"This is presumptuous and question-begging."Exactly. Good to tell it like it is. It's difficult to say sin is sin in a world that hates Christ. (John 7:7) Have a terrific Lord's Day! And Keep on, and stir up the gift in you from our Savior.
I don't understand his point here below. Conservatives do make that point, ( I think so) that allowing homosexual "marriage" would damage real marriage and society and children, because allowing it distorts what real marriage is; and harms the future and future generations and society as a whole.So, I don't understand his point. Addendum 2: The board does criticize an argument, but it's an argument nobody makes. The argument is that homosexual "marriage" should not be allowed because doing so would harm marriage (or married couples). This is a straw-person argument. Like begging the question, it's a fallacy.
He's not deeply conversant with the evangelical community.
If we must never permit the legal recognition of same-sex couples because it "offends God", are we not therefore obliged to end any civil recognition of idolatrous religions in this nation through the granting of tax exemptions to them (Buddhism, Mormonism and even Catholicism)? If the reasoning is because it serves no public interest, on what basis do we make that determination? IOW: what does the general public gain by recognizing the union of the infertile or elderly or those who have been previously married? What do we gain as a society by allowing Newt Gingrich to marry his third mistress that is not likewise obtainable by allowing Ted to marry John? So gay marriage feels weird and unfamiliar. I get it. So does interracial marriage to many: seeing a black guy and a blond girl may ring discordant to some. So what? Are we supposed to allow only those marriages that make everyone feel comfortable?
If we must never permit the legal recognition of same-sex couples because it "offends God",Who are you quoting? I don't see anyone in this thread talking about 'offends God', or even in the link. So, so much for that.If the reasoning is because it serves no public interest, on what basis do we make that determination?Reasonable ones that follow from first principles, among others.What do we gain as a society by allowing Newt Gingrich to marry his third mistress that is not likewise obtainable by allowing Ted to marry John?What makes you think people on this site are particularly thrilled by Gingrich's marital history? And is that really your move? "Marriage right now is in the gutter. Why have any standards at all."?Though I'll certainly cop to the claim that allowing gay marriage would be some drastic lowering of standards. At that point, why not allow polygamy, straight guys to marry straight guys just for the insurance benefits, etc.So gay marriage feels weird and unfamiliar. I get it.Not really. Are you arguing with a phantom here? Okay, let me argue with phantom-you:Alright, I understand. You just love sex with animals. Humans don't do it for you. You feel ashamed of this, and the one hope you have of alleviating your bestial shame is by pushing society in the direction of (confusedly) granting you some kind of legal status of recognition and pride, hence your support for radically redefining, or obliterating, marriage. Plenty of people have fetishes like yours - pedophiles, scatophiles, etc. So what? Why should society change just so you feel better about your love of Fido-sex?There we go. Now we're both arguing with strawmen!
I always simple ask a homosexual waht his, or her definition of marriage is.It is a word we have in our culture, and it means a particular specific thing.Husband and wife must enter into the conversation, and so male and female follow that into conversing.For a male and male to be married is not possible. Not according to what we all know the meaning of word means.If two men, who are homosexual, long to have the same rights as a man and woman, who are married, then they have to say, we can not. They cannot be married unless we disregard the meaning of the word marriage.And we need words to have meanings, don't we.Have a great Lord's day.
"If we must never permit the legal recognition of same-sex couples because it "offends God", are we not therefore obliged to end any civil recognition of idolatrous religions in this nation through the granting of tax exemptions to them (Buddhism, Mormonism and even Catholicism)?"This doesn't make any sense. The Christian view is that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful. It never says that the validity of marriage depends on theology. Paul says you should not be yoked with an unbeliever, but that if you are married to one, you should not be divorced. You seem to be conflating random things, like saying if Christians outlaw bestiality as an offense to God, they should disallow marriages between non-Christians. Paul disagrees with your conflating of these different issues.Also, I'm wondering why you bring interracial marriage into it. Didn't Ruth marry Boaz? When does the Bible speak against interracial marriage? Do you think Peter after seeing the sheets descend would forbid Cornelius from marrying a (female) Jew? Again you seem to be trying to blur things that the Bible makes clear in order to advance a self serving agenda.Finally, let me tell you, I'm not a Christian, but Christianity in this country seems to have allowed a tolerant atmosphere that allows people like you and me to speak their minds. But given the behavior of homosexual activists, I have no confidence that this will be the case if your views are allowed to prevail. You don't seem to want to just be left alone. You seem to want to compel people to act against their conscience, even if it doesn't cost you anything, simply because your vanity is offended if people don't approve of you. I think this is deadly to the principles this nation was founded upon, and that you should not be allowed to do this.So what about that lesbian who made a big stink about being denied communion, despite the fact that she must have known this (being a Catholic school teacher) and that she was told beforehand by the priest that he could not do it. Does this bug you at all? I'm bothered that you are willing to give the government mechanisms to stifle free speech and freedom of conscience that will be misused in the future, but that you don't care, so long as it serves you now. Am I wrong about that?
"You seem to want to compel people to act against their conscience,..."Amen.""For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me."-Paul, the ApostleThank God for Jesus Christ, the Man who came to die on a Cross for mankind and rebels:-And rose from His death. Amen.
"So what about that lesbian who made a big stink about being denied communion, despite the fact that she must have known this (being a Catholic school teacher) and that she was told beforehand by the priest that he could not do it. Does this bug you at all? "Sure does. I also find it annoying when gay couples (or unmarried straight couples, for that matter) sue beds-and-breakfast or dating services that don't cater to them. I'm not an ideologue. No one should be forced to accept my business for any reason *IF* it doesn't involve some basic necessity of life (food, clothing, housing, medical care) and when doing so would mean compromising their own values.