toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

[Lighthouse]

I don't think that is the point CM was making.

:dunce::duh:

Ever heard of exaggerating to make a point?

I was merely pointing out that your attempted insult to my intelligence was misdirected. I would question your intelligence based an equating the rules parents make to keep their children safe and being synonymous with legislation.

Maybe he should focus on your poor English/grammar skills if he wants to insult your intelligence without it being misdirected.

 

[ragTagblues]

:dunce::duh:

Ever heard of exaggerating to make a point?

With you it is never easy to tell . . . . . hence my reply!

 

[CabinetMaker]

How?

And that doesn't answer my question. How is it relevant to legality that under the OC sin and crime were synonymous? That has absolutely nothing to do with what the law should currently be.

You are drawing distinctions between sin and crime from the old covenant where such a distinction was never made. If you are going to base criminal law on the OC, then you better use ALL of the OC.

So what makes that different from homosexuality?

Under whose laws, men's or God's?

I don't think you can back that up.

I'll let you speak for yourself. Yor very next response is a great place to start.

An adult, clearly. Not a child.:nono:

Whether your child is an adult or a child, Leviticus 20 says that you are to stone them if they curse you. Since have never been a parent I don't think you understand the depth of love a parent feels for their child regardless of how old the child is.

So you don't, "think that the drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources"?

Also, do you believe you said that or do you know you said it?

Go read post 55. Drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources. Drugs should be decriminalized and treated the same way we treat alcohol.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Really? You're mistaken, again.

If they are wrong because they are wrong then there is something greater than God that determines morality. If God is sovereign then God and God alone determines right and wrong. Which is LH, is God constrained by something greater than Himself or is God truly sovereign?

Jesus took care of the punishment in regard to sin, not crime.

Since crime and sin are the same in God's eyes, how could Jesus take care of one without taking care of the other.

Why is it, in your mind, homosexuality should not be one of those?

First define for us crime. Who determines what is a crime and what is not?

Relevance?

And you question my intelligence.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:dunce::duh:

Ever heard of exaggerating to make a point?


Maybe he should focus on your poor English/grammar skills if he wants to insult your intelligence without it being misdirected.

Actually, its typing skills that trip me up.

 

[WandererInFog]

You are drawing distinctions between sin and crime from the old covenant where such a distinction was never made.

There are any number of things in the OT which are condemned as sinful but for which there was no criminal penalty attached. There was, for example, absolutely no criminal penalty for failing to fulfill one's proper obligations to be charitable to the poor, yet we find such behavior repeatedly condemned and God's direct judgment threatened (and at times ultimately carried out) against those who failed to honor such obligations.

 

[Traditio]

Gay marriage is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Granite]

Actually, my family is doing quite well. My oldest just completed her confirmation class (Covenant Church) and my youngest has just asked to be baptized. May wife and I just celebrated 23 years of marriage. My daughters are not inclined to dress the smutty way they see emulated on TV. All in all, I would have to conclude that I am of sound mind to raise a family where God is worshiped!

Hey. Don't say I didn't warn you, CM.

 

[Newman]

The government shouldn't recognize marriages. Recognizing marriages has nothing to do with protecting people's lives, their liberty, or their private property, therefore it's none of the government's business.

I would agree with those that say gay marriage is impossible, but I can't force or impose my way of life on others. I wouldn't want others to do the same to me. Homosexuality is a sin, but the government isn't in the business of punishing/preventing sin except where life, liberty, and property coincide.

 

[Non-Excluvistic]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 6th, 2010 11:05 AM

toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Doesn't seem to be my call. The rules against gay marriage seems to apply to believers. If that person doesn't believe they have free will to do as they please either way at the end of the day.

It's funny that the religious free will believers always want to be the first to take away another persons right to free will. Gay marriage is only a big deal because religious people wish not for others to exercise their free will when it goes against their beliefs they've chosen themselves with their free will.

Gay people do not affect me, nor does Gay marriage.

For all the verse pickers who reach back to the OT to say something about gay marriage but eat pork, cut those pagan trees out of the forest and deck them with silver and gold (Jeremiah 10:3-4), and participate in a host of other things that are restricted, get real. We always like to pick out those things which we are against and use it to persecute others (but wait that's the OT we are under new rules now, it's all about LOVE lain

 

[MaryContrary]

The government shouldn't recognize marriages. Recognizing marriages has nothing to do with protecting people's lives, their liberty, or their private property, therefore it's none of the government's business.

