Gay... er.. "Families"... choke, cough, puke.. invited to Whitehouse for Easter

[Magnetic Poles]

Well there you heard it... MP says that it is not enough to say that God is against Homosexuality.. as long as something is legal in America.. it should be OK to do it.

MP, you have placed the constitution above God's word.
YOu have place your earthly citizenship above your Heavenly Citizenship.

Be careful where you think you stand... you might be in for a fall.

God's word will stand.
The constitution and the laws of this land will burn.. (Unless Obama destroys them first)

It is NOT the government's role to enforce Biblical principles. Absolutely not. This is not a theocracy. Does that mean I am against Biblical precepts. Of course not. I am saying it is not for the government to step into the role of promoting nor enforcing the Bible. Thank God for that! It might not be your interpretation of Scripture that is selected for enforcement. Be grateful for our secular republic. It is a gift from God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Be grateful for our secular republic. It is a gift from God.

That is one of the most twisted things I have seen on this board.

 

[matt wade]

Typical. You and I both know I have done no such thing. I have defended President Obama for being inclusive and exposed your diversionary tactics. Now you lie against me...just as I anticipated.

I don't know that. From what I read you are defending homosexuality, at least in that you think it's OK to invite homosexuals to the Whitehouse for the sole fact that they are homosexual.

You are having a tough time staying on topic, I see. That is not the issue here. It is including innocent children and not excluding them over their parent's decisions.

Nope..I'm on topic. Sexual deviants being invited to the Whitehouse. That's the topic.

Should the kids suffer because of parent's decisions? The question is stupid to begin with. Homosexual couples do not produce children. Homosexual couples should never have children. For those children that are stuck with homosexual couples as "parents", yes they should be excluded. Call me mean spirited or whatever you want. The should be excluded if that means the parents will be coming as well. Let the children go without their parents.

The kids have to learn at some point that their parents are sinful and out of the will of God. If we continually look over their parents sins (for the sake of the children) then the children will grow up thinking the sin is OK as well.

 

[LadyEagle]

MOD NOTE: To those who are defending homosexual behavior and acceptance of homosexual behavior, it is the same as promoting it and condoning it -- all clearly against the posting rules of this board. Please take note of this before further digging yourself a hole for disciplinary action.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

#2 Topics and/or posts that would condone racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including but not limited to adultery, homosexuality, and pornography are strictly prohibited.

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps this answers one of Matt Wade's questions on the post "Obama to host WH seder".

 

[rbell]

It is NOT the government's role to enforce Biblical principles. Absolutely not. This is not a theocracy. Does that mean I am against Biblical precepts. Of course not. I am saying it is not for the government to step into the role of promoting nor enforcing the Bible. Thank God for that! It might not be your interpretation of Scripture that is selected for enforcement. Be grateful for our secular republic. It is a gift from God.

It is ALSO not the government's job to call some perverted union a "family" and equate it with the God-ordained design for such.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nope. The White House belongs to ALL Americans, not just Christians. The government is there to govern under the Constitution of the United States, not to enforce Biblical principles.

This certainly is not a biblical perspective. And antithetical to a Christian world view. But as long as we are going to stay away from enforcing biblical principles we need to drop all rape, larceny, and murder laws from the books after all they are biblical principles and we would not want to enforce those.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

What if we make them legal?, then your argument would fly out the window!

Spurious argument. It would never happen.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This certainly is not a biblical perspective. And antithetical to a Christian world view. But as long as we are going to stay away from enforcing biblical principles we need to drop all rape, larceny, and murder laws from the books after all they are biblical principles and we would not want to enforce those.

No, they happen to be law in all jurisdictions. They are enforced because of that, not because of any Biblical injunctions. As to rape, the Bible proscribes that a rapist must marry the girl. Nobody bothered to ask her. Is that the law you want?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MOD NOTE: To those who are defending homosexual behavior and acceptance of homosexual behavior, it is the same as promoting it and condoning it -- all clearly against the posting rules of this board. Please take note of this before further digging yourself a hole for disciplinary action.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

#2 Topics and/or posts that would condone racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including but not limited to adultery, homosexuality, and pornography are strictly prohibited.

LE, let me be perfectly clear. I am not condoning, promoting, nor accepting homosexual behavior. Nor can you or anyone else quote me doing such.

I AM saying there is a difference between law under the Constitution and Biblical injunction. We are not governed as a nation by the Bible...we are NOT a theocratic regime. As Christians, we are not compelled to accept any activity that is antithetical to Bible-based precepts. As Americans, we also may not expect the civil government to use its power to enforce our religious beliefs.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That is one of the most twisted things I have seen on this board.

Spoken like a true theocrat.

 

[LadyEagle]

LE, let me be perfectly clear. I am not condoning, promoting, nor accepting homosexual behavior. Nor can you or anyone else quote me doing such.

I AM saying there is a difference between law under the Constitution and Biblical injunction. We are not governed as a nation by the Bible...we are NOT a theocratic regime. As Christians, we are not compelled to accept any activity that is antithetical to Bible-based precepts. As Americans, we also may not expect the civil government to use its power to enforce our religious beliefs.

Thanks for clarifying, MP. :type: