# Marriage



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2012)

I'll just be honest, I can't stand the thoughts of gays. I freaks me out. That's my opinion. But it's not hate. But I refuse to try and force my religious beliefs on another. So, I have never taken a stand against them. But, I do however take a stand against redefining the word marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It should stay that way. If they wish to have some sort of legal union, let them have it if they must. But call it something else. Not marriage. We can not redefine longstanding words to suit peoples own interest. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A truck is a truck. What if a group wants to call it a car for insurance purposes? That is foolish.


----------



## BT Charlie (Aug 3, 2012)

My own planks impede me here.  Yet I dare blurt that yes, Builder,Big Love is being mainstreamed by monied interests.  The bible is being systematically marginalized on a tragectory to being criminalized.  Right now these people and their political puppets are villifying anyone who dares speak the Word.  Up is down in the mad house.  My sin is not feeling Christ's sacrificial life blood spill out, for they do not understand what they do.  I pray that my offense at their hatred and agenda is transformed into an abiding, patient love for these folks, followed by gifts of discerning wisdom and courage to lovingly but not offensively become effective salt and light in this exceedingly ugly world.  In the meantime, eat mor chikin!


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 3, 2012)

This is an easy subject biblically, but not so easy socially and politically.

Marriage is a religious, family union for those who are godly.
It's always between man and woman because that's the way God initiated it.  And God condemned any other type union so God will obviously condemn a male/male marital union.

In society, marriage isn't even necessary.
It's my understanding that most couples are expected to 'live together' for a period of time before they actually marry.  They look at marriage as a legal union, not necessarily a godly union.

Marriage is also political because politicians use it to their advantage(depending on which party they affiliate with).

As a Christian, how should I react to the misuse of marriage????
Should I actively campaign for politicians who see marriage in a godly way?, or should I just let the politicians fall where they may?

The important thing is that the church, Christ's church must not allow ourselves to be swayed by the moral changes in society.

Two males should never be recognized as married by any of Christ's church.  Same for females.
Doesn't matter what the law or society might ever say about it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't think non-Christians should get married either. My Dad doesn't think blacks & whites should get married. My cousin is a member of a Holiness Church and married a Mormon.
I would go along with Gays and Atheist calling their legal unions something other than marriage though. Maybe "Farriage"(fake marriage)


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 3, 2012)

I too believe that marriage is between a woman and a man. I am struggling to come to terms with the idea of gays being married. Somethings in this world are just too big to tackle, sad to say. Take for instance, murder, it is wrong, and an issue much too large to stop. Laws do nothing to stop it. Same with child molesters, thieves, rapists, etc. I am getting to the point where it is time to just hand this over to God, and let him sort it out. No matter how hard you try, you will never legislate morality. Remember Adam and Eve? One thing though, we as a society determine what rules and laws we have. This country has a spineless president, with absolutely no leadership abilities, who now believes in gay marriage. All we can do really is pray about it, and let God work it out. 
I have no gay friends. I work with some, and interact on a mostly professional level. I have no animosity toward them what so ever. I also work with hard core athiests. This one I have a little more trouble with, but I'm working on it, we get along. I really don't hate anyone, but I sure do have a differing opinion from a whole lot of people. That does not make it hate, we're just different.


----------



## BT Charlie (Aug 3, 2012)

If we truly believe an issue of the heart is condemning someone to the bad place, should our voice not quake in pain over that loss? Or should we just keep firing and let God sort out our carnage?  At the same time, humbly, we can't let the Word be adulterated to fit a particular sexual/political/spiritual ideology. Yet as we focus on this particular sin, the world and many church leaders condemn us as hypocrites who ignore many other sins in pursuit of a dangerous, fundamentalist and "out of touch" ideology.  We are frequently analogized to radical Muslims in this regard.  Death to all who disagree with us, and many kudos and rewards for those who die faithful to our beliefs.  Can we say eat mor chikin with a 
mouthful, or is that hypocritically giving gluttony a pass while condemning lesbianism?


----------



## Lead Poison (Aug 3, 2012)

The only position on this subject that I will ever support, both verbally and voting, is 1 man being married to 1 woman. 

I will never support or vote for men marrying men or women marrying women. God calls such non-sense an abomination. Which it is.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2012)

BT Charlie said:


> If we truly believe an issue of the heart is condemning someone to the bad place, should our voice not quake in pain over that loss? Or should we just keep firing and let God sort out our carnage?  At the same time, humbly, we can't let the Word be adulterated to fit a particular sexual/political/spiritual ideology. Yet as we focus on this particular sin, the world and many church leaders condemn us as hypocrites who ignore many other sins in pursuit of a dangerous, fundamentalist and "out of touch" ideology.  We are frequently analogized to radical Muslims in this regard.  Death to all who disagree with us, and many kudos and rewards for those who die faithful to our beliefs.  Can we say eat mor chikin with a
> mouthful, or is that hypocritically giving gluttony a pass while condemning lesbianism?



I think that is very well said, where does one the draw the line on our judging, why not couples living together, men who cheat on their wife, or popular in the middle east, married men who go with boys?
Can gays become Christian if they try really hard not to do it like Christian gamblers or Christian internet porno partakers? Do you have to repent or just believe?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2012)

Lead Poison said:


> The only position on this subject that I will ever support, both verbally and voting, is 1 man being married to 1 woman.
> 
> I will never support or vote for men marrying men or women marrying women. God calls such non-sense an abomination. Which it is.



Was the word "abomination" used by God or King James translators? Maybe a better word would be disgusting practices by other cultures. Things God didn't want Israelites to do.  What other practices in Leviticus should we follow?
Since we don't follow the practices of Leviticus lets stick to the new testament.
Romans 1:26-27

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes



“

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.


----------



## Israel (Aug 5, 2012)

BT Charlie said:


> If we truly believe an issue of the heart is condemning someone to the bad place, should our voice not quake in pain over that loss? Or should we just keep firing and let God sort out our carnage?  At the same time, humbly, we can't let the Word be adulterated to fit a particular sexual/political/spiritual ideology. Yet as we focus on this particular sin, the world and many church leaders condemn us as hypocrites who ignore many other sins in pursuit of a dangerous, fundamentalist and "out of touch" ideology.  We are frequently analogized to radical Muslims in this regard.  Death to all who disagree with us, and many kudos and rewards for those who die faithful to our beliefs.  Can we say eat mor chikin with a
> mouthful, or is that hypocritically giving gluttony a pass while condemning lesbianism?



It seems every stone I find now is shaped like this:

Ouch...

But I am sensing they have always been shaped thus, it is just the Lord's grace to allow me to see...


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 5, 2012)

One or two things that bother me politically is that the age of consent might be lowered, then we'll have a bunch of pedofiles praying on our young children, gay or not.

