us.' "The owner of the estate told them, `Then go on out and join the others in my vineyard.'

Matt 20:8 "That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first.

Matt 20:9 When those hired at five o'clock were paid, each received a full day's wage.

Matt 20:10 When those hired earlier came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day's wage.

Matt 20:11 When they received their pay, they protested,

Matt 20:12 `Those people worked only one hour, and yet you've paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.'

Matt 20:13 "He answered one of them, `Friend, I haven't been unfair! Didn't you agree to work all day for the usual wage?

Matt 20:14 Take it and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you.

Matt 20:15 Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be angry because I am kind?'

.

Dave Hardy,
to be honest, I DO have that kind of relationship with all my employers.
I believe there can be GOOD in mixing 'playfulness' with faithful service and respect and awe.

David (king David) danced and enjoyed Gods presence AND indulged his own fears/ponderings/doubts about God in the psalms.
He continued to practice and proclaim his faith and devotion while confessing his lack of understanding at times.

what a great space to be in, no?

I’ve tried reading all 100+ postings on this topic. But I gave up. Just a couple of observations

@David Hardy – after about your 20th posting on this topic, I’ve skipped over the rest. My brother you seem to be rather obsessed with gay people. I pray you are just as obsessed in your walk with God and you are not creating this as an idol.

@ Dan- you are taking scriptures out of context.

@Wazza - great posts. And I too enjoy the Father. You are right. I think He's got quite a quirky sense of humor - how can you not think so, especially when you consider some of the things of life. And like you- the more I glimpse of Him, the more I realize I know nothing. Our Father is awesome!!! and I don't understand Him :-)

The institution of marriage has already been redefined.

It used to be one man making a gift of a piece of property to another man. One man gave the property called daughter to another man who became the property called wife. She had no rights, she was his thing. She could be disposed of or beaten at his will. She was chattel. This went on for a millennial. We in the west then redefined this. Now it is two completely legal autonomous individuals that make a commitment to each other. They may do so via a legal or a religious ceremony or both

And through it all, we are forgetting one thing. We as Christians are simply called to spread the good news and to pray. David Hardy and Dan we are not called to stop people from getting married: Even if they want to marry their pet gerbil. (If they do I actually would pity the animal.) As long as they are consenting adults it is not your purview to dictate who these people can be in a relationship with. You are doing what even God does not do – taking away people’s free will. That’s neither your nor my jurisdiction. You are going where even God does not thread.

We pray and spread the good news and live as spotless a life as possible so no dsihonor comes to the name of Christ and let God deal with the rest.

I’m sure He’s quite capable, don’t you think?

@Anthony: "@ Dan- you are taking scriptures out of context." It is nice to know that you are out there to set me straight. Don't know what I'd do without you, Bud. By the way, A. I don't think there is an opening on the Trinity. Soooo....yeah...but keep your resume up to date. The reports of His death, tho, have been greatly exaggerated.
And then you said, "... I realize I know nothing..." Yep, I'd say you just about got that right. And you have demonstrated it here. Hey, I am just agreeing with you.
And then you said: "...we are not called to stop people from getting married: Even if they want to marry their pet gerbil." Even Ms. CL would disagree with you there. With that whole gerbil thing....that is.
And then you said: "And through it all, we are forgetting one thing. We as Christians are simply called to spread the good news and to pray." I dunno. Doesn't seem like the news you're spreading is very good. Might use it for fertilizer, tho.

what a great space to be in, no?

Posted by: wazza at November 11, 2009

Wazza...

I would say no...

Word to the wise...

It is one thing to ponder upon what we do not understand about God, realizing that God is perfect in all His ways... It is quite another to imply that God is unstable, because we do not understand His ways.

Main Entry: quirky

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: eccentric

Synonyms: bizarre, far out, freakish, freaky, idiosyncratic, in left field, kinky*, odd, off-the-wall, out of the ordinary, outre, peculiar, strange, unconventional, unorthodox, unusual, wacky*, way-out, weird

Notes: quirky means strikingly unconventional or given to idiosyncrasies; kinky means showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes - or in small tight curls
Antonyms: conventional

* = informal/non-formal usage

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/quirky

James 1:5 If you need wisdom--if you want to know what God wants you to do--ask him, and he will gladly tell you. He will not resent your asking.

.

Mr Hardy,
The word I used was 'quirky' not kinky.
Your only illustrating my lack of intelligence, not my heart.
Let it be known, if I wanted to say 'kinky' or 'appealing to deviant tastes' then i would do so...
...I know those words :)

Secondly you said that I "imply that God is unstable"
I did not say that God is unstable.
I said I do not understand Him entirely.
...There's a difference.

All I'm saying is that I observe in scripture, that God (for whatever reason) was silent on the rampant polygamy of those very people who founded our faith.
I accept there will be a completely 'stable' and acceptable reason for it.
I just don't know what it is.

but hey, history shows us that countries of 'majority morality' have gotten things wrong before...

different colours weren't allowed to marry in the last states of America till the late 1960's...
that's a very recent and sad illustration of just how 'unintelligent' a country that founded itself on biblical truth can be.

How many people missed their opportunity to love the one they loved because of sociological pressure to bow to 'normal same-colour marriages' before that time?

Why did it take THAT long for it to be addressed in an originally God based nation? Why ONLY 50 years ago? that's too recent to be acceptable.

Can we be sure that there is nothing left that we have wrong?

What opportunities are we wanting people to miss out on, what burdens are we placing on them, simply because we think we have an answer, when later we might change our general position?

We need to be careful if we are to vote on matters like this.

@ Wazza, @Anthony@ Christian Lawyer

Great posts gentlemen.

You are wasting your time when speaking to David Hardy and Dan. You are basically speaking to the deaf, blind and dumb. But God speed. You have obviously been blessed with God given perseverance

@CL: Re: David Hardy -- your purported legal analysis...is bizarrely incorrect." This coming from one whose theological reasoning is equally bizarrely incorrect. You accuse DH of using faulty legal reasoning and then you turn around and use that same faulty reasoning you accuse him of when you interpret the bible. You appeal to the letter of the law when correcting someone on a legal issue/interpretation and then ignore the plain teaching of scripture refusing to even exegete the scriptures DH so conveniently provides. How odd! To insist on a close literal interpretation of the law and then when confronted by the biblical claims/commands, you ignore the literal requirements of scripture. I guess you legal scholars - and homosexual activists - are able to live with paradox - or is it just hypocrisy.

@Evan: "@ Wazza, @Anthony@ Christian Lawyer
Great posts gentlemen

Psst. Evan. Psst. Hey, Evan. Ahem. Just want to tell you for future reference, CL is a gentlewoman, not a gentleman. Just trying to be helpful, here. BTW, why would you automatically assume CL is a man? What are you? Sexist? Get the diversity police over here. I got another one. (Kidding - just kidding!)

Dan, Re: evans statement:
I don't think your response is very fair or relevant.
I knoowwww it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but is it necessary to jokingly accuse someone of being sexist?

Mr Hardy,
The word I used was 'quirky' not kinky.
Your only illustrating my lack of intelligence, not my heart.
Let it be known, if I wanted to say 'kinky' or 'appealing to deviant tastes' then i would do so...
...I know those words :)

Secondly you said that I "imply that God is unstable"
I did not say that God is unstable.
I said I do not understand Him entirely.
...There's a difference.

All I'm saying is that I observe in scripture, that God (for whatever reason) was silent on the rampant polygamy of those very people who founded our faith.
I accept there will be a completely 'stable' and acceptable reason for it.
I just don't know what it is.

Posted by: wazza at November 11, 2009

Wazza...

Quirky is your word to describe God.... And quirky is no term of endearment.... It is a mocking insult.

You then go on to question what you consider to be God's silence on a matter that you take issue with... And while you do say "I accept there will be a completely 'stable' and acceptable reason for it.
I just don't know what it is."

You then ignorantly procede to pass jugement and attempt to justify the practice of homosexuality...

You have a free-will and with that free-will, you may choose to continue digging a hole.

But know this...

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.

Galatians 6:8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

.

@ Wazza, @Anthony@ Christian Lawyer

Great posts gentlemen.

You are wasting your time when speaking to David Hardy and Dan. You are basically speaking to the deaf, blind and dumb. But God speed. You have obviously been blessed with God given perseverance

Posted by: Evan at November 11, 2009

Evan...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7MEYY-Ho&feature=fvw

Matthew 15:30 A vast crowd brought him the lame, blind, crippled, mute, and many others with physical difficulties, and they laid them before Jesus. And he healed them all.

Matthew 15:31 The crowd was amazed! Those who hadn't been able to speak were talking, the crippled were made well, the lame were walking around, and those who had been blind could see again! And they praised the God of Israel.

Mark 7:32 A deaf man with a speech impediment was brought to him, and the people begged Jesus to lay his hands on the man to heal him.

Mark 7:33 Jesus led him to a private place away from the crowd. He put his fingers into the man's ears. Then, spitting onto his own fingers, he touched the man's tongue with the spittle.

Mark 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed and commanded, "Be opened!"

Mark 7:35 Instantly the man could hear perfectly and speak plainly!

Mark 7:36 Jesus told the crowd not to tell anyone, but the more he told them not to, the more they spread the news,

Mark 7:37 for they were completely amazed. Again and again they said, "Everything he does is wonderful. He even heals those who are deaf and mute."

Luke 7:21 At that very time, he cured many people of their various diseases, and he cast out evil spirits and restored sight to the blind.

Luke 7:22 Then he told John's disciples, "Go back to John and tell him what you have seen and heard--the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, and the Good News is being preached to the poor.

.

Quite naturally as humans we feel more comfortable within our race. The statistics listed above in this article are not surprising, not sure why they would be. Why the author chose to “bold/highlight” 1 of the 2 the phrases above, but that’s nothing new judging by some of the past articles on this site. I would be interested in the article the author is referring to, just so I can read these findings for myself.

catholic dating

@Wazza: RE: "I don't think your response is very fair or relevant." Oh, I'd say it's about as fair and relevant as when he referred to DH and me as the "...the deaf, blind and dumb..."
"...but is it necessary to jokingly accuse someone of being sexist?" Yes. It is necessary here to point out to him his hypocrisy - and I did it in a kidding manner. I've been called much worse. But think about this: when Paul the Apostle told false teachers to castrate themselves, I guess he wasn't being fair and relevant, either.
For being on the PC side of things, Evan still falls short - according to the PC nazis, that is. Nobody refers to those who cannot speak as "dumb" anymore. It's considered so un-PC. Offensive. Do you not think those verbal faux pas reflect a lack of sensitivity to diversity within Evan? Should he not then get more sensitivity training? (I'm being tongue in cheek again.) And Wazza, satire has a long history in Christian literature - see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Makes my little tongue-in-cheek look tame.

@CL, GP, Evan, et al who have drunk the postmodern cool aid. Just remember: nobody reads the back of the medicine bottle with a postmodern hermeneutic. (Dang! I wish I had thought that one up myself.)

@Christian Lawyer

My apologies for referring to you as a man. No disrespect or offense was meant

@ David Hardy

James 3:17 "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.
v18:Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

@Dan
I could get into a pissing contest with you. But why bother. Enough to say that continue on with your snarky remarks. Continue to demonstrate to christians and non-christians alike what it means to be a christian. You are setting a fine example... Then you all wonder why some of us want nothing to do with christianity.

@ Christian Lawyer, Anthony, Wazza,
As an outsider looking in: you demonstrate empathy, intelligence and a Christlike spirit. I'm glad to see that there are Christians like you out there. It's a shame that your voices are not more often heard.

