Cloudy / 52° F
Marriage is not a right, but a privilege [UPDATED]
Published 10:24am Monday, May 23, 2011 Updated 2:19pm Tuesday, May 31, 2011In response to “Gay Marriage Issue Argued:”
Regardless of your race, age, or sexual orientation, marriage is a part of our life and forms our society. You do not have to be married to understand just how important marriage is.
Through marriages new life is created, souls are bonded together, and responsibilities are given. Marriage is not a right it is a privilege.
To completely change the fundamental nature of such an institutional structure to fit the wants of a social fad is unnecessary. Same-sex partners already have the right to visit each other in the hospital and include each other in their wills.
The only thing they do not have is the right to social security.
Those who oppose the referendum keep telling you it is because Republicans are bigots and cannot make this decision themselves.
I do not know about you, but quite frankly I am completely fed up. I am fed up with being told I am a bigot, I am fed up with my beliefs being attacked, I am fed up with the personal attacks and lies, but most of all I am fed up with being told if I was allowed to vote I would be too stupid to make the right decision.
Comparing same-sex marriage to the discrimination of those who are of African-American descent is ironic when you consider the African-American community supports the referendum.
According to Minnesota Public Radio, “The higher the proportion of African Americans in the county, the higher the vote for banning same sex marriage. While this fails to confirm our hypothesis, this result seems easily explained as an indication that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the LGBT community’s argument that marriage is a civil right, and not a moral question, has failed to win favor among black citizens.”
As for Joel Myhre, editor of The Daily Journal, saying the Bible is irrelevant and should not be taken literally, I am sure any true Christian would disagree with you. You cannot pick and choose the truth.
You either believe that “all scripture is God-breathed” or you believe it all to be a lie. The Bible cannot be both the truth and a lie. The Bible clearly states God’s opinion on the matter whether or not you choose to believe it.
By redefining marriage you are forcing the rest of us to accept that our marriage no longer holds the same meaning.
We do not elect politicians to make our decisions for us; we elect them to represent us.
If the majority of voters disagree with same-sex marriage, who are they to tell us we need to accept it? This is an issue that should be decided by voters.
This referendum is not banning same-sex marriage but rather defining marriage.
If the politicians were bigots wouldn’t they simply push through a bill banning same-sex marriage?
But that is not what they are doing; we all have the opportunity to vote. If you choose not to exercise that right I do not see any real reason that you can blame Republicans for that. You can only blame yourself. This is not a political game. This is a fundamental structure of society that cannot be voted on by a small group of people. Whether you choose to accept that or not is up to you.
Danielle Saul
Fergus Falls
Well said Danielle. Very wise words.
Hurtful actions in the name of Christ are unacceptable according to Jesus, the Bible, and basic human decency. We must accept the hurtful outcome of this debate and denying basic human dignity is wrong.
joseph allan, what you call hurtful actions is actually standing up for truth and rebuking sharply. What you call basic human dignity is actually reprobate, abominable, and disobedient. There is nothing dignified, nor human about people of the same sex coming together sexually.
Titus 1:9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Baloney, Merle. Muslim extremist terrorists also probably think their actions are “standing up for truth.” Just because you brainwashed yourself into believing that doesn’t make it so.
This is where the difference is; religious people (any religion) “THINK” they’re standing up for truth, but are deceived. When the God of the universe comes to live inside of you, it transforms your hope into a “PERSONAL EXPERIENCE”. When God opens up your eyes to be able to understand the scriptures it changes you from having an opinion to having “KNOWLEDGE”. Knowledge and personal experience trumps an opinion.
John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures
Another difference is extremist Muslims are willing to kill innocent people for their god, whereas followers of the one true God are willing to lay down their lives for their brothers. There are Muslims all over the world willing to kill anyone who is not one of them; they believe all infidels should be wiped off the face of the earth. Yet for the most part the Muslims who are defined as moderates for the most part remain silent. If there was even a one small group of professing Christians who went around blowing up buildings, beheading people and killing innocent people, the rest of the body of Christ would stand up immediately and vehemently condemn that group. We would say that group of murders are not part of us.
John 15: 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Matthew 7: 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
I have not been brainwashed, but I am in the process of having my mind renewed. I am however blood-washed.
Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
John 8: 31 Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. 32 And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
I couldn’t agree more. I just wonder why it took the journal so long to print an opposing opinion in the paper. I can’t believe that this is the only letter the journal rec’d with an opposing opinion to Joel Mhyre.
Barbara, do you know that religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing? Nobody’s church or doctrine will be affected. The entire subject of marriage equality for gay people relates to the civil, legal contract of marriage. The government does not regulate what churches do with the sacrament of holy matrimony. They never have.
Churches can do whatever they want. They can choose to bless or marry any couple or deny any couple. The bedrock American principle of Freedom Of Religion guarantees it.
Civil marriage, on the other hand, is regulated by the government with no religious component. Since it’s not illegal to be gay, there is no legal basis on which to deny gay couples access to purchase a marriage license if they want one.
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
–Mildred Loving, of USSC case “Loving v. Virginia” 1967
“I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation. Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
–Coretta Scott King
“I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism.”
