California voters may have to face the issue of gay marriage again on the 2010 ballot if the state Supreme Court decides to uphold the passage of Proposition 8.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Steve Yeater)In this file photo, Rosana Mendoza, 14, left, gets a hug from her sister Bianca, 4, before a rally in support of Proposition 8 in Sacramento, Calif., on Monday, Oct. 20, 2008.
Equality California, a gay rights group which ran the "No on 8" campaign, said this week it intends to launch an effort to put a ballot initiative to reverse the gay marriage ban in two years should current legal efforts fail.
"We will go back to the ballot only after we have exhausted our legal avenues and after we have a majority of voters with us," said Geoffrey Kors, the group's executive director, according to The Associated Press.
While the San Francisco-based organization has indicated that it was not currently active in pursuing a repeal effort, one gay rights group said they have already begun an effort to put an initiative reversing Prop. 8 on the 2010 ballot.
A group called Courage Campaign said it is taking lessons from the "Yes on 8" campaign and attempting to build a grassroots network, similar to the network of churches used to support Prop. 8, that would boost the repeal effort.
"The problem was, the other side ran a better media campaign, and had thousands and thousands of people, typically through churches, who they were organizing," the Campaign's founder Rick Jacobs told Capitol Weekly.
As of Friday, the group garnered over 180,000 signatures toward a petition to repeal Prop. 8.
If a repeal effort does appear on the 2010 ballot, it would be the third time Californian voters has considered a ballot initiative concerning gay marriage.
Last week, state voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, 52 to 48 percent. In 2000, 61 percent approved a similar ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 22, which was opposed by 39 percent of voters.
Following Prop. 8's passage, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit, Strauss v. Horton, on behalf of several same-sex couples and Equality California.
The lawsuits ask the California Supreme Court to block the measure from taking effect, which would allow gay marriages to continue under the Court's ruling in May.
The suits also challenge the validity of the measure and argues that the measure prevents the courts from protecting fundamental rights. "Any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters," argued Equality California in a press release.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal firm, has filed a motion to intervene to defend against the lawsuits. A number of Christian-based groups have also filed amicus briefs arguing against the opponents of Prop. 8.
"The law suit seeking to block Proposition 8 is patently frivolous," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in a statement. "The people have a right to amend their constitution."
Glen Lavy, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said there was "no structural revision to the state constitution" that took place.
"The people have simply restored the definition of marriage that the constitution has always assumed," he stated.
Christians are outraged as thousands of protesters surround Mormon temples and Protestant churches, chanting such words as "Mormon scum" and vandalizing church property and church members' cars. Continue >>
RSS
Let us do what the Israelites did at Jericho . Take the city with a shout unto GOD with a voice of triumph. You know if we sought strategies from HIM to get all the gays saved then guess who's going to protest, all those newly saved folks will focus their energies to tear down Satan's Kingdom. Let us pray their eyes opened and their hearts ready to receive their saviour.
"I'm a neurosurgeon"
My wife is a nurse (CVICU) and knows a few neurosurgeons. At least you have a sense of humor....
:D
LOL. I'm a neurosurgeon, so I'm not going to justify that sarcasm with a comment.
"gotta go. "
we all gotta go sometime....
feet,
Study what the words mean. The word "lust" in that scripture doesn't mean the kind of lust that you're thinking it does. The word lust, as Jesus uses in Matthew 5:28 (which is the type of lust that you're refering to) is "epithumeo", or sometimes used as "epithumia". It's used throughout the New Testament in the context that you're using it.
But in Romans, the word is "orexis", and is the only time in the entire Bible that it is used. They are two different words, with similar meanings (longing for), but one (epithumeo) seems to focus more on coveting, whereas orexis seems to be more of a longing for.
feet,
I guess this verse (Romans 1:27) that emphasizes men leaving the natural use of the woman and men with men which scripture declares as an error does not put it all into perspective for you . . .
feet, you're still avoiding the fruit of self-control issue?
The penalty as written in vs 26 is referring to the sin against God's natural orientation for men and women which inturn is a penalty against man's (woman's) own nature.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts......................Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
men committed acts motivated by shamebased lust. lust tears down human bonding, fellowship, and the love expressed in 1cor13. shame engenders self loathing and self hatred...............that is their penalty
consider reading the entire thread before asking any more quesrions.
gotta go.
Ps 81:12
So I gave them up to their own hearts' lust and let them go after their own stubborn will, that they might follow their own counsels. [Acts 7:42, 43; 14:16; Rom. 1:24, 26.]
Let us all be in prayer that our nation turns to GOD as in Chronicles and humble ourselves and pray and turn from our ways. Look folks the sickle is coming and there will be a distinct line between the wheat and the tare. Let us pray GOD's mercy and that HIS love touch the hearts of the protestors and open their eyes to the lie. Homosexuality is not what GOD created it is what man created with his lusts. Wake up church and let us man the walls of this nation
feet & Mike,
Why does this passage (Romans 1:27) refer to this union (men with men) as an ERROR?
How do I know? Because Jesus himself said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything outside of that is corrupt.
feet,
The love that homosexuals share are the same love that incest couples share. As well as polygamists.
All are twisted, perverted versions of a true love.
Mike,
Again, you show you are not a Christian. You can flag me, call me a liar, call it libel....it's still the truth. And I'm tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt, when there really is no doubt. You are simply a man who can recite the scriptures, but doesn't know the Author of those scriptures and what His view is.
feet, I see you totally avoided the fruit of self-control issue!!!
Okay...all you nice Christians out there can just slap me....it's alright, I'll understand.