@ David Hardy

James 3:17 "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.
v18:Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Posted by: Evan at November 12, 2009

Thank you for the compliment...

.

@Evan: "Enough to say that continue on with your snarky remarks. Continue to demonstrate to christians and non-christians alike what it means to be a christian." Oh, Evan. I don't get into contests - of any kind - with anyone. But your comments really are the classic case of pot and kettle. Apparently, you like to dish it out, but you can't take it. So, don't dish it out, then. I may use tongue in cheek humor usually to illustrate a point, but I don't call names (like deaf, dumb, and blind) and I don't berate your intelligence. And when you make a reasonable and intelligent comment or you ask a good question, I give credit where credit is due. Also, Evan, don't feel embarrassed about calling CL a gentlewoman. I made the same mistake awhile back. I don't think she took umbrage with me; I know she won't with you.

@Evan: "Enough to say that continue on with your snarky remarks. Continue to demonstrate to christians and non-christians alike what it means to be a christian." Oh, Evan. I don't get into contests - of any kind - with anyone. But your comments really are the classic case of pot and kettle. Apparently, you like to dish it out, but you can't take it. So, don't dish it out, then. I may use tongue in cheek humor usually to illustrate a point, but I don't call names (like deaf, dumb, and blind) and I don't berate your intelligence. And when you make a reasonable and intelligent comment or you ask a good question, I give credit where credit is due. Also, Evan, don't feel embarrassed about calling CL a gentlewoman. I made the same mistake awhile back. I don't think she took umbrage with me; I know she won't with you.

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2009

Dan....

You are right!... I checked and Evan did accuse both you and I of being.... Dare I say it.... Gasp!.... I can't bring my keyboard to form the words.... let's cut to an actual quote...

@ Wazza, @Anthony@ Christian Lawyer

Great posts gentlemen.

You are wasting your time when speaking to David Hardy and Dan. You are basically speaking to the deaf, blind and dumb. But God speed. You have obviously been blessed with God given perseverance

Posted by: Evan at November 11, 2009

Oh the humanity!!!!

Dan....
Do you think that it could be possible that Evan was not complimenting me by this?

@ David Hardy

James 3:17 "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.
v18:Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Posted by: Evan at November 12, 2009

Have I been Snarked too?????

Gasp!

Oh the duplicity!!!!!!!

There goes my faith in the objectivity of scoffers.....

.

@Evan: "Also, Evan, don't feel embarrassed about calling CL a gentlewoman." Correction: ...about calling CL a gentleman." is what I meant to write.

@DH: yes, he called you and me "deaf, blind, and dumb"! It was a drive by, DH. Another random act of senseless snarkery. Senseless! I say. We are the victims here of the liberal/postmodern jihad. (I love it.)

Alrighty guys/girls :)
I'm signing off from this blog now :)
It was fun chatting while the topic was covering new ground though!

I might check in and see if the posts start discussing the intended topic again, at some stage, but for now, I think it's done it's full-circle dash, for me anyway.

I like hearing other peoples ideas though, so thanks for all that!
My brain only functions a certain way, and sometimes it needs to hear other peoples views to jump in another direction that I wouldn't go on my own steam.

Thanks to all those who gave me things to think about

wazza
:)

Hi Christian Lawyer

I too didn't realize that you were female. I would like to also add my apologies to the poster Evan if I referred to you as a male.

With the Maine voter's decision The American Medical Association voted this week to oppose the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. And the doctors stated that bans on gay marriage causes health harm.

Do you know if this organization is too filing any legal briefs? I tried google but could find nothing -and since you appear to be the legal eagle, thought you may have heard of something...

Thanks


@DH: "Yeah Dan and me, we were on opposite sides of the river the other day and Dan hollers across, "Hey! How do I get to the other side of the river!".... I laughed at him for being so silly and hollered back, "You already ARE on the other side of the river!" I noticed that he had some root beer and chips with him.... I guess he was going to a PARTAY, or something...." Nice. But I was so disappointed in hyhybt.

Re: Christian Lawyer,
Thanks again for another elevating and level-headed dialogue. It's posters like you (and particularly, you) that make this blog worth reading time and again. Your well-cited postings and reasoning serve to educate us all and challenge us to make this blog all that it can be, by exercising our God-given judgment in rational discourse.

First, thanks for the bit about the US Constitution superseding that of the states. That more than sets precedence for Full Faith and Credit to overturn state constitutional amendments.

This is going to be a long one.

On your disagreeing with my assertion that equality under law cannot be temporally or societally limited: I'm coming at this from the perspective of one who sees the idea of human rights never existing as such until the European Enlightenment; to say that idea is not temporally and societally limited is therefore, to me, anachronistic (as far as I know).(Also, the nature of political law is by no means static over human history; the idea of an abstract (people of the) state as the highest authority is novel and very modern, and human rights even more so.) Still, you insist that a human rights violation is "an abomination regardless of whether it was recognized as such at the time".

Hmmm. Your holding "all people of good will" should follow "basic principles of human rights" seems to suggest that those of good will can somehow innately recognize human rights, yet you also say otherwise great people, like the founding fathers (I love the HBO special on John Adams, btw), are not innocent of monstrous crimes even if they did not know they were evil. If human rights knowledge is innate to all people of good will, I take that as an argument for natural law, which means all guilty are in some way aware of their guilt. If not, then I take your "ignorance of the law is no excuse" language as a moral and legal principle that the guilty are guilty whether or not they are aware of their guilt; it seems a harsh argument, if perhaps right.

Either way, you're making a fundamental moral judgment, and I consider that religious, because either God is bound by that principle or the principle exists because God decrees it (Euthyphro). The way I see it, one cannot avoid an understanding of law that is not based ultimately upon a fundamental religious premise, or at least one that affects religion. So I hope I'm not mixing theology up with political theory and law, but rather basing my political theory and law on religion, because I think it's unavoidable.

So, I could go into a long-winded theological argument, but will for now stick with a restatement of my thesis that human rights and all human laws (as historically rooted legal/political science developments) are socially constructed ideas meant to reflect an eternal and universal truth that mankind is made in the image of God and loved by God.

(as a side note: Also, your "consent" distinction between slavery and exploitative employment is also a modern legal development. I know I'm sounding terribly relativistic here; forgive me. But Marx was on to something when he saw the relationships as similar; you agree with me that each is an "abomination," or as we Christians say, sin. The similarity is not legal, you're right, but I speak of a deeper kinship than the legal one, in not only the practical reality (which Marx, as a materialist, is obsessed with) but the spiritual reality (which I, as a seminarian, am obsessed with).)

While we cannot by human law equal God's standards (and we must not even try), our living and our law (insofar as we are responsible for it) should be informed by our identity in God. In that, I totally agree with you that social justice is a huge priority and mandate from God, not because we will make heaven on earth, but because we are to live as citizens of heaven on earth. While we are on earth, our laws - even human rights - only dimly reflect the Lawgiver, but when we are in heaven, we shall need no such government, for we shall be as angels.

btw Christian Lawyer, when I said "or as we Christians say, sin," I did not mean to imply that you aren't a Christian (looking it over now, it might come off that way), merely appealing to our common understanding to simplify terms.
And that last flourish of mine is a gratuitous nod to Hamilton's "if men were angels no government would be necessary." Since you allowed yourself to indulge is some spirited (and deserved) flourishes in earlier posts, I hoped you'd forgive it.

Hey wazza,
I know you're out of the posting cycle for a while, but you should take a look at my discussion here with Christian Lawyer. My longer theological rationale behind my thoughts on human rights also applies to all sorts of things, including polygamy. But basically, I think those who support nasty systems generally aren't reading their Bible properly in the first place, but using faith as a means to selfish gain, despising the heart of the Gospel. I'd argue the Bible, from the Pentateuch to II Peter, does not condone evil systems but rather undermines them, from slavery to polygamy to legal inequality. But that could take some time to argue properly and this is neither the time nor place, and I've got to get some sleep.

Idolatry is an abomination to God, not "homosexuality." Gay just happens. Moral people don't care. The Bible doesn't support your hateful, very racist-like position. Real Bible study, as opposed to religious right fantasies, support my positions.

Your "homosexual" clobber verses are a hateful and bigoted abuse of Biblical context. The context is idolatry. Don't do what the Moloch and Aphrodite fertility cultists did. Since few people do anymore, what is idolatry when it comes to sexual activity today? The biblioidolatrous use of clobber verses come to mind.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at November 12, 2009

Gregory...

Once again.... I disagree with both you claims....

First... It is not idolatrous to believe that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God....

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.

2Timothy 3:17 It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

Second...

There is no mistake that the practice of homosexuality, in and of itself, is detesable in the eyes of God...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

@Brendan: Re: Your immediate posts above: Well said.
But in particular: "...my thesis that human rights and all human laws (as historically rooted legal/political science developments) are socially constructed ideas meant to reflect an eternal and universal truth that mankind is made in the image of God and loved by God." Well thought out.
And also: "The way I see it, one cannot avoid an understanding of law that is not based ultimately upon a fundamental religious premise, or at least one that affects religion." Again, well thought out.
And also: "But basically, I think those who support nasty systems generally aren't reading their Bible properly in the first place..." Well said, but who gets to define what "nasty" means? SS marriage activists/homosexual/liberal/postmods have one definition, while bible believing Christians have another. And so don't we as Bible believing Christians have the responsibility then to contribute to and make systems good? Implied here also is the thought that we as Bible believing Christians have the responsibility to dismantle those "nasty" systems, ie make corrections to systems that are immoral. I know we can never completely redeem the world system, but we can leave an imprint - a way of looking at life - that makes our country better. (Hint: You should turn your post in to one of your seminary profs for an extra credit grade. :-)

@Whoever is interested: Thought we bible believing christians who do not agree with the legalization of homosexual marriage were safe to speak out against it from the pulpits of our churches. That's what CL said. But that doesn't seem to be the case. See the following link. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115834 "Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign"

@Dan

You think that is harassment? Shame on you.

There is such a thing as the separation of church and state. If a church wants to dabble in politics then yes- they should have their tax exempt status rescinded.

I'm sure you would like the gov't to legislate whether or not Christians should be allowed to take communion, wouldn't you

This is harassment:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8325690.stm

@Dan

You think that is harassment? Shame on you.

There is such a thing as the separation of church and state. If a church wants to dabble in politics then yes- they should have their tax exempt status rescinded.

Posted by: Delvin at November 13, 2009

Delvin...

It is most definately harassment...

Homosexuality is a moral issue, not a political one... It goes to the very core of the division between Heaven and Hell.... What is happening in Maine is nothing more than religious persecution perpetrated under the pretext of separation of church and state.

And if you are so concerned abot attacks against homosexuals... Point the finger where it really belongs...

At other homosexuals...

In their frank but empathetic book, "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them," (1991) David Island, a homosexual domestic violence victim and psychologist, and Patrick Letellier, his homosexual counselor colleague, report that hate crimes are a homosexual and lesbian domestic way of life.

These authors document "three major health hazards" for homosexual men and lesbians. After AIDS and chemical abuse, same-sex battery is the third major health hazard for homosexual men. Lesbians' first health hazard is cancer, followed closely by chemical abuse and, yes, same-sex battery.

In 2004, 818 bias-motivated crimes of persons against "gays" were reported, while an earlier study recorded 5,046 homosexual domestic violence reports in just nine cities. Remember, bias "incidents" can be graffiti, theft, mean remarks, etc., even absent evidence. The FBI "Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation," Table 4, cited one alleged "anti-homosexual murder" in 2004 and none since.