–Rep. John Lewis, ally and close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“When someone asks me, ‘Are gay rights civil rights?’ My answer is always, ‘Of course they are.’ Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t special to be free from discrimination.”
–Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP
Not to mention women’s civil right pioneers like Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem who also support gay civil rights.
If I owned an apartment, would I be forced to allow couples practicing sodomy to rent from me and live on my property? Would I be required to hire them to work at my company? Is freedom limited to only those living in sin or does everyone have rights?
Equating a perversion of God’s design (Sodomy) to His creation of different genders and races is ridiculous.
If you owned an apartment or business you would have to follow applicable laws, including anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws. If you can’t handle doing that, don’t do business in the public sector.
I’m sure there are KKK members who can’t stand the idea of having to treat blacks equally. They have the choice to either follow the law or not put themselves in a position to be subject to the law. It’s as simple as that.
It is not illegal to be gay, nor to have gay sex. That’s just the way it is. You can think whatever you want about that, but equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws (both state and federal) prohibit you from certain actions in the public sector.
You can think, believe, and practice anything you want. However, if doing so requires that you violate the law you’ll have to accept the consequences. Your choice.
Dannie I would like to refer you to my earlier post about how this is not a civil rights issue.
According to Minnesota Public Radio, “The higher the proportion of African Americans in the county, the higher the vote for banning same sex marriage. While this fails to confirm our hypothesis, this result seems easily explained as an indication that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the LGBT community’s argument that marriage is a civil right, and not a moral question, has failed to win favor among black citizens.”
Do not try to group the two issues together. If this was a civil rights issue then all African-Americans would be in support of the movement or even half of them would be. But that is not the case. Please take that into consideration and quit your hateful comments. I find them offensive and wrong connsidering the facts.
Danielle, everything you just stated was either incredibly ignorant or irrelevant.
First of all, why would all African-Americans be in support of it because it is a civil right? African-Americans are people just like you and me. You and your mother are not in support of it, but if you were born black would you be? Why would the color of their skin make them just jump toward any civil rights movement? Using your logic, all woman of any race in America should be jumping on the bandwagon here. They had just as much civil rights struggles as the black community. This is an incredibly ignorant thing to assume.
Secondly, your quote from MPR states that, “this fails to confirm our hypothesis”. It is a thought and not a proven a fact. Therefore it is irrelevant.
Danielle, I admire you for the finely structured and reasoned work here. And for the courage to write it and offer it to an editor who so closely hews to the DFL party line in his opinion pieces. Many others feel as you do, but few have had the courage of their convictions to offer their opinions in this public manner. God bless you and defend you.
Somehow I doubt God “defends” those who use their personal religious faith as a weapon trying to restrict the civil liberties of others.
You doubt because you do not know God. The god you speak of is the one that you’ve created in your own mind in order to fit your own personal views. What we condone, we agree with. The actions we take corporately will effect the nation as a whole. The reason homo-sexuals want the right to marry is so that their behavior will be considered normal by society.
Leviticus 18:24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’”
It is not for you to say whether someone else knows God or not.
You wrote, “The reason homo-sexuals want the right to marry is so that their behavior will be considered normal by society.” Oh really? They told you that? Seems to me they want to marry for exactly the same reasons straight couples want to marry.
Lev 19:19 “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
Lev 19:27 “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”
Lev 19:28 “Do not put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.”
Lev 20:9 “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.”
Lev 20:27 “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Jesus said turn and sin no more. If you are continuing to lvie in sin you cannot be living for him. We are told that we will know other Christians by the fruit of their trees. If someone continuously turns from God and chooses a lifestyle of sin they cannot be living for him. The Bible says you can only serve one master you cannot serve both God and the world. If you are choosing a lifestyle so adamantly wrong in the Bible how can God be in control of your life? So no, we cannot judge whether or not anyone is Christian only God knows your heart. But continuously ignoring His word is obvious signs you have not surrended your life.
Marriage is only a privilege when looked at from a religious stand-point. The wanting of a partner is basic human nature and is not granted from a higher authority, making it a right. Marriage is defined as a union between two people. Those two people need not to be man and woman. If a church wants to deny a gay couple union, be my guest. However, the Government has no business including ignorant religious principals when deciding law. This is not about religious weddings. This is about Government-issued weddings. There is no church involved so why try to bring it into play?
You say, “Same-sex partners already have the right to visit each other in the hospital and include each other in their wills.” You act as though they should be happy to be treated as subservient beings. That is like saying black people should have been happy when the Montgomery Bus Boycott led them to be able to sit in the front seat of buses. Should they have stopped there? If you say no, your argument is invalid because that is the same card you are trying to deal. Gays should keep fighting until high-horsed bigots treat them as equals.
Once you graduate high school and get married and have kids, what would you do if one of your kids were gay? Would you fight for his/her rights or would you tell him/her to suck it up and to throw in the towel because the bible says he/she is going to hell?
People are so ignorant towards others it is ridiculous. How does two gay people getting legally married (not religiously married) affect you? It would not affect the sanctity of marriage as it is not a religious wedding. All they want is the right to legally wed each other, just like any other individual has in this country.