I'm sorry...whenever I see a post from Feet my mind just goes, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah...over and over again.
Here's the cut and paste version; "yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah...over and over again.
From an earlier post: yeah, yeah, blah, blah blah...over and over again.
GET IT?
"because the bonded committed relationships of both orientations exude the same fruit of the spirit(gal5)"
Once again you throw the greek aside and use limited American English. The greek has 4 words for love. Your example uses two completely different words. The fruits are from 'agape' love which is not the word for love within a marriage. You are dealing with apples and oranges.
JUST OPINION NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT SO OPINION IS NOT FROM THE MIND OF CHRIST
still no annotation for your 330pm response!!!!!!!!
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts......................Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
men committed acts motivated by shamebased lust. lust tears down human bonding, fellowship, and the love expressed in 1cor13. shame engenders self loathing and self hatred...............that is their penalty
feet, you cite the fruit of the Spirit quite a bit, one of those fruits is that of self-control. Since a majority of homosexual couples are not legally married at this point in time, if they profess to be saved and engage in sexual intimacy they are violating one of the fruits of the Spirit, namely that of self-control so in essence they are willfully living in sin. On top of that since you can cite no options in the Word of God where God declares that anything other than one man and one woman united as one in God's sight for life is His original and only design for marriage and that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage then a homosexual to be truly a Christian would be committed to sexual abstinence for life unless they marry someone of the opposite sex and if they willfully refuse to do that they are at best a carnal Christian or even not a Christian at all.
feet,
"the fruit of the spirit of bonded homosexual relationships compared to bonded heterosexual relationships, their capacity is the same."
No. They ar different fruits. Heterosexual love is one designed perfectly by God. Homosexuality love is one perverted by Satan. They are both fruit, it's just one is rotten...
feet,
Why does this passage (Romans 1:27) refer to this union (men with men) as an ERROR?
Well, actually feet,
I haven't confused anything. God made them male and female, gender, and goes further to naturally orient them.
JUST OPINION NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT SO OPINION IS NOT FROM THE MIND OF CHRIST
whatever this means. please, consider doing the same with your 11/18 3:30pm answer.
forgiven
you tiptoe around and thru my comments like a person attempting to strengthen his postion.
you confuse orientation with gender.
"the fruit of the spirit of bonded homosexual relationships compared to bonded heterosexual relationships, their capacity is the same".
JUST OPINION NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT SO OPINION IS NOT FROM THE MIND OF CHRIST.
it doesnt matter the source of homosexuality, then our theology would be determined by science. instead it is determined thru the acknowledgement of spirit.
the fruit of the spirit of bonded homosexual relationships compared to bonded heterosexual relationships, their capacity is the same.
Thanks for the warning, believer!
feet wrote: "first of all you have to "have something " before you can abandon it."
Well, from birth you did "have something", God created you male therefore that which was abandoned was female.
feet wrote: "are you saying it is natural for a person to have a one flesh relationship with someone they have no desire to be close to or be intimate with."
God word reveals natural was abandoned for the unnatural. Having the one flesh relationship with the female is natural. Having no desire for the female is what is unnatural.
feet wrote: "where is the "easy yoke and light burden" of christ in this? or is this yet another scripture that does not apply to the issue of homosexuality."
God reveals that if we obey His Word and live according to His will for our lives we are free from the yoke and burden sin weighs us down with.
Feet wrote: "are you saying that involvement in orgies leads to homosexuality"
God reveals that there are different forms sexual immorality takes on. Sexual immorality by folks that engage in orgies is one. Then there also is sexual morality by folks that engage in sexual relations with thise of the same sex.
Feet wrote: "apart from that statement being totally untrue, what percentage of the 12 million homosexuals in this country do think has ever participated in an orgy?"
You are right the above statement you made was totally untrue. God is calling all orgies performed be heterosexuals (which does not exclude that homosexuals have not participated in orgies) an immoral sexual act.
Feet copied and wrote;"The thrid, "God gave them over" (vs 28) to a depraved mind, which also means disapproved.
that is what i keep asking you. what was that they specifically did for god to give them over to homosexuality?"
God reveals that man/woman did not do "for" God in lines the result of being given over to their own mind of god.
Feet Wrote: "one would assume that because of the difficulty of explaining how this scripture refers to homosexuality. romans1 must be one of the not so "clear" places that refers to it."
God is very clear in Romans 1 that men and women who participate in sexual relations with one another of the same sex, which by definition is homosexuality, is exchanging that which is His natural design for sexual relations for that which is unnatural for sexual relations.
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
please rewrite the scriptures in a way that will explain your understanding.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.
absolutely!!!!
that being the case perhaps there will also be the acknowledgement that ALL JUDGEMENT AND AUTHORITY has been given to christ. it is by the spirit of his covenant that we are led in our worship of the father.
feet, loving ones neighbor is not the summation of the law it is only a part of it, the primary part being wholeheartedly loving God. And Christ clearly states that if we do truly love God we will keep/obey His commands/teachings.
believer
if loving ones neighbor as oneself is the summation of the law under the new covenant, then each law is of the essence of that summation. all the laws carry the spirit of the second commandment.
IS HE SCOFFER OR IS HE SEEKER?
I'm new here to posting on the Christian Post but I have read these posts for over a year and have kept silent as I feel the true seeker will find his answers in the pages of Scripture. I have been dismayed by a few posters who seem to revel in deliberate ignorance or indulge in sheer mockery of God's Standards and yet want to say that they "love" God.
