Should the government prohibit same-sex marriage?

[Yeshua1]

I have been very clear and candid with you. I wish you would be the same.

God does not condone homosexual acts, not does God condone promiscuity, or sexual relationships out of marriage.

We need to separate marriage from sexual acts. The two are not necessarily connected.

• A loving life partnership between two people is not a sin, whether or not it is called marriage.
• Homosexual sexual acts are sinful.
• Promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is sin.
• Sexual activity outside of marriage (a loving life partnership) is sin.
• Same sex marriage does not represent God's ideal.
• Many heterosexual marriages do not represent God's ideal.
• God knows exactly what is intended between two people of the same sex who marry each other. They will be judged on their knowledge and intent.

So when are you going to answer my questions?

Here they are again in pink. I've also made them a little larger because you keep "overlooking" them:

You say you want to make same-sex marriage illegal. If you are successful:

• How does that change people who experience same-sex attraction?
• How does that prevent sins of action and sins of lust?
• What about laws and penalties against adultery?
• How does passing a human law please God if it doesn't lead to a change in the fundamental sinful behavior, especially since God has already stated His will?

My premise is that we should never condone for behavior what God has already plainly stated to us is wrong, and in same sex weddings, that is an abomination in His eyes, for Marriage was instituted by him just the way he decided to do it, one man and one woman.
The gay person with desires and attractions are the same as a straight person before marriage, so need to not be active in it, but seek the Lord and other solutions.

 

[Baptist Believer]

My premise is that we should never condone for behavior what God has already plainly stated to us is wrong...

Who is "we"? Individuals or the government?

As an individual, I do not condone same sex marriage. As a citizen of the government, I recognize that in our current situation where so-called conservatives gave our government the authority to define marriage, that persons who desire same sex marriage (as defined by the United States government) cannot legally be denied them. But I don't have to support it nor conduct those weddings.

...that is an abomination in His eyes...

God knows the motives of persons who engage in same sex marriages. I do not. Let God judge that and simply spread the gospel. People are perishing not because of same sex marriages, but because they are in rebellion against God.

The gay person with desires and attractions are the same as a straight person before marriage, so need to not be active in it, but seek the Lord and other solutions.

Yes.

And you are STILL avoiding my questions. Let's try again. This time the questions are in pumpkin-spice color for the season:

You say you want to make same-sex marriage illegal. If you are successful:

• How does that change people who experience same-sex attraction?
• How does that prevent sins of action and sins of lust?
• What about laws and penalties against adultery?
• How does passing a human law please God if it doesn't lead to a change in the fundamental sinful behavior, especially since God has already stated His will?

 

[Yeshua1]

Who is "we"? Individuals or the government?

As an individual, I do not condone same sex marriage. As a citizen of the government, I recognize that in our current situation where so-called conservatives gave our government the authority to define marriage, that persons who desire same sex marriage (as defined by the United States government) cannot legally be denied them. But I don't have to support it nor conduct those weddings.


God knows the motives of persons who engage in same sex marriages. I do not. Let God judge that and simply spread the gospel. People are perishing not because of same sex marriages, but because they are in rebellion against God.


Yes.

And you are STILL avoiding my questions. Let's try again. This time the questions are in pumpkin-spice color for the season:

You say you want to make same-sex marriage illegal. If you are successful:

• How does that change people who experience same-sex attraction?
• How does that prevent sins of action and sins of lust?
• What about laws and penalties against adultery?
• How does passing a human law please God if it doesn't lead to a change in the fundamental sinful behavior, especially since God has already stated His will?

Goid hates Gay weddings, and there is NO provision in the Constiutition that should have allowed marriage to be redifined as it was the Court!The Court pulled a rabbit out of their hat, just as they did for the abortion rights!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Goid hates Gay weddings, and there is NO provision in the Constiutition that should have allowed marriage to be redifined as it was the Court!The Court pulled a rabbit out of their hat, just as they did for the abortion rights!

So I see that you are too cowardly to actually answer my questions and seriously discuss the matter.

Instead, you make pronouncements for "Goid" and rant and rave.

If you decide you can actually discuss this issue, I'll take it up with you. But you keep showing everyone that you can't handle a reasonable discussion.