The other thing is that people could marry anybody...I could marry my best girlfriend, and never consumate the marriage, so she and I could reap each others benefits. Marriage should be about love not money.

As far as being a Christian...God says it is wrong....a sin is a sin. Might as well legalize illegal entry into the country, they just want a better way of life, at our expense, prostitution, and drugs, drug dealing and child molestation perhaps that chap was just born that way.

On the other hand I have my own sins to deal with, a sin is a sin, and I have plenty of them.

Take abortion as example...people think it's ok because it's legal, not only exploitation of women, which includes our daughters, 50 yrs down the road women are feeling the repercussion of abortions now...just like alcohol and cigarettes. 

Anyway, I'm old and seen so much demise in this country that this is just another step downward, which the Bible says would happen. When the age of consent goes down to 12, imagine what's gonna happen? Pedofiles will have a field day. Lawlessness....it's not gonna stop...not until Christ comes back.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> But, I do however take a stand against redefining the word marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It should stay that way. If they wish to have some sort of legal union, let them have it if they must. But call it something else. Not marriage. We can not redefine longstanding words to suit peoples own interest. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A truck is a truck. What if a group wants to call it a car for insurance purposes? That is foolish.



I think the problem is that we can call a marriage anything, but we are talking about how the general family unit is defined.  This will never end until a gay couple is recognized by the gov't the same way a straight couple is....so as long as the gov't recognizes marriage, this debate will continue.

Personally, I don't see how the gov't can recognize one union and not the other.  I don't "support" gay marriage, but I would vote against any ban on it.  

Using the gov't to advance / protect your agenda is using force, and if we are discussing a "moral" issue such as this one, we must recognize that we are using "force" to achieve our goals.  I refuse to do that.  Nobody's heart will ever be changed through force.

All the resistance to gay marriage strengthens the resolve of those who wish to be joined in a homosexual union.

The only solution to this issue is to get the gov't out of the marriage business.  The moment the gov't stops recognizing marriage, we can return to whatever definition we like, because it will be defined by the individual.  A church which does not choose to recognize gay marriages will not have to.  Neither will the individual. And gay couples will have no reason to feel discriminated against.   And we can all move on with our lives.

So, that being said, those who are campaigning to stop gay marriage might consider changing tactics......campaign to stop the gov't recognizing any marriage.  Then we will all be equal, and nobody will be forced to do anything they don't wnat to, and nobody will be prevented from entering into any union.

And, really, who defines your marriage?  I would be no less married if the gov't quit recognizing it........and that really is the way it was for thousands of years.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> One or two things that bother me politically is that the age of consent might be lowered, then we'll have a bunch of pedofiles praying on our young children, gay or not.



Nobody is campaigning to lower the age of consent.  How is that linked to this debate?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

Havana Dude said:


> I am getting to the point where it is time to just hand this over to God, and let him sort it out.



Well when you get to the point you hand it over to God, let us know.



Havana Dude said:


> All we can do really is pray about it, and let God work it out.



Ah, I see you reached that point a few sentences later.  Cool, nevermind!

At any rate if you're all for handing it over to God, does that mean you're okay with the government legalizing it so that He can exact his judgment?   If it's illegal then there's not much for Him to work out, I'm sure you'll concede.



Havana Dude said:


> No matter how hard you try, you will never legislate morality.



Is that to say that homosexuality is immoral?  I never understood that.  Adultery, sure.  Murder, of course.  Some things are just universal, religious or not.    Homosexuality's immorality seems to stem from the line of reasoning "Because I said so." Essentially the same rationale a parent would use on a 5 year old child to prevent them from doing something.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'll just be honest, I can't stand the thoughts of gays. I freaks me out. That's my opinion. But it's not hate. But I refuse to try and force my religious beliefs on another. So, I have never taken a stand against them. But, I do however take a stand against redefining the word marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It should stay that way. If they wish to have some sort of legal union, let them have it if they must. But call it something else. Not marriage. We can not redefine longstanding words to suit peoples own interest. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A truck is a truck. What if a group wants to call it a car for insurance purposes? That is foolish.



Are you advocating for increased government involvement in the private lives of its citizenry?


----------



## PopPop (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Are you advocating for increased government involvement in the private lives of its citizenry?



Drop your pants and look down, if you have a outy thingy, you should go for someone who has a inny thingy, you have a inny thingy you should go for some one who has a outy thingy. Don't be stupid and try to put two outy thingys or two inny thingys together.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> Drop your pants and look down, if you have a outy thingy, you should go for someone who has a inny thingy, you have a inny thingy you should go for some one who has a outy thingy. Don't be stupid and try to put two outy thingys or two inny thingys together.



While your post is very funny, I do not see how it is the role of the gov't to determine who uses which thingy for what.

I probably have similar religious convictions you do concerning these actions.  However, I also recognize that we cannot convince anybody of anything through force.  We may accomplish behavior control, but the heart will not change.......and nothing will be accomplished.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Is that to say that homosexuality is immoral?  I never understood that.  Adultery, sure.  Murder, of course.  Some things are just universal, religious or not.    Homosexuality's immorality seems to stem from the line of reasoning "Because I said so." Essentially the same rationale a parent would use on a 5 year old child to prevent them from doing something.



In Biblical times, there was a mandate to populate the Earth.  This cannot be accomplished through homo behavior.  Additional health factors (no need to elaborate here) make it an undesireable choice.  I believe these two factors are the root of the immorality of the act.

That being said, I agree that it is not the place of the gov't to mandate morality to the population.  The churches should focus on the gospel, and let the message do what it does......no need to pull out a gun and tell anybody how to act.  That accomplishes absolutely nothing.


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Well when you get to the point you hand it over to God, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ham, you dang sure got a way of cherry picking statements and twisting them to fit your agenda!!! I am basically saying I am sick of the whining. 

No, because the bible says so, and I believe what is written in the bible. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Keep asking your questions and I will try to keep answering them, that's how conversation works. Quite different from how you like to operate and not answer questions asked of you. Could it be you are just stirring the pot, or is it that you are incapable of answering questions? Which is it? Oh sorry, those were questions.


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> In Biblical times, there was a mandate to populate the Earth.  This cannot be accomplished through homo behavior.  Additional health factors (no need to elaborate here) make it an undesireable choice.  I believe these two factors are the root of the immorality of the act.
> 
> That being said, I agree that it is not the place of the gov't to mandate morality to the population.  The churches should focus on the gospel, and let the message do what it does......no need to pull out a gun and tell anybody how to act.  That accomplishes absolutely nothing.



I agree with this^^^^^^^^^^^

but.........the problem with this IMHO, is this country was founded on Christian principals. We attempt to elect people who's views are in line with our Christian views. By doing so, we by default are asking them to not allow gay marriage. We either take the Bible in it's entirety or we throw it away and do it on our own. This will never end. It will forever be a thorn in our side. Let's say they legalize gay marriage............what's next? Many things are legal, yet considered immoral in the eyes of God.

