Why is gay marriage part of the anti-Christian movement….

So it is ok for Caucasians to have a tax break that African-Americans, Asians and Latinos don't?

If the tax breaks for marriage are truly about procreating, then why is there a separate tax break for having children? Why do infertile couples (which can be tested for) get the marriage tax break? I have never seen on the 1040 the questions "Are you fertile? Do you plan to have children?"

Of course if marriage is really about procreating, then why stop lesbians? There are many lesbian couples that choose artificial insemination and get pregnant. I personally know a lesbian couple who just had their second child.

Hell, even a male gay couple could get a surrogate and have a baby.

Technology has reduced the need for heterosexual sex to procreate. Our laws need to advance with our technology.

 

Neither are sockpuppets of previously banned members around here.

LOL

 

he's decided to ignore me since I have been calling him by his previous screen name. dixon

 

Your own words.

He noted that "[w]hen [the devil] speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" - and obviously he speaks lies, however superficially palatable, to appeal to what's rotten in people, just like you do.

It says no such thing.

Since I have clearly made no representation about the OP whatsoever, your transparent attempt at diversion is exceptionally retarded.

 

Which words, specifically?

And which lies would those be? Where?

I don't see why you're beating around the bush if you're supposedly so sure you're right. What's the problem? You've levied a pretty severe accusation against me, and yet you can't seem to pin down exactly what I did to make it, instead dabbling in coy suggestions.

You made the representation that I "invoked" Christ in this thread. You are implicitly therefore arguing that no post before mine mentions Christ. Since post #1, in fact, "invoked" Christ, by mentioning him several times, you are objectively incorrect.

Now, time to admit it, and move on. You didn't read the whole thread and posted before you had all the facts. It happens.

 

In your first post here you implied that Christians should support "gay marriage" as if that would consitute such love for homosexuals as Christ had for the Apostles, when He never validated their sins or anyone else's, as you do those of homosexuals - and that to their detriment, to say nothing of others.

And properly so.

I certainly would be, using a definition of the term which is inappropriate for the circumstances. Using the term appropriately, as I did, your claim is a non sequitur.

 

Regardless of the way some view this issue overall, the judgmental manner in which too many individuals/groups approach homosexual people, is unwarranted and in many cases NOT supported by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

There is a strong case to be made for compelling hypocrites to back-off.

 

Is there now? And how precisely do you propose to accomplish that?

 

I've seen it in-effect, and it works. Hypocrites EXPOSED, usually sets them straight.

 

I implied that - given the two choices posited of either supporting or opposing civil same-sex marriage - the more Christian position would be to allow same-sex civil marriage. That stems from not forcing people to live as I live. It also stems from wanting people to be happy in their lives.

That position has absolutely nothing to do with "validating" sin, any more than allowing a Hindu their First Amendment right to stand on a street corner and denounce Jesus has to do with "validating" their heresy.

Civil marriage is nothing more than a preferred status in front of a civil government.

And with that, we finally arrive at the root of your problem, which is your inability to discern civil law from religious beliefs. Typical of most who oppose legal civil same-sex marriage.

I presume, then, since you oppose civil law that allows people to do things which might violate your religious code, you oppose allowing any business which does not agree with Christianity to incorporate? Indian restaurants, for example?

And what definition would it be that you're using? Certainly not one from a dictionary.

 

On the contrary, that is the core of your position, and you are most likely oblivious to that fact by choice.

The parallel doesn't work, because free exercise/free speech under 1A requires no government action, whereas governmental validation of "gay marriage" obviously does.

I am perfectly aware of how determined you are to dumb it down, and it's exactly the sort of thing an enemy of Christ can be expected to do.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you are so blockheaded as to assume I have one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invoke?fromRef=true

World English Dictionary
invoke (ɪnˈvəʊk) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—vb
[...]

3. to appeal to (an outside agent or authority) for confirmation, corroboration, etc​

Which of course is exactly what you did in post #5.

 

I've noticed you didn't respond to my request for any words from Jesus that would explain how I am validating sin.

LOL... The First Amendment didn't require any government action to create? I'll just let the stupidity of that notion sit there.

Ah, yes, more attacks instead of rational response.

