Re: Re: Re: Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/28/07 11:31:43 PM |
Age 43, TN |
All human beings are born with a sin nature. In that sense we were all born perverts, liers, thiefs, and so on. The issue isn't sexual orientation, it is sin orientation. If a person will repent and trust in the Savior, they can be born-again and receive a new heart with new desires. They will hate the former things and have an ever increasing affection for the things of God. The Bible is sufficient and clear concerning all matters of sexual conduct. Your medical literature does NOT stand above scripture. Much of the "science" relating to sexual orientation is highly suspect. Who do you think funds that type of "research?"
|
Re: Re: Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/27/07 08:42:11 AM |
Age 59, CANADA |
So when did you choose to be heterosexual (assuming that you are heterosexual ...)? To engage in sexual activity is a choice. Sexual orientation (according to the consensus of medical literature - references supplied on request), is not. Those with a same sex orientation then face three choices; celibacy, relationships without blessing, or relationships with blessing. I think that the first choice isn't practical, and that the last choice is better than the second.
|
Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/26/07 02:02:03 PM |
Age 72, AR |
Before I comment on the article, I must make entirely clear that I have no more need nor use for a same-gender sexual relationship than does Barber, or any of the petitioners he proclaims to support. Indeed, once as a young sailor I hitched a ride, he propositioned me, at a stoplight he put his hand on my thigh, I twisted his arm and slammed it across the steering wheel, I jumped out and last I heard he was screaming, in pain more than anger, "you broke my wrist," and I still hope I did.
Now that I can speak without being judged as a participant or advocate of a position I do not hold, I can say this is a totally irrational tirade by a frightened and frightening author. This is a perfect example of John Adams' comment at the Continental Congress to the effect that a majority wrongly led is more dangerous than the worst despot. If he is in fact involved in the practice of constitutional law, state or national, I certainly hope Barber understands that the purpose of constitutions is not to grant power to majorities but to grant protection to minorities from oppression by majorities. He and all signers of the petitions against same-gender relationships, marriage if you will, certainly understand that the only way their own heterosexual relationships, including marriage, can be bent in any way by the same-gender relationship of others is if they or their spouse/partner are one of the participants in the same-gender partnership. To make any more of this artificial controversy is to engage in the most fallacious of all the fallacious arguments on the American and world political and cultural scene. Let's start worrying about things where worry might lead to a positive outcome. Such a plethora of possible causes has to bring anyone with the slightest hint of thought capability to the conclusion this is a triviality in the realm of human endeavor and relationship.
|
Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/26/07 01:46:20 PM |
Age 44, NJ |
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1, ESV Bible
Patrick J Burwell, OnlyJesusSaves.com
|
Re: Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/26/07 12:08:23 PM |
Age 46, MN |
It is the same argument made by those who didn't approve of mixed race marriages 50 years ago. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
This phrase comes up like it is a matter of truth to compare the two issues at hand. It degrades the civil rights history of blacks and what they endured in this country through unimaginable persecution.
It is impossible for me to change my skin to black. Sex is always a choice whether same sex or heterosexual.
|
Re: “Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!
| Posted On: 06/26/07 06:01:13 AM |
Age 59, CANADA |
What would the author have said if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the Supreme Court justices had not legalized gay marriage, and a citizens' petition had gathered enough signatures asking for a ballot question legalizing gay marriage? The legislation in Mass. says that citizens' petitions must be approved by 50% in two sessions of the legislature before appearing on the ballot. Would the author have been upset if the legislature had decided that the petition seeking gay marriage was not in the public interest, and had voted it down?
It doesn't matter what the initiative is; the process involves two steps: the gathering of the signatures, and the approval of the legislature. It doesn't matter if the initiative is conservative or liberal; the process is in place to allow the public to suggest initiatives, but the legislature also has a role to ensure that the initiatives are reasonable, and in the public interest. All the initiative must do is gather one quarter of the votes in two sessions. This initiative failed. The supporters couldn't convince even 25% of the legislature that this was a good idea. Lawmakers didn't "thumb their collective nose at their constituents"; they made a decision as to what they felt was right, following the process laid out in law. If the author doesn't like the result, his next step is to turf our the members of the legislature.
And one technical error in the article; the author implies that bisexuals want to have two partners simultaneously. Well, I know some heterosexuals who are doing their darnedest to maintain two partners simultaneously, but that's not the implication of bisexuality. A bisexual is simply someone in the middle of the sexual orientation scale; someone who can form a loving and permanent connection with one other person of either sex. And while we're at it, the "slippery slope" argument is fallacious anyways; it is the same argument made by those who didn't approve of mixed race marriages 50 years ago. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
|
|
|
|
|