I've cheered on the faithful Christian posters who have patiently explained over and over again the expressed Mind of Christ only to be ignored and dismissed by those who just want to be controversial or insist their thoughts and ways are above God's own. I believe that the Word of God will not return void but I am mindful that I should never just debate the things of God with the godless scoffer. The things of God are pearls that I should not cast them out to be trampled underfoot by 'pigs'.
That said, I do believe in holding up the standards of God in this godless society as I witness the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, therefore I humbly submit the following:
Answers to Feet
From another thread, Feet says:"your claim is that anyone interprets scripture wrongly does not love god. they obeyed what they believed were god's commands. they were wrong."
BIBLICAL ANSWER: in Romans 10:2-5 in part, "they have a ZEAL for God but not according to KNOWLEDGE."
..being IGNORANT of God's Righteousness and seeking to establish their OWN righteousness have NOT SUBMITTED to Righteousness of God."
This seems to be a clear explanation that just because someone has a ZEAL for God it doesn't necessarily follow that they LOVE GOD.
Regarding Feet's many references to the INTERPRETATION of Scripture, try this one out:
BIBLICAL ANSWER: Found in 2Peter 1:19-21 "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you DO WELL TO HEED as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that NO PROPHESY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the WILL OF MAN, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
So, here's a clear cut rebuttal for anyone who thinks there are many 'interpretations' of the Word of God.
PRAGMATIC ANSWER: SINCERITY is not the LITMUS test for right standing with God and His Truth.
Just because I believe I can FLY doesn't negate the LAW OF GRAVITY should I be foolish enough to jump from a tall building!
Continued...
I've seen many posts where Feet states Christians that we cannot know the "MIND OF GOD". That somehow Bible believing Christians cannot know God's thoughts! But I have yet to see any posts from Christians that the Mind of Christ IS knowable and in fact, true Christians have the Mind of Christ!
BIBLICAL ANSWER: 1COR 2:14-16 reads "But the NATURAL man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are FOOLISHNESS to him; nor can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DICERNED. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him? BUT WE HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST.
Another obstacle Feet has erected in various posts over time is a question of Law versus Grace. However a very clear answer to how Christ fulfills the law is extensively written in the book of Romans, especially in chapters 7 and 8, which I quote in part:
"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their MINDS SET on what that NATURE desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of SINFUL MAN IS DEATH, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is HOSTILE to God. It does not SUBMIT to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, IF the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."
And Lastly....
Another rabbit trail many Homosexuals want to run down is this absurdity that "they are born this way" and more preposterously, since God made them this way they must therefore be true to (indulge) their NATURE. I think we will all agree that it is in the NATURE of Homosexuals to desire these acts, thus making them NATURAL men. But what does the above Scriptures say of the NATURAL man?
He is dead in sin, he cannot discern, he cannot receive the Spirit of God because it is foolishness to him, he has his mind set on his nature, he is hostile to God and lastly he does not belong to Christ.
There is simply no reconciliation in the clear reading of Scripture that makes Homosexual 'love' an option for the Christian, no matter what one's interpretation of LOVE is.
IF Feet is truly a seeker of Truth and a Lover of God, I'm wondering why he continues to post here the same questions and old arguments in the face of all the great Biblical Counsel that has been shared here by the faithful Christians who have tirelessly wrestled to help Feet come to the knowledge of Truth.
AND Brothers, please correct me if I seem unloving but please answer; at what point in our conversations here does correcting errant beliefs become casting pearls? When does our counsel become foolish debate?
I just do not like to see Christians having to defend useless arguments with the Precious Word of God!
forgiven, be careful you are about to enter the world of feet where biblical standards are thrown to the wind under the guise of sinful living is okay as long as it doesn't violate the second part of the Great Commandment and with total disregard to the first part of the Great Commandment or any other of God's commands or teachings in His Word.
one would assume that because of the difficulty of explaining how this scripture refers to homosexuality. romans1 must be one of the not so "clear" places that refers to it.
The thrid, "God gave them over" (vs 28) to a depraved mind, which also means disapproved.
that is what i keep asking you. what was that they specifically did for god to give them over to homosexuality?
Vs 24 refers to the sexual ritual/orgies vs 25 that exchanged the True worship of God for the (lie) worship of pagan gods and goddesses. This was done through sexual immoraltiy ~ orgies.
which flows into another sexual immoral act
thiss makes no sense.
are you saying that involvement in orgies leads to homosexuality..................like smoking pot leads to smoking crack.
apart from that statement being totally untrue, what percentage of the 12 million homosexuals in this country do think has ever participated in an orgy?
"The second part is about trading God's natural sexual relations for sexual relations of something else (unnatural). It states clearly the "natural" function was abandoned."
first of all you have to "have something " before you can abandon it. where is the abandonment of never having any desire to have a one flesh relationship with anyone of the opposite sex, but instead the same sex............................an attraction that has existed from ones earliest sexual memories
again.....................what is natural. to have a one flesh relationship with another in a shared commited life.
are you saying it is natural for a person to have a one flesh relationship with someone they have no desire to be close to or be intimate with.
is it natural for someone who has never had any attraction to the opposite sex, but instead the same sex, attempt to bond with a person of the opposite sex.
is standing on this burden of who they should bond with, loving ones neighbor as oneself.
where is the "easy yoke and light burden" of christ in this? or is this yet another scripture that does not apply to the issue of homosexuality.
even though we have died to the law and are now led by the spirit, you are saying there is yet a law about what is natural that we are to be led by. and therefore, this law trumps the 2nd commandment and "easy yoke and light burden" of christ.
it would be one thing if this attraction fostered relationships that had not one scintilla of the fruit of the spirit. but the reverse is true. these relationships exude the fruit of the spirit in the same way that heterosexual one flesh relationships do.