Personal attacks = "I am incapable of providing a rational response"
Saying merely that I'm "dumbing it down" does not in any way respond to the substance of the post.

Of course I do, because I assume you're not trolling, in clear violation of the rules. So which is it?

I made no appeal. I responded to someone else's appeal.

OP says "Source X says A"
I look at Source X, and find that it doesn't say "A", it says "B".
I post, "No, Source X says B".

That is not an "appeal". It's refuting someone else's appeal.

This is why you should read all the posts before just trolling.

 

The bible says to judge not lest you be judged. I believe that Jesus' message was one of love, not one of discrimination. I support gay marriage and I am a Christian. One because in the United States every citizen should have the exact same rights regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orietation, etc. PERIOD. Secondly, because as I stated above, I do not think discrimination is what Jesus was about. Show me where Jesus, not the Old testament, said anything about how we should discriminate against people who are different than us and refuse them rights that are given to other people.

 

Yes I did, in posts #104 and #106.

I never said anything of the sort, obviously.

You do that.

Rational responses can only be perceived as such by rational people...and that's just not you.

Which is wall to wall dissembling and lies, so there isn't any substance to it.

You also assume one must have a religious code to be religious, which of course is nonsense.

Now that you've been educated to the fact that you have created a false dilemma, you are welcome to drop this retarded line of inquiry.

I do'nt know who the Hell you think you're kidding.

Yes, with a fraudulent appeal to the highest Authority Who ever waked the face of the Earth.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

And you think, for whatever foolish reason, that the two are somehow mutually exclusive, when as represented by the Bible, both Jesus and God are very discriminating indeed.

You're kidding yourself. Don't think you're gonna kid me.

There is no such thing.

How are we supposed to refrain from casting pearls before swine without discriminating?

 

You are missing what is really going on. Some political parties drive their voters to the polls using fear as the motivating factor. They try and instill fear into their voters so voters MUST go to the polls to DEFEND something.

All of the anti, same-sex marriage talk is really just a way to drive Republicans to go to the polls so Republicans can win.

It really is that simple.

 

Indeed.

 

See, here my problem with this thread.

Religion has nothing to do with marriage as recognized by the state.

So, have your religious opinion all you want. Just know that it in no way affects the legality of same sex marriage.

 

I agree. So lets make a constitutional amendment barring the government from having any say in whether people are allowed to get married. Marriage should be a social contract between consenting adults, and have no legal bearing on anything.

 

So what? Aren't GAY consenting adults entitled to the same rights, both based on Christ's "reported" comment and on the generic human rights?

 

Amen!! Great point!!

 

Excuse me but you do know that jesus as the real historical jesus of Nazarath,was a homosexual man ,don't you .

how many children did he have =0

Did he get married =NO never.

did he hang around in a near all male enviroment with his 13 friends the disciples =Yes totally!

when Mary the prostitute offered him a free be did he take her up on her offer =NO!

Did he have any girlfriends ever =NO!

Join the dots!Asexual or homosexual take your choice , hetrosexual definitely NOT!

Oh as far as the Gay and lesbian lifestyle choosers they want to be recognised by the church ,Gay marriage covers that!

My many homosexual friends wouldn't go near a church if you payed them ,something to do with past oppression ,murder and assaults from the backward faith Thunkers.of the judeo\christian \Muslim tradition.

 

Gay Marriage by definition is a religiously based movement BTW!

thats PRO RELIGION not ANTI.

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS RITE ,LAST TIME I LOOKED!

Democratic right it is NOT!

Democracy is based on ANTI RELIGION BTW.

Many a Priest ,clergyman ,bishop ect felt the fall of madam guillotine on the back of their necks in Paris 1789-93,the high point of revolutionary France.

 

No a wedding ceremony is a religious "rite" a marriage contract is a civil right.

I was brought up as a Humanist, I married my wife in a registry office with no mention of religion whatsoever. The law treats us just as married as the next couple who had a huge religious shindig in a church. We are considered a family under the law.

 

Marriage was around before virtually ANY religion one could name.

 

Correct! And what gays are looking for here in America are the LEGAL rights related to marriage, not 'religion'. Religion is ultimately a matter residing within an individual's heart.