Brendan- again you really do NOT read what is written by others or God has really blinded you completely, either way a waste of education funds paid out for you. By your own liberal radio statistics- the African-American base is against this. They are not equating gay marriage with the race issue and the horriffic struggles they went through. Wake up Brendan, your message doesn’t work here.
Whether you are male or female, white or black, religious or non-religious, gay or straight, you CAN NOT legally prevent a group of people from receiving a state-sanctioned benefit. Whatever you believe spiritually, allowing one group of adults to receive benefits others do not is discrimination. And it is inherently illegal. If you are a law-abiding citizen (and wish to remain a law-abiding citizen), you should vote against the proposed constitutional amendment.
The Constitution governs the laws of the United States of America, not any type of holy text. Thankfully my generation sees this as a non-issue. I just wish my elders would put away the Bibles and look at the Constitution when debating the law. Lest you forget, you live in a democracy, not a theocracy.
Yes I agree. They need to put away the Bible when it comes to political issues. This is not about religious weddings and many people do not understand that or comprehend that. I have found that this is not a widespread issue, but more so localized to extremely conservative cities like Fergus Falls. Moving 54 miles Northwest of there has shown me quite a change in attitude of people. As much as people cry and moan that the statistics that most people are against the ban, it is true. The only people that seem to be all for it are from the likes of Fergus and cities similar. I do not get why it is such a hard concept to grasp that civil unions cannot legally be tied to religious beliefs. It truly is discrimination and it needs to stop. Ginny, I did not pull any statistics off of any liberal radio because I do not consider myself liberal and waste my time listening to that crap. I consider myself independent and like to think for myself on issues like this. I am not speaking for either the GOP or the DFL here. However, I am comparing it to the horrific racial struggles because this is a similar struggle that is based off of the same underlying concept: discrimination. You add nothing of importance to this debate. Clearly you have no more valid points to prove your idea of what is right as you have resorted to slanderous language. Come on Ginny, can’t you do any better than, “a waste of education funds”? I expected more of the mother of someone who was excepted to West Point. Oh but remember, apparently I am a “snot-nose”. Phooey to you.
Yes we can since it is up for a vote apparently we can and do.
Ginny, you can’t vote to take away someone’s civil rights! That’s tyranny and against everything the Founding Fathers stood for. Thankfully we have a court system which has consistently defended civil rights, even when the public wasn’t ready to recognize equality.
Amen, Krista! Well said!! Praise the Lord!!
IF that is true Krista, then why can’t I marry my siblings? I love them. Or one of my parents? Cousins? What about my dog? Or my cat? Is it okay to exclude them?
Our entire government is based off of the views of Christianity.
We based ours off of Greco-Roman Republics with the addition of “all humans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. The older version of our government didn’t believe in this. They were founded on the ancient philosophers who said that people were inherently unequal. Barbarians, slaves, and women were not given the same rights as others in the society. Christian views changed this into what our Founders created in this country.
Extremely well said for one so young Danielle. Your family must be very proud of you.
Dear Sayonara, thanks for asking. Let me clear that right up for ya.
Existing laws require a civil marriage to be of two consenting adult human beings not related to one another. Gay couples must also meet those criteria. You marrying your sofa does not.
If you seek additional changes to civil marriages law that would allow you to be joined in wedded bliss to your German Sheperd, go for it. Your case will be heard and judged on its merits just as the case of gay couples is.
Any other questions?
Brendan I not only graduated high school last year, but I am graduating from MSUM next Spring. My morals are my morals they will not change or bend based on my family or friends. I have friends of different sexual orientations but that does not mean I change my values. If I was to get pregnant, I would not suddenly change my values and get an abortion. I will not ostracize my child but I would not accept it. You do not change society to force people to accept your values. As of now gay couples can enjoy all benefits besides social security. They do not have a right to have the same marriage as an opposite sex couple. I am sorry. One can provide new life and provide us with a next generation to sustain us in our old age, while the other cannot. However, as stated several times now, the referendum will not ban gay marriage. If you do not agree with it get out and vote in 2012.
Danielle, with all due respect I’d like to correct you on a couple points.
You said, “As of now gay couples can enjoy all benefits besides social security.” That is a big fat whopper of a LIE. Do you value honesty at all? If so, you should educate yourself to the fact that according to the Government Accounting Office there are 1,138 legal legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that come with a civil marriage, all of which gay couples do not enjoy. They include:
Joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims’ recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; and judicial protections and evidentiary immunity.
Secondly, you also said, “One can provide new life and provide us with a next generation to sustain us in our old age, while the other cannot.” This implies you believe only procreating couples can buy a marriage license. That is not the case. Sterile and post-menopausal couples get married all the time. Others simply choose not to have children. Meanwhile, gay couples raise children all the time with the help of surrogacy, adoption, and in vitro fertilization. They receive no familial protections. Your inconsistency on this is just another example of using illogical arguments in an effort to justify your prejudice. Shame on you.
Brendan says Marriage is defined as a union between two people.
Brendan, are you God?
