The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled against giving domestic partnership benefits for homosexual couples working in state university and government agencies.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Society > Homosexuality
Michigan Court Rules in Favor of Marriage
By
Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Sun, May. 11 2008 05:42 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
Presbyterians Called to Face the Facts, Change
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
Daniel Paul: What are you talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with "disproving accountability to God." That is utterly ridiculous. Evolution is science. Period. Stop making it more than it is.
Ok, but that doesn't answer my question about God v. Satan. How could God let Satan overpower something he created in his image and likeness? That part doesn't make sense to me.
Bmore, I know people who believe they are going to make a million bucks with some new business idea. That doesn't make it so. :-) The concept of evolution was to disprove accountability to God by disproving creation. This is admitted by many folks involved and restated at the Darwinian Centenial Convention. It was not set out as science but rather as an attempt to use science to disprove accountability to our Creator. (no creation-no Creator)
"Original sin" exists even though people choose not to believe it. The sinful nature of man exists even though people choose not to believe it. My 4 year old doesn't always believe me that he's doing something wrong but I correct that misperception. God does the same for those who will listen now -or- it will happen when 'we get home'. How do I know this. I know my Father. I have a relationship with Him.
What we believe does not determine truth. God determines truth. We either accept or reject it.
Here's a question for everyone: If you believe in evolution, which I do, then you don't believe the story of Adam and Eve was real. That being said, what is the belief regarding original sin? Wouldn't that be put into place by God, or is the belief that Satan put sin in the world? Again, if you believe that, wouldn't you also need to believe that Satan is just as powerful, if not moreso, than God in order to mess up what he had created? I'm not trying to be at all inflammatory, just asking quesitons to people who seem to know the Bible inside out and backwards.
IN the beginning there was no sickness or sin. Today we have sickness and sin, because of original sin. I just wanted to clarify my point. Sin disfigures a person by the choices they make and in their bodilly condition. It may not be there fault, but with prayer and supplication you will still be able to walk with God.
To be Gay is to have a disorder. We all have crosses we have to deal with. Because of original sin, our human nature has a proclivity to sin and sometimes that sin takes various forms like homosexual attraction, being born with Epilepsy, being born with congenital heart failure, etc. The point about the gay disorder is that you must not act on it.
Homosexuals should always be treated with respect and we are called to love one another, but hate the sin. Narrow is the gate that leads to eternal life and what you do in your body effects your soul. The Bible is quite explicit about who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Stay chaste and repent!
Also, there ARE NO ERRORS IN THE BIBLE!!! The Bible is inerrant and is the infallible Word of God! Don't sacrilege our Scripture to justify your lifestyle.
Give your heart to Christ and he will repair your soul.
ifeelfine72
How do you know that you are saved?
CanadianChristian: How about you read what I write before you react to it? I've always maintained that I am against abortion because I don't believe that is part of God's plan for us. And where in the Bible does it say it is to be taken literally? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't because you can't - there are too many factual errors in the Bible to take it literally.
feelfine72,
You do not speak for CHRIST, HIS word speaks for HIM. You have a bad case of "itchy ears" I suggest some intense bible study, why do you persist in trying to justify unbiblical things like abortion, homosexuality, etc. I suggest strongly that you really think and pray about what you are believing and saying-because we all know the punishment for leading others astray will be severe, and by the way GOD'S WORD IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY- What a terrible thing it will be to fall into the hands of the living GOD!!! IN JESUS NAME
ifeelfine - Fair enough - and consistant with what I meant. The bible is not to be taken literally.
free2b - If I believed the Bible literally, that might be a problem. If you believe the Bible literally, you have to believe abortion is okay. Me, I don't take it literally - that is why I am in favor of gay marriage but against abortion. I believe both positions take into account God's grace and love and His ultimate command for us. I know that is not a popular view on this site, but it is honest, consistant and Biblical.
I flagged myself.
Oh, FYI - yes, I am in a stable, long term, committed relationship that would lead to marriage if I lived in a civilised country.
argyle - had marriage been an option, yes I'd have waited.
ifeelfine - "It's the same with abortion, there is nothing in the Bible specifically condemning abortion but only when we answer in grace do we see what the answer is. " It's been a long time since I've read a bible, but I do remember that by the law of Moses, if a man strikes a woman and she is killed, he is to be convicted of murder. However, if he strikes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, he only has to pay the family some sum of money. The point is that the bible is not a very good source for this sort of stuff (OH NO - now I"ll have to be stoned!)
But my last point leads me to point out one last thing. My being gay is less a choice than my being right handed. I've always found that to be more an appropriate comparison than my hair or skin color.
Get some self control, If God makes people the way they think they are it doesnt give them right to sin, God gave me hormones, now does that give me rights by God to have sex outside of marriage, by no means, I admit to falling into this sin, but it has been my responsibilty to TURN AWAY from it. Yeah it sucks, I propbly will never find a girl willing to wait with me but hey thats the way it is if i want to be a Christian. Theres more to life than finding someone that gives you sexual gratification whether you are strait or gay. Suck it up and bite the bullet. I dont know becuse im not a homosexual but if they had marriage rights I wonder how many would be willing to wait till marriage. This isnt a judgemental statement, but im just curious?