I would agree with those that say gay marriage is impossible, but I can't force or impose my way of life on others. I wouldn't want others to do the same to me. Homosexuality is a sin, but the government isn't in the business of punishing/preventing sin except where life, liberty, and property coincide.

This seems a convenient solution to the whole gay marriage controversy but I don't think there's anything wrong with government encouraging and even rewarding institutions that benefit society. Governments are supposed to serve and protect the people, so it makes perfect sense for them to encourage things that strengthen the people. Marriage is practically the bedrock foundation of civilization, so if a government were to actively encourage and reward anything at all it'd be that.

 

[El DLo]

I posted this in another thread but I think it more aptly belongs here.

The fact that people can be so naive and close-minded when it comes to this issue makes me ashamed to be American. Honestly people, this country was founded on religious freedoms, and in America one of the best things is that everyone's free to believe whichever religion they want, or none at all. So why, in a country that allows us to have the freedom to not adhere to a national religion, are principles contained within that religion being forced upon those who may not even follow those beliefs?

You fundamentalists can quote scripture all you want, but for those who don't believe in your scripture, incessant quotation of it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Maybe marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, but you know what? It's not a Christian idea, and it is shared by pretty much all other major religions in the world. That said, what possible right could the state have to forbid a religious institution to allow marriage between same-sex couples?

The constitution protects the rights of all American citizens, and same-sex couples are absolutely still American citizens. By guaranteeing everyone's right to religious freedom, they established a specific separation of church state, and forbidding an institution from allowing gay marriage is a direct infringement on that separation.

If a Church doesn't want to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, then that is FINE. It is their right to not allow it in their church, but if there is a religious institution that is willing to perform that union, then in my opinion, no facet of government should have the right to step in and forbid that.

 

[Stripe]

Based on sexual orientation alone, none of them are deserving of death.

God disagrees.

Laws regarding sex should be limited to protecting society from sexual predators. Sexual acts between consenting adults regardless of how distasteful we may find them, fall under the purview of morals, not criminal behavior. In short, laws are required to protect us from each other. Laws cannot protect us against ourselves.

God disagrees.

 

[CabinetMaker]

There are any number of things in the OT which are condemned as sinful but for which there was no criminal penalty attached. There was, for example, absolutely no criminal penalty for failing to fulfill one's proper obligations to be charitable to the poor, yet we find such behavior repeatedly condemned and God's direct judgment threatened (and at times ultimately carried out) against those who failed to honor such obligations.

Can you show me in scripture where God makes a distinction between sin and crime in the OT? Can you show me in scripture how we are to differentiate between sin and crime.

 

[madman]

I posted this in another thread but I think it more aptly belongs here.

 

[El DLo]

Madman, I'm very disappointed. I clicked to see the new posts expecting to see something of value, and instead I saw you being about as useless as I could have expected.

 

[CabinetMaker]

God disagrees.


God disagrees.

Hey Lighthouse! Here is a person that believes God wants homosexuals dead just for being homosexual!

(Sorry Stripe, but you need to go back and look at Leviticus a bit more closely.)

 

[madman]

Madman, I'm very disappointed. I clicked to see the new posts expecting to see something of value, and instead I saw you being about as useless as I could have expected.

Just like your comment.

 

[MaryContrary]

So why, in a country that allows us to have the freedom to not adhere to a national religion, are principles contained within that religion being forced upon those who may not even follow those beliefs?

The only reason I can think of that I would agree with would be whether that principle stands on its own, apart from whatever religion. Not to mention marriage isn't a religious concept especially. Marriage is something humans inevitably must conceive of and institute whenever they seek to establish civilization. What culture doesn't have some version of it? And what few don't adhere to the male/female standard exclusively? It's not a religious concept, it's a human one.

And even if it were purely a religious concept...so what? Again, if it stands on its own then who cares where the concept originated? There are plenty of "principles contained within religion" that we've institutionalized. Because it doesn't matter where it's contained or where it originated, only whether it's beneficial to institutionalize them.

In the end you're just going to have to show the benefits of homosexual partnerships that would show them equal to the well-established social benefits of heterosexual marriage before you can reasonably expect anyone to grant them the same status. Otherwise you're talking about granting an undeserved special privilege.

 

[Stripe]

Hey Lighthouse! Here is a person that believes God wants homosexuals dead just for being homosexual! (Sorry Stripe, but you need to go back and look at Leviticus a bit more closely.)

Don't know what you're talking about. The only way to be a homosexual is to practice homosexuality. Just like the only way to be a murderer is to practice murder.