Vs 24 refers to the sexual ritual/orgies vs 25 that exchanged the True worship of God for the (lie) worship of pagan gods and goddesses. This was done through sexual immoraltiy ~ orgies.
which flows into another sexual immoral act
vs 26 which refers to the exchanging of God's natural design (the sexual relation between one man and one woman) for the unnatural design made by men (women) (the sexual relation between two women as well as (vs 27) the sexual relation between two men).
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ€â€who is forever praised. Amen.
again...................................... what lie is exchange for what truth and how was what entity worshipped and served so that some were given over to homosexuality?
The first part is about trading God (real) for a god (false/lie) (vs 24&25).
The second part is about trading God's natural sexual relations for sexual relations of something else (unnatural). It states clearly the "natural" function was abandoned.
The thrid, "God gave them over" (vs 28) to a depraved mind, which also means disapproved.
The correlation between idoltry and sexual immorality are closely linked in that people worship god as they see fit and have sexual relations as they see fit instead of adhering to how God says only He is to be worshipped and to God's natural sexual relational design for men and women.
mike22685, the Bible never uses the word Trinity, but it is clearly spoken to in both the Old and New Testament alike and the same is true with the sinfulness of the sexual practices of homosexuality.
Mike,
Again, those passages in Leviticus have nothing to do with same sex unions; in Romans 1:27, it specifically says . . . And likewise also the men, LEAVING the NATURAL USE of the WOMAN, burned in their lust ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN with MEN working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their ERROR which was meet.
What does men with men mean? Why does this passage refer to this union as an ERROR?
No, the NT doesn't use the label 'homosexual' but I believe the VERY DEFINITION is found in Romans 1:26,27,...for the honest seeker of Truth."
how is that possible?
first of all, in romans 1, how was what entity was worshipped and served and in what way, so that certain persons were given over to homosexuality?
second, homosexuals dont have women. and regardless, why would the women (in roman society,women were property and the only rights they had, were thru the men that ownership over them.) do the same things that the men did. was this suppose to be a a family affair.
third,in romans, the sexual interaction was motivated by shamebased lust(niv). shamebased lust has no relationship to homosexual bonding which is of the same spirit as heterosexual bonding. that is, the bonding is done out of mutual love, respect, devotion, affection, and trust for a shared committed life together.
where there is lust, the only commitment there is, is to the lust............. to satiate the craving. the people involved are merely instruments with which to satiate that lust. there is no interpersonnal commitment.
the lust is shame based. anything filled with shame engenders self loathing and self hatred. compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals have never received the characterization "those self haters".
how does self hatred and self loathing have any resemblance to the international gay pride movement that is a proactive expression of self love and personal pride, so much so that it is enthusiastically supported by the majority of the worldwide heterosexual community.
committed homosexual couples provide loving, nurturing homes for raising children equal to those of married heterosexual couples and are on record of providing havens for abandoned, rejected children from heterosexual unions. the sexual intimacy expressed in the relationship enhances, not diminishes the loving nurturing environment.
could you say the same of a household that was filled with shamebased lust?
and lastly if the incestial rape of second samuel, and the adulterous murder of one samuel dont condemn heterosexuality, why would the shame based same sex relations of romans condemn homosexuality?.
Mike22685 wrote: "The new testament never calls it homosexuality because it is referring to Pagan rituals and orgies, neither of which my partner and I practice, so I think we're good!"
Although, I agree that certain rituals/orgies were going on, it is my understanding these passages were showing that v. 24 is referring to the sexual immorality in pagan ritual/orgies but then in v. 26 & 27 it refers sexual immorality in ordinary life.
Again, my understanding is that 'God gave them over" first to these sexual rituals/orgies that were taken place in a manner to worship and encourage the gods and goddesses to do the same in order to receive blessing of gain from them. They exchanged God for a "lie" (gods and goddesses).
Now, in the next vs. Paul writes for a second time "God gave them over", this time to sexual immorality in ordinary life. Paul states men and women "exchanged" God's nature for sexual relations with each other.
The first exchange, the truth for a lie, is followed by another - the upsetting of the normal course of nature in sexual relations.
Mike22685, I must admit that I am thankful to you for the challenges you have presented, allowing myself and others to critically investigate God's Word. Unfortunately, I have not been convinced that any relation other than a man and a woman is in God's design and plan for His children.
"The new testament never calls it homosexuality"
No, the NT doesn't use the label 'homosexual' but I believe the VERY DEFINITION is found in Romans 1:26,27,...for the honest seeker of Truth.
Split hairs all you want to; words used by Paul here are strong, "vile passions", "exchanging the NATURAL use", "burn with lust"....
I dunno, call it what you want will but if in my life I was PRACTICING any of these acts, I would have to some major MENTAL GYMNASTICS to think my activities would bring pleasure or approval from the Author of the Bible.
mike22685, but the Old and New Testament both clearly spell out God's original, only, and perfect design for marriage and sexual intimacy and the sexual practices of homosexuality clearly fall outside of those designs and therefore are sin in the sight of God.
Online, I am not grasping at straws. You specifically said I cannot erase certain Bible passages, and now that is specifically what you are doing. The new testament never calls it homosexuality because it is referring to Pagan rituals and orgies, neither of which my partner and I practice, so I think we're good!
" no one who has had a divorce should be allowed to vote on the issue, especially if they owe child support. "
As a person who was divorced and has an ex with over $5000 in back support now that the youngest is 20....