I can't wait to see Ham's reaction to your first sentence............." don't you think we have enough people by now?"  haha, it will never end.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Havana Dude said:


> but.........the problem with this IMHO, is this country was founded on Christian principals. We attempt to elect people who's views are in line with our Christian views. By doing so, we by default are asking them to not allow gay marriage. We either take the Bible in it's entirety or we throw it away and do it on our own. This will never end. It will forever be a thorn in our side. Let's say they legalize gay marriage............what's next? Many things are legal, yet considered immoral in the eyes of God.



Choosing to follow God is a Christian principle.  We cannot force folks to do it.  If we did, they would not be following God.....they would be following man.

I am not for "legalizing" gay marriage.  I am for getting the gov't out of the marriage business completely.  My marriage is not validated by the gov't.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> Drop your pants and look down, if you have a outy thingy, you should go for someone who has a inny thingy, you have a inny thingy you should go for some one who has a outy thingy. Don't be stupid and try to put two outy thingys or two inny thingys together.



Fascinating, but this wasn't directed at you.  Nor did you answer the question in any way.  Your participation is no longer needed, thanks.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> Drop your pants and look down, if you have a outy thingy, you should go for someone who has a inny thingy, you have a inny thingy you should go for some one who has a outy thingy. Don't be stupid and try to put two outy thingys or two inny thingys together.





Post of the Year


----------



## PopPop (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Choosing to follow God is a Christian principle.  We cannot force folks to do it.  If we did, they would not be following God.....they would be following man.
> 
> I am not for "legalizing" gay marriage.  I am for getting the gov't out of the marriage business completely.  My marriage is not validated by the gov't.



If you think this will be solved by legalizing same sex marriage, you may be in for a surprise. The next step will be forcing religous institutions to perform these mariage. I do not care who marrys what, this is a concerted attack on Christianity.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> If you think this will be solved by legalizing same sex marriage, you may be in for a surprise.



Did you read my post?  I said I was not for legalizing ssm.  I am for removing the gov't from the marriage business.   I elaborated in detail in post #12 as well (also addressed the religious institution problem).


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> In Biblical times, there was a mandate to populate the Earth.  This cannot be accomplished through homo behavior.  Additional health factors (no need to elaborate here) make it an undesireable choice.  I believe these two factors are the root of the immorality of the act.



There was also a mandate to not eat warmblooded animals on Fridays.  For some reason I would doubt the burgers and hot dogs you eat on Fridays strike many people as immoral.  Not mention, what's the difference in homosexual activity and heterosexual contraception from a moral standpoint?  They are both sexual activity with no likelihood or intention of pregnancy.  

Furthermore, any "health factors" can be encountered via heterosexual behavior as well.  So that doesn't make it immoral.  It's just a reason you don't approve.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fascinating, but this wasn't directed at you.  Nor did you answer the question in any way.  Your participation is no longer needed, thanks.





Johnny, you don`t have the right, or the power, to tell anybody what to do or not do on this forum.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

Havana Dude said:


> Ham, you dang sure got a way of cherry picking statements and twisting them to fit your agenda!!! I am basically saying I am sick of the whining.
> 
> No, because the bible says so, and I believe what is written in the bible. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Keep asking your questions and I will try to keep answering them, that's how conversation works. Quite different from how you like to operate and not answer questions asked of you. Could it be you are just stirring the pot, or is it that you are incapable of answering questions? Which is it? Oh sorry, those were questions.



As for cherry picking I'm just answering the relevant parts of a post.  No need to always include the whole quote.  As for twisting, maybe I am.  If you have a solid stance or point you can untwist things rather easily.  When somebody chooses rather to start critiquing me though, it suggests they don't have that.  Just fwiw.

So it's written in the bible that homosexuality is immoral.  It doesn't seem like you're willing to question it beyond "because He said so" and I can't make you.  This may not surprise you but I got in trouble a lot for questioning the "because I said so" rationale my parents used to give me.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> There was also a mandate to not eat warmblooded animals on Fridays.  For some reason I would doubt the burgers and hot dogs you eat on Fridays strike many people as immoral.  Not mention, what's the difference in homosexual activity and heterosexual contraception from a moral standpoint?  They are both sexual activity with no likelihood or intention of pregnancy.
> 
> Furthermore, any "health factors" can be encountered via heterosexual behavior as well.  So that doesn't make it immoral.  It's just a reason you don't approve.



I was just addressing why it would have been mandated against in the Bible.  That seemed to be the question.  Whether or not I approve of what somebody does is irrelevant to what they do.  I cant, and won't, force anybody to conform to my morality.  A person's morality must be chosen, otherwise, it is not an act of morality, but an act of coercion.


----------



## pstrahin (Aug 6, 2012)

Why do you guys even argue or let somebody like Six Million Dollar Ham rile you.  He does not care about your faith, he is only trying to trip you up and poke holes in it.  Remember what it says in Luke 9:5 - And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”
 He has made his decision, let him live with it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

I am 100% against gay marriage, I am 100% for getting the gov't out of the marriage business and leaving people alone and letting them do what they want to do as far a marriage goes.

As far as legislating morality, it happens all the times, with probably every vote anyone has cast. It's happened with murder, rape, stealing etc. etc., some people just want homosexual marriages to stay in the same catagory. Homosexual marriage will not affect me in any way, even though I think it goes against the very nature of humans, therefor immoral.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

pstrahin said:


> Why do you guys even argue or let somebody like Six Million Dollar Ham rile you.



He is not riling me.  I like the conversation Ham brings up....and I like discussing "hot button" topics. 

I am in a minority of Christians on this position, and this gives me a chance to discuss that and why I feel the way I do.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I was just addressing why it would have been mandated against in the Bible.  That seemed to be the question.  Whether or not I approve of what somebody does is irrelevant to what they do.  I cant, and won't, force anybody to conform to my morality.  A person's morality must be chosen, otherwise, it is not an act of morality, but an act of coercion.



Have you ever voted against welfare, or at least for a canidate that is trying to overhaul it or stop it? What about voting for a canidate that wants to stop stealing your money from your check every week?

To me, that is voting to legislate your(and my) morality. You and I think it immoral to have our money taken and given to someone who didn't work for it, the recipients of our money think of it as very moral.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Homosexual marriage will not affect me in any way, even though I think it goes against the very nature of humans, therefor immoral.



What does that mean "the very nature of humans"?  I want to be clear on what you are saying.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> He is not riling me.  I like the conversation Ham brings up....and I like discussing "hot button" topics.



Exactly.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

pstrahin said:


> Why do you guys even argue or let somebody like Six Million Dollar Ham rile you.  He does not care about your faith, he is only trying to trip you up and poke holes in it.  Remember what it says in Luke 9:5 - And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”
> He has made his decision, let him live with it.



