I don't know, but I always figured that keeping people from dying in their sin was a pretty good use of my time.
Also, if I DO have a religious objection to recognizing such a marriage, my religious liberty should trump any obligation to recognize such. But if it is legalized, my rights, constitutional ones not made up ones, will be violated.
I agree, the church should spend a little more effort on fornication and divorce problems.
Finally, I judge no one. But I can judge actions. Nothing in the Bible against that. What? The libs think we're going to bring back stoning for gays? Well, yeah, they do think that. Idiots.
“Why are so many squandering precious time in an attempt to outlaw gay marriage?”
We are investing precious time in a successful endeavor to uphold the sanctity of marriage because it is a critical institution for a heathly, thriving, moral civilization.
“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron, a legal fiction granting members of the same sex the license to sodomize each other, nothing more.
“Gay marriage” is anti-God, anti-male, anti-female, anti-child, anti-evolution, anti-self.
Short of the pro-life issue, I cannot think of a better cause than to fight for the sanctity of marriage.
Like all people caught up in sexual sin, men and women who commit homosexual acts should be told the truth in love.
We should forgive them when they repent, forgive them when they fall short, rejoice with them when they persevere over temptation, but hold fast to the sanctity of marriage.
What if everyone from the religious right who is disputing gay marriage devoted their efforts to improving society in ways that might actually effect change? Volunteer at a soup kitchen; lobby for a reformed foster care system; donate money to nonprofits that help terminally ill children. In the many causes such as these, we can actually hope to make a tangible difference. Wouldn’t Christians make a lot more headway in their cause to witness for Christ if they spent more time actually reaching out and less time pointing fingers?
Who says it's an either-or proposition. We can do both. Although what I really think she is trying to say without saying it is, "work for social justice, vote Obama".
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Because of this, we as Christians cannot stop it if what we are concentrating on is the symptom and not the root cause. We must go after the root cause of this sinfulness and attack that.
We all know, liberals and conservatives alike, that homosexuals have nothing but contempt for marriage (meaning a union between a loving man and loving woman). I repeat “nothing but contempt.” If they did NOT have contempt, they’d be getting mental and spiritual help to come out of the disgusting and dangerous life-style that they’re in.
However, if they can put their finger in our married people’s eyes and get away with spitting on the family unit, they’ll insist that they want to be MARRIED. Hey, they’re just like us . . . only a little different (see them kissing and holding hands on the newscasts? Huh?) That’s all they do, right?
They know damned well that they can draw up any contract guaranteeing to take care of someone else and not have to crap all over the sanctity of marriage, but that won’t get Ellen Degenerate’s sick life style approval, now will it?
Marriage to them is a direct attack on their sordid lifestyles, so why not denigrate it to a nothingness complete with no moral equivalence, and laugh at everything that is good and holy.
I repeat, they have nothing but CONTEMPT for marriage and if they can get away with the RIM’s stupidity and non-judgmental attitude, then they win. We lose. May God have mercy on them.
two words:
sodom gomorrah
The writer seems to prove there is such a thing as homosexual marriage. Why? Because some legislative body says so?
Marriage is definitively about mating, which is definitivfely between the two sexes (see Biology 101).
This doesn’t stop delusional people from delusions — but I hope it still helps some, to tell the obvious truth.
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Okay...somebody tell the publisher to leave this out.
Real Christians don’t “waste” their time.
That we have lost the semi-naked-drug-addict-in-public-war does not mean that we stop fighting wars not yet lost. Our culture now celebrates sin of all sorts. I'm not going to add another one to the list of sin-celebrations without a battle. I would remind the author of the last chapter of Romans 1. It's a pretty good description of modern America.
They don’t get it, marriage is between a man and a woman. What transpires between members of the same sex is something else.
When she used the term “religious right” in the first paragraph, my “bilge-alert” sign went on and I immediately quit reading.
No matter what they call it they cannot ever have what I have had. If they call this abomination marriage then I will call mine a “traditional marriage”.
Fighting global warming?
No, they shouldn’t. Gay marriage is an assault upon the basic foundation of civilization and as such it is a moral evil.
Who is Lord of the Marriage Rings? Middle Ground Need in Kalifornia Same-Sex Marriage Issue to Preserve Democracy
From CaliforniaRepublic.org 7-18-08
T he California Supreme Court’s recent reckless ruling validating same-sex marriage is like a fictional battle in J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy story The Lord of the Rings – only in this case the battle is over who is the lord of the marriage rings.
Tolkien’s fantasy stories and movies chronicle the struggle to control the continent of Middle Earth. The players in Tolkien’s drama are the angelic Valar and his Elves on one side and the demonic Morgoth and his minions the Orcs and dragons and enslaved men on the other side. Onlookers involved in the struggle are the Dwarves, Ents, and the famous Hobbits (Halflings or hole-dwellers).