I agree provided the 'divorced' person is the one who did the divorce and not a victim of divorce. In short, I got custody of my 4 kids for some very good reasons and she sought the divorce. It was a choice on her part which she is fully responsible. I believe people who made that kind of bad choice should not be allowed to vote on the issue of the right of someone else to make a bad choice.
chicago24...where you been! You've been missed.
chicago, I'd be willing to go along with that as long as anyone who had multiple sex partners or sex outside of marriage were not allowed to vote either. Plus, landslide or not it doesn't change a thing in the sight of God with regards His original design for marriage. How have you been since I haven't seen any posts from you in a while?
Mike,
You appear to be grasping at straws here; your fixation with the laws in Leviticus has nothing to do with same sex unions; why not analyze Romans 1 and 1Corinthians 6:9?
"I'll bet gay marriage would pass by a landslide."
Since heterosexuals have so 'sullied' marriage let's allow the gay community sully it further by making a mockery of marriage as it was intended. Two wrongs...let's as a society slide further down the slippery slope.
Yes, no doubt it will pass...the squeaky wheel gets the grease but be careful of what you ask for. Homosexuals are so outraged by the bestiality and pediphilia link to this redefinition of marriage....at least they say so here. But consider this:
This civil rights movement is supported by NAMBLA; they're next in line to benefit from Homosexuals opening the door to the slippery slope.
I propose that the next time the legalization of gay marriage is voted on, no one who has had a divorce should be allowed to vote on the issue, especially if they owe child support.
After all, they've already sullied the 'sanctity of marriage'.
I wonder what the outcome would be if this was enforced? I'll bet gay marriage would pass by a landslide.
From earlier posts;
In a gay relationship, man with man, is one of the men called the wife?"
No they are both Husband and Husband in a gay marriage or in a lesbian marriage, wife and wife.
True, true....outside of the crushing weight of Scripture supporting one male one female marriage here we have a PRAGMATIC explaination for how absurd gay marriage is!
mike22685, but He didn't as Christ affirmed His Heavenly Father's design for marriage and sexual intimacy when He ministered here on earth.
Online, I am not introducing any tactic. You said you cannot erase scripture, well here it is. Very explicitly, the Lord gave these commands, and if you choose to quote Lev. on man lying with man you must also quote to rest of it. Also, how could God say that at one point, then change his mind? I thought you all said God didn't change his mind? Maybe that's only for issues that you agree with, but he couldn't possibly change his mind for gay marriage.
"In a gay relationship, man with man, is one of the men called the wife?"
No they are both Husband and Husband in a gay marriage or in a lesbian marriage, wife and wife.
Mike,
Try reading the immediate context of RELATED passages, then the context of related paragraphs, then the context of the entire book and finally the context of the entire bible.
Mike,
Obviously you have not learned to properly read the scriptures in their appropriate context; in this case, reading them in their immediate context along with related passages. The red herring is introducing passages of scripture that have nothing to do with same sex unions; nice tactic, but still it does not change the fact that the Scriptures-both Old and New Testament condemn same sex unions.
mike22685, what you said is true unless you can find scripture that says otherwise, for instance in the book of Acts the former eating restrictions are stated to no longer be valid and all the sacrificial requirments were no longer required once Christ went to the Cross since that is what they pointed to in the first place. But no where do we find scripture that redefines God's original and perfect design for marriage or sexual intimacy.
Online, where was the red herring? You stated explicitly that you cannot erase certain Bible passages, so surely you must follow all of them.
Mike,
Introducing a red herring will not negate the New Testament passages that have been repeatedly posted here. If you understood the book of Leviticus in its context, you would know that many of these ordinances were given to set Gods people apart as peculiar or different from the surrounding pagan nations. In addition, many of the ceremonial types pointed to Christ as the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world.
You may want to read the book of Hebrews and see that many of these laws were done away with, however; the New Testament reaffirms the Old in that it too condemns same sex unions. See Romans 1 and 1Corinthians 6:9.
Mike, the original marriage, created by God, in the garden of Eden, was made for the first man and the first woman. In that same record, Gen 2:24 said a man should cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh. Here they refer to a wife. Traditionally and biblically, wives has been women, and this was the case in the first ever marriage.
In a gay relationship, man with man, is one of the men called the wife? Similarly in a lesbian relationship, is there a husband? If you say yes to either of these, I believe that you are also seeking to redefine these words in addition to the requirements of marriage.
Another thing Mike, ‘feeling’ normal about your homosexuality does not nearly make it normal. Normalcy has little to do with how you feel about it. You have chosen to feel comfortable with your sexual disposition, but don’t think for one minute that it is actually normal or that your feeling is justified in God’s eyes.
And regarding the natural use of our bodies, I think you can easily agree that male genitals are very well suited for union with female genitals, but you cannot say the same for male-to-male and female-to-female unions (if it is even physically possible). That by itself should raise some questions in your mind about what is natural use and what isn’t. Unless you are redefining what body parts represent genitalia. I surely hope not.
In redefining the requirements for marriage, you have to redefine a whole lot of other things. And the genital incongruity of same-sex partnerships raises some obvious questions as well. You, as well as feetxxxl, seem to be hoping that the absence of a verse equivalent to ‘thou shalt not be romantically or sexually involved with one of your own sex’ gives you the justification in the sight of God to be so inclined.
And Mike, stop justifying same-sex ‘marriages’ on the basis of commitment alone. There is a commitment and a gender requirement for marriage as created by God. Spelt out in the Bible.
It is truly dangerous to play these semantic games with the Bible and call it justified because God didn’t say ‘thou shalt not …’ to it or some other equivalent. Stop redefining Bible words and meanings to suit your present desire for justification.
Please change your ways.