It's a discussion forum.  Tripping up and poking holes is what we do here.  Is there anything you'd like to discuss?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

Several things in this thread stood out to me, and a couple from other similar threads. 

Here is a list of the seven deadly sins and a quick corresponding area where I think they are committed on this forum on a frequent basis.

Lust (cheerleader picture thread)
Gluttony (outdoor cooking section)
Greed (pictures showing owning multiple guns, bows, etc.)
Sloth (ATVs for getting around property)
Wrath / Rage (SEC football threads)
Envy (Truck pictures threads)
Pride (Deer kill pictures)


Of course this is tongue-in-cheek but the point I'm looking to make is "where is the line drawn?" Honestly the cherry-picking is what ran me away from the church. According to the bible a group of guys looking at Kate Upton on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover and talking about her body is a pretty blatant sin. However, something like that is generally ignored for the more "important" sins of homosexuality or something.

I would like a serious response to my question of where the line is drawn, or who decides which sins contemporary christians get to pick out as worse than the others. I would assume the "big 7" would be some of the more non-negotiables.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

Also, I have a broken right hand and my typing can't keep up with my brain right now so I apologize for any disjointed-sounding posts.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> What does that mean "the very nature of humans"?  I want to be clear on what you are saying.



I don't think it is natural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man, and the same goes for women.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Have you ever voted against welfare, or at least for a canidate that is trying to overhaul it or stop it? What about voting for a canidate that wants to stop stealing your money from your check every week?



Yes.  But there is a HUGE difference.....taxpayers are victims of gov't redistribution schemes.  Money is taken from me and given to somebody else without my consent.  



stringmusic said:


> To me, that is voting to legislate your(and my) morality. You and I think it immoral to have our money taken and given to someone who didn't work for it, the recipients of our money think of it as very moral.



Where we differ is who is the victim.  You can say society is the victim of ssm, but that is based on your moral positions.  We can prove, without the use of morals, that welfare and redistribution creates victims.

I see no vicitm (out side moral arguments) of ssm.  Just because my gay neighbors get married does not mean I will feel pressured to enter into a gay marriage.  Their marriage will not change my life at all.  

None of us would be happy if muslims out voted us and implemented Sharia law.  That being the case, I will follow the golden rule, and "do unto others as I would have them do unto me."  Which is to say I would not force my morality on another individual.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Several things in this thread stood out to me, and a couple from other similar threads.
> 
> Here is a list of the seven deadly sins and a quick corresponding area where I think they are committed on this forum on a frequent basis.
> 
> ...



The line is drawn between a person and their relationship with Christ, the problem arrises when they hoop and holler about certian sins only.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Of course this is tongue-in-cheek but the point I'm looking to make is "where is the line drawn?" Honestly the cherry-picking is what ran me away from the church. According to the bible a group of guys looking at Kate Upton on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover and talking about her body is a pretty blatant sin. However, something like that is generally ignored for the more "important" sins of homosexuality or something.



The obvious response is that the "big 7" are defined by men....not God.

That aside, I agree with you in principle.  We should take care of our own house, and let other folks take care of theirs.  Nobody will ever change their heart because they were forced too.  Nobody will stop being gay because we do not allow them to get married.  

As I said in a previous post, the golden rule mandates that we do not force our morality on others if we do not want theirs forced on us.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> Drop your pants and look down, if you have a outy thingy, you should go for someone who has a inny thingy, you have a inny thingy you should go for some one who has a outy thingy. Don't be stupid and try to put two outy thingys or two inny thingys together.



Although this technical jargon is confusing, I did check:  outy thingy!


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

Okay, so are the people who are demonstrating gluttony and pride via eating large amounts of fried chicken sandwiches and gloating about it to others not "hooping and hollering about certain sins only?"


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> However, something like that is generally ignored for the more "important" sins of homosexuality or something.



Homosexuality is not more important.  It is the one sin, however, that popular culture wants off the "sin list", and they're trying to do the same thing in the church.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But there is a HUGE difference.....taxpayers are victims of gov't redistribution schemes.  Money is taken from me and given to somebody else without my consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Where we differ is who is the victim.  You can say society is the victim of ssm, but that is based on your moral positions.  We can prove, without the use of morals, that welfare and redistribution creates victims.


Other than the victims getting their money taken from them without their consent, which to me is a moral issue, I don't see how we could prove welfare is wrong without the use of morals. Maybe the fact that it causes social entitlement issues of the people getting our funds? I could still argue that that is a moral issue simply for the fact that the gov't is setting someone up to fail, which again is immoral, at least to me.



> I see no vicitm (out side moral arguments) of ssm.  Just because my gay neighbors get married does not mean I will feel pressured to enter into a gay marriage.  Their marriage will not change my life at all.


Oh it will happen to ya', you just wait, they are gonna getcha one of these days. You'll be running around with capri pants on and funny looking sandals.

Na, I agree with you totally, I pretty much expressed the same things in previous posts.



> None of us would be happy if muslims out voted us and implemented Sharia law.  That being the case, I will follow the golden rule, and "do unto others as I would have them do unto me."  Which is to say I would not force my morality on another individual.


I still stand by the argument that if you vote, that you force others to conform to at least a small part of your morality, in some way or shape. You (and I) just vote to do it a lot less than others.


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Several things in this thread stood out to me, and a couple from other similar threads.
> 
> Here is a list of the seven deadly sins and a quick corresponding area where I think they are committed on this forum on a frequent basis.
> 
> ...



I think I have read every post in this thread. I don't recall anyone saying they were perfect and without sin. You ask a very valid question though.Sin is in our nature. We make a conscious decision to sin. We are incapable of being sinless. There is no line to be drawn. Some argue that killing 10 people is a worse sin than killing 1. I disagree. Killing is killing.But we as a society, will overlook the 1 killing in order to persecute the one who killed 10. The guy that killed 1 person can be rehabilitated, but the guy who killed 10, well, he should get the chair. Every man on the face of the planet is guilty of some sort of sexual sin, and women too if that matters. And just an FYI, I have committed 6 of the 7 above listed sins. The SEC football one, I get a clean report card on, because I could not care less about the foosball.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Oh it will happen to ya', you just wait, they are gonna getcha one of these days. You'll be running around with capri pants on and funny looking sandals.







stringmusic said:


> I still stand by the argument that if you vote, that you force others to conform to at least a small part of your morality, in some way of shape. You (and I) just vote to do it a lot less than others.



I see what you are saying.  But, I think any time anything is siezed a victim is involved.  I believe in paying taxes, and if I drive on a road, I should pay for it.  If I sleep under protection of a military, I should pay for it.  But forcing me to pay for another person's housing crosses a line where I no longer benefit from the transaction....and that's kind-of where I am coming from with this.  The "morality" of welfare is different, in that, I am directly affected by the choices of others.  And that is how I approach most issues when in the voting booth.