However, equality under law means that a homosexual who kills or curses another homosexual (say, calls him a "bi--h" or other such term) will be liable for a bias, or "hate" crime charge, just as a "straight" citizen would be.

Both experts agree that homosexuals hide from the truth about battery. Relevant to the current effort to arrest "straights," "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white, educated, 'politically correct' gay men batter their lovers."

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98688

.

.

Let me say this slowly in the hope you can understand


When a church or any religious entity

that has a tax exempt status dabbles in

politics and seeks to subvert the

separation of church and state conventions:

then they should indeed have their

tax exempt status rescinded.

It may be a moral issue for you, but the matter at hand is a legal issue.

Do me a favor: for parity in argument-have a look at any data that talks about abuse and battery amongst heterosexual couples. Then if you find any instances of such abuse. I want you to do what you have just done and state that because of this abuse heterosexual couple should not be allowed to be married.

Now if there are no instances of abuse and battery amongst heterosexual couples I will admit to you that homosexuals because they abuse each other (according to you) should indeed not be allowed to be married.

After all we must hold them up to higher and different standards than heterosexual couples.

@Delvin: The article stated in part, just in case you didn't bother to read it "...pastors and churches have a right to discuss biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of being punished for their religious beliefs."
"They can encourage their congregations to take a stand for marriage and can directly support legislative issues like Question 1 without running afoul of IRS rules," Stanley said. "Groups that want to redefine marriage are intentionally threatening the tax-exempt status of churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation to silence their voice."
Now, Delvin, if you think it is okay for homosexual activists to threaten and intimidate churches - when those churches are doing what is within their legal right to do - by using disinformation you have a strange sense of right and wrong.

Also @Delvin: Let me ask you this: if the churches are doing what is within the law, are you still in favor of the homosexual activist groups continuing their harassment and intimidation? B/c I'm a believer in law and order. If the churches are breaking the law, then they should be advised by their legal counsel to comply with the law. If the homosexual groups are filing false reports they should experience some kind of legal consequences.

So, rest assured, Dan, the First Amendment is a powerful thing. Your right to preach whatever odious thing you want remains fully intact. And, even though I strongly support gay marriage, I don't think either side really wants the IRS combing through sermons (from the right or the left) to determine the difference between speaking out on moral issues versus endorsing candidates or parties, except in the most egregious of circumstances.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 14, 2009

cl....

I see that you jumped right up on your bully pulpit this fine morning to spew your odious preaching in support of homosexual "marriage." I would imagine that you did that just to demonstrate for us just what odious means...

As for the IRS.... Although I thing that government intellegence is an oxymoron, I believe that the IRS is smart enough to figure out that if they ever open tha can of worms of sermon review in order to determine tax exempt status that the cost of investigations alone would exceed the return in tax dollars to the tune of about $.01 return on each dollar invested in investgation...

.

@Dan

My church preaches against homosexuality in many sermons. No one has ever brought a case to have the IRS investigate it. Do you know why? To do so would be stupid. And my church does not involve itself in politics. It sticks to what it's suppose to be doing. Preaching the word of God.

Be careful with your desire to have churches involved beyond what they are supposed to. It rarely is a problem until the compliment is returned.

Dan, you so fundamentally misunderstand the nature of law, it's hard to set you straight. For example, it is indisputable that murder is a crime. Claiming that murder is NOT a crime is NOT legal reasoning. It's just a flat misstatement of what is indisputably the law. One may argue about what constitutes "murder," and how the law is developing in that regard, and that IS "legal reasoning." Calling someone out who claims that "murder is NOT a crime" is NOT insisting on the "letter of the law." It's just calling out a liar.

In just the same way, when David Hardy claims that marriage is a contract he's just flatly misstating what is indisputably the law. It's not "insisting on the letter of the law" to correct his lies. It's not insisting on the letter of the law to quote what the Supreme Court has already held, especially when I clearly acknowledged that it's still an "open question" about where the law will go with gay marriage. And, just a note, "open question" means that legal scholars disagree about the legal analysis and the courts haven't finally decided the question. It does NOT mean that because you've decided it in your head that it's no really "open."

And, BTW, it was Jesus who insisted on the spirit of the law as trumping the letter of the law.

@ Dan

Almost all evangelical and Roman catholic churches preach against homosexuality. I surmise yours does. And I surmise that the one the poster David Hardy attends does every single day.

So let me ask you this:

Is your church harassed?
Is David Hardy's church harassed?

If a church crosses the line and gets involved in issues beyond their mandate, then yes they should be harassed.

But you can always celebrate the fact that such churches are being harassed for the work of the Lord they are doing. What's a little harassment anyhow? You should be glad of it, as a matter of fact. Isn't that what Christians are supposed to experience and be thankful for?


@Delvin and CL: So using your rationale it would be okay for Christians to harass homosexual activists in the same way if they cross the line, too. What's good for the goose...as the old saying goes. Do you think that is okay? Just looking for a postmodern response.

In just the same way, when David Hardy claims that marriage is a contract he's just flatly misstating what is indisputably the law. It's not "insisting on the letter of the law" to correct his lies.

Posted by: Chrstian Lawyer at November 14, 2009

cl....

I do beg to differ on your accusation of misstatement and lies... And hereby beg the indulgence of the court to have your testimony stricken from the record...

contract

1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract

As for even beginning to draw any paralells between Christianity and homosexuality.... You are grossly in error...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

If a church crosses the line and gets involved in issues beyond their mandate, then yes they should be harassed.

Posted by: Delvin at November 14, 2009

Delvin....

How interesting.... You are an advocate of harassment...

Do you have a shaved head and wear jackboots with red laces too?

FYI...

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.


Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 28:20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 16:15 And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere.


2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.

2Timothy 3:17 It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

The mandate of the ekklesia is to preach to every one on the face of the earth and to instruct them godly principals regarding each and avery aspect of their lives...

Outside of sinning against God... Nothing is out of bounds for the ekklesia...

Nothing...

.

I find it interesting that one of the strategies gay marriage supporters use is to compare the battle over gay marriage to those over slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage. There is a minor problem that is rarely addressed: unlike the other situations, there is no biological basis for homosexuality. Therefore, this comparison, albeit popular, is not applicable to gay marriage. For those who believe in evolution, homosexuality in humans would serve no evolutionary purpose, as offspring cannot be produced for the continuation of the species.

Hey all,
Just wanted to point something out. A lot of times people will quote Leviticus in their crusades against the "homosexual agenda", as in several cases on this comment board. I can assure you that Leviticus no longer has any relevance on Christians as far as the Mosaic law goes. People will quote scripture from the book stating that God doesnt like gays, but you have to look at the context. There are also verses in the book telling men not to shave. Jesus Christ came down to earth so that we wouldn't have to follow the Law in order to get to Heaven, all we need is to believe he is the Messiah and Son of God (J. 14:6).

Now if you spend your time watching 700 Club or listening to crackpots like James Dobson, then you may disagree. There are points like this that can be debated for years without any end in sight. This comment board is a good example.

@ David Hardy

You can quote as many scriptures as you like - when you are done doing so - the fact remains that this is a legal issue that is untenable. And if churches decide to leave their pulpits and cross the line that has been established to keep it out of state business, then 2 things:

1. Either churches lose their tax exempt status and or

2. The government gets involved in church business.

Let us all see how Christians like being told they cannot take communion or they are banned from taking up a collection - which is sort of a pyramid scheme in some churches anyhow.

One of these days if I am so inclined I will match scripture verses with you to show you the hilarity of the whole thing.

@Cybereagle

Your posting doesn't quite make sense. Since homosexual people cannot reproduce. It therefore means that heterosexual people are the ones producing homosexual people. I think we should implement legislation to stop heterosexuals breeding. That would solve the problem once and for all. And if marriage’s sole purpose was for producing children – then you would have to prohibit those heterosexual couples that don’t want children from getting married.

Now to the rest of your posting. You are ignoring the obvious:

The bible that was used to make blacks 2/3 human and women second class citizens is the same book that some people are using now, to make homosexuals sub human.
So you then have to ask yourself is it the bible or the people who have used the bible. And to continue on, you also have to ask yourself are people using the bible now to do the same to others again.

What I find fascinating is that these same people who use the bible to trumpet the sin of homosexuality are the same people who can find justification for wars. And the same ones who out of the other side of their mouths find a justification for bearing arms. Totally ignoring Jesus’ message about peace, love and turning the other cheek.

So it then boils down to two things. Either people use the bible for their own selfish purposes. And if this is the case, why then should anyone listen to them if they will not adhere to the bible in its entirety?

Or the bible is one messed up book- And if it is – why should rational individuals pay it any attention?

Be that as it may– marriage is a chiefly a state issue. And churches should mind their business if they do not want to be harassed.

David Hardy -- Merriam's is a dictionary, not a statute or a law. I don't deny that, colloquially, marriage can be thought of as being a sort of contract. But, in the law, a marriage is fundamentally and indisputably NOT a contract. To say otherwise is just flatly untrue.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 14, 2009

cl....

You are to me, a very strong reminder of this...

1Timothy 6:4 Anyone who teaches anything different is both conceited and ignorant. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions.

The act of legal marriage is indeed the entry into a legal and binding contractual agreement.

.

David Hardy -- I believe that what you do IS "sinning against God" because you deny the worth of part of His creation.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 14, 2009

cl....

Here's a news flash for you... Willful rebellion against God causes humans to become worthless...

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Romans 3:12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

If you feel worthless because of your sexuality, don't blame me.. Take it up with God...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

Delvin, you missed a majority of the point I was making involving evolution. The reference to evolution was added as a note to those who believe that homosexuality is natural AND who believe in evolution.

The "biological basis" part of my post was to illustrate how ridiculous it is for liberals to compare the battle over gay marriage to those over slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage.

Also, you're a little confused: it was the Constitution that gave blacks 2/3 of a vote per person. The Bible was not used to make blacks 2/3 human and it would be rather amusing to learn where that came from.

Hey all,
Just wanted to point something out. A lot of times people will quote Leviticus in their crusades against the "homosexual agenda", as in several cases on this comment board. I can assure you that Leviticus no longer has any relevance on Christians as far as the Mosaic law goes.

Posted by: josh at November 14, 2009

Josh...

While Christians are not under the law, we are to still respect the moral code established by the law...

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

There is absolutely no biblical acceptance of homosexuality in either the Old Testament, nor the New Testament...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching


.

One of these days if I am so inclined I will match scripture verses with you to show you the hilarity of the whole thing.

Posted by: Delvin at November 14, 2009

Delvin...

Bring it on...

.

@CL: Re: "Please CL would you be so kind as to point me to those passages that support your belief in ss marriage? Just 1 passage will do." Still waiting....

@CL: "Dan, you so fundamentally misunderstand the nature of law, it's hard to set you straight." Funny, CL, I was just thinking the same about you and your fundamental misunderstanding of the bible.
Regarding your observation about my intellectual deficits, tho, - alas you are probably correct. Our laws are written by lawyers and politicians and policy wonks who are skilled in obfuscation (noun), who obfuscate (verb), and who are obfuscatory (adjective). But would you tell the Apostle Paul he,too, had a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of law? (Please say you would. Pleeeeze.)
He says in I Tim. 1: 9-11 - 9realizing the fact that (Z)law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and (AA)rebellious, for the (AB)ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and (AC)profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers

10and (AD)immoral men and (AE)homosexuals
(WHAT?!!!) and (AF)kidnappers and (AG)liars and (AH)perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (AI)sound teaching..." Did Paul include homosexuals in this passage? He did! (The temerity, the effrontery, the cheek, the audacity, the unmitigated (yes! un-mi-ti-ga-ted!!) gall, the chutzpah!) Well, if we take out the homosexual reference here, we must also cut out the other references, too, to be fair to those other groups mentioned. Course if I could just learn how to be postmod in my reasoning - like you and others - I could easily dispatch with such minor inconveniences.