 

[Yeshua1]

QUICK NOTE: I knocked out a very quick definition of biblical morality since Yeshua1 was being quite unclear with his terms, so I needed to nail down a quick summary of "biblical morality" for the purposes of discussion. There is undoubtably more to add, some things that can interpreted in different ways, and so on. It is not mean to be an exhaustive or definitive statement since it was created on the fly in about five minutes by going through the Ten Commandments and the part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. My interpretation was also influenced by the teaching of Jesus to love one's neighbor as oneself.



Yes, obviously. But I was covering "biblical morality" in very broad terms, both Old and New Testament, as some governments historically have done. It is not merely, 'New Testament morality.'


I understand your point, but again, this is not necessarily 'New Testament morality.' Furthermore, we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, nor are we to disregarding the Old Testament principles about rest and recreation, combined with worship.


It is part of the broader principle of honoring parents. We are to honor our own parents, as well as loving our neighbor and his/her parents. It seems strange that you would object.


Do you respect her as someone who is created in the image of God and as a person of value on that basis? Do you love her even if you consider her your enemy? If not, that's a problem in your life.


That is contempt and assuming the worst of others.


I'm not viewing anyone with contempt (at least without repented rather quickly), nor assuming the worst of others.


Jesus could do it righteously. We struggle with it. Calling Democrats "Dims" or "Demoncrats" is wrong, just as much as calling Republicans "Reprobates" or nastier names that I will not repeat here.


That's not a grudge, that's church discipline.


That is done in the specific context of a game, not in regular life. You are not intending to deceive that person so that they make poor life choices. Just as an actor on the stage or screen who is representing a character does not intend to deceive the audience. He is telling a story.


Faulty people can be redeemed. Do you support prostitution as well? She is not there because of lying or prostitution, she is there because of faith.


What I was trying to express on the fly is the practice in the New Testament times of swearing by the Temple or the gold on the Temple; or today when someone claims to "swear on a stack of Bibles," swear by their mother's grave, or on their own life, "if I'm lyin', I'm dyin'."


Obviously not. You are trying to make laws out of the vision of the Christian life that Jesus laid out in the Sermon on the Mount. It is a life that is supposed to be lived interactively with the leading of the Spirit, not legalistically.


Apparently you haven't been following the conversation since I am the one claiming that we should NOT make laws requiring "Biblical morality." Your question is for Yeshua1, the one who claims to want this.


How is that loving someone in word and deed? Moreover, we should be very careful about voting for "our interests." We need to vote for justice, fairness, and what will be most helpful to others, not just our own interests. We should be voting for Kingdom principles.


Again, that's not necessarily loving someone in word and deed.


You've really twisted the idea of the 10th commandment, "you shall not covet."

Labor unions CAN be quite evil. We must be careful about what is done in our name. Solomon did a lot of evil things -- have you not read the scripture? And the idea that "competition" or capitalism is inherently evil is false. Capitalism CAN be evil, if persons who participate in it do so to destroy others for their own gain. Capitalism can be engaged in honorably, if persons who participate in it participle ethically and for the good of human flourishing. The genius of capitalism is that it helps regulate the evil impulses of fallen humanity while delivering goods and services that can potentially promote human flourishing. Capitalism must obviously be regulated in various way to prevent things like a slave trade, prostitution and drug rings, etc.


You have twisted my words. Moreover, you seem to have forgotten that there is a Judge at the end of the age Who will mete out punishment and reward to all who draw breath. It is not our place to use the sword to try to force people to love each other -- as if that would work anyway. But it is the calling of the church, the disciples of Jesus, to call people to account. It is definitely not the role of the government.

You are a pastor, correct? What will you be saying when the PC police come in and demand that you do a asame sex marriage in your church? Will you just smile and say thatis Ok?

 

[Wingman68]

So I see that you are too cowardly to actually answer my questions and seriously discuss the matter.

Instead, you make pronouncements for "Goid" and rant and rave.

If you decide you can actually discuss this issue, I'll take it up with you. But you keep showing everyone that you can't handle a reasonable discussion.

And you keep showing everyone that you show passion for belief’s that are leftist, & argue their merits, all the while taking the out that you personally don’t agree with it. How convenient.
Since it passed in 2015, it is not exactly ancient history, or something that has always been. Obama’s SC picks were paramount in passing it. This ruling, like Roe v Wade, should make it abundantly clear that the ability to nominate future picks was reason enough for any real Christian to vote Republican. There are no excuses or selective reasoning that will ever justify voting for a Democrat. You will never find them breaking from the party line...unless they’ve already got the votes, & let someone step out when they need to pander to get re-elected. The platform is what you get every time with Democrats. Keep telling us how great the decision was, it’s who you are.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You are a pastor, correct?