Matthew 19: 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Neither you nor the state has the right to redefine marriage.
It’s the definition of marriage. Open a dictionary instead of the Bible, Merle, and try to use CREDIBLE sources for a change.
Brendan
Just because the dictionary changes a definition to change to societal changes, does not mean the Bible does. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. That is where a Christian’s hope comes from. I cannot speak where anti Christians get theirs from , since I am a Christian standing on the Word of God. If that were the case,and the Bible changes in accord with society, than God is meaningless and we have no foundation, no hope.
What if someone out there that decides definitions in dictionaries decides an orange will now be called a bcje ( imaginary word obviously), does that mean the object truly changes? NO- only the name changes. An orange would still be the same color, same taste, same size as before the change in wording. Marriage universally is a man and woman throughout the world. If a dictionary definition changes the name of the word marriage, marriage is still between a man and a woman. Hence when you read the dictionary, at least the ones I have read, have added a word before marriage to explain the new meaning. The new word is gay. It says gay marriage, then defines that. The point of the Ammendment before the people on the ballot in 2012 is still the same- we need to vote to retain/further define the legal meaning it now is (legally now): a man and a woman.
As for the Bible changing with the times as so many would prefer. It can’t, at least without severe consequences. Read Rev 22:19, there are consequences whether anyone takes them seriously or not is their choice. Always remember God wants none to perish. He will always know better than we do. As Christians we are not saying or doing things just to antagonize, but we truly believe God’s Word is true, and anyone that calls themselves a Christian ( not saying you I am saying anyone claiming Christ but not believing) should as well. I personally cannot do anything to convince anyone to believe and accept His free gift, but I am also called not to let others defile His Word. Again this whole issue is not about anyone ever hating anyone, it is about keeping the definition of marriage what is now, was always, and for God’s sake I pray it always will be. The verse that follows is powerful to me.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Ginny, I would like to start out by saying that I agree with you that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. However, politics should be separate from religious ideals. Separation of church and state is what it is called. I do not get where you people seem to think it is okay to make a law because the Bible says it is not okay. It baffles me you all are so dull and close-minded.
Also, your examples mean nothing. Using your example of an orange being changed to “bcje (what??)” makes absolutely no sense and is not relevant at all. In your example, as you state, the name changes and not the definition. To apply this example to the issue at hand, the name of “marriage” has not changed. The definition has. Your example is backwards. Also, marriage is a loaded term in a way. Let us break it down to a more applicable term to the situation. There are two types of marriages: civil and religious. Unfortunately, religious institutions have all the rights to juristic the qualifications of receiving a religious marriage (i.e. gays cannot religiously marry, as pertains to the Bible). However, as others have stated, it is not illegal to be gay. That being said it should not be illegal for gays to receive a civil marriage.
I am not asking for the Bible to change.
I am not asking for religious marriages to change.
What is being asked has NOTHING to do with religion.
The Bible IS outdated in some aspects (i.e. slavery- read some of my other posts) and yet we are supposed to follow along with it, word by word? No. The Bible should be taken as a guideline, not law, on the path of a quality Christian life.
Let’s have a quick vocabulary lesson.
Definition:
Bigotry- Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Does this sound familiar?
Also, “Ammendment” is spelled “Amendment” and in the last sentence of your first paragraph, you need to use the word “then” instead of “than”. But that’s right… I am the waste of education funds. You give me such a laugh. Just throwing your card back at you, Ginny.
Some problems with your statement:
#1 The dictionary was both written and inspired by man, whereas God’s word was inspired by the creator of the universe
#2 Man cannot define what it did not invent or create, only God, who is the one instituted marriage from the beginning.
#3 The dictionary is subject to change (just look how the word “GAY”, which is really a term that refers to a feeling of joy or happiness has been hi-jacked to mean something quite the opposite, but God’s word never changes.
#4 There is nothing on earth more credible than God’s word. NOTHING!
I am right with you Merle. Great post Merle.
Okay Merle, I’ll bite.
1) Was the Bible not written by man also?
2) This being said, all definitions of everything are void, as God has defined them all. Now, that sounds unreasonable. How do you know God isn’t working through people to change the definition?
3) You are right, God’s word never changes. Does that make slavery and the likes of it okay? According to you, it does.
4) God’s word is only credible to a Christian. Christianity does not equal politics. If you cannot understand this, there is no hope for convincing you otherwise as you are confusing politics for religion. As I have said in many other posts, this is NOT a religious issue… it is a political issue.
Danielle,
You are right! Marriage is a privilege. It is a privilege for all people. Open your heart and do not hurt families and children. Discrimination, inequality, and unfair treatment will never be Christian values. I will pray for those who are hurt by the very discussion.
FYI Brendan I meant you wasted taxpayer funds on education- my point proven “excepted” is spelled accepted. Yes, I am very proud of my daughter getting into West Point, she didn’t waste taxpayer funds , she soaked it all up thank you very much, she truly appreciated education and still does. What does she have to do with my belief system anyway? Nothing. She is an adult, self supporting, Bible believing adult.