@DH: I don't know about you, but I'm going to demand a refund on my 35 year old Merriam-Websters dictionary. Can't even trust a dictionary to give you correct definitions nowadays. Got to rely upon a lawyer, land a' Goshen! (Dang! Where is that receipt? I know I put it somewhere.)
@CL: How much do you charge for dictionary definitions?

@DH: Delvin said, "One of these days if I am so inclined I will match scripture verses..."

With all of the passages in the bible supporting ss marriage, he won't take up a lot of your time.

@Dan and David Hardy

The mistake you both are making is in thinking that marriage has anything to do with the bible. So your scripture verses are totally irrelvant to the issue. But continue to quote them if doing so makes you feel better.

If you really thought marriages had something to do with the bible you would be out there preaching about adulterous relationships and fornication. But hey, you two are not the first and you definitely will not be the last to conviently turn a blind eye to the stink of your own sin.

@ David Hardy. It has been almost 12 hours now. I think you were asked to provide the data about abuse amongst heterosexual couples. You were kind enough to provide it for homosexual couples. Surely it cannot be that difficult to provide for heterosexual couples...

How much longer do we have to wait before you provide this information?

One thing I have learned reading this blog, is that those who claim to be Christians and quote the bible the most seem to know it the least. They seem to have their stock of favourite passages, but they don't pay attention to other passages, their context, their structure or how they would be perceived by the original writers.

It's as if they get all hot and bothered because other people seem to be haveing such a fun life, make far more money on average and basically just really enjoy life a lot more than they do.

And they're upset because they have so much penitence, sins to atone for, prostration, self punishment, self loathing, repression of pretty much anything pleasurable, and the big list goes on.

Sorta looks like Santa givng them a lump of clay and others all the toys.

I can't wait until the supreme court rule on this issue once and for all.


@Delvin: Uh, D., we are quoting the bible because it has something to do with the topic at hand. Did you not notice: the topic is ss marriage. Now, you may be very correct that our country will end up allowing ss marriage. I am not saying it won't. I hope it won't - but in the end it may. So? Our country has already legalized the slaughter of the innocents to the tune of 50,000,000 babies since 1972.
And also: How about those bible verses supporting ss marriage/homosexual behavior you were going to produce and go toe to toe with DH? Found any yet?
Oh, and for the effect your commentary had on me see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q3QzXxgTEQ

The mistake you both are making is in thinking that marriage has anything to do with the bible. So your scripture verses are totally irrelvant to the issue. But continue to quote them if doing so makes you feel better.

Posted by: Delvin at November 14, 2009

Delvin...

While the United States of America is not a theocracy… It is a constitutional republic…. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people… In the USA, the citizens are Caesar.

Whether or not the idea sets well with you... Every adult human being has both a religion AND a god…

religion

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

god

a person or thing of supreme value

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

And whether you wish to acknowledge the fact, or not…. Every law in this country is religious in nature, i.e. “principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and is enacted in order to honor a god, I.e. “a person or thing of supreme value.”

We also have a Constitution replete with a first amendment which reads….

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In effect every law respects a religion, however, no law is able to establish a particular religion, i.e. “Fill in the blank… Is the mandatory religion of the citizens of the USA.”

So you see…. By definition of religion and god…. It is impossible to separate church and state…

Also you will note, that the citizenry has the constitutional right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

You will note my previous assertion that the citizenry is in fact Caesar, so it becomes our duty as Christian Caesars, to not hand this nation over to Satan on a platter…

And that includes the abominable concept of homosexual "marriage"

.

@ David Hardy. It has been almost 12 hours now. I think you were asked to provide the data about abuse amongst heterosexual couples. You were kind enough to provide it for homosexual couples. Surely it cannot be that difficult to provide for heterosexual couples...

Posted by: Delvin at November 14, 2009

Delvin...

If you have not been able in 12 hours of searching to come up with data that refutes mine, don't point the finger at me to provide it for you...

The ugly truth of the matter remains, that homosexuals are the most culpable as a group when it comes to the perpetration of hate crimes against homosexuals, than all of the heterosexuals put together...

.

@ David Hardy

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one.

Typical

And people wonder why religious folks are deemed brain dead, myopic, slanderous, bigoted and the most stupid amongst us...

Carry on - you are living up to every expectation of the blind, deaf and dumb :-)

You do yourself and your cause quite a deal of good when you continue to make such eh "intelligent" statements.

====================================================
David Hardy said:

"Delvin...

If you have not been able in 12 hours of searching to come up with data that refutes mine, don't point the finger at me to provide it for you...

The ugly truth of the matter remains, that homosexuals are the most culpable as a group when it comes to the perpetration of hate crimes against homosexuals, than all of the heterosexuals put together..."

@David Hardy, @Dan,

Is it just me or has Delvin offered solid evidence to back up very few of his/her claims?

@ Dan

The scriptures that I'm supposed to provide: did you miss the part where I said "when I'm in the mood."

I'm waiting for David Hardy to provide the data or lack thereof, of abuse within the heterosexual population. I don't understand what is taking him so long.

@David Hardy

Sometimes you say the absolutely strangest things – (and I’m being charitable here - It is Sunday after all.)

Sigh- I see you really have difficulty making a coherent argument unless you are plagiarizing some silly website or quoting bible verses huh?

Yes the USA is a constitutional republic and here is what John Adams said about it: “"a government of laws, and not of men. Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, (THE MAJORITY) thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

And here is what the Preamble of the Constitution of this great land says:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

So if the Amendments to our constitution disallow the government from establishing an official religion of the country. And if their stated goal is to ensure everyone is equally treated, then it stands to reason that religion cannot have any part to play in this issue. Otherwise we abridge the constitution.

Does Merriam Webster in it’s definition anywhere says that religious belief is the same amongst all people? Does it say anywhere that religion is solely a belief in the judeo/Christian concept of God?

Of course I believe that everyone have a belief in something. What has not apparently occurred to you is the blatantly obvious fact that not everyone believe in the same thing. Most people in America have money and pleasure as their god. Some people believe in atheism, some people are Wiccans, some people believe in animal spirits, some believe in Allah. Would you care to have some of those groups pass their own laws: laws that may infringe on Christian practices?

The rest of your post isn’t worth the effort.

I think you should stick to quoting scriptures and or plagiarizing nonsensical websites and or quoting the bible.

@cybereagle

I didn’t miss it. Truth be told it isn’t really a point, so it wasn’t worth much of a response.

Surely you know that same sex relationships exist in the animal kingdom. Didn’t you know this?

It can be argued that same sex relationships are nature’s way of eliminating the dumb and ugly amongst humanity. Gay people are by and large on average more intelligent, better educated, wealthier and look better.

What better biological imperatives do one need? Have you ever taken a gander at the peacock and it’s tail?

What do you mean gay people cannot produce?. Do you think a man looses the ability to produce sperm or a woman her eggs just because they are gay?

You are missing the point here as well. Human population is like a bell curve. You will find all sorts along the graded line. No one expects the entire population to be gay. Just as no one should expect it to be straight. Heck, even God didn’t.

One of the strategies opponents of same sex marriage use that I find funny is to try to defuse the connection between same sex marriage relations and slavery and segregation and women’s suffrage.

The connection that seems to be oblivious to you, even though it has been pointed out time and time again. Is that the bible was also used to keep those groups in their places until humanity saw the light and said such treatment cannot be allowed.
In case you are not aware. The constitution was written by men who had read the bible and the prevailing thought at the time was that blacks had the mark of Cain upon them. So yes indirectly the bible was used.

And the bible was definitely used to keep black people in slavery. And if you dare claim this is not true – May the God you serve have mercy on your soul.

But here's something for all of you to chew on

http://www.bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=151

I'm waiting for David Hardy to provide the data or lack thereof, of abuse within the heterosexual population. I don't understand what is taking him so long.

Posted by: Delvin at November 15, 2009

Delvin....

Here ya go....

Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk for contracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples:

· The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.[39] Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[40]

· A study of steady and casual male homosexual relationships in Amsterdam found that "steady partners contribute to (HIV) incidence more than casual partners. This can mainly be explained by the fact that risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners (30 versus 1.5 UAI [unprotected anal intercourse] acts annually)."[41]

· These findings confirmed an earlier study by the Dutch Department of Health and Environment, which found that 67 percent of HIV-positive men aged 30 and younger had been infected by a steady partner. The study concluded: "In recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one."[42]

"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk

The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false:

· The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW (women who have sex with women) was similar to all wsw."[43] One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."[44]

Greater Risk for Suicide

Homosexual and lesbian relationships experience a far greater rate of mental health problems compared to married couples.

· A twins study that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.[45]

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships
Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships:

· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[46]

· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[47]

· A study of lesbian couples reported in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."[48]

· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[49]

Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships

Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.

· The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Um, Delvin, you do realize that your third paragraph contradicts itself. Despite your second sentence, your first one implies that gay people are dumb and ugly.

Next, man + woman = offspring. man + man = nothing. woman + woman = nothing. That is what I'm referring to by gays cannot reproduce. Also, to save you some trouble, artificial insemination still requires a man at some point along the line, meaning that it does not qualify as a way for two lesbians to have a child.

It was uneducated men, not the Bible, who decided that black skin was the mark of Cain. As you said, the Bible was used "indirectly." Can you provide any references from the Bible supporting slavery or oppression of blacks? Anything can be misused for unintended purposes by mortal men.

@Delvin: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1240878/cry_baby/
Say - "One of these days if I am so inclined I will match scripture verses with you to show you the hilarity of the whole thing."

In the mood, yet? We can wait.

@CL: Re: "To Dan (and Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eyehaGWq4
Oh, CL, You are so funny. I didn't know lawyers had a sense of humor. Since you cannot defend your views of ss marriage/homosexual orientation from a biblical perspective, you resort to childish put downs. At least my humor is approaching 7th grade. Btw, I'm still waiting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuOiyfPHBjM

@Cybereagle: "Is it just me or has Delvin offered solid evidence to back up very few of his/her claims?" 0, zip, nada, none
I would be a lot less satirical toward the ss marriage/homosexual activists here if they would be more intellectually honest. DH and I continually challenge them to exegete the biblical texts in a reasonable and fair manner, and all they do is post their little diatribes never interacting honestly with the primary text - the bible. This has driven me to the point where I just post you tube videos as my reply. [Btw, Cybereagle, just between you and me, I have never heard an antihomosexual message in any of the conservative churches I've attended. And as an ordained minister, I've never preached one either. Shhhh! Don't tell CL or Delvin. They think I preach/listen to odious messages in church. I don't want to ruin my rep.]

@ Delvin

You have to understand something.
None of us truly know what the bible says. Since we were not there when it was written and since we are not the one who inspired it, at best- we think we know what it says. We all read it with our pre conceived notions layered upon it.

It therefore comes down to you to determine for yourself what it says. My grandmother used to say that God has no grand children. When we stand before Him: we – each of us will, have to give and account for how we lived our lives. You cannot take me or any church or religious leader with you. It will be you and God. Therefore live your life as you and God see fit. Not how I or anyone.

The poster David Hardy has said some scurrilous things that I think are irrational and bordering on lunacy. Please do not let this discourage you. Not all Christians are like this.

