God burned to death the entire populations of two cities over homosexuality. Did he do anything similar to "gossips"?
I take what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah as an indication of how seriously he regards such sins as theirs.
Posted on 04/29/2015 8:24:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Finally, an answer to the most important question of the 2016 election.
Kidding aside, though, this is a bit surprising.
The question of whether or not a candidate would attend the gay wedding of a loved one has become an increasingly common litmus test for candidates on the issue…
The poll showed 56 percent of Republicans would attend the gay wedding of a loved one if invited. That compares with 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents, who said they would go.
Overall, 68 percent of Americans would attend, the poll showed, while 19 percent would not and 13 percent were unsure…
Though a right-leaning, anti-marriage position may appeal to important conservative voters in states with early nominating contests such as Iowa and New Hampshire, that stand could hurt an eventual nominee in the general election, in which cross-party appeal and independents play a larger role.
Most polls show GOP support for legalizing gay marriage somewhere between 30 and 40 percent, so apparently there’s a chunk of 20 percent or so that would show up for a gay family member’s wedding even though they … don’t think it should be legally recognized. That’s an odd position but I think it may end up being the majority position of the Republican presidential field: Rubio, Rick Perry, and Jeb Bush all oppose legalizing SSM, last I checked, and all of them have said they’d attend a gay wedding if invited. (“Claro que si” said Jeb when asked yesterday in Puerto Rico.) In fact, Ted Cruz ducked the question when Hugh Hewitt put it to him instead of replying with a flat “no.” You can see why this stance might appeal to a socially conservative pol hoping to face the national electorate next November, though. Being anti-SSM but pro-attendance is a way in theory to show righties you’re on their side of the legal debate while showing swing voters you’re not the “hater” Democrats accuse you of being.
Surely these numbers shift, though, when you look specifically at Republican primary voters, right? It stands to reason that the GOPers most motivated to vote are more likely to be members of the base, which usually means they’re more conservative than Republicans generally. And as it turns out, the numbers do shift — but not as much as you might expect. Using Reuters’s nifty crosstabs tool to refine the data so that it shows only GOP primary voters, we find that 49 percent would attend versus just 35 percent who wouldn’t, suggesting that the Rubio/Bush/Perry position is a winner in the primaries too — at least if you’re competing for center-righties, as each of them is. Surprisingly, the numbers are even better among older (i.e. age 60 or over) Republicans, 56 percent of whom say they’d attend. Women are also noticeably more supportive of attending than men are, with just 51 percent of Republican men saying they’d attend versus 62 percent of Republican women. Among the broader population, 61 percent of men would attend versus 75 percent of women. Maybe that has less to do with women being more pro-gay than men than women being more pro-wedding? You tell me.
Exit question: Is the fact that this was an online poll, not a phone poll, significant?
I agree.
And when NAMBLA starts pushing for their “equal rights”, I will stand on the Bible. When practitioners of bestiality start pushing for their “civil rights”, I will stand on the Bible. Everyone draws a line, the only question is where.
God burned to death the entire populations of two cities over homosexuality. Did he do anything similar to "gossips"?
I take what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah as an indication of how seriously he regards such sins as theirs.
I would say that the homosexual lobby first turned these events into making a statement, therefore I have to stand on my conscience
come now...it’s highly unlikely a family member is getting married to make a political statement to the rest of the clan...everyone on here resolutely saying he/she would not attend, needs to answer the question of whether a clear social conscience trumps the loss of a family member’s love...
in an ideal world, the loved one should not put a family member in the position of making that choice, but ideal worlds don’t exist...
If they are homosexual, they are making a statement merely by having a “marriage” ceremony.
And yes, there are issues of conscience well worth hurting someone’s feelings-also known as “offending”-over. If it was easy, martyrs wouldn’t exist in history.
There is a separation of church and state. That is the reason for the tax status.
Why should there be a profit at all?
—
It wouldn’t impact my church at all. It may be another matter for the Joel Osteen type churches.
And yes, there are issues of conscience well worth hurting someone’s feelings-also known as “offending”-over
there are ‘hurt feelings’; and there is the finality of the loss of a loved one by conscious choice...apples to oranges, really...
If it was easy, martyrs wouldn’t exist in history.
one hardly attains martyr status by refusing to attend a wedding...
Rlmorel, since you asked, I’m going to speak frankly, but with all respect to you and your wife.