Gauging by letters to editors of most of the local newspapers in California on the topic of same-sex marriage, most of the public cannot conceive of any middle ground (Middle Earth) in this contentious issue. And apparently neither can the courts. But democracy requires a middle ground on marriage between the relativists (”everything goes in marriage”) and the fundamentalists (“same-sex marriage should be discriminated against”).
Contrary to prevailing public opinion, our form of democracy and the Constitution does not require a strict separation, but a compromise, between church and state, especially on the same-sex marriage issue. In a democracy neither a Stalinist-like secular totalitarianism nor an Islamic-like religious fundamentalism shall solely rule the day. Secular Stalinist Russia forbade clergy to perform certain marriage rites while fundamentalist Islam sanctions only arranged marriages. A middle ground on marriage in a modern democracy respects both church and state and individual choice. Withdrawal from a middle position would result in a pull out from democracy and modernity and a temptation toward totalitarian backlash.
The necessity of a political middle ground on same-sex marriage, and a host of other issues in order to preserve democracy, originates from a recent project called the Relativism-Fundamentalism Study by the eminent sociologist of religion, Dr. Peter Berger, at the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs, together with the Pew Research Center . The major finding of the project is that both relativism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin that threaten the basic social order and liberal democracy. Relativism makes the social order a capricious game, and fundamentalism Balkanizes and dehumanizes society into mutually hostile camps that cannot communicate with each other.
A paradoxical finding of their research is that it is secular Relativists who are the most fanatic and absolutist about same-sex marriage and it is so-called Fundamentalist (i.e., evangelical) religionists who are the more tolerant, as long as they are given the option of sectarian enclaves from same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court decision dangerously signals the likely end of sectarian withdrawal and pluralism and the rise of totalitarianism in public schools, eventually extending into even private institutions.
As soon as the California Supreme Court reached its decision, the fundamentalist same-sex marriage advocates launched incursions into the courts to train police and prosecutors about insensitivity to same-sex domestic violence. They have protested in front of private businesses whose owners or employees have contributed large sums to battle against same-sex marriage. Last year even before the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the online dating service eharmony California was sued for excluding gays. Today it is the Relativists, not the religious Fundamentalists, who are fanatically intolerant, militant, and litigious. And the courts and pandering politicians are giving them sway.
Prior to the recent poorly judged decision of the State Supreme Court we had a widely accepted democratic middle ground for marriage — majority rule, minority rights. This meant marriage between a man and woman was the norm but civil unions and property-sharing between same sex partners were respected.
Now fanatic same-sex marriage activists dangerously want to created a void where this successful middle ground on marriage existed. Metaphorically, they want to marry a fanatic Islamic female suicide bomber with an atheistic Happy Hooker. This will not be a marriage made in heaven. It will eventually gravitate to a society organized on the basis of fanaticism, or what we call totalitarianism. We can deal with religious sectarians and traditionalists; not with secular totalitarians (although religiously liberal churches oddly are now also giving legitimacy to the same-sex marriage cause).
In the past we had both secular and religious fundamentalist activists who carved out a stable middle ground on civil rights and marriage (e.g., Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, etc). Today, both secular and religious fundamentalists wish to destroy a middle ground on marriage for political opportunism all in the name of eliminating discrimination. It all seems part of the manufactured zeitgeist of progressive “change.”
Today’s fundamentalist same-sex marriage activists are militant relativists who would risk destroying democracy and inciting a dangerous totalitarian-like backlash that would likely result in the flight of many affluent “bourgeouise” families and religious families from our public schools.
The militant same-sex marriage advocates unintentionally would incite discrimination against gays. Parents who are presently laid-back about same-sex marriage will become more persuasive against the same-sex option with their children once it is mandated in public and private institutions. This is probably why most major newspapers in California are opposed to the recent reckless Supreme Court ruling.
Religious traditionalists and Fundamentalists are prone to see the same-sex marriage issue in moral terms; while Relativists are more prone to frame it as a civil rights discrimination issue. Both frame the issue in an attempt to win the moral high ground. Both suffer from misleading perceptions of the situation at hand.
Moderates of all political persuasions need to unite against judicial and secular fundamentalist extremism. It is not discrimination against same sex marriage or sexual immorality per se that is at stake, but democracy and freedom.
For the metaphorical Elves, Dwarves, Ents, and Hobbits of the public who are onlookers into this culture war over marriage and may vote on a California election proposition to enshrine traditional marriage in the state constitution, it is necessary to keep in mind that democracy is what hangs in the balance of finding a middle ground on the same-sex marriage issue. Without a middle ground, the Middle Earth may eventually succumb to a giant sink hole of fanaticism and totalitarianism. CRO
Does she do pro bono work for the World Council of Churches or does she just chair the MidWest KUM BY YA Society?
No thanks, homosexuals can not marry and we serve a greater master than perverse lust of the flesh.