I do not vote unto others what I do not want voted unto me.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Homosexuality is not more important.  It is the one sin, however, that popular culture wants off the "sin list", and they're trying to do the same thing in the church.



I believe christians have taken more off the "sin list" than anyone else. I have seen more fat, loud "christians" with fried chicken crumbs falling out of their mouths as they shout "yeah, in your face liberal homo lovers!" in the past week than I have seen any true Christ-like christians.

Honestly, if the church would go back to the true, real-deal, christianity I may be interested in going back. All I seem to see these days are the "social club" churches where the faith and action has been so dumbed down that it's lost all the real fire. Most public pre-school classes have stricter rules of conduct for their 4 year-olds than the average church does for the adults anymore.

(sorry for the Monday morning rambling)


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think it is natural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man, and the same goes for women.



Then can I assume you also oppose vaccines, artificial hips, synthetic insulin, birth control, etc?  They interfere with natural processes.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Okay, so are the people who are demonstrating gluttony and pride via eating large amounts of fried chicken sandwiches and gloating about it to others not "hooping and hollering about certain sins only?"



Yep, and are wrong in doing so.

I went to a mens meeting one night a couple of years ago. We are sitting in a huge circle in a barn, with a couple different speakers that would talk at different times. One speaker wanted anyone chewing tobacco to throw it down in the middle of the circle for it to be thrown away, a couple folks ablidged him. Then everyone proceeded to get up and walk to the other end of the barn to eat at what was pretty much a buffet, with fried chicken and all the fixins, I thought to myself " hold on a minute here......".

The point is, that chewing tobacco is not good for you, but neither is eating 4 pieces of chicken with gravy and everything else that goes with it. People just need to be more consistent when railling agianst certian sins.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The point is, that chewing tobacco is not good for you, but neither is eating 4 pieces of chicken with gravy and everything else that goes with it. People just need to be more consistent when railling agianst certian sins.



Or, they need to clean up their own house before pointing out the mess in another's........I think that is in the Bible somewhere.

I thought the chik-fil-a nonsense was a joke.  The whole ordeal made both side look silly and childish.  Grown men rushing down to eat a chicken club sandwhich (which some might argue is a pretty "gay" thing to do) because they agreed with the CEO.  If you really want to make a difference in the world, show the world you got something worth having.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yep, and are wrong in doing so.
> 
> I went to a mens meeting one night a couple of years ago. We are sitting in a huge circle in a barn, with a couple different speakers that would talk at different times. One speaker wanted anyone chewing tobacco to throw it down in the middle of the circle for it to be thrown away, a couple folks ablidged him. Then everyone proceeded to get up and walk to the other end of the barn to eat at what was pretty much a buffet, with fried chicken and all the fixins, I thought to myself " hold on a minute here......".
> 
> The point is, that chewing tobacco is not good for you, but neither is eating 4 pieces of chicken with gravy and everything else that goes with it. People just need to be more consistent when railling agianst certian sins.



Exactly! You 100% get what I'm trying to say. To me a lot of the church's credibility is lost with this kind of wishy-washy cherry picking of what sins count and what ones can be ignored.

For some reason everyone is all wound up about the gay thing but in reality I think the church, as a collective whole, has *plenty* to work on in terms of their own sins before being 100% and then worrying about the sins of other people.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> I believe christians have taken more off the "sin list" than anyone else.



I disagree.




grizzlyblake said:


> I have seen more fat, loud "christians" with fried chicken crumbs falling out of their mouths as they shout "yeah, in your face liberal homo lovers!" in the past week than I have seen any true Christ-like christians.



I seriously doubt that.  It sounds very much like this story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-6318517.html




grizzlyblake said:


> ... if the church would go back to the true, real-deal, christianity ...



What would that look like?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Honestly, if the church would go back to the true, real-deal, christianity I may be interested in going back. All I seem to see these days are the "social club" churches where the faith and action has been so dumbed down that it's lost all the real fire. Most public pre-school classes have stricter rules of conduct for their 4 year-olds than the average church does for the adults anymore.
> 
> (sorry for the Monday morning rambling)



It is out there....you just have to look a little for it.



JB0704 said:


> I thought the chik-fil-a nonsense was a joke.  The whole ordeal made both side look silly and childish.  Grown men rushing down to eat a chicken club sandwhich (which some might argue is a pretty "gay" thing to do) because they agreed with the CEO.  If you really want to make a difference in the world, show the world you got something worth having.



While I agree up to a point, I thought it was a good show of support to a biz that is a morally/politically conservative biz.  Finally, people are starting to do something about the liberal left and their imposition of beliefs on the rest of America.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> Ham, you dang sure got a way of cherry picking statements and twisting them to fit your agenda!!!



It's called trolling...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> While I agree up to a point, I thought it was a good show of support to a biz that is a morally/politically conservative biz.  Finally, people are starting to do something about the liberal left and their imposition of beliefs on the rest of America.



I just think the "why" is lost in the methods.  Are folks against gay marriage because they are concerned about the individuals trying to enter one, or because they don't want it in our society?

I think the first is the only valid reason to be against it.  The second is minimized by the rest of the "immoral" behavior Christians do not stand against (see examples about lust and eating at buffet's....I can't tell you how many times I have "damaged the temple" at a Sunday afternoon pot-luck dinner).

And the first is not aided by attempting to force a belief system on folks.....you will never change a person's heart through force.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> And the first is not aided by attempting to force a belief system on folks.....



So here's the problem.  If you make homosexual marriage legal, who is forcing their beliefs on who? 

If you continue to make it illegal...who is forcing their beliefs on who?

Regardless of what either side says, legislation does just that.  It imposes someone's beliefs or convictions on someone else and they are forced to abide by it under the force of law.

Let's not pretend that there is an option here that does not force someone to accept someone else's beliefs.


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Exactly! You 100% get what I'm trying to say. To me a lot of the church's credibility is lost with this kind of wishy-washy cherry picking of what sins count and what ones can be ignored.
> 
> For some reason everyone is all wound up about the gay thing but in reality I think the church, as a collective whole, has *plenty* to work on in terms of their own sins before being 100% and then worrying about the sins of other people.



I get the first paragraph. The second? Do you see what you are doing? You are doing exactly what you accuse the church of doing. When did it become our responsibility to judge what the church does? Do you expect to find a church full of perfect people? I have a friend that does that. He refuses to go because people in the church sin. And then he turns around and says he won't go until he is ready to get his life in order. Double talk. It is nothing more than an excuse to get out of spending time in Gods house. And we are all guilty of that at times. Sometimes I try and justify sitting in a deer stand on Sunday morning, "cause them bucks are chasin right now!!" And I am FAR,FAR from perfect, so don't think I am thinking I am better than anyone else, just because I go to church. 