But our responsibility besides loving God and our fellow man, is to tell the world of the love of Christ and to indicate where people are going wrong as best we can. We are not called to legislate away people’s choices. The bible does say that a man should not lie with another man. It also condones the treatment of women as second class citizens and as well it does condone slavery. And it does forbid the eating of ham, lobster and crabs. Now these are not pleasant issues. But it is what it is. We cannot turn a blind eye and pretend this is not so. Do I have the answers - no. I too look forward to a better understanding day by day. And one day if not this side of eternity – I’m sure I will on the other side.

I enjoin you to read the bible for yourself and to ask God to make its truths known to you.
May God bless you

Actually I'm done with this topic and with this board. I have noticed that one of my posts in which I provided a link to show how the concept of marriage has been defined has been deleted.

It proves that this is not a place for open discussion. It is serves no purpose but to perpetuate and give precedence to one particular world view.

If the board owners are scared of dissenting views. They do have the right to remove any post they may choose. I will however not be a party to such censorship.

@ Anthony,

Thanks, but it is regrettable that there are not more of the Christians you talk about or at least you all are not more vocal.

None of us truly know what the bible says. Since we were not there when it was written and since we are not the one who inspired it

Posted by: Anthony at November 16, 2009

I disagree with your premise that we cannot truly understand the Bible...

1Corinthians 2:10 But we know these things because God has revealed them to us by his Spirit, and his Spirit searches out everything and shows us even God's deep secrets.

1Corinthians 2:11 No one can know what anyone else is really thinking except that person alone, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit.

1Corinthians 2:12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the world's spirit) so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

1Corinthians 2:13 When we tell you this, we do not use words of human wisdom. We speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths.

1Corinthians 2:14 But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means.

1Corinthians 2:15 We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can't understand us at all.

1Corinthians 2:16 How could they? For, "Who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who can give him counsel?" But we can understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.


.

The poster David Hardy has said some scurrilous things that I think are irrational and bordering on lunacy.

Do I have the answers - no.

Posted by: Anthony at November 16, 2009

Anthony...

If you do not have the answers... Then why do you pretend to pass jugement on me?

And more importantly still... You are referring to your negative opinion of the Bible with the contempt that you aim at me...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

@Anthony: "The poster David Hardy has said some scurrilous things that I think are irrational and bordering on lunacy. Please do not let this discourage you. Not all Christians are like this." Sometimes the truth is unpopular. Sometimes the truth just plain hurts. SS marriage proponents/homosexual activists refuse to interact with the biblical texts DH conveniently provided. That's not being scurrilous - that's being honest. Don't shoot the messenger. 2 Tim. 2:15 says "Be diligent to (A)present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling (B)the word of truth." If you don't know how to interpret the bible, read a book on basic hermenutics.
Also: "The bible does say that a man should not lie with another man." (I'm waiting for the ss marriage proponents/homosexual activists to begin your stoning.)
Also: "We are not called to legislate away people’s choices." Wrong! We do this every day. They are called "laws". Every law limits your choice in some way.
Also: "It also condones the treatment of women as second class citizens and as well it does condone slavery." Gal. 3:28 -28(AV)There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for (AW)you are all one in (AX)Christ Jesus." So what did Paul mean by this?
Also: "And it does forbid the eating of ham, lobster and crabs. Now these are not pleasant issues. But it is what it is. We cannot turn a blind eye and pretend this is not so." These were Jewish dietary laws for Jews alone. The Law was given as a tutor to bring us to Christ. Gal. 3:23ff.
Also: "Do I have the answers - no. None of do.
"I too look forward to a better understanding day by day." Ditto
"And one day if not this side of eternity – I’m sure I will on the other side." Ditto
@Delvin: I've had some of my posts removed as well.

re: Dan and Christian Lawyer:
First, Dan, thanks for your kind words. I basically agree with St. Augustine that Scripture is authoritative, and that Scripture interprets Scripture, so at the end of the day it's internally consistent, even though it often doesn't seem to be. That said, translations into English are sometimes problematic; if I know only of the NIV, I might be a Complimentarian (gasp!) but thanks to God, I have a father (on earth) who is a text critical scholar of the New Testament and who has been working on a book on the subject for a long time that's getting published this very month. (Shameless plug: Man and Woman: One in Christ, by Philip Payne, published by Zondervan, retail $19.50 on Amazon.) Basically, a high view of Scripture answers a lot of questions, but it forces one to think creatively trying to hold it all in tension. I totally agree with your view on Christians' responsibility to act, but not redeem the world. (If only blogging COULD get me extra credit!)

Christian Lawyer, thanks again for your post. On your being frightened by basing my law & politics on religion, I admit the idea can look scary at first glance to a modern eye. But what I mean is that my relationship with God means that my legal activism must reflect His relationship with humanity, which means I must not legislate my religion, among other things. To base legal theory on God (ultimately) does not necessarily mean that I'm legislating religion. Rather, my understanding of God leads me to a common (though subsequent) premise with others, who disagree with me on God, from which a shared legal framework can be constructed.

In essence, my political theory comes from St. Augustine's City of God, which views political action is an agreement ("compromise of wills") between Christians and non-Christians on the common good, as equals. So my belief in God leads me to the building block of democratic societies. You seemed to agree that religious views can positively impact law when you wrote, "we should advocate for laws that reflect that eternal truth [of mankind being made in the image of and loved by God]". Now if some people's religious views as applied to law harm that common good, I gladly make common cause with those who will oppose them, religious or no.

I also contend that religion unavoidably interacts with legal/political life, and the question is only which shall be the master (Plato's Euthyphro makes the point that ethics, which includes law, is either determined by the gods or the gods by ethics). If law determines God, that makes for bad theology (church co-opted by the state). If God determines law directly, then one might argue that makes for bad law (state co-opted by the church). Yet if God is the fount of legal principles and allows significant freedom to humans to perfect legal systems, that makes good law, (with a church that is neither the master nor servant, but the conscience of the state, as Martin Luther King Jr. put it). And that makes for good law and religion, interacting with but not conflating with each other. I also believe neither religious nor legal views can be proven, exactly, but religion can inform law.

On your view that human law is eternal and gradually discovered by humans like the laws of nature are discovered, that is remarkably progressive. It also suggests (along with your early objection about proof) that you believe human law can be proven in some sense. If so, in what sense is human law proven? If not, how is it revealed? You mentioned people of goodwill know it - how does one determine who that is? And if not from God, where does human law come from? These questions are sticky, but I think religion - or rather, God - is the answer.

@David Hardy & Dan

You misunderstood when I said I did not have the answers.

Most of us would admit that we barely can glimpse and understand the deep mysteries of God. Except for you both of course.

The poster Wazza tried explaining this to you, but obviously you did not get it. Which attests to this my following point?

For anyone to state (twice) that abuse amongst same sex couples is an indication of unhealthy relationships and consequently not reason for allowing them to form legalized partnerships is someone who has taken leave of his senses.

One poster subtly pointed out to you the stupidity of such an argument and what did you do? You posted verbatim an article from a nonsensical site. And I am askance that this posting was not deleted by the moderators btw. Then again perhaps it is as Delvin stated – only one world view is welcomed here.

To make this statement (twice) while blatantly ignoring the obvious does not speak highly of your intelligence or honesty. It also does not speak highly of your intelligence when someone makes a statement as well that that allowing same sex marriages in America would give rise to people marrying their pets.

Either you believe American men and women are rather different than their Canadian and European counterparts who have not married their pets since same sex marriages were allowed in their countries or…

You have used this as a straw man argument.

Please notice that I am leaving a third obvious point unsaid.

Either way – I cannot have a debate with someone who doesn’t demonstrate an ability to create coherent arguments.

I will continue to look forward to reading Christian Lawyer and Brendan’s posts and others with varying views on the issue.

@David Hardy & Dan

Most of us would admit that we barely can glimpse and understand the deep mysteries of God. Except for you both of course.

Posted by: Anthony at November 16, 2009

I never said that I knew everything that there is to know about God...

1Corinthians 13:9 Now we know only a little, and even the gift of prophecy reveals little!

1Corinthiansr 13:10 But when the end comes, these special gifts will all disappear.

1Corinthians 13:11 It's like this: When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.

1Corinthians 13:12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now.

1Corinthians 13:13 There are three things that will endure--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.

However, With God's help, I can read and understand the obvious...

And more importantly still... You are referring to your negative opinion of the Bible with the contempt that you aim at me...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.


To make this statement (twice) while blatantly ignoring the obvious does not speak highly of your intelligence or honesty. It also does not speak highly of your intelligence when someone makes a statement as well that that allowing same sex marriages in America would give rise to people marrying their pets.

Posted by: Anthony at November 16, 2009

Anthony...

You do have an affinity for using negative discriptive terms for those you disagree with, now don'tcha...

Homosexual behavior is a free-will choice. For homosexual "marriage" to be recognized to the exclusion of other sexual perversions would be playing favorites, in a perverted sort of way...

In order for homosexuals to be classified as a legitimate minority, of which they are most definately not, the Constitution would have to be ammended or re-written...

In which case all of the other sexual perverts would then crawl out of the wood-work in order to claim their "place at the table."

Because we have a constitutional republic and within that republic we have a representative democracy... We the people have a say in whether or not this country becomes a safe haven for sexual perverts of every stripe to flock here, like the pedophiles are flocking to Canada now...

.

@Anthony: "Most of us would admit that we barely can glimpse and understand the deep mysteries of God. Except for you both of course.

Posted by: Anthony at November 16, 2009 "

Mark Twain once said, "It ain't those parts of the bible that I don't understand that bother me, its the parts that I do understand."
Paul the Apostle said in Rom. 11:33ff. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unfathomable (inscrutable, unsearchable) are His judgments (His decisions)! And how untraceable (mysterious, undiscoverable) are His ways (His methods, His paths)!

34For who has known the mind of the Lord and who has understood His thoughts, or who has [ever] been His counselor?(H)

35Or who has first given God anything that he might be paid back or that he could claim a recompense?

36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. [For all things originate with Him and come from Him; all things live through Him, and all things center in and tend to consummate and to end in Him.] To Him be glory forever! Amen (so be it)."
[Amplified Bible]
There is much that we do not and cannot understand about God. But there is much that we do know and can understand. John 1:18 says, "18(A)No one has seen God at any time; (B)the only begotten God who is (C)in the bosom of the Father, (D)He has explained Him." Jesus has explained God in every way we need to know. If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. Paul the Apostle is the NT's major interpreter of what Jesus thought and believed. If you want to know what Jesus meant by what He said in the NT gospels, look at the writings of Paul. And Paul was very clear about moral issues including homosexual behavior, and by extension ss marriage.
Anthony: The biblical issue of ss marriage/homosexual behavior isn't brain surgery. The teaching of the Bible is crystal clear. (DH has consistently posted the scriptural references along with other references.) The nature and character of God clearly is revealed and it hasn't changed. Don't shoot the messengers because you don't like the message. Also, our laws - the spirit and the letter -are derived in large part from a Judeo/Christian understanding and perspective of what's right and wrong. Now, you progressives are trying to "unhitch the wagon" so to speak. You are attempting - and have succeeded in large measure, unfortunately - to divorce our laws from our traditional understanding and presuppositions. Well, "excuuuuuse me" if we traditionalist don't drink from your pitcher of cool aid. We think it's laced with poison. We have all of recorded biblical/church history to support our belief that ss marriage is incompatible with what we believe is a healthy society. And all you have is the last 30+ years of irrational secular rantings that try to convince biblically illiterate people that a secular/liberal homosexual interpretation of the bible is legitimate. Christians who know and believe the bible aren't buying that nonsense. Also, most conservative/traditionalists would still like to believe America is that "shining city on a hill" preserving the best in a biblical worldview. In the event the GLBT activists win the day and ss marriage becomes accepted in our country, we bible believing and bible loving christians will still uphold the Christian worldview as the ideal until He returns.