Start being obedient to God for your sakes and those who regard your example. For your sakes and theirs.
mike22685, even if you disregard the laws as taught in Leviticus you can't get around God's original and perfect design for both marriage and sexual intimacy which were both reaffirmed by Christ in the Gospels.
feet, thank you for validating one of my major reasons for being opposed to same-sex marriages/unions. Because what your saying is not only will gender having nothing to do with limitations on marriage but neither will the ages of the two people or will it even be limited to two people? NAMBLA will be elated to hear this "good" news.
In Acts 10 is a good example of how God took the old Levitical law and showed that it was obsolete now that Christ had died and resurrected. But it's interesting to note that God still called homosexuality a sin.
Mike,
It also talks about how non-believers were to be the slaves of believers...maybe you could be mine?
The gay rights agenda will continue to fight until it wins. And it will. Just one more sign of a decaying morality in America. And one more sign of Jesus' return. Though I desire for His return, it breaks my heart to see a country turn it's back on Him.
Well Online, certainly you know the other things Lev. forbids! I hope you don't shave your sideburns or trim your beard. Oh, don't forget, if your wife has her period and touches anything, it becomes unclean for 7 days. Also, be mindful not to eat fruit that has fallen from a tree, the LORD forbids all those things in Lev. Since you don't erase certain verses, I just assumed you knew already.
"mike22685, but if we do away with the present day definition of marriage then what does the new definition of marriage become or will we even be able to define it? "
marriage will be defined by what it has always been defined, by the devotion and commitment by the 2 persons who exchange vows.
Mike,
What are you talking about . . .
Online, then you do not wear clothing of more than one material?
mike22685, but if we do away with the present day definition of marriage then what does the new definition of marriage become or will we even be able to define it?
"DP, being gay is quite normal for me thank you. If you want to call me names like deviant, it will fall on deaf ears. "
You are the one who used the term. I was just pointing out that deviance is anything other than the standard. The use of the term by you implies you believe there is a standard or the term wouldn't apply. Therefore, it is a matter of which standard you live by. For me it's the Bible as written. I do not rewrite scripture to make it say what I want it to say. I simply try to follow what it says. That's the challenge!
Any sin is diviant. We are all diviant. Jesus died for the deviant. If you don't understand you are diviant then you're not saved. Accepting that we are sinners hopelessly stuck without Jesus is the beginning of faith. He who has ears, let him hear!
Sorry Mike, I simply cannot take an eraser and eliminate those passages which you choose to ignore. It also seems that there is nothing that will change your mind.
Online, there are plenty who are able to have dialogue, but you are not one of them. You decide what the will of God is and nothing else is going to change your mind.
Mike,
Sorry my friend; it is not you or I who defines what is natural, it is God. As sinners, our nature and will is often times contrary to the will of God; so, we need to ask for the grace to repent and submit to his will. Notwithstanding, the difficulty of letting go of our ways and sins is painfully described, metaphorically of course, as plucking out an eye (Matthew 18:9).
Remember, you are on a Christian site trying to convince or persuade believers to accept your position without any biblical basis; so, we would appreciate a passage or two that explicitly supports your position. We cannot accept any position, doctrine, philosophy, cultural mandate, etc that is contrary to the Word of God.
Online, perhaps the fact that I did not "leave" the natural "use" of women since being straight was never natural to me. Perhaps I am in love with my partner and not "burning with lust" as the passage says, so that doesn't apply to me. Sorry, it just isn't as clear as you may think
DP, being gay is quite normal for me thank you. If you want to call me names like deviant, it will fall on deaf ears.
"because the truly are sexual deviants. "
de-vi-ant
adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
Adultry is sexually deviant.
Fornication is sexually deviant.
Homosexuality is sexually deviant.
Anything but one man and one woman is deviant from the absolute standard Jesus stated in Matthew.
Mike,
How much clearer an interpretation do you need besides this my friend . . . (men with men working that which is unseemly) Romans 1:27?
Perhaps, the preceding passages will help set the context here:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 1:21-25).
The contrast is between those who knew God 1:1-17 with those who professed to have known Him but continued to live a life of unrighteousness; 1:18-32, idolatry and sexual immorality/deviations is what these passages are speaking of. They explicitly state how these professors of the faith dishonored their bodies between themselves.
Believer, I am so sick of people bringing up NAMBLA. If you google them, they are barely 1,000 members strong, and its because the truly are sexual deviants. They are not pedophiles, because they do not go after pre-pubescent boys, but they openly admit that they choose to be attracted to young men v. gays who do not choose a same sex attraction. NAMBLA is not going to be able to move forward because no one sees them as legitimately wanting to love the boys they want, whereas people like my parents and family see my partner and I are in love and only see good coming out of it.
Online, so its only a sin if you're effeminate? That is such clear interpretation!!! Not all gays are effeminate by a long shot, but you wouldn't even toy with that idea because it shoots a hole in your logic.
Feesh,
(. . . does it condemn sex between women as well?)
Absolutely; Romans 1:26 says, (For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the NATURAL USE into that which is against nature).
Against nature: either by prostituting themselves or by practicing ways and methods which were never designed by nature.
Believer, thank you for the correction.
Daniel Paul, please accept my humble apology for the honest mistake.
Deppy,
(If youre going to declare that gay marriage is a (sin) then you also need to take the following stances)
Sorry my friend, your attempt to divert ones attention to certain ceremonial laws is ingenious but fails to negate the fact that the New Testament speaks of homosexuality as a sin.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (Romans 1:27).
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Corinthians 6:9).
By the way, Lev. 11:10 says nothing about (Kill those who work on Sunday); maybe you were thinking about another verse. Also, Sunday was never observed during that time period.