Bottom line is, Christians see the gay life style as repulsive. They are tired of having it thrust upon them, whether in their family, job, church, wherever. The entire "gay" thing revolves around what people do in their bedroom, and the thought of it for Christians is just repulsive. Whatever sins I commit, I do not thrust them upon others, and throw it in their face, and demand the right to do so. That is a big part of the reason this is such an issue.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> What would that look like?



Real, by the book Christianity. I've met many people of the cloth who I would say were the real deal - priests, pastors, nuns, etc. Basically, living the Word of God every day, all day, not just on Sunday morning and Wednesday night. 

There is some country song out that says "god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy" and it carries on the theme of the good ol' boy christian who may be out drinking beer and chasing skirts Saturday night but he shows up to church Sunday morning so it's all okay. 

Modern Jesus is painted up as a regular Joe who will just slap you on the back and say "Hey man, it's cool, I know I gave you all those commandments and all, but I like UGA too, and I probably would have gone to $5 Budlight pitcher night and gone home with that cute brunette after the game too, but I know you're a good boy and your granny vouched for you so we're cool. **High five**"


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> "Hey man, it's cool, I know I gave you all those commandments and all, but I like UGA too, and I probably would have gone to $5 Budlight pitcher night and gone home with that cute brunette after the game too, but I know you're a good boy and your granny vouched for you so we're cool. **High five**"



Now that's funny right there!

Sad because it's 100% dead on true....but hilarious nonetheless.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> It's called trolling...



Late to the party, arriving to incorrectly sum it up without any assessment of the dialogue that has transpired.  Great contribution to the discussion as usual Huntinfool.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

Why thank you sir.

Let's please not compliment what you do in here with the incorrect label "dialogue".


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Modern Jesus is painted up as a regular Joe who will just slap you on the back and say "Hey man, it's cool, I know I gave you all those commandments and all, but I like UGA too, and I probably would have gone to $5 Budlight pitcher night and gone home with that cute brunette after the game too, but I know you're a good boy and your granny vouched for you so we're cool. **High five**"





Your 100% correct, and it's sad.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> So here's the problem.  If you make homosexual marriage legal, who is forcing their beliefs on who?
> 
> If you continue to make it illegal...who is forcing their beliefs on who?
> 
> ...



YEs sir.  And if you have noticed, my position is idealogically consistent.....I want the gov't out of the marriage business.  It is the only way to resolve this dillemma without one person's morals being forced on another.

Why does the gov't sanction marriage anyway if it is a social / religious institution?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Exactly! You 100% get what I'm trying to say. To me *a lot *of the church's credibility is lost with this kind of wishy-washy cherry picking of what sins count and what ones can be ignored.


This is a key word, there are still plenty of Church's out there that are not this way. I hope that you can find one and start enjoying a relationship with Christ.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> Why does the gov't sanction marriage anyway if it is a social / religious institution?



Three letters...


I

R

S


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Then can I assume you also oppose vaccines, artificial hips, synthetic insulin, birth control, etc?  They interfere with natural processes.



Taking natural things, and turning them into vaccines and "artificial" hips to help a person stay healthy is not the same as a person turning away from what is naturally wired into their system. So no, you can't assume that I am against those things.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Three letters...
> 
> 
> I
> ...



I believe we can make a case that that is a discriminatory reason with or without ssm.  Good grief, the IRS hates single folks with no kids......

But, on a serious note, I do believe our country can work around the tax implications of the gov't no longer acknowledging marriage.  Just remove filing status, and allow for dependants.  No more joint returns.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is a key word, there are still plenty of Church's out there that are not this way. I hope that you can find one and start enjoying a relationship with Christ.



Does this still exist or do you still have to deal with the cherry-picking (fried chicken buffet, etc.) in just about all churches?

I may just get back to individual studying rather than being around all the waterd-down stuff.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> I may just get back to individual studying rather than being around all the waterd-down stuff.



So, then, just abandone ship rather than fighting to bail the water?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Does this still exist or do you still have to deal with the cherry-picking (fried chicken buffet, etc.) in just about all churches?
> 
> I may just get back to individual studying rather than being around all the waterd-down stuff.



It definitely exists, but there will always be _something_ that someone can find to be upset about, remember, we as the church are humans, that's not meant to be an excuse, it's just the truth. But there are many biblical based church's out there who fully understand what we are discussing right now, and follow through on it.

Either way, I hope you get back to Christ.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, just abandone ship rather than fighting to bail the water?



It's been several years since I've been on any ship.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2012)

Havana Dude said:


> I agree with this^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> but.........the problem with this IMHO, is this country was founded on Christian principals. We attempt to elect people who's views are in line with our Christian views. By doing so, we by default are asking them to not allow gay marriage. We either take the Bible in it's entirety or we throw it away and do it on our own. This will never end. It will forever be a thorn in our side. Let's say they legalize gay marriage............what's next? Many things are legal, yet considered immoral in the eyes of God.
> 
> I can't wait to see Ham's reaction to your first sentence............." don't you think we have enough people by now?"  haha, it will never end.



Your above comment is the real answer to this American issue.
Our nation and it's government was established upon godly principles.  So were the majority of other nations.

Now, within two decades, opposing forces are at work to change that in all nations.

As a Christian, I am "forced" by my God to always, always vote and campaign for godly principles.
I cannot vote to allow abortion to be a choice!
I cannot vote to allow homosexual marriage to be legal.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I cannot vote to allow abortion to be a choice!
> I cannot vote to allow homosexual marriage to be legal.



Two completely different arguments.  One involves killing, the other is a moral choice.  One has a victim, the other does not.

But, if you "have" to vote your Christian principles, would you also vote to stifle religious freedom?  If we are so determined to return this country to it's judeo Christian roots, why doesn't anybody protest having synagogues around town?

Think about it, religious freedom is a greater threat to "Christian principles" than gay marriage.  But, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue when Jews practice openly.....


----------



## formula1 (Aug 6, 2012)

*Re:*

Men and woman have been try to validate themselves for 1000's of years while on this earth in a million different ways.  And though I am repulsed by many things,  if I am truthful, I am most repulsed by 'me'. And I still try to justify 'me' so many times.  This validation of 'me' will go on and on, unless of course, it is exchanged.

Some understand exchanging 'me' is exactly what is needed and make the effort. Some are just not comfortable with what 'me' tells them, and seek and find the solution where it can be found.  And finally, after all that struggle,  they are free in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Freedom is what He offers and the eternal is His guarantee! And there is no other solution! 'You must be born again!'

On topic? Yes, absolutely! God bless!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Two completely different arguments.  One involves killing, the other is a moral choice.  One has a victim, the other does not.
> 
> But, if you "have" to vote your Christian principles, would you also vote to stifle religious freedom?  If we are so determined to return this country to it's judeo Christian roots, why doesn't anybody protest having synagogues around town?
> 
> Think about it, religious freedom is a greater threat to "Christian principles" than gay marriage.  But, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue when Jews practice openly.....