If you’re having these thoughts/misgivings about attending, I would advise you not to do it. It may be God whispering in your ear. I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes there are spiritual consequences from ignoring what you know you should or should not do when it comes to clear-cut moral issues.
As Christians, we often say that God comes first, followed by family. It’s easy to say, but when it comes right down to it, are we willing to live it?
I don’t think your wife should expect you to do something you believe is wrong. I would never do that to my husband, quite honestly. Maybe it’s time you put your foot down, as spiritual head of the household.
That loss works two ways.
No one’s been burned at the stake yet. But Christians are losing their livelihoods and their property for the “sin” of refusing to decorate cakes to celebrate a sodomite union, or take pictures of the sodomite celebration. They are even fired (the fire chief in Georgia” for expressing their private opinion, on their private time, in opposition to the sodomite agenda. That’s persecution. No one, namely myself, even said that anyone in this present day, was a “martyr” of the type which was killed for their conscience. But there is definitely persecution.
It’s not about “social conscience”; it’s about God. He has to trump everything else. I know in my soul I couldn’t attend a homosexual “wedding” (note my quotation marks...a ceremony between two people of the same sex is not a wedding at all, though you imply that it is).
You don’t know as much as you think you do about the nature of these folks. Some of them can be true tyrants, and yes, very often, they make their entire lives into political statements.
I have a friend whose sister decided she was a lesbian. She wields her chosen lifestyle as a weapon, all the time blackmailing her family. She threatened to cut them all off if they didn’t accept her girlfriend....if they didn’t attend their “wedding.” Unfortunately, they’ve caved in on all counts.
Clearly she’s willing to stop seeing her relatives in favor of her perverted relationship. If a family member tried that crap with me, her bluff would be called, I can tell you that truthfully.
But there is definitely persecution.
of course there is...no one has suggested otherwise. All that you’ve indicated is happening, and will continue to do so.
but that’s for another thread...this one deals with our conscious choices, and the consequences of exercising them...personally I wouldn’t criticize anyone for any choice he/she made regarding attending a gay wedding. It’s not as cut and dried an issue as some may think...
Yaelle, you always ignore my posts to you, and I imagine you’ll do the same in this instance, but whatever.
“Dying on that little hill”.....”your family won’t think kindly of you.” There are some things even more important than family. I believe this is one of them...and I don’t think this hill is “little.” Far from it.
I might also ask, what kind of family do you have if they’re all willing to trash you because you won’t do something you see as morally wrong?
You can think what you like about the order of sins, but homosexuality is singled out over and over in Scripture as an abomination, detestable, etc. Is it really so surprising to you that a person wouldn’t want to celebrate such a thing?
And where on EARTH you got the idea that gossiping is worth than homosexuality, I have no idea. You pulled that one out of thin air.
Sadly, in most cases, it is not that the church would owe taxes that would be the biggest issue - it is that too many of the congregation would stop giving tithes and offerings if they could not deduct them from THEIR taxes. Only a small percentage of regular church attenders even approach giving a tenth (tithe) of their income - that number would approach zero pretty quickly if the tax deduction would be taken away.
We have already seen the beginning of the separation of the wheat from the tares with the open apostasy of the Episcopal/Anglican churches, many of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, UCC churches, etc... I think we will see that process accelerate with the coming persecution of any churches that hold fast to biblical principles. We will see which churches and which "Christians" are truly committed to Christ. If they will change their doctrine to keep their tax-exempt status, or to be more "culturally relevant", then they are not serving God - they are serving Mammon.
Well, I’m getting used to being a minority.
a ceremony between two people of the same sex is not a wedding at all, though you imply that it is
I implied no such thing...
You don’t know as much as you think you do about the nature of these folks.
how do you know what I know or don’t know...?
Some of them can be true tyrants, and yes, very often, they make their entire lives into political statements.
sigh...again, how many people get married (legitimate or not, I won’t argue that point) in order to terrorize their families with political diatribe...the issue turns on one’s willingness to lose a loved one based on maintaining a clear conscience, and that’s a question one must ask before pontificating on this topic...
No, actually the question is the hurt to a loved one measured against my faithfulness to my Lord and Savior - and He made it very clear in Scripture which one is to come first.
Like inviting a negro to your swinging party back in the 60s.
I agree with everything you said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.