Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.

Just because some laws enforce some righteousness (for the benefit of a community as a whole) doesn't mean that all righteousness should be enforced.

There's overlap between God's laws and the laws of man, but that doesn't mean the church should go around trying to force God's laws upon all men.

Absolutely, our laws reflect a moral code and define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. What does that have to do with the purpose of the church? We aren't supposed to enforce any type of behavior--including moral behavior. Is it a pastor's job to make sure no one commits adultery? To make certain that no one steals anything? We can support laws, but in my opinion, unless it's something that protects the community as a whole, we should keep our noses out of it, and be about our "Father's business."

In that light, how is my family threatened by gays entering into civil unions/contracts for financial purposes?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

Sorry. There is a gay scientist that theorized that he found enlarged hypothalmic areas in brains. a hand full of gays that died from aids, some animals and 1993.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1483925.html



http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar...archterm=levay



He is not a neuro surgeon. I describe fresh life human brain tissue as a texture between stiff jello and cream cheese. It can't be touched by a suction tip directly or it will come out. These samples can dehydrate before he gets them set in formaldehyde.


Freud also a zero regarding live human anatomy of the brain. He was an MD but in the 60's and 70's the field took off. But he was also a Psychologist.
Just a little comment, the brain tells the hypothalmus to send orders to the pituitary which influences the pelvic and other flushing activities of engorgement.
(Just for FERD, I post a lot from memory, hands on experiences and education) no links.

Coadie... none of that really matters. LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have to agree with Coadie here lol. That it can't consent could be seen as a reason to legalize bestiality. Animals are not human and therefore technically we can say they don't deserve basic human rights. Humans own animals and animals are technically seen as property

Someone can argue they love their animal so much, they want to be married to it

LOL

I think most gay people would find the idea repulsive as we do. Animals can't offer consent. They can't also file for divorce if abused or mistreated. I think this is a stretch, personally.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?

Issues that threaten the life, liberty, and property of others are fair game. The private arrangements and lifestyles of private citizens isn't the domain of government.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Baloney.

Every constitution in the world legislates morality.

A world without laws is unimaginable.

Yes... and no. Moral principles relating to the protection of life, liberty, and property are constitutional. However, if a constitution tells me I can't marry a woman because she's African American or if a law tells me that I can't live or do what I wish privately with myself, my wife, or any other consenting adult isn't. If so, they could ban cookouts!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Every time you vote on a proposition in the affirmative you are making a law.

And laws against speeding, drunk driving and rape enforce righteousness.

Should we do away with them?

Charnock, if you think laws against speeding, drunk driving, and rape are to "enforce righteousness" you're seriously misguided. These laws are designed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of law abiding citizens. Get a grip my brotha. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.

Not necessarily. The age of consent is designed to protect minors from being manipulated or cohersed into intimate relations. It's to protect their liberties and their very lives.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

In this case, declaring Bible absolutes.

Sin is sin and the church can never (and I add will never in America) be forced to condone sin.

Should we ban mature literature, entertainments, items, movies, etc., etc.? There goes the freedom of speech and expression. Should we ban unwholesome music?

Maybe we need Shariah Law in the United States. It seems so many have no issue FORCING their religious moral views on others at the gun point of GOVERNMENT.... until those views and morals aren't their own. Maybe being forced to live under Shariah Law will teach us something about how sacred FREEDOM is... even when that same freedom allows men to choose sin.

[Aquila]

FREEDOM is sacred. LIBERTY is holy.

Even when the same freedoms and liberty allows others to make sinful personal choices.

[Aquila]

To side with FREEDOM is holy. To attempt to use the gun point of GOVERNMENT to enforce narrow religious views or interpretations is tyranny. Ask the multitudes of people who perished under Roman Catholic rule and inquisitions for being pagan, sinners, and heretics (many were Oneness).

If we set up a "Christian" standard of law in the United States, it will not be distinctly Apostolic. It will reflect the majority opinion of Christians as it waxes and wanes...and trust me... it will not reflect our views or values. It also opens the door for a growing Muslim population to be justified in attempting to codify their own religious law in our land using democratic principles. Do you want Muslim laws creeping into the US? I don't.

We protect our own freedom and liberty by protecting the freedoms and liberties of ALL (that includes sinners whose personal choices do not endanger life, liberty, or property).