X2! Pluralism is a good thing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> I believe christians have taken more off the "sin list" than anyone else.  QUOTE]
> 
> Women dressing like men by wearing pants. That really irks me. I prefer women to wear dresses.
> Men & women doing unatural things to their bodies like tatoos and pierced parts. Married people having unnatural sex acts with each other. Gambling is off the list now.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Women dressing like men by wearing pants. That really irks me. I prefer women to wear dresses.



Depends on the woman, and the pants......

....that being said, isn't that a preference issue?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> There is some country song out that says "god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy" and it carries on the theme of the good ol' boy christian who may be out drinking beer and chasing skirts Saturday night but he shows up to church Sunday morning so it's all okay.



It's not OK.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> I may just get back to individual studying rather than being around all the waterd-down stuff.



That's very admirable, but Christianity is not a book to be studied.  Salvation is a journey, and the church He established helps us along the way.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

*This thread needs a little levity ...*




OK, back to the serious discussion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Funny, and a great movie!  Required viewing for all......you should toss this up in the PF under the marriage thread they got going....


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ... you should toss this up in the PF under the marriage thread they got going....



Your wish is my command (within limits.)


----------



## barryl (Aug 6, 2012)

*WOW!!!! Interesting thread*



grizzlyblake said:


> I believe christians have taken more off the "sin list" than anyone else. I have seen more fat, loud "christians" with fried chicken crumbs falling out of their mouths as they shout "yeah, in your face liberal homo lovers!" in the past week than I have seen any true Christ-like christians.
> 
> Honestly, if the church would go back to the true, real-deal, christianity I may be interested in going b1ack. All I seem to see these days are the "social club" churches where the faith and action has been so dumbed down that it's lost all the real fire. Most public pre-school classes have stricter rules of conduct for their 4 year-olds than the average church does for the adults anymore.
> 
> (sorry for the Monday morning rambling)


As long as we keep that pointing finger{self examination}away from ourselves and don't get ourselves in the crosshairs? My bible still says HOMO it is an ABOMINATION! love them icons!!


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I cannot vote to allow abortion to be a choice!
> I cannot vote to allow homosexual marriage to be legal.





JB0704 said:


> Two completely different arguments.  One involves killing, the other is a moral choice.  One has a victim, the other does not.
> 
> But, if you "have" to vote your Christian principles, would you also vote to stifle religious freedom?  If we are so determined to return this country to it's judeo Christian roots, why doesn't anybody protest having synagogues around town?
> 
> Think about it, religious freedom is a greater threat to "Christian principles" than gay marriage.  But, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue when Jews practice openly.....



Two completely different arguments.  One involves killing, the other is a moral choice.  One has a victim, the other does not........ 
But as I see it, they both involve moral choices and they both have a victim, if no one other than God Himself.  Or maybe the victim of homosexual marriage is the homosexual him/herself.

Concerning whether a Christian might stifle all other religions; the goal of Christianity never has been to stifle other religions.  The 1st century was filled with a multitude of religions but it was never the churches goal to stifle any of them.  

According to God, abortion and homosexual unions are each issues of morality.  According to the world's thinking, it is not.  As I drag myself alone in this life, my prime concerning must always be God's morality rather than a person's rights.

I do see your point concerning a person's rights to chose for himself whether he will take the narrow road or the wide road, but as a child of God, when given the freedom to exercise the right to vote, I should always vote God's morality.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 6, 2012)

ronnie t said:


> this is an easy subject biblically, but not so easy socially and politically.
> 
> Marriage is a religious, family union for those who are godly.
> It's always between man and woman because that's the way god initiated it.  And god condemned any other type union so god will obviously condemn a male/male marital union.
> ...



you can get married at the court house by justice of the peace....you get a marriage licence from the state so they can tax you ,and the feds can keep up with you too...it is a government thing too...not all people in america live by christian beliefs....

EQUALITY IS WHAT THEY WANT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(NOTE UNITED)


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 6, 2012)

> EQUALITY IS WHAT THEY WANT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(NOTE UNITED)



So, then, I assume you're also in favor of allowing polygamy or is it ok to simply limit marriage to one person and one person just removing the gender requirement?

I suppose my question would be, doesn't the polygamist just want equality here in these UNITED States?


Oh the things we do under the guise of social justice.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I assume you're also in favor of allowing polygamy or is it ok to simply limit marriage to one person and one person just removing the gender requirement?
> 
> I suppose my question would be, doesn't the polygamist just want equality here in these UNITED States?
> 
> ...



That is also an issue which will come up once gays are allowed to be married.  Polygamists will have to be allowed to practice as they believe also.....which is another reason why I am for getting the gov't out of it all together.  Instead of opening pandora's box, we can just throw the dang thing away.  Let the individual / private institution decide what they choose to recognize.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2012)

Doing away with legal marriage does sound like a good plan. It could then be up to Churches or individuals. Insurance companies could insure you and anyone you want to add to the policy. Companies you work for could have in place benefits for you and anyone they see fit to add. Some companies already have policies in place for this.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Doing away with legal marriage does sound like a good plan. It could then be up to Churches or individuals. Insurance companies could insure you and anyone you want to add to the policy. Companies you work for could have in place benefits for you and anyone they see fit to add. Some companies already have policies in place for this.



Honestly, what insurance companies and businesses do would be up to them, as they are private property....the gov't shouldn't tell them who to insure either.  If they don't want to insure gay partners, or polygamist partners, that should be up to them.  If they don't want to insure straight partners, that should be up to them as well (though they probably wouldn't be able to discriminate unless a religious freedom clause was instituted along with the abolishment of recognized marriage).  But, from a libertarian perspective, I say let them do as they wish, and let the market do as it will with their decisions.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of starting a "get the gov't out of my marriage" campaign!


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Aug 6, 2012)

I enjoyed reading these posts. artfuldodger asks a question about "abominable" that deserves an answer. The word(s) abomination and abominable are used many times in the King James Bible. According to Strong's Concordance it's a form of the Greek word "bdeo" which means to stink. The word translated in Revelation 21:8 is the Greek bdel-oos'so which as an adverb means to render foul, to cause to be abhorred, or make detestable.
In the Old Testament you'll find the word in Deuteronomy 7:25-26 and 12:31 applied to objects greatly detested because they rob GOD of his honor and glory. Also found in Genesis 43:32 and Exodus 8:26 where the Nation of Israel was taken captive by Egypt and begin to follow their idols. There is also an "Abomination of Desolation" referred to in Daniel 9:29 which denoted the image of jupiter erected in the Temple at Jerusalem at the order of Antiochus Epiphanes. The use of the word is not limited to the cited captions, but in Revelation 21:8 the abominable are included with those condemned to the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, and here it is specifically referring to the homosexual, or abusers of oneself with mankind. God Bless.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 6, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I assume you're also in favor of allowing polygamy or is it ok to simply limit marriage to one person and one person just removing the gender requirement?
> 
> I suppose my question would be, doesn't the polygamist just want equality here in these UNITED States?
> 
> ...



what consenting adults do with each other i don't care
they can get as freaky as they want to with consenting partners


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Is that to say that homosexuality is immoral?  I never understood that.............. "Because I said so." Essentially the same rationale a parent would use on a 5 year old child to prevent them from doing something.