Seriously Ginny? You find one incorrect word and jump on it? Typical ultra-conservative with no other valid points to argue. Come on Ginny. You are at least twice my age. You can do better than this.
If you are going to define Christian values, at least attempt to give us a scripture that defends your false beliefes.
Actually, Ms. Saul, civil marriage is very much a right. That is the consistent finding of the United States Supreme Court, an authority more qualified than you to say:
Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court): “The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected.”
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942 (US Supreme Court): “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary.”
Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (US Supreme Court): “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
So the question is, since marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for opposite-sex couples, why is it not so for law-abiding, taxpaying, lawn mowing gay couples?
Tony…you are very quick to site case law but yet you do not mention the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed through both house of congress and was signed into law in 1996 by none other than Bill Clinton (I hope you can see the irony on that one) It is still Federal law since the case is still on appeal. Until there is a final determination in that case marriage is defined as between one man & one woman.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Barbara, I understand what DOMA is and all that. My points on previous USSC rulings, etc. go to why & how I think DOMA is about to be shot down.
You can’t very well claim that just because something is or has been that it therefore must stay that way, or that it therefore is right & just. That way of thinking would not have allowed us to leave slavery behind, or to grant women the right to vote.
Sometimes we make mistakes. Even Bill Clinton, ha ha ha. Seriously, sometimes we make mistakes and DOMA is one of them. It’s not illegal to be gay, so there is simply no sustainable legal justification to treat gay people or gay couples differently under the law.
If you disagree with that statement, I’d love to hear your legal argument.
I get that you personally have your issues with gay people, but nobody’s personal feelings & personal value/morality judgments are relevant to law.
Tony, I simply stated what the current Federal law is. There is no disputing what the CURRENT law is. I also said that until there is a final determination on DOMA it is the law. That does not say that it will not change once there is a final decision on the appeal. Anyone who opposes same sex marriage is being attacked and called names on these threads. We have also been told in these threads that if we are “law abiding citizen’s and want to continue being “law abiding citizen’s” we need to vote against amending the MN Constitution to define marriage. That would be voting against the “current” Federal law…wouldn’t it?
Barbara, I see your point but DOMA is about how the federal government defines “marriage” (Social Security implications, federal tax implications, etc.) and DOMA specifically allows states to do as they wish. The MN ballot measure is about the state definition of “marriage” only (state tax implications). My point was just because a person is allowed to do something (or because it’s been a certain way in the past) doesn’t make it right.
Also, you wrote, “Anyone who opposes same sex marriage is being attacked and called names on these threads.” I feel the need to correct that.
There’s a big difference between one’s feelings/beliefs and public policy. Anyone can oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons or whatever, and based on that belief they can refrain from marrying their same gender. No problem.
But just because you believe it’s morally wrong that doesn’t give you the right to make it public policy that I have to follow. See what I mean?
If we got 51% of Minnesotans to vote that we enslave blacks, and that 51% truly believes in their well-intentioned hearts that blacks are inferior and should be slaves, that doesn’t make it ok.
That 51% can think and feel whatever they want about blacks. They can disassociate with them, whatever. But their personal feelings CANNOT be allowed to create policy that goes directly against bedrock American principles like freedom.
I see the exact same thing with gay rights. It’s not illegal to be gay so no matter what anyone’s personal feelings or moral judgments are, they cannot be allowed to create policy that would treat gays as lesser under the law.
And actually, Ms. Saul, nobody is telling you that you have to “accept” gay couples getting married. Frankly, nobody really cares what you accept or don’t accept. That’s your business.
But you do have to tolerate it.
It is not illegal to be gay. That’s a fact. According to America’s foremost authorities in science & medicine it’s not even wrong or bad to be gay. Given all that, gay people are 100% your equals in society regardless of what you think about that.
When you display a lack of simple tolerance, THAT is what earns you the label “bigot.”
Ms. Saul, there are plenty of people I don’t like, or understand, or approve of, or accept. But I am a Christian and never in a million years would I expect that my personal assessment of those people should be used against them when they are not breaking any law or harming me in any way.
You should be ashamed of yourself for such thoughts. They are borne from hate and bigotry, and if you don’t like being called that then stop acting that way. I’m sure the KKK isn’t very find of the label “bigot” either but if the shoe fits….
I do not have time to individually reply to you all so I am sorry for the brief blanket response. To set the record straight I did not state any mean spirited remarks nor did I suggest any hurtful actions towards those of different sexual orientations. I am sorry if any of you read it that way. I used facts and logic to pose my argument not hateful comments so I would appreciate if you returned the favor.
Since I did not bring the Bible into this, those of you who oppose my opinion did. Whether or not you believe in gay marriage is up to you. The church does not, nor can, condone it. If we are to call ourselves Christians than we cannot pick and choose what to believe. If the Bible does not agree with it than we do not agree with it, that simple. “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” We can try to fool ourselves and say that times have changed, but if you are a real Christian then you MUST believe differently.
