Gay couples 'to get equal rights' in the UK

Here is an important question. Does God agree that laws backed by the bible has no place in the in secular society. After all there are instances in the OT where the Lord is clearly influecing pagan Kings

yours, Jon.

 

Wasn't the second issue about stable unions? I thought I did answer that one rather completely.

As far as

I would say that of those, murder and theft are two that can be backed up consistently using non-Biblical reasoning, and are not out of place in secular government's lawbooks.

Again, I'm talking about government here and what meterstick it should use when making laws. Yes, some government laws overlap Biblical law, and those that can be defended extra-Biblically are valid for the government to uphold.

 

How? Who decides?

People are supposed to be equal, aren't they? How can one person say to another, "you can..", or "you can't.."? I'm sure that there are folks sitting in prison right now that would really like to be able to make their own laws, or get a group of like-minded individuals together and vote their laws into existance (democracy).

How does the standard get set? Who says who's meterstick we're to use? You like yours, I like mine. It's fine if they're closely comparable, but what if they're not?

That is why we must have an absolute, unchanging standard as the basis for all our laws. The only place we have that is in the Bible, God's written revelation to His creation. Once we get away from that, anything goes.

The comment always surfaces, "but you don't want a theocracy, do you"? My answer to that is always, I'm a Christian. God, in His infinite mercy saved me and has commissioned me to be a witness of Him to the rest of the world. Do I want a theocracy? Not until Jesus returns. In the meantime, do I want that everyone become a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ?

You better believe I do!! I pray that's the goal of everyone else here too.

 

My moral standards are certainly set by the Bible.

But many other codes of ethics are unchanging, too. To say that the Bible is the only unchanging standard is simply untrue.

As far as the issue of same-sex unions goes, it's not for the government to say that because same-sex sex is sinful (I'll stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, even), it must be unlawful, and the unions created by those who are same sex couples must not be legally recognized.

What's the secular reasoniing for doing such? The solely Biblical argument simply isn't valid in government lawmaking.

 

James, your reasoning is totally foreign to that of the government where you reside - and in particular to baptists who have traditionally championed separation of church and state.

Your argument that a stable moral code requires the Bible falls apart immediately since moral codes have evolved all over the world without the assistance of the Bible. Any time people gather into a community they naturally form a consensus about right and wrong behavior. The larger the community, the more it tends to follow certain general, normative parameters.

In addition, the Bible is far from an unchanging rule. At one time, its followers allowed polygamy. At one time, they allowed the murder of rape victims. At one time, they allowed slavery.

Joshua

[ December 10, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

Kelly, if you read my post again you will realise you never touched my second point and there is no logic to the answer of the 1st. The legislation is far wider than you are understanding and in no way is concerned with the main issue of the real concerns of the children who will be adopted. If you are familiar with the pattern in uk during the past decade you will realise it is more about consistency with political correctness than with childrens real needs. Please check out the background on this as well as the biblical background I hinted at since.

yours, Jon.

 

Actually, I presented an argument that stated "God has written His law in every one of us" (posted December 09, 2002 10:43 PM) and we now have the Bible which contains the written revelation of that law.

Yes, I know our government has fallen away from the quaint notion of checking what the Bible has to say about a subject before making decisions. That's the reason we're sitting here in this pot (much like the proverbial frog) while the heat is being turned-up.

In a community, or any other gathering of people, for example, teams at work, certain people gravitate toward leading and others toward following. It's the leaders that the deceiver is after. Put the deception in a key person's heart and you've got 'em all sooner or later. That's why we, who see the deception, must say, "no further" before all is lost.

The Bible (also) contains what God wants us to know about the history of mankind so we may learn from it. God Himself, and His Word, never changes.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I do not change

 

1st of all you will know that today that is not the choice on offer. Even Banardo's homes have moved away from the orphanage concept.
2nd, refer to my previous post and you will see that I have indicated clearly that children do need dual role model of male/ female working together.
3rd. My previous post has indicated also that the legislation is not just about homosexual involvement. As such I have made clear on this thread that it is not merely about so called homosexual bashing, but also expressing concerns about inappropriate involvement of heterosexuals

These discussions must be balanced in this way if we are to care adequately for the children themselves

yours, Jon.

 

This is a waste of time for so called Christians to stand up for homo-sexuals, and an abomination to God.

Even if you could leave God out of the picture, nature shows that it is wrong.

Even if you could leave God out of the picture, children learn from what they see and hear.

Even if you could leave God out of the picture, I and all my family don't want them around us, and we don't want to be around them.