Immoral or not. How bout common sense. Are you going to teach them to put a male plug on both ends of an extension cord? 


Six million dollar ham said:


> There was also a mandate to not eat warmblooded animals on Fridays.  For some reason I would doubt the burgers and hot dogs you eat on Fridays strike many people as immoral.


Theres a difference in Moses law and Gods law. Just because obammy thinks something is ok, doesnt mean God thinks its ok. 


grizzlyblake said:


> Okay, so are the people who are demonstrating gluttony and pride via eating large amounts of fried chicken sandwiches and gloating about it to others not "hooping and hollering about certain sins only?"


Take sin and politics out of it. Whats actually right about it??? Body parts are being used to do things that it wasnt intended for. WHY, because the proper part is missing...................I mean come on, its not rocket science



hummdaddy said:


> EQUALITY IS WHAT THEY WANT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(NOTE UNITED)


Well if thats the case, whats being gay got to do with it??? The gov and the rest of the world hasnt made it a crime for them to live together or even sit together in public etc. Just tell them to hold on, obammy got them covered with insurance

And if that dont work..............tell them the UNITED STATES of AMERICA may not be the place for them



hummdaddy said:


> what consenting adults do with each other i don't care
> they can get as freaky as they want to with consenting partners


As long as they dont want the rest of the world to revolve around their choices, I dont care what they do.


----------



## PopPop (Aug 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Did you read my post?  I said I was not for legalizing ssm.  I am for removing the gov't from the marriage business.   I elaborated in detail in post #12 as well (also addressed the religious institution problem).



My appologies, I did not intend to hit the quote button in that post. I like the work your doing.


----------



## PopPop (Aug 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fascinating, but this wasn't directed at you.  Nor did you answer the question in any way.  Your participation is no longer needed, thanks.



Got it Boss Man......................................................Not!


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 6, 2012)

PopPop said:


> My appologies, I did not intend to hit the quote button in that post. I like the work your doing.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 6, 2012)

1828 Noah Webster definition of Marriage...

marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.


Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

We live in a day and time where we are told right is wrong and wrong is right.Everything is all mixed up.The word of God to an atheist or a liberal ...is offensive and considered hate speech...Its hateful to have a God they don't believe in, Judge them.
 How mixed up and crazy are the Liberals? Look at this story as to how bad things could get if we just say what the hay, let them marry.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-involved-in-lesbian-custody-battle-freed-on-bail-49996/

I will vote no on gay marriage all the time.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> 1828 Noah Webster definition of Marriage...
> 
> marriage
> MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
> ...



You're right.
We're expected, sometimes even by the church, to be more openminded and tolerant.....  Not to mix our faith beliefs with our life beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2012)

Michael F. Gray said:


> I enjoyed reading these posts. artfuldodger asks a question about "abominable" that deserves an answer. The word(s) abomination and abominable are used many times in the King James Bible. According to Strong's Concordance it's a form of the Greek word "bdeo" which means to stink. The word translated in Revelation 21:8 is the Greek bdel-oos'so which as an adverb means to render foul, to cause to be abhorred, or make detestable.
> In the Old Testament you'll find the word in Deuteronomy 7:25-26 and 12:31 applied to objects greatly detested because they rob GOD of his honor and glory. Also found in Genesis 43:32 and Exodus 8:26 where the Nation of Israel was taken captive by Egypt and begin to follow their idols. There is also an "Abomination of Desolation" referred to in Daniel 9:29 which denoted the image of jupiter erected in the Temple at Jerusalem at the order of Antiochus Epiphanes. The use of the word is not limited to the cited captions, but in Revelation 21:8 the abominable are included with those condemned to the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, and here it is specifically referring to the homosexual, or abusers of oneself with mankind. God Bless.



Leviticus 18:6-30 list all sorts of abominations. 
Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Revelation 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Looks like there will be lots and all types of abominators thrown into the "lake of fire". There will be liars, married men who have sex with men, married men who have sex with other women, men who have sex with their wive on her period,  and people who love things that are highly esteemed among men.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 7, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Looks like there will be lots and all types of abominators thrown into the "lake of fire". There will be liars, married men who have sex with men, married men who have sex with other women, men who have sex with their wive on her period,  and people who love things that are highly esteemed among men.


The only people that will be cast in the lake of fire, are those that choose to be.God has done everything to make a way.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 7, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Post of the Year


 I agree!


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 7, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> As a Christian, I am "forced" by my God to always, always vote and campaign for godly principles.
> I cannot vote to allow abortion to be a choice!
> I cannot vote to allow homosexual marriage to be legal.



Me either.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 7, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> The only people that will be cast in the lake of fire, are those that choose to be.God has done everything to make a way.



Yes He has!!


----------



## grouper throat (Aug 7, 2012)

I really have nothing else to add (seems I am a little late now) but I did enjoy reading this thread. 

I have to say that our youth minister took on the task of preacher on this subject this past Sunday night and did a great job in telling us to direct ourselves in trying to minister to help these people instead of condemning them. He brought up (might be good fodder for another thread) some interesting points about 'justification' churches and their misinterpretation of Genesis(Sodom). His reference was the predominantly gay church in San Fran.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 7, 2012)

Wow, just checking in. Lots of opinions. Interesting


----------



## thedeacon (Aug 7, 2012)

The thing that is wrong about being gay is the fact that God forbids it in Christian people. The bible says that being homosexual discust God. That is the only explination I need or want. 

Any idiot that has half sense and can walk crooked, backwards will know that when you stand a man and woman side by side and look at the construction before them that God made a pair that would fit togather and make one. 

Why don't we all just go to the bible and read it carefully and come up with an answer that seems true to God. 

People have always and will until the end of times try to justify their sins. 

The problem is we all think our opinions are true to form when in truth our opinions are just that, opinions, we need to deal with facts when it comes to God and his word.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> The thing that is wrong about being gay is the fact that God forbids it in Christian people. The bible says that being homosexual discust God. That is the only explination I need or want.
> 
> Any idiot that has half sense and can walk crooked, backwards will know that when you stand a man and woman side by side and look at the construction before them that God made a pair that would fit together and make one.


Do you feel this way about unnatural sex acts between a man and a woman being some of those body parts don't line up with the way we use them?


----------