However, none of this is even remotely relevant to the referendum. The referendum in and of itself does NOT ban gay marriage. There is an equal opportunity for it to pass as to fail. If you oppose it then go vote! Do not let the same politicians you say have no morals make such an important decision! If they are so untrustworthy how in the world can you think they will make the right decision on this?? If you want gay marriage vote no. If you are one of those ‘bigoted, bible-thumping, judgmental, hardcore Christian types’ with traditional family values like me, vote yes. I know which way I will be voting and I am very thankful to have the right to vote!
Ms. Saul, that is a really weak response. I posted plenty of science and logic and reason, not one shred of which you address.
Additionally, you wrote, “The church does not, nor can, condone it. In fact, you speak solely for your church, whatever that may be. You are not the keeper of who is or isn’t a Christian, or which Christian churches are “valid.” A large and growing number of Christian churches reject anti-gay prejudice as misguided, cruel, lacking in compassion, and inconsistent with not only science & medicine but with many, many of Christ’s teachings. Some such churches are the Freedom In Christ Church, Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist Church, Presbyterian Church, Dignity Catholic Church, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Metropolitan Community Church.
You can believe anything you want, but the fact remains that (another thing you haven’t addressed) it is not illegal to be gay, hence there is no legally sustainable justification to treat gay people or gay couples differently under the law than straight people and straight couples. Religious views — all of them — are not relevant to civil law.
PS – I’d bet that if your alleged gay “friends” knew your true feelings they wouldn’t be your friends anymore.
Whoa, not only are we who oppose homosexual marriage insulted by you as being bigots, but now you are assigning grades to our opinions? Danillle’s opinions are unworthy because they fail to measure up to YOUR standards? Will you then be the final arbiter of whom shall have the gravitas to be allowed to post an opinion, and what opinionwe shall be permitted to express?
Grading opinions? What are you talking about? This is not about Mr. Maciej and it’s not about Ms. Saul. If people post things claiming them to be fact but what they post is inaccurate it’s about healthy discussion with accurate information.
I have been watching this commentary back and forth, and it occurs to me that there are others things that are not “illegal” as you stated, ie: cigarettes. However, there are many that feel that they have a right to define where smokers can and cannot smoke. I am not talking about second hand smoke. I am talking about in their own homes, yards, cars etc. If you are stating that the majority should not rule the minority, why is this accepted behavior by your same group? Even funnier is the fact that marijuana is illegal, and your same group is saying that illegal drugs should be permitted, in these same places I just mentioned. Funny how your rules change and sway with ONLY your ideals, others are persecuted for being intolerant. The words both you and Brendan have been using against many others in all these posts are demeaning.
Mr. Smith, it might help if you consider that smoking etc. are BEHAVIORS, and yes of course we make rules and laws regarding acceptable behaviors.
But gay people are not gay based on the fact they have gay sex. A person is either straight or gay before ever having sex. Sexual orientation is based on which gender a person is naturally attracted to or sexually aroused by. Which means it is NOT behavioral but rather a part of a person’s IDENTITY. Rational, civil societies do not penalize people based on aspects of their identity.
Just an observation. Our country used to believe in the phrase “I may not like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it”. What happened to that sentiment? Those of you who oppose the referendum are attacking and slandering those who are for it. We are not attacking you yet you call us bigots and refer to the KKK. Since when is it a crime to disagree on issues? When did our politicians stop representing us? Why are you so quick to give up your right to vote? I want to vote. I want a say.
Danielle, my apologies. I was basing your graduation based on your age. You are very smart for your age that is the truth. However, your mom certainly did start the “attacking” in other threads about this subject. It has never been a crime to disagree and debate on a subject, but when someone has to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks to attempt to further their point they become invalid. I have nothing against you or your sister, just your moms methods of debate. She is lacking much to be desired in that aspect.
Ms. Saul, you have it wrong. Nobody takes issue with your right to disagree. Disagreement in a free society is healthy. Nobody here refutes that.
There are two things we are taking issue with:
1. Basic civil rights should never be put up for popular vote in America. The entire concept is wrong and un-American. You dodge this completely by clutching to the “It’s on the ballot which makes it ok.” No, it’s not ok. I have yet to see you make a case based on law, logic, and reason why it’s ok to vote on the civil liberties of a minority group.
2. While you of course are free to think, feel, believe, and practice anything you like with regard to homosexuality, we take issue with the fact that this isn’t enough for you. It seems you think you have the right to impose what you believe onto others who don’t believe what you do. That’s not disagreement we’re taking issue with, it’s tyranny.
Now, how about you address these actual issues for a change instead of playing the victim?
I am sorry but I will have to completely disagree with you. How am I playing the victim? As far as I can see, no one on my side has personally attacked any of you. Your side is the one that is calling us bigots, KKK members, comparing us to Muslim terrorists, liars, and a whole list of other insults. We are focusing on facts while you are basing off feelings. So do not say that I am playing the victim because that is a personal attack I take strong offense to.
1. I did address the civil rights issue. Please re-read my article. The African-American community DOES NOT SUPPORT IT! If they do not support this movement how can you compare this to a civil rights issue? They would be the first group behind you! How about we throw away our entire election system then because the majority oppresses the minority. I didn’t see anyone care about that last year during the health care debate. The only time you care about the minorities rights is when your views are in the minority.
