Rand Paul had the right approach when he pushed back on the gotcha abortion question. Go ask [fill in the blank with some liberal] what he/she thinks about making a married couple supporting their 4 children with their bakery having to pay six figures to two women for not baking them a wedding cake. Is that okay?
The media needs to define Republican candidates as mean spirited haters.
The gay question is the new abortion question.
The correct answer is to state your position and indicate it’s a state issue and be done with it.
Why in the world is anyone wasting time Perry and Santorum?! They have about as much chance of getting the 2016 nomination as I do, which is nil.
The "very definition of marriage" was changed between 1969-1973 to a peculiar institution which is not Godly, not biblical, and which has never existed anywhere on the earth before now.
The fact that opposite-sex couples still enact sham ceremonies following the old ways does not create a "traditional marriage", at least not in the way marriages enacted prior to 1969 did.
What we have now is "gay marriage for straights", which is why the barriers to gay marriage for gays are collapsing so fast.
If a marriage between two men or two women were indissoluble and its sexual exclusivity were guaranteed by law, as heterosexual marriage was for most of its existence prior to its abolition in the 1970s, then no gay men and precious few gay women would want to be anywhere near it.
To paraphrase that great American philosopher (/sarcasm off, sort of/) Richard "Kinky" Friedman ... "The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
Do Not Eat With Such a One?-I Corinthians 5:11
JANUARY 19, 2011 / WESLEY /
There is a tendency amongst humans to find loopholes to difficult challenges. We want an easier way and we attempt to create that easier way by making exceptions that benefit us. One such exception that I’m seeing happen more often is in the case of 1 Corinthians 5:11. Let’s look at the verse.
Contextually, Paul is instructing, in a rather pointed way, the Corinthians to stop ignoring sin in the congregation. Specifically, the sin of one who is having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. The congregation not 0nly tolerated the sin, but seemed to be proud of themselves for doing so. Paul makes it clear that their boasting is not good, and tells them to remove the man.
Continuing Paul lays out other examples of individuals from whom the church needs to disassociate. The word for disassociate means “to not keep close company with.” He gives a list that includes the sexually immoral, greedy, idolater, slanderer, drunk, and cheat. Individuals who have no desire to change their behavior, but still want to be seen as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul’s command is that they disassociate from and not even eat with such a one.
So the application for us today is that if someone within the church is habitual practicing sin, without earnestly trying to stop, but yet still wants to be seen as an a faithful brother or sister in Christ, then the church is to follow the command of Paul here. The church is to not associate themselves with the person, even to the point of individuals not sharing a meal with him/her. It is a hard teaching, but our goal is the person will repent and other Christians within the church will not follow after that person in pursuing sin.
To be honest a lot of churches do not practice this at all. Whether it is fear of lawsuits or upsetting members or other reasons, individuals, who would clearly fall into the 1 Corinthians 5 category, are treated as if nothing is wrong. Once again this is a way to make God’s command easier on us. We rationalize that God would not want us to have a lawsuit, or that it would upset people and we do not want disharmony, or find some other exceptions. If you read 1 Corinthians 5 you quickly realize Paul was not concerned with any of those things and neither should we be.
However, even amongst those who do practice this, I am finding another exception being added. The exception is that this does not apply to family members. It is argued that it is okay to maintain close relationships with family members, even if the teaching of 1 Corinthians 5 applies to them. I understand the sentiment behind it, but I think it is another example of softening what is being said. To me it is a reminder of Jesus statement that sometimes a relationship with Him will cause division amongst families. Jesus wasn’t concerned with keeping harmony in families, He was concerned with making disciples.
1 Corinthians 5 is addressing people who practice sin habitual, but still want to be seen as faithful brothers and sisters. Paul makes it clear that the church cannot oblige them. Although we wish there were exceptions, in God’s wisdom there are not. And if I have to choose between my wisdom or God’s wisdom, then I will go with God’s.
The answer should be “I would not, because I can think of nothing I could contribute to or derive from the experience.”
No matter who the media asks this question of, it is a gotcha question. That is why they ask it.
I think Cruz got it right. It really is them asking his position on same sex marriage being the law of the land. His response was that it’s a states rights issue.
I don’t think it is wholesome for any state to approve of deadly behavior being treated as if it’s a right, but let them be the experimental lab that will prove once again over time how this behavior is debilitating biologically and socially. They really don’t need any more evidence.
Isn’t it really odd that the supremes have to think more than a second about whether a deadly behavior is a ‘right’?
What are they...idiots?
The proper response:
“No, because calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it “marriage”, and I’m under no obligation to pretend otherwise.
“This has nothing to do with “hate” and everything to do with refusing to cave to the latest attempt to redefine our culture.”
I would have answered: Well if my daughter wanted to marry her brother or sister, I would definitely not attend the “wedding”
We can ALL say, well I “woulda, shoulda, coulda answered that” gotcha question one way or the other, but, without standing where he was and him wanting to be as diplomatic as possible AND there not being a right answer, I give him a pass on this.
I work for a very popular Texas jewelry company. We have gays and lesbians come in looking for wedding rings. I could make a scene and refuse to help them, but I bite my tongue and sell them the rings. I am shuddering inside, but a public business or venue isn’t the place to state my VERY strong opposition to this sinful lifestyle.
So...are the critics of a good man like Perry going to condemn me, too? Well, so be it. I am a supporter of Cruz, but Perry was a damn GOOD governor, and he answered the best way he could on the fly and without having much of a chance of there being a right answer.
My opinion.......
This is what Howard Baker was saying in 1980.
Here's a way to look at it: The issue is "secondary or tertiary" in the sense that marriage redefinition is a fad, that of course marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It's as obvious as the color of the sky, legislation notwithstanding. Why, therefore, debate something the truth of which is so very obvious to all?
That may be Perry's position. I don't agree with it as social policy determines the character of the people in charge of setting it (ergo, those who elect our magistrates), and without exemplary character in the hearts of a people there can be no exceptional society. But I think I understand it.