@Dan

I skip over David Hardy's postings. They are trivial and border on lunacy. I've stated this already.

So if as you state "the nature and character of God has not changed" and since there isn’t one verse from Genesis to Revelation that says thou shall not enslave anyone or slavery is an abomination- you shalt not do it – then it stands to reason that God condones slavery: But read them for your self:

In the following verses God gives instructions of how slaves are to be bought and dispensed with like live stock

Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

The following passage shows how a slave that happens to be a Hebrew is to be treated: Notice the hostage taking of the male slave’s wife and family. Family values anyone?

Exodus 21:2-6” If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."

The following verses God gives instructions on how to go about selling of your daughter into sexual slavery. Furthermore, a man can who can afford to, can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and have intercourse with them!

Exodus 21:7-11 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."


God, in the following verses says that you can beat both male and female slaves as long and as hard as you like so long as said slaves don’t die

Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.“

God even will Himself give the directive to have people sold into slavery:

Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.”

Opportunity in the New Testament to say slavery is an abomination? Why perish the thought… Slaves are further enjoined to enjoy their condition of servitude.

Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.”

1 Timothy 6:1-2 “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.”

Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect."

Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord..”

And on and on it goes…

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years. Why do you think it lasted so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word as you and David Hardy and many Christians like to state? Well, if that’s so then clearly since the Bible not only condones slavery, but actually encourages that cruel institution. It has, in fact, been effectively used to promote and preserve it. But at least we are following God's word right?


Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy states: “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation."

It is precisely in some of the verses that I’ve quoted above that some of the tortures that were inflicted on African Americans have their origins.

The whippings and when they tried to leave their masters, "Good" Christians of the day would drive nails and spikes through the ears of defenseless slaves whose only offense came from the will to no longer serve as slaves.

Not until after the Civil War did federal laws become enacted to protect African Americans from gross physical abuse. Even today, the KKK and "the Aryan Race" use the Bible as justification for their attacks against "Negroes."

So if the nature and character of God has been revealed and it doesn’t change. What then are we to do? For we as the human race has by and large gone against His edict and said that we will have no part in this heinous institution. I do know there are some parts of North Africa and the Mid East that still practice slavery, according to the United Nations. Perhaps that’s why they are so blessed…

Perhaps that’s why we in the West have gone wrong. Perhaps we have thumbed our noses at God when we decided to get rid of slavery.

@ Cybereagle

You asked where in the Bible does it state that African Americans were to be enslaved? It doesn't state African Americasns were to be enslaved.

I now ask you: Where in the bible does it state that Americans, Canadians, French, Swiss, Germans or the English same sex couples are not to have their union legalized?

Saint Augustine: "Slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance."

I now ask you: Where in the bible does it state that Americans, Canadians, French, Swiss, Germans or the English same sex couples are not to have their union legalized?

Posted by: Anthony at November 17, 2009


Right here...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

@Anthony: First, I would encourage you NOT to skip over DH's posts. They are full of good scriptural references. You should listen to the word of God, believe it, and obey it. That is the only safe route to take. Second, You ask here the same kind of question that the Pharisees asked Jesus in Matt. 19:7,8 - "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
I would answer in a similar vein about slavery. God allowed slavery b/c the OT Israelites' hearts were hard - which was the same reason He allowed divorce. The OT Israelites had picked up a lot of bad social habits by the time Moses gave them the law.
Regarding slavery in the USA - it was allowed in part by those founding fathers, so I understand, to bring the Southern states into the newly formed USA. In hindsight, we might say it was the most stupid, immoral decision ever and foisted misery on countless of Africans. And by the way not everyone agreed with it when our country was formed. And so what if Jefferson Davis stated slavery was decreed by God. His interpretation is not the word of God. (And by the way, did slavery ever help our country? NO! We are still suffering the consequences to this day of that sin.) Also, you might want to get a NT perspective on slavery. Read Galatians 3:19-26, and Philemon for starters. It has been the theological reflection on the word of God that has led to laws banning the traffiking in human beings. Finally,I may not know how to explain everything in God's word, but I do know some things and the bible plainly says God's nature and character never change. Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years. Why do you think it lasted so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word as you and David Hardy and many Christians like to state?

Posted by: Anthony at November 17, 2009

Actually Anthony... No...

The United States of America is not a Christian nation... It is a Constitutional Republic...

A Christian nation would be a theocracy, much like the ancient Hebrews were...

While I do believe that the founders of this nation were guided by Judeo/Christian principals and while I also believe that it is both legal, fair and just that the laws of this country reflect those principals... The USA is still, at the end of the day, a Constitutional Republic...

We have a majority of our citizens who profess Christian beliefs, yet that does not make the USA a "Christian nation."

Nor does it at all indicate that the laws of the land are in agreement with biblical principals...

Case in point... The Holocaust of over 45,000,000 babies murdered since 1973 due to Roe v Wade...

To say that you have a distorted view of slavery in the Bible would be putting it both mildly and politely..

To attempt to justify the practice of homosexuality based upon your skewed understanding of Scripture, and baseless parallel with slavery, is ludicrous...

.

Anthony: God accomodated Himself to the OT socio/cultural context and He accomodates Himself today to our's. Jesus said so Himself in the verse I posted above regarding divorce. He allowed divorce, as Jesus said, due to the hardness of the Israelites hearts. I find the same principle working in the slave issue. Slavery was a cultural institution - but God did not create it, and like divorce it was not that way in the beginning. Jesus came to redeem people in the midst of their sinful socio/cultural context. (Do you really think He was for the Roman military, yet He healed the centurion's child.) He didn't have to come out and explicitly teach against slavery for slavery to be seen as an evil institution. To simply believe what He taught changed people on the inside. People became convinced of slavery's evilness because of the truth of God's word. They figured it out as they processed the truth that since every person was created in the image of God no one has the right to mistreat someone so created. And speaking of the slavery issue here in the America, have you forgotten the many white Christians who were against slavery?
Anthony, you have created a scenario about what God should be like and what He should have done - but it's just wishful thinking on your part. You presume to judge God. Good luck with that.
"Allowing is the same as condoning..." Oh, how wrong you are. God allows you to slander others on this post, but He doesn't condone it. He allows you to talk against His word and His Son, but He doesn't condone it. He allows millions of babies to be aborted every year, but He doesn't condone it. Need I go on? And Anthony, homosexual behavior was prohibited before the law was given (by inference see the story in Gen. of Adam and Eve - God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve - and later of Lot), in the Law (Leviticus), and by inference by Jesus' teaching on marriage, and by Paul (see those conveniently posted verses above). Now, you may not believe the bible is the word of God. So what have you replaced it with? Your own sense of what's right and wrong? I wonder where you got that? If there is no objective moral absolutes, then as Dostoevsky reputedly said, "If there is no God, everything is permissable." No rights. No wrongs. Just opinions. Legislation, then, becomes morality. In essence, might becomes right. The side that wins the culture war gets to make the rules. And if you say there are no moral absolutes, well, then, Anthony, I say, "Congratulation, you just formed one."

Anthony....

You make much of physical slavery and overlook the most pervasive form of slavery that has ever been known to mankind... The free-will selling of oneself into slavery to sin..

Try to wrap your mind around this...

2Peter 2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

2Peter 2:18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

2Peter 2:19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

2Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

2Peter 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

2Peter 2:22 Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."


.

Dan said

Is that so? How then do you account for him not accommodating – eating ham and shell fish, and lying and coveting and bearing false witness? Which I am sure both you and I would agree- combined do not reach the level of the evil of slavery. How is it that He did not accommodate murder? How come He did not accommodate men sleeping with men? How come He did not accommodate Himself to human sacrifice?

But just suppose you are right and He did accommodate Himself- Who is to say that He won’t again?

Dan said:

You find the same principle working here? Two things here. Are you saying God created same sex relationships then; and thus the reason why He can do the “Thou shalt not?”. I’m sure David Hardy must be turning all shades if this is your parity in thought. Because you see Dan, same sex relationships were from time immemorial according to the bible. And just like slavery, and murder and worshipping of idols and lying and stealing, it too was a part of OT society.

But we really should not talk about what was done in the beginning. To do so only weakens your case: as lots of things were done in the beginning that would be untenable with us today.

Dan said:

So then Dan – If he doesn’t speak on an issue that was current in his time. How do we know how we are supposed to deal with it now, especially if there are other parts in the bible that give allowance and condone said issue?

If He didn’t speak about it to change the direction or to reinforce it – we would have to agree that His approval was at a minimum tacit: because if He disapproved He surely would have said something about it.

He didn’t have to speak about divorce and adultery and yet He did. I wonder why? He didn’t have to speak about loving your neighbor and yet He did. I wonder why? He didn’t have to speak about avoiding violence: and yet He did. I wonder why? And do you know what I find truly fascinating- these very things He did speak of not to do are the very same things that you and David Hardy can and have rationalized away. Case in point the right to bear arms. Case in point the justification for the crap in Iraq.
The bible says He came to confirm the law- It was allowed by the law which he confirmed. He had ample opportunity to make a definitive stance and say do not. He didn’t. He thus showed his approval of the institution by not doing so.

But let’s continue to use your earlier example of divorce… He taught that marriage was to be until death do the couples part. Clearly teaching that even though God may have given a pass because of bad habits (your words) there was to be no such allowance.
Did He make such a statement on slavery?– no He didn’t . Not only didn’t He, but Paul later came along and further reinforced the institution.

And yet here we are in present day- we Christians have completely ignored his teachings on divorce, adultery and fornication. As a matter of fact, the very men and women of God who are supposed to be leaders of the flock are themselves practitioners of the art of divorce, redefining what Jesus said about it so that they too can indulge. And then have the unmitigated gall to tell others who they can form a partnership with. I wonder how many divorced people you are friends with?…

Dan said

Just as Christians and other people today, have become convinced that the truth of God’s word does not prohibit two consenting adults who love each other to form a legalized, committed bond to each other.

Just like you and David Hardy do not have the right to treat anyone like second class citizens and attempt to legislate who they should not love or love. I am so glad that this is now apparent to you.

I have created no scenario Dan. I have simply stated what is in God’s word. It may not be to your liking. But the words are clearly written for you and anyone to read them.
If truth be told you are the one who has created the scenarios to explain what is clearly written – in order to match your particular world view.

Me judge God? I think at the start of this conversation – I stated quite clearly that I am humbled that I know nothing. That the more I glimpse God’s truth the more I realize that I know nothing. I think I was the one that clearly stated that if not on this side of eternity –then I hope see a little more clearly on the other side.
I think I was the one who agreed with Wazza that God is amazing and I can barely understand anything of His mighty works.

I think you and David Hardy were the ones to claim that you understood God.

You see Dan. I don’t know how old you are, but I am 46 and I’ve realized that the bible is an incredible complex document having studied it for well over 25 years. I’ve learned one thing - you have got to be very careful with it once you start pontificating. And you do not have the liberty of picking and choosing your pet topics to be self righteous on. It comes as a whole package.

So no Dan, I am not competent to judge God. (That’s a straw man, btw) What I am however competent to do is to judge your interpretation of His word. What I am competent to do is to judge the equivocations and the weaseling that is often done by many who have little idea of what they are talking about. Who take the parts that suit them and pretend that the other parts don’t exist.