I am a minister, but I am not currently on staff at a church. I serve the church at my expense, working a job outside of an equipping ministry.

What will you be saying when the PC police come in and demand that you do a asame sex marriage in your church?

They have no standing to demand anything. We have religious liberty through the First Amendment to the Constitution. That's the whole point of separation of church and state. That's what I have been arguing from the beginning.

Will you just smile and say thatis Ok?

Apparently you have understood nothing that I have written.

 

[Baptist Believer]

And you keep showing everyone that you show passion for belief’s that are leftist, & argue their merits, all the while taking the out that you personally don’t agree with it. How convenient.

You have already informed me that facts don't matter ("I don't need any facts"), so how can you judge anything?

Since it passed in 2015, it is not exactly ancient history, or something that has always been. Obama’s SC picks were paramount in passing it. This ruling, like Roe v Wade, should make it abundantly clear that the ability to nominate future picks was reason enough for any real Christian to vote Republican. There are no excuses or selective reasoning that will ever justify voting for a Democrat. You will never find them breaking from the party line...unless they’ve already got the votes, & let someone step out when they need to pander to get re-elected. The platform is what you get every time with Democrats.

That was another useless rant since you don't believe in facts. Stop acting like they are important. It's hypocritical.

Keep telling us how great the decision was, it’s who you are.

I have said nothing of the kind, but I know you can't help but lie if you don't believe in facts.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am a minister, but I am not currently on staff at a church. I serve the church at my expense, working a job outside of an equipping ministry.


They have no standing to demand anything. We have religious liberty through the First Amendment to the Constitution. That's the whole point of separation of church and state. That's what I have been arguing from the beginning.


Apparently you have understood nothing that I have written.

Those who hate Christianity can force this upon us!

All it would take would be a liberal supreme court make up law to have it done, just as they did for abortion and gay weddings!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Those who hate Christianity can force this upon us!

All it would take would be a liberal supreme court make up law to have it done, just as they did for abortion and gay weddings!

You have brought this thread into a complete circle.

Here is my initial response to your fear-mongering assertion. Feel free to read back all the way through our exchanges again. Maybe you will understand the second time.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have brought this thread into a complete circle.

Here is my initial response to your fear-mongering assertion. Feel free to read back all the way through our exchanges again. Maybe you will understand the second time.

The problem is that you think that the constitute will be followed by the Govt, it has been violated during civil right times, in abortion and gay weddings, among others!

 

[Wingman68]

You have already informed me that facts don't matter ("I don't need any facts"), so how can you judge anything?


That was another useless rant since you don't believe in facts. Stop acting like they are important. It's hypocritical.


I have said nothing of the kind, but I know you can't help but lie if you don't believe in facts.

Out of context. I said I don’t need any facts to call you a blue shirt, because that’s my view. In true progressive form, you extrapolate that to now call me a liar. You show nothing of your Baptist training here except when you try to use the Bible against people. I’m relieved to know you are not on a Baptist church staff.

I’m just going to block you now, so #1 I don’t have to wade through all your leftist leaning arguments, & #2 I won’t have to look at your avatar which isn’t you, which I find to be deceptive & annoying. At least mine doesn’t deceive people.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I’m just going to block you now, so ... #2 I won’t have to look at your avatar which isn’t you, which I find to be deceptive & annoying. At least mine doesn’t deceive people.

Why do you find it "annoying?"

People use photos of others as avatars around here all the time and I have never seen anyone claim it was deceptive.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you find it "annoying?"

People use photos of others as avatars around here all the time and I have never seen anyone claim it was deceptive.

maybe he meant "smugness"

 

[Baptist Believer]

maybe he meant "smugness"

How is use of an image of someone you respect as an avatar, an expression of "smugness"?

 

[Yeshua1]

How is use of an image of someone you respect as an avatar, an expression of "smugness"?

The look that the picture expresses...

 

[Baptist Believer]

The look that the picture expresses...

That's one of his publicity stills that is used all over. He is posing by a piano.

Would this photo make everyone feel better?

 

[Yeshua1]

That's one of his publicity stills that is used all over. He is posing by a piano.

Would this photo make everyone feel better?

THAT is the winner!

 

[Baptist Believer]

THAT is the winner!

Thank you my brother.

 

[carpro]

I have only one comment on the subject...There is no such thing as same sex marriage.