2. Homosexuals have the right to practice whatever life-style they please that does not mean their relationship should be considered equal to my heterosexual relationship.
Tony I can’t seem to reply directly to your last response in our thread and your name is gone from the comments so I will respond this way.
I have said all along through these post…if same sex couples can have all of the state rights of marriage through civil unions and domestic partnerships…why then is the push to redefine marriage? No one has answered that question.
Your argument does not hold water. If 4% of the population of this country is gay why does the other 96% of the population of the country have to accept their choices as “normal” There is the beauty of living in a Democracy…we don’t have to. That is why the question will be on the ballot in 2012. We the people get to have our say on the issue of whether or not we want the constitution of the state of MN to define marriage as between one man & one woman. No one is denying the 4% of the population their rights to choose what lifestyle they want to live. We are defending marriage
For all of you who are so opposed to gay marriage-
Seriously, let people live their lives they way they want. As long as it’s not hurting anyone, who cares? Why put so much energy into holding people back when it has absolutely nothing to do with you? What gives you the right to judge anyone? Honestly, it makes me sick. I’m embarrassed for you and how ignorant and just plain mean you sound.
Megan,
I am all for Gay marriages, My wife and I have a Gay marriage, and many of my friends have a Gay marriage. What I am against is a perversion of what God has instituted. Sodomy, bestiality, and pedophilia not only effects the persons who are practicing it, but the whole nation. Do you remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? When a nation turns its back on God and embraces such Heinous behavior, that nations future is very bleak.
Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. 23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
I’m not going to waste my time reading whatever it is you’ve written because I will never agree with you. I don’t base my entire life off of a book that says I’m going to hell if I don’t do everything exactly as it tells me. You are closed-minded and judgemental and in my opinion, a moron.
^agreed. He consistently quotes Biblical phrases for a political issue. The Bible has ZERO credentials on political issues. If you are going to have a real debate, Merle, use something that really, TRULY, has credentials from something other than a religious stand-point. The Bible was created by religious folk and should stay with the religious folk. It need not be intertwined with politics. As I said before in other posts, the Bible authorizes slavery, so if you are going to consistently use it as a reference, I am going to tear you apart. You cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible. If you take one part and think it is politically-correct, you take it all. Meagan is correct. You are close-minded and judgmental. Accept and love those who are different from you with an open heart. That is part of being a true Christian. I’m just going to throw these out there, because that’s what you do, Merle.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)”
“Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)”
“Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)”
See Merle, the Bible authorizes the use of slavery. Clearly (unless you are all for slavery), it is an outdated book founded on outdated principles. But you seem to think it should be respected in the eyes of the Government. Grow up Merle.
If that is not the pot calling the kettle black! (For you liberals out there; No! That is not a racial statement)
You personally attack an individual; not a group, not an ideology, not a philosophy, but an individual; and I am the one who is closed-minded, judgmental, and a moron.
close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-)
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
Really Megan??? You think you can follow your first sentence of your comment with calling SOMEONE ELSE close-minded???? That really takes Chutzpah! (That’s Chutzpah in the hebrew definition of the word)
Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work
Jim Daly
Throughout its grand history, America has regularly been willing to reevaluate cultural norms, especially when the change that challenges the status quo promises to right a wrong or advance and improve the social welfare. Many of these watershed movements have delivered precisely and as powerfully as promised (woman’s suffrage and civil rights) while others have failed (prohibition and no-fault divorce).
Historically, American voters have been blunt in evaluating the wisdom of social change. When a bad idea, which was originally considered to be good, slips through and into law, the American people haven’t been shy about fighting for its repeal and holding corresponding leaders to account. With the benefit of the new media and widespread access to endless streams of data, voters are now able to even more quickly discern fact from fiction and evidence from mere promise.
It’s in part from this context that I’ve been following the ongoing marriage debate in the New York state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared the legalization of same-sex marriage his number one priority. Supporters are waging a clever, celebrity-driven and well-funded campaign, suggesting that all they want is “marriage equality.” In fact, what they want to do is redefine this multi-millennial institution.
I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who don’t believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?
On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.
Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that “never the twain shall meet.” Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since it’s our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be God’s blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly don’t begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldn’t it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?
In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.
A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.
The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.
Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the “burden” of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a person’s appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.
Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.
In each example of social reengineering I’ve noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.
Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you can’t change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.
Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.
Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian “marriage” ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).
If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.
Merle,
The number of unmarried couples living together hasn’t increased the divorce rate. You know what has increased the divorce rate? Progress. As people now have the opportunity to easily move other places, meet people from new and exciting locations who share their same interests, and as people feel less encumbered to stick with failing marriages, the divorce rate has increased.
Now, with our generation, people don’t have to stay in unhappy marriages. People also don’t have to “settle” for anyone if they do not want to; now they can easily move to a new location, or find a new person to love and care for.
Lastly, the statistic you quoted about same sex couples being 11 times more likely to be abusive and whatnot is just plain WRONG. It is inaccurate. You want to cite a source for that? No? I guess it’s because that’s either a made up statistic or something that is grossly misrepresented.
Since you seem so keen to believe whatever you read, try this on for size:
Hate, however you dress it up, is still hate. And hate is ungodly.
Oh, don’t bother offering logic or reason to Mr. Hexum. Clearly he knows absolutely everything already. He’s got it all figured out. If he doesn’t already believe it, then it doesn’t exist. Whatever!
Dannie McNamara, strange you should admonish others not to attempt to offer fact or reason to any who fail to support your enlightened views about the “correctness ” of homosexual marriage. Earlier in this thread you asserted that homosexuals could not help themselves or change their propensity to desire sex with other homosexuals, inferring that homosexuality is inborn, perhaps genetic. Would you please identify the location of the “gay” gene in our DNA? Scientists, medical and social, worldwide,
await the answer with bated breath, as the said gene is even more difficult to locate than the “missing link” in man’s evolution from pre-hominid forms to modern homo sapiens sapiens. There could be a Nobel Prize for Science waiting in your answer.
Gabrielle…you might want to go back and read Mr. Hexum’s post before you comment.
1) Mr. Hexum’s post was written by Jim Daly and Mr. Hexum posted it here because the points raised in it are relevant to this discussion (Thank You Mr. Hexum for sharing that post from Jim Daly…I thoroughly enjoyed reading it)
2) You say “Lastly, the statistic you quoted about same sex couples being 11 times more likely to be abusive and whatnot is just plain WRONG. It is inaccurate. You want to cite a source for that? No? I guess it’s because that’s either a made up statistic or something that is grossly misrepresented.”
That is not what it says…It says …
“Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.”
The statement VERY clearly says children that live with their MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND. It never even mentions same sex couples…Unless of course you intend to redefine the meaning of “Mother” and “BOYFRIEND” next.
Barbara,
You’re right, I misread that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the statistic is not backed up with a citation.
However, of course I know that Merle didn’t write that (after all, it was lacking endless Bible quotations). But when you repost a letter by someone you’re obviously saying “Here, look at this letter, I agree with it. This is my opinion as well.”
But obviously you need to reread posts as well. My name is Gabriel, as in the angel in the Bible that you so claim to love, not Gabrielle.
Brendan
1) Was the Bible not written by man also?
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I realize that you will not take the above verses as evidence as to who the author of the bible truly is, so I am giving you a method in which you can prove for yourself whether the words in the bible are really God’s words or merely of men:
John 7: 16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
2) This being said, all definitions of everything are void, as God has defined them all. Now, that sounds unreasonable. How do you know God isn’t working through people to change the definition?
Malachi 3:6 “I the LORD do not change.
Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 55:19 God, who is enthroned from of old, who does not change— he will hear them and humble them, because they have no fear of God.
3) You are right, God’s word never changes. Does that make slavery and the likes of it okay? According to you, it does.
Where in the bible did God promote slavery? He did not endorse it, but it was a practice that was part of the society of that day. Many people of that day offered themselves into slavery in trade for sustenance or for land in the future. He did command that anyone who had servants better not mistreat or be harsh to them. Just like the constitution, the forefathers did not deal with the issue because it was part of the culture of that day and had they attempted to outlaw slavery they would have never gotten approval of the constitution, but they did leave room for it to be changed politically in the future.
4) God’s word is only credible to a Christian.
Christians represent the majority of the nation. The majority implements policies they wish to have implemented. If you cannot understand this, there is no hope for convincing you otherwise, as you are trying to separate a persons faith from their actions. As I have said in many other posts, for a Christian everything is a moral issue… even political issue, if not their faith is fraudulent. If their faith is nothing more than a religious activity that they observe for an hour on Sunday morning, their faith is vain.
Someone had suggested that truth is subjective, this is a foolish statement. Opinions are subjective, personal preferences are subjective, and individual tastes are subjective, but truth is not subjective. Truth is true whether 99% of the population believes it or no one believes it. Our society will continue to decline if we ignore God’s laws. If we sow wickedness we will reap corruption.
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
Mr. Hexum, why are you so obsessed with homosexuality?
Dannie…why are you so obsessed with who’s rights and opinions are to be protected and whos can be infringed upon? You responded to Sam Smith’s comment about smokers rights with…
“Mr. Smith, it might help if you consider that smoking etc. are BEHAVIORS, and yes of course we make rules and laws regarding acceptable behaviors.
But gay people are not gay based on the fact they have gay sex. A person is either straight or gay before ever having sex. Sexual orientation is based on which gender a person is naturally attracted to or sexually aroused by. Which means it is NOT behavioral but rather a part of a person’s IDENTITY. Rational, civil societies do not penalize people based on aspects of their identity.”
by definition…
sexuality
Pronunciation (sek’shu-al’i-te)
1.The sum of a person’s sexual behaviors and tendencies, and the strength of such tendencies.
So by your own statements “of course we make rules and laws regarding acceptable behaviors”
Therefore we have the right to make laws and rules in regard to sexual BEHAVIOR. Or is it that we can only make rules and laws in regard to BEHAVIORS that you deem acceptable or unacceptable? hmmm…Seems to me that you have backed yourself into quite the quagmire on this issue!