But, we can not leave God out of the picture!

AMEN!

 

I'm confused. These are the points you presented:

I questioned the truth of the first, and spoke about the stability of a same-sex union in response to the second. If the issue in the second point is not about stability of a couple, then you're right, I didn't address it. If that isn't the issue of your second point, what is? I would like to address it, whatever it is, but based on the above, I can't see what I didn't address.

I still don't see what rights of what children are being violated by allowing same-sex unions. and yes, I'm including in that the understanding that child raising (including adoption) by same-sex couples would be allowed under the law. I don't know what you think I'm not seeing about the background and implications of this legislation, but I'll take some time to look into the particulars of this as it pertains to the legislation in the UK. I'm more than familliar with the particulars from the US lobby, but perhaps the ramifications would be different?

As for children learning what they see in their parents, I must then ask how you can explain straight people raising gay kids and gay people raising straight kids?

 

Absolutely right!! That's why we don't run away, but rather invite open and frank discussion.

We must let our light so shine that all the lost of the world are drawn to Christ. We are in the world, but no longer of the world. And, while we are in the world, we must proclaim the free gift of salvation offered by God through Christ. Don't hide your light under a box. Let the light that is Christ in you, shine through you so that all may see.

-John 1:4

[ December 10, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

I use to live in the Milwaukee area a few years back, and witnessed homo-sexuals walking and other things in public, and on the streets in broad daylight.

A deplorable sight and very embarrassing for my children to witness such abominations.

Call sin, SIN!

 

Kelly, the issue is not just about homosexuals within this legislation but also heterosexuals. Therefore you will not adequately get to the heart of it by dividing on those lines. Rather, we must think what is the best for the children in both situations. with that in mind you might want to relook the whole issue

yours, Jon.

 

Here are issues that ought to concern us all:

1) The legislation referred to concerns itself to the perceived "rights" of adults in adoption. It should be the rights of children.

2)The legislation is part of a long process in this country where standards take second place to political correctness. Should we take such risks with the lives of Children?

yours, Jon.

 

Maybe I'm just dumb.

Certainly, the "rights" of the children should be considered when dealing with adoption. I just haven't seen any evidence that they're being violated in any way because of same sex unions and possible subsequent adoption.

True, being PC for the sake of it isn't something to be encouraged, but again, I don't see that this is purely PC - it's about granting rights to a group of people that shouldn't have such rights denied.

I'm interested in what you said about this affecting or dealing with heterosexuals, too. Can you expand on that, perhaps, jon?

What are these risks children are being subjected to? I don't see them.

[ December 11, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

Kelly, look again at my post on 9th Dec. at 3:40 am, but this time dont get side tracked by your bias for homosexuals

yours, Jon.

 

Kelly, in addition you might want to take on board the post I placed on 10th Dec. at 11:06
as yet it has not been noticed.

yours, Jon.

 

And I'm asking - what are the children's rights?

I've read and re-read your comments, and truly believe I've addressed the issues you raised about two sex families as far as modelling behavior and the stability of relationships. Since you didn't think so, that's why I asked for further clarification. Granted, my responses may not have been to your satisfaction, but I'd like to remedy that (with the understanding that a disagreeing response can still be a satisfactory, or at least complete, response).

To sum up what it was I said, though:

The argument that a child needs models of both sexes is weak, at best, but even if we stipulate that they do need such influences, role models can and are often found outside the home when they cannot be provided inside the home. We say that about homeschooled kids all the time - they get their socialization through things other than a school environment, and that seems to hold water.

And if stability for children is found through the formal joining of two people, allowing same-sex unions is creating stability where, ostensibly, there was none.

Just in case my last attempt to explain that was fuzzy.

I'm not seeing where children's rights would be violated in any way by permitting same-sex unions. Really, I don't see it. Which is why there must be something I'm missing, which you have intimated yourself.

However, it's entirely possible that you see something as a right that I do not. Having same-sex parents, or even married parents, for instance, is not something I see as the right of any child to have. If we see differently on that, then we can likely never agree.

 

Kelly, once again your answers are blinkered by your desire to promote "rights" of homosexuality. So much so that when referring to unmarried Heterosexuals you still give answers about how homosexuals can be "married". The legislation is raising serious questions about both homosexual and heterosexual involvement.
With respect, if you can only deal with this issue by blindly standing on your "hobby horse" it will be very difficult to see the whole picture either from a worlds point of view or from Gods point of view

Sorry if that comes over hard

yours, Jon.