Wrong: Jesus Christ never came to save the institutions of man, he came for the individual. You are trying to impose upon government institutions human characteristics. There are consequences for sin. Homosexuality is a sin... IFEELFINE... Im not sure where you are getting your faith system from but your undying support not of people but of lifestyle choices is not Biblically based...
jar: Chicago is right, if someone is divorced and remarried, the state of Michigan does not deny those folks benefits. If Richard Thompson (an embarrassment to our state) wants to strengthen marriage, he should go after those folks.
Its so obvious to everyone that this has nothing to do with strengthening marriage and everything to do with marginalizing gay people.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
jar: The reason you won't respond to the question is because its not really in the Bible. We only come to that conclusion when we answer with Christ's love. It's the same with abortion, there is nothing in the Bible specifically condemning abortion but only when we answer in grace do we see what the answer is. And I would argue its the same with same-sex benefits. Would Jesus have us deny a partner benefits? No, He absolutely would not.
I commend the citizens of Michigan for embracing a morality that will help us sustain this republic. As a Christian, and as a Pastor, I work with men and women who are gender confused. Sexual sin has always existed and will continue. However, the attempts to make same sex relationships socially acceptable should be answered with clear resolve, and the people of Michigan have done so. For that, I am thankful.
CHICAGO: First of all..... when a person becomes divorced they are in fact no longer entiteld to spousal benefits after the first 3 months following a divorce. 2. Children are never denied health insurance regardless... State health programs like CHIP always provide great coverage.
3. Wrong.. Gays who adopted children usually want a baby which has been placed for adoption.
Again.. radicals like you throw out propaganda with no support for your statments.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center claimed that this ruling strengthened the institution of marriage. . .
I find that statement truly offensive. How does denying someone benefits strenghthen the institution of marriage? If we follow his logic, then it would be more appropriate for the State of Michigan to deny insurance benefits to anyone who is DIVORCED.
I'd like to see them try that one.
All this ruling does is hamper the ability of children raised by gay parents the ability to be insured. (That's really "Christian" right?)
And before you pounce on me saying it's not right for gay parents to raise children, keep in mind that the children they are raising are, for the most part, children that heterosexuals messed up in doing so.
I'd hate to have the sin that Richard Thompson has on his shoulders. We should pray for him.
Im not even going to respond to a sick question like that.... What kind of Christian are you to even pose a question like that? YOu know exactly the kind of abuse Im speaking of.... Okay here is one..
Quote Gospels: Jesus said: "Better a man tie a millstone around his neck and be cast into the lake rather than to lead a little one astray"....
jar: I am a straight Christian male. I'm sure that surprises you. And what enemies of the church are you talking about? Gay people are not enemies of the church - its language like that which warrants the use of terms like "homophobe."
BTW, where in the Bible does it condemn love with someone under 18 (pedophelia)?
YOu position ytourself and sound like an atheist or antagonist. NO I dont know what your orientation is or what your beliefs are... which is why I asked. Homophobe would be someone who is scared of homosexuality.. the only ones scared of it are the ones who are afraid of being politically incorrect. Homophobes is a term levied by the gay community against those who see their lifestyle choices as deviant and immoral. It depends on who is defining the term..
I speak against pedophiles as well does that make me a pedophobe....? You have adopted the language of the enemies of Christ's church....
jar: Are you an atheist or just a homophobe? Because you don't talk like a Christian.
If you would have been paying attention you would know that I am a Christian and what my sexual orientation is.
Donegard:
How do you expect people to take you seriously...??? Deviancies are noted by characteristics within the set that are unqiuely different and their differences completely set them apart...behavior which threatens the survival of the specieis would and is considered a deviant characteristic. Culture is not... Pedophilia is.. loving children is not....
jar1961
according to your definition jews are deviant and therefore a problem. hmmm think we have all heard that one before
It's about time..Praise God.... Ifeelfine... are you gay or just an atheistic antagonist? Employee based benefits first of all:
1. Is not a right.
2. It is a privelege extended by an employer
3. The costs of which are effected by high risk employees of which homosexual behavior is in fact considered. (I am not arguing the approval or disapproval only the calculated health risk by insurance actuaries)
4. Those costs are passed on to the employee staff and employer. (As is true of any policy which is invoked)
FInally... 2 people in a gay relationship are not able to produce children neither should there be any reason to reward counter-cultural devant behavior (Deviancy is defined as any sct within a population norm that deviates from the population... homosexual orientation rrepresents less than 5% of the human population hence it is deviant)
kscott: So you are fine with people being without health insurance? And other benefits? That sounds like a real Christian thing to me!
kscott: You are missing the point. Cox was specifically asked about this before the ammendment passed because that was a concern for people in our state. He promised that it wouldn't be used this way and it was. Exit polls showed that people wouldn't have been nearly as supportive of the measure if it was going to be used this way. Cox blatently lied to the people of Michigan.
Opposing sin is not discrimination. It is a call for active homosexuals to repent of their grievous sin that is an offense in the eyes of God. Sorry if you don't like it. Too bad. The Bible is absolutely clear.