Dan said

Yes, you do need to go on Dan. Because I’m afraid that you are reverting to straw men again. Once again you are purpoting to speak for God and unless He has made you His prophet – I don’t think you have anymore claim to His words than any other of His children. Once again you are trying to twist my words and I’ve explained this at length. But here it is in a nutshell – If God gives rules and laws of how to treat people in a particular thing, then yes He is allowing and therefore condoning it. For the last time – let’s use your favorite marriage example. He gave an out of marriage – divorce only under adultery. I am saying that He did condone and therefore allow divorce when it’s a case of adultery? God said it by giving the rules and regulations. Jesus further said it. Who are you to claim they didn’t? Which is basically what you are doing.

But Dan, do you think God wants robots who don’t think for themselves? Why do you think the bible say to study the word? Why do you think the bible is not written clearer?

Do you think God doesn’t want us to ask the tough questions? Do you think you can just sweep things under the proverbial rug because it may not paint a particular good picture? Do you think so little of your god that you run and hide and revert to straw men when a difficult question arises?

Well you see Dan, my God wants me to ask the tough questions and study His Word and if I don’t find the answer; well it just means I haven’t found it as yet. I just don’t know as yet. It doesn’t mean I run from them and pretend they don’t exist.

Dan said

Oh dear me Dan. Please don’t tell me you are going to do what David Hardy does now…

Do you really think Lot and Sodom had anything to do with same sex relations? If you think it did and clearly you do; explain then why Lot offered to send his daughters outside for the men to have sex with them? What gay man do you know who wants to have sex with women? Now if Lot had sent his sons out, then perhaps a better case could be made… But no!

God created Adam and Eve, yes. What does that have to do with it ? We both agree that this is how the human population propagates. Are you stating that human relationships are for the sole purpose of propagating? When he created Adam and Eve did He give a commandment that men should not sleep with each other? Don’t you think He should have done it then?

By the way do you notice He also did not give a commandment to not have sex with your own family members? Who did you think Cain and the rest of his siblings had sex with?

Jesus made no such inference – Jesus simply answered a specific question that was asked of him. Now had they bought two men who were involved in a relationship and asked the question – then we would have known exactly what he meant to say.

Paul stated man sleeping with man is a sin- but he also stated that slaves should be glad they are slaves and should give honor to their masters. So exactly what point are you trying to prove?

Dan said

You’ve committed so many fallacies here, that I don’t even know where to begin answering this. And I don’t think I will. I think I’ve already said quite enough. Suffice to say this

Why do you think your right is right and others aren’t?

Whether you or I believe anything in the bible is a sin- is subject to our interpretation of it. Christ in the New Testament offers a message of love chief and foremost. And this love offered is not conditional. Rather than you or I trying to be God and pass judgment and legislate away peoples rights, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality. To preach God’s word to a lost humanity and pray for change of hearts and allow the state to do what the state is supposed to do. And allow God to do what He intends to do.

Because He will irrespective of what you and I will do.

Me judge God? I think at the start of this conversation – I stated quite clearly that I am humbled that I know nothing. That the more I glimpse God’s truth the more I realize that I know nothing.

Posted by: Anthony at November 18, 2009

Anthony...

I took you at your word the first time you mentioned that you didn't know anything about God...

You did not need to go to such elaborate and great lengths to prove it...

Ecclesiastes 10:10 Since a dull ax requires great strength, sharpen the blade. That's the value of wisdom; it helps you succeed.

Ecclesiastes 10:11 It does no good to charm a snake after it has bitten you.

Ecclesiastes 10:12 It is pleasant to listen to wise words, but the speech of fools brings them to ruin.

Ecclesiastes 10:13 Since fools base their thoughts on foolish premises, their conclusions will be wicked madness.

.

@Anthony: Hey, bro. just one request: please supply me with one verse - just one - only one - from the bible that supports same sex marriage or homosexual behavior. Because if you can't, then you got nothin'. You are just blowing smoke and bloviating. (And I thought I could bloviate. You beat me hands down!) You may justify your behavior based on your own addiction/orientation/perversion/moral code, but you can't say you base your beliefs on the bible. DH has supplied you with many, many verses that you refuse to exegete - I wonder why?

There will be a next time, an a next time, ..., and many will grow weary because this is not a core dogma to fight so hard for, and there are moral and biblical doubts on the basis of fighting. However, it gets more and more personal for gays as their very marriage is banned and the longer the wait, the more angst there is.

This is all a waste of money, time, and lost of moral and spiritual credibility. Straight Marriages would not be impacted when it does get through, but we will loose our conscience and speaking right about the gospel message about Christ.

http://www.psa91.com/maine.htm

@Dan

My sincerest apologies for bloviating as you term it. It was not my intent. Since it was apparent that you did not understand Christian Lawyer’s responses to you - I assumed that they were written at too high a level for your comprehension. I did not want you to revert to ad hominem attacks and or droll attempts at humor as a defense mechanism for lack of ability to comprehend and or create a coherent response. Alas!!

If you think my raising the issue of slavery and pointing out to you what the bible says about it makes me less of a Christian than you because of your belief on same sex relationships. Well Dan, all I can say is that I envy you for never having had a tough question asked of you. I will pray that none is ever asked of you. You don’t seem very confirmed in your faith.

Can I suggest you do as His word suggests when He said:

2 Tim 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”

1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

I mentioned in one of my very first messages that I read 20 or so of David Hardy’s posts: and that thereafter I would skip all his further postings. I do this since he adds nothing to the discussion.

His scripture postings do not require an exegete interpreting. I dare say I know them just as well as he does and the rest of the bible even better than he.

Further, no amount of exegete interpreting would shed light on his non scripture ramblings. There is too much lunacy involved. And to make matters worse they are not even his original thoughts.

Any way Dan, I enjoin you to continue to pay careful attention to the homosexual issue (I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here) to keep reading the Bible and to pay attention to further aspects of your faith. Believe it or not – this is not the only thing God will judge you on.

The body of Christ has benefited little from the efforts to blacklist and call into account individuals’ dedication to Christ simply for contributing to the dialogue on this issue. I continue to hope that God will yet bring healing to the church on this issue. Christians cannot afford to resort to fear-mongering. Discussion on this issue must not and cannot be allowed to be hijacked and driven by individuals who are driven by fear, or insecurity or a will to power.

The Peace of God be with you.

@Anthony; Still waiting for scriptural support for ss marriage/homosexual behavior. Of course, I know that you don't feel you need it - b/c you have divorced your morality from the bible. Otherwise, you would be obediant to the word of God. But if you are going to convince conservative, traditional Christians that ss marriage/homosexual behavior is scripturally allowed you've got to come up with some biblical support. Otherwise, you got nothin' which is what you pretty much have now. For someone who says he doesn't know anything you say you know alot.
The rest of your drama is tedious. Lastly, see DH's scriptural posts on your behavior.

Another one of these websites? Is there no end to them?

Christian Lawyer, brilliant analysis

Danial Hardy, good scripture verses

Anthony, brilliant analysis of the partitioning of Christianity and some of the incongruencies.

Dan, give it a rest. Anthony ran rings around you. If someone had told me "The Peace of God be with me." I would get the message that that they are nicely sending, i.e. that they are done with the topic.

Ultimately it will be a matter for the courts to decide how this pans out anyhow.

@Mark: "Anthony ran rings around you." And yet he could not produce 1 verse that supported ss marriage/homosexual behavior. Hmmmm. Which is what I asked for from the other lib/postmods/ss marriage promoters who want to use the bible to justify their beliefs and behavior. I did not engage his rant after a while. It seemed pointless. And all he could produce is liberal/postmod biblical analysis. Think I'll stick with the bible. By the by, I'm sure you can produce one, just one verse to justify biblical support for ss marriage/homosexual behavior? See DH's verses and please exegete them for us all. You sound so awesomely wise.

Danial Hardy, good scripture verses

Posted by: Mark at November 19, 2009

Thank You?

.

@ Dan

You are sounding like a petulant little child now. Go sit in the corner and lick your wounds in peace. You were spanked and spanked good.
One should never kick a dog when it's down, I'm told.

Here's a little something for you to ruminate on while you are in the corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY

@Gentle Lamb,

You certainly got that right. Christians are doing more harm than good. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a 100 years time. A shame I won't be around to see it.

You certainly got that right. Christians are doing more harm than good. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a 100 years time. A shame I won't be around to see it.

Posted by: Mark at November 19, 2009

Mark...

Your attitude is as old as Christianity itself... and very similar to that of the high council...

Gamaliel was the only one who got it right... They were fighting against God...

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than human authority.

Acts 5:30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by crucifying him.

Acts 5:31 Then God put him in the place of honor at his right hand as Prince and Savior. He did this to give the people of Israel an opportunity to turn from their sins and turn to God so their sins would be forgiven.

Acts 5:32 We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit, who is given by God to those who obey him."

Acts 5:33 At this, the high council was furious and decided to kill them.

Acts 5:34 But one member had a different perspective. He was a Pharisee named Gamaliel, who was an expert on religious law and was very popular with the people. He stood up and ordered that the apostles be sent outside the council chamber for a while.

Acts 5:35 Then he addressed his colleagues as follows: "Men of Israel, take care what you are planning to do to these men!

Acts 5:36 Some time ago there was that fellow Theudas, who pretended to be someone great. About four hundred others joined him, but he was killed, and his followers went their various ways. The whole movement came to nothing.

Acts 5:37 After him, at the time of the census, there was Judas of Galilee. He got some people to follow him, but he was killed, too, and all his followers were scattered.

Acts 5:38 "So my advice is, leave these men alone. If they are teaching and doing these things merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown.

Acts 5:39 But if it is of God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God."


.

@Mark: Please provide me with one verse, just one, from the scriptures or something from the last 20 centuries of church history that supports homosexual behavior. You can't build a biblical pro-homosexual/ss marriage theology without scriptural support. And Mark, according to your brilliant analysis, you think I got spanked, please feel free to ask any question you think I should have answered. I will do my humble best to answer you. Likewise, I don't think I got my questions answered either from A. or any other posters. Sooooo....How about those verses supporting ss marriage/homosexual behavior? Working on those? But all I hear is the gloating of one who will not engage, but sits and gloats. Hmmmmm.

@Dan

child, "the peace of god be with thee" :-)

David Hardy

I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with your scripture verses this time around.

@Mark: "...the peace of god be with thee" also. Here's something for you to enjoy. I know you will. I like to listen to it often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tc9HRxHGgY

David Hardy

I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with your scripture verses this time around.

Posted by: Mark at November 20, 2009

Mark...

The high council thought of the apostles then, much the same as you think of Christians now....

God's purpose was accomplished then... God's purpose is being accomplished now...

I can tell you what will happen 100 years from now...

God's purpose shall be accomplished...

1Corinthians 1:18 I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God.

1Corinthians 1:19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

1Corinthians 1:21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe.

1Corinthians 1:22 God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom.

1Corinthians 1:23 So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense.

1Corinthians 1:24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, [fn] Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God.

God's will be done...

.

@David Hardy

I still don't know why you threw in all those scriptures. Quite pointless really

And you have no idea what I think of Christians.

And I have a bit of news for you. You have absolutely no idea what God's purpose is. To claim that you do is a sin! Unless you want to tell me that you are God. Are you God?

@David Hardy

I still don't know why you threw in all those scriptures. Quite pointless really

And you have no idea what I think of Christians.

And I have a bit of news for you. You have absolutely no idea what God's purpose is. To claim that you do is a sin! Unless you want to tell me that you are God. Are you God?