It's just one of the wars we get into, which
we will never get out without lots of sratches?
soon Christians will loose apetite for fighting, because
it really doesn't impact them or their marriages. But once a fight is started, will our basic rights we take for granted be at risk?
Will we gain anything out of it? Will the Gospel mandate be extended to the Arab world, to India, and China?
Gentle Lamb, Singapore
http://www.psa91.com
feesh, last time I checked homosexuality and the sexual practices of homosexuality refers to men and men as well as women and women who are sexually involved with each other. And the reality is NAMBLA is eagerly awaiting the approval of same-sex marriage/union in our land so they can make their move to have their deviant lifestyle legitamized.
online, you may have confused DP with deppy, DP was responding to deppy who made that claim unless the dp you used refers to deppy.
I agree with you Mike. And, sad to say Rolin, convicted sex offenders, including pedophiles, do still have the right to marry and raise children. While at the same time, those queer couples in long term, loving, committed relationships who want nothing more than to marry and be recognized by the _government_ cannot do so.
The Bible may say explicitly that sex between men was 'unseemly', but out of curiosity, does it condemn sex between women as well?
No, Rolln, it won't. Love between 2 people is not going to open this landslide for anyone with any kind of sexual fantasy to come forward because gay marriage is not some sexual fantasy. It is about love and intimacy, not a one night stand. It is not immoral, and you are flat out lying and speculating with the deliberate attempt to smear the gay community. You call yourself a Christian? Your words prove otherwise.
If the Christians don't stand up now and counter-protest this perversion, the gay agenda and their allies will overturn Prop 8. The church has a wonderful opportunity to show those that aren't Christians, but know deep down that the gay lifestyle is immoral that we will defend society from perversion such as the gay lifestyle. Next will be orgies, pedophiles claiming rights, and other flagrant anti-god activity that will make gays look pale in comparison.
DP, my sentiments completely with regards to peoples view of domestic partnerships and my sister-in-law and her friend are living proof of the fact that it is not about homosexuality, that's why when I speak to it I use the term two individuals and not couples any longer.
"I'd like to see stronger domestic partnership laws"
I'd like to see the term domestic partnership not equated with homosexuality. I'd like to see two people be able to enter into a contract as friends.
What I'd really like to see is the income tax law be abolished like they said it would be since WWII is over....
"If you're going to declare that gay marriage is a "sin" then you also need to take the following stances: Sell your daughter into slavery (Exsodus 21:7), Posess slaves (Lev. 25:44), Kill those who work on Sunday (Lev. 11:10), Stop cutting your hair around the temples (Lev 19:27), Stop touching the skin of pigs (Lev. 11:6-8), Stop Eating Shellfish (Lev. 11:10), Stop Wearing clothing made of 2 different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19)."
There are things which went away with the completion of the law under grace and some things that are specified under grace. One of the things which was under the law and continued under grace is that homosexuality is a sin. 'Trading the natural function for the unnatural' as is in Romans.
It is difficult for most lay people to understand law and grace. There are things under the law that were 'completed' by Christ and there are things that are just plain wrong under law or grace.
(I told you homosexuality is not a sin). . .
God did tell you homosexuality IS a sin except you refuse to listen to his Word; REPENT . . .
ssdane, I'd like to see stronger domestic partnership laws passed that would give two individuals who live together the same legal rights and benefits as married couples since there are many individuals who share homes and are in a sense each others primary support. They may be same sex or opposite sex and in a large number of cases simply friends with no sexual involvment of any kind towards each other.
Hey Believer - good to see you back on here. Would you object to civil unions?
deppy, if you could give the correct verse for the "killing of someone who worked on Sunday" or perhaps you meant the Sabbath I'll do my best to explain that to you, but I can tell you that only murder specifically called for the death penalty alone, all of the other laws that called for the death penalty were allowed to be dealt with in other ways such as fines.
deppy, and the same is true with the owning of slaves, but God does give guidelines as to how owners should treat their slaves and how slaves should respond to their owners and once again slavery was not a command of God.
deppy, with regards to selling daughters into slavery, yes this did happen, but it certainly was not a command from God to do so.
deppy, with regards to your verses on eating and touching certain animals, these laws were changed in Mark 7:18 and also in Acts 10:15.
deppy, I don't have to use anything from the Book of Leviticus to show that same-sex marriage is wrong, God clearly points out in the Old and New Testament alike and Christ affirmed it while He walked this earth that God's original and perfect design for marriage is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God through matrimony for life. Anything outside of this clearly violates God's design and therefore is sin in the sight of God. Plus, God's Word offers no options or alternatives in either one of these issues.
feet, no, your promotion of s"I"n is all about "I" and your pr"I"de will not allow you to acknowledge that it's not a matter of anyone taking credit for knowing the mind of God but simply being able to read God's Word and understand His teachings in His Word!
HAHA!! Good ol' feet...
Ignore him guys, he has been told why homosexuality is wrong over and over again. He challenges us but never debates anything. His only debate is that we are under the new covenant which is true, but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want.
Way to take advantage of a great gift feet!!!
Again, just ignore him, he's not going to listen. God will one day open his eyes but right now they're closed and it doesn't matter what you say...nothing's going to change his mind.
You can't pick and choose from the bible.
If you're going to declare that gay marriage is a "sin" then you also need to take the following stances: Sell your daughter into slavery (Exsodus 21:7), Posess slaves (Lev. 25:44), Kill those who work on Sunday (Lev. 11:10), Stop cutting your hair around the temples (Lev 19:27), Stop touching the skin of pigs (Lev. 11:6-8), Stop Eating Shellfish (Lev. 11:10), Stop Wearing clothing made of 2 different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19).
The Christians pick and choose the parts of the bible they want to, for political gain. Your agenda is transparent and nothing more then desperate attempts at controling others. Stop being hypocrites. If you're not going to follow the bible completely, then stop being hate mongering bigots.
First, To campare the plight of African Americans in this Country to that of homosexuality is a laugh.
Second. Those here who just willingly reject the Word of God concerning homosexuality know exactly what they are doing.
They don't want God to get in the way of their sinful lifestyle. They understand completly what the Bible says concerning homosexuality.
And one day gay marriage may be the law of the land, If Obama has anything to do with it, But inderstand also, that one day god is going to judge those who comitt such sin's, and he will judge those who helprd make that sin possible.
i told you homosexuality is not a sin because it is of the same essence as heterosexuality. the only difference is in the physicality of genders.
as jesus said you will recognize them by their fruit.
do you believe the fruit of the spirit of satan is the same as the the fruit of the spirit of christ?
if gay relationships engender the same fruit, in cases where they both are of the fruit of the spirit of galatians..............that is that their sexual intamcy because it is an expression of their devotion and commitment to each other engenders the fruit of spirit
gal5......... if they are known by the same fruit, how can one be sin and the other not?
"god's word and god's truth"
that's another way of saying........."i credit myself with knowing the mind of god. the interpertation of scripture i chose i credit god with chosing the same."
this entire message is centered around the concept of "i"
feet, and you as yet to show a God approved option that can be found in God's Word! Plus, I noticed you never responded to my use of your logic to interpretate speed limit signs!
feet, you're probably right same-sex marriage may very well become the law of the land which only means that the coming of Christ is so much closer if He doesn't choose to come back sooner. But the reality is no matter what human government decides it doesn't change God's original and perfect design for marriage and sexual intimacy of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God through marriage for life!
"Gay marriage is not about love, but about sin.
The Bible clearly and directly opposes gay sex."
i offer you the same challenge as everyone else on this site who believes as you do.
please explain how the words of the verses that you and others stand on, say homosexuality is a sin.
yes..... they have quoted them over and over and over. but none have yet to explain how the words of those repetively quoted verses say, what they say they do.
the ones that they say, say it so clearly.
if you respond to the challenge, you will be the first.
I can honestly say that I vote against abortion on behalf of those who don't have a voice and cannot ask for an opportunity to live. Who could be more defenseless that the babies whose lives are ripped away before they can make a choice of their own?
I come from a pacifist country and I do not like wars, but those who join the armed forces in this country do it by their own choice. Aborted babies don't have a say so when it comes to their future, therefore someone has to speak on their behalf.
blue, so it's okay for the homosexual community to spend big bucks to promote a lifestyle that is contrary to God's Word, but for God's people to step up and spend big bucks to keep this from happening is wrong! What type of cheese would you like to go with that whine?
mburrell, when it comes to God's truth when does this ignoring stop, it's not a thing about ignoring it's all about we like sheep going our own way and doing what feels good and makes us look good.
blue, "more tolerant, more respectful", more given over to a reprobate sin soaked mind!
feet,
Gay marriage is not about love, but about sin.
The Bible clearly and directly opposes gay sex.
I find all of this disgraceful. First of all, to go so far as to amend the state Constitution over the issue of marriage is horrible! The sloppy availability to do that reflects just what COULD have happened to some states that banned blacks and whites from marrying not even a century ago. If anything, an amendment ballot should pass by 2/3, not "merely" 1% of homophobic and Mormon voters. Second of all, just as the laws that banned black and whites from marriage reflect a time period's social beliefs, this will simply pass. This will pass, we as a country will become more tolerant, more respectful, and it will pass.
People talk about Jesus 'coming back' .. why would he want to come back in a time where churches spend MILLIONS for anti-gay measures, and where they vote against abortion, but not against war, where social justice is all talk - no action. please..
and - if the vote had gone the other way you know the 'conservatives' would be using every avenue open to them so don't fall for that 'the people voted; get over it' demand. our constitution must protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
feet, i do not mean this to be a true parallel but i remember when a new hymnbook came out for the presbyterian church and some of my favorites were gone. they were theolgically unsound, we were told. we all hate to leave our comfort zone. i am a church member who supports anyone's right to marry whomever they choose. many of the bible's proscriptions have fallen away over the years as people adjust to the times. many christian will say the scripture is timeless. i disagree. and, the the chagrin of many neo-cons i expect a majority of churchgoers disagree too. we simply ignore passages that are no longer pertinent. some fundamentalists say this is backsliding and they seem to take comform inthe fact that some of us will burn in hell for our views. i'm counting on god being more forgiving and more broadminded than these "chrstians." face it, some people will never change. let them enjoy feeling chosen. i wish them no ill. it is difficult to change. i hope none of my children choose a difficult (at this point) marriage to someone of the same sex. it might be a bit awkward for their mother and me and for some of our family. but guess what - we will get over it. as will thes literalists among us. nb: save the scripture, posters. i've read it. i just don't read it the same way you do.
it took 50 years, the passing of 2 generations for the women to get the right to vote. the reason being that women were credited by believers as being responsible for the fall of man.
it will merely take the passing of one generation before gays are given the right to marry...............but surely, given the trends, it will definitely happen.
but what concerns me is the damage it is doing to the faith, for believers to be against it. if christ is about loving ones neighbor as oneself, then surely the church should be the one, leading to allow marriage , rather than the reverse.
if loving ones neighbor as oneself is the summmation of the law, then under the new covenant the essence of every law is this summation.