Posted by: Mark at November 21, 2009

Mark...

The Bible verses that I referenced demonstrate how much in error the high council was regarding the activities of the apostles... That highlights just how much in error you are by alleging that "Christians are doing more harm than good."

Christians are responding to the Holy Spirit and are about the Master's business...

When you refer to me as Danial(Denial) and the go on to state that "Christians are doing more harm than good," it is very apparent what you think very little of Christians...

As for your news flash... I never claimed to personally know God's purposes... However, I do know that his purposes shall be accomplished... they always have and they always will be...

You then go on to accuse me of sin and follow it up by insinuating that I am playing God...

Here's a news flash for you... Only God knows if I have sinned against Him... And I also know that He is faithful to convict me of sin... So for you to make such a claim that I am sinning against God... Indicates that it is you who is actually trying to play God....

.


@Mark: "And I have a bit of news for you. You have absolutely no idea what God's purpose is." Not necessarily so.
*Luke 4:43 But He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, (A)for I was sent for this PURPOSE."
*Mark 1:38 He said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for."
*Luke 7:30 30But the Pharisees and the [a](A)lawyers rejected God's PURPOSE for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
* Acts 20:27 "For I (A)did not shrink from declaring to you the whole (B)PURPOSE of God.
*22"After He had (A)removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, '(B)I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.'
*Romans 8:28 And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His PURPOSE.
*2 Corinthians 5 1For we know that if the (A)earthly (B)tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house (C)not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2For indeed in this house we (D)groan, longing to be (E)clothed with our dwelling from heaven,

3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

4For indeed while we are in this tent, we (F)groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be (G)clothed, so that what is (H)mortal will be swallowed up by life.

5Now He who prepared us for this very PURPOSE is God...
*1 Thessalonians 4:7 7For (A)God has not called us for (B)the PURPOSE of impurity, but in sanctification.
* Jeremiah 23 - 20"The (AU)anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has (AV)performed and carried out the PURPOSES of His heart; (AW)In the last days you will clearly understand it.
*John 10:10 1"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they (A)may have life, and have it abundantly.
Mark; Clearly, the bible tells us we can know SOME of the purposes of God. For example:
1. that the gospel is preached
2. that we should believe on Christ and have life
3. Paul preached the whole purpose of God (so people then knew it)
4. Obedience to God's commandments
5. to prepare for heaven
6. for sanctification

David Hardy, only God can decide who is worthy. Even if gays were "lost sheep," even then would they be worthy of God's love.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at November 21, 2009

cl...

None of us are worthy of God's love...

Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we proudly display our righteous deeds, we find they are but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall. And our sins, like the wind, sweep us away.

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Romans 3:12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

Matthew 11:10 John is the man to whom the Scriptures refer when they say, `Look, I am sending my messenger before you, and he will prepare your way before you.'

Matthew 11:11 "I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the most insignificant person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!

Luke 3:16 John answered their questions by saying, "I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am--so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

And while the shepherd loves even the lost sheep... he will not force them to come home to Him against their own free-will...

Luke 15:17 "When he finally came to his senses, he said to himself, `At home even the hired men have food enough to spare, and here I am, dying of hunger!

Luke 15:18 I will go home to my father and say, "Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you,

Luke 15:19 and I am no longer worthy of being called your son. Please take me on as a hired man." '

Luke 15:20 "So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long distance away, his father saw him coming. Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him.

Luke 15:21 His son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you, and I am no longer worthy of being called your son. [fn]'

Luke 15:22 "But his father said to the servants, `Quick! Bring the finest robe in the house and put it on him. Get a ring for his finger, and sandals for his feet.

Luke 15:23 And kill the calf we have been fattening in the pen. We must celebrate with a feast,

Luke 15:24 for this son of mine was dead and has now returned to life. He was lost, but now he is found.' So the party began.

Notice what Jesus said in verse 24... "for this son of mine was dead and has now returned to life."

If those who by their own free-will remain in unrepentant rebellion, they will die in their sins and be dead to the Father...

Starting with Adam... Mankind has taken the riches of God's inheritance and squandered it away... And while God seeks to save those who are lost... He will not force the gift of salvation upon them...

Hbrews 2:1 So we must listen very carefully to the truth we have heard, or we may drift away from it.

Hbrews 2:2 The message God delivered through angels has always proved true, and the people were punished for every violation of the law and every act of disobedience.

Hbrews 2:3 What makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation that was announced by the Lord Jesus himself?

.


@CL: " This from one who arrogates for himself the right to determine who is "worthless"in the eyes of God: "
Titus 1:9-10 "...holding fast THE FAITHFUL WORD which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in (AI)sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

10(AJ)For there are many (AK)rebellious men, (AL)empty talkers and deceivers,... "
AND: Acts 5:38,39 require another interpretation than the one you inferred due to the context of those verses.
*Here's the context from Act 5:27-32 -
"27When they had brought them, they stood them before (AH)the Council. The high priest questioned them,

28saying, "We gave you (AI)strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and (AJ)intend to bring this man's blood upon us."

29But Peter and the apostles answered, "(AK)We must obey God rather than men.

30"(AL)The God of our fathers (AM)raised up Jesus, whom you had (AN)put to death by hanging Him on a cross.

31"(AO)He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a (AP)Prince and a (AQ)Savior, to grant (AR)repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

32"And we are (AS)witnesses [b]of these things; and (AT)so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

Mark, I was just wondering: are you here for actual debate or to just put down the Christians on this board?

@Cybereagle

I’ve been a lurker on this board for about a year now and from my observation, putting down some christians on this board is an incredibly easy thing for anyone to do. It’s like taking candy from the proverbial baby.

I would be here for the debate if there was a debate to be had. However the posters that seem to have the ability to debate soon leave or don’t post often. The ones who don’t have the ability are the ones inundating the boards with nonsense and stupidity. It’s like the proverbial empty vessels making the most noise.

The only people who I have seen debating thus far are:
Christian Lawyer
Anthony
Brendan
Justin
Original Anna and a few others
And Dan from time to time (then he gets defensive and resorts to poor attempts at humor). A purely weak defense mechanism.

You, David Hardy and sometimes Dan don't have the ability it seems to string a proper thought together. You instead resort to slinging all sort of bible verses sometimes over 20 in one post: and this whether what is being said demands it or not.
And when you are not doing the inundation with bible verses you have David Hardy making the most inane statements like “gay people have abusive relationships so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.” How do you expect to have a debate with someone who can make a statement like this over and over again… It demonstrates that such a person do not have the intelligence to have a debate.

Regards to the inundation of scripture verses: here is what it does if it is not apparent to you, David Hardy and Dan

It becomes overkill
It doesn’t indicate that you know the scriptures. Anyone can use google
It proves the person who is doing it, doesn’t have the wherewithal to make a valid creative thought of his own.
People soon stop reading the posts as some posters have indicated several times.
Thus the effect that is intended to be had is completely lost.

A word of advice – use scripture quotes judiciously. Like a surgeon with a scalpel.
Refer to Christian Lawyer’s or Anthony’s post. You may not agree with their position, but their arguments are well reasoned and scriptures are well thought and used to fit the occasion.

Which reminds me: that poster Anthony asked you a simple but telling question. You never answered it. Instead David Hardy threw more scripture verses showing that he completely did not get the subtext to the question.

And that’s another thing – as a Christian it is ok to say that you don’t understand if you don’t. It is ok to admit that one of your held beliefs indeed doesn’t make sense. To do so helps you to grow and mature. It is part of honesty.

Christian Lawyer said “David Hardy, only God can decide who is worthy. Even if gays were "lost sheep," even then would they be worthy of God's love...."

David Hardy replied: “CL
None of us are worthy of God's love..."
Then proceeded to post 21 scripture verse.

David Hardy, I don’t know if you are off your medication or something, but I’m really beginning to get worried about you now. You need to relax, chill and gain some perspective.

Christian Lawyer never said anyone is worthy of God’s love. She said that God is the only one who can make the decision on who is worthy of his love. That even if gay people are considered lost sheep that God is still the only one who will decide whether they are worthy of his love or not.

You don’t have that ability – no matter how many scripture verses you quote
I don’t have it
Dan doesn’t have it
NO one HAS IT BUT God

Do you understand what Christian Lawyer is saying now?

Mark, I haven't actually quoted any Bible verses on this or, to my knowledge, any other ChristianityToday.com board I've posted on. As for my debating skill, I've debated others on another Christian site on various subjects, as well as a now-friend with a Ph.D in Biology on evolution. If more on this board would back up their claims (Christian Lawyer has admittedly done well at this with her references to legal cases), then perhaps the debate would be more interesting.

As for Anthony's post, I had a busy workday and thought that completing the work I was supposed to be doing was a higher priority than answering him. Also, since David Hardy answered the question well, I didn't want to "reinvent the wheel." The question was I now ask you: Where in the bible does it state that Americans, Canadians, French, Swiss, Germans or the English same sex couples are not to have their union legalized?" So, DH posted multiple verses against homosexuality. Looking back, I realize that his point was that, while the Bible does not specify blacks, or African-Americans (whichever you prefer), it condones slavery in general. Slavery was a part of all civilizations at the time and the purpose of the scriptures were to save souls, which was more important. However, freeing slaves is mentioned in the Bible. Research the Year of Jubilee. As for why I think DH answered the question well, he answered it seriously, instead of treating it as sarcasm.

Some of DH's scripture verses also show that, as someone may or may not have said in the past 250+ posts, homosexuality is a sin and should not be condoned. However, as Christians, we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. In other words, we are taught to show God's love to them while also pointing out that they should not be practicing homosexuality.

I just remembered something else that both you and Anthony should research: the background story of a man named Onesimus. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do so, right now.

@Mark: The glut of verses that you so disdainfully refer to as overkill by DH is actually his providing you progressives with what you always decry Christians don't provide: context. Context = framework, circumstances
Synonyms: background, conditions, connection, frame of reference, situation. Case in point: homosexual behavior. You progressives/liberals/postmods simply dismiss the traditional christian teaching (20 centuries worth!) prohibiting homosexual behavior with a "wave of the hand" stating those verses cannot mean what conservatives think they do. "You must pay close attention," you drone in predictable sonorous tones, "to the context." As if conservatives don't. Even though from the beginning of the bible to the end (how much more context do you need?) homosexual behavior is always condemned - always. Show me once where it is actually enjoined. One of the homosexual posters on another CT blog actually was honest and admitted this. But when you, CL, Anthony et al provide what you think is context, it is tenuous at best - just wishful thinking proposed by so-called scholars with dubious motives. You all remind me of the old joke in which a man's wife came home and found him in the arms of another woman. Confident of his ability to talk his way out of it, he said, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes?" You have the primary text in front of you and deny its plain meaning. You resort to every logical fallacy you can from red herrings to weak analogy to ad hominem attack to draw the attention away from the primary text. Because you can't handle the primary text! And you hate it when DH faithfully provides you with whole passages that refute your fanciful interpretations. I notice that none of you ever produce a single verse in support of ss marriage/homosexual behavior. You just talk - talk - talk, always avoiding ever providing scriptural support, pretending shock and dismay at those who believe homosexual behavior is prohibited by scriptures (Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes?).
And then, Mark, your two bloviating posts slamming Christians are wonderful examples of sweeping generalizations. Really, they were are joke. You sit, criticize, make fun of others, but you contribute nothing, son, nothing to the debate/discussion/arguement. I second Cybereagle: "...are you here for actual debate or to just put down the Christians on this board?" So, follow your own advice, bud.