Replies

RR, I have tried to see what point of contention you may have had with xzins judging by the conversation here, but can't quite figure out what it is.

This now delving into xzins own walk in way of judgment though --- please stop.

You may not "have his number" as well as you may think.

But setting this inspection/detection and ~~weighing~~ speculation in judgment aspect aside, just what was the underlying disagreement about?

Is it -- that "gay marriage", as wrong as that sort of thing is to even think of, is not the real problem since it is as much symptom (of serious sin) rather than a core issue which produces sins of that nature...or something...?

I'm having to guess here at what you may have been driving at. Let me know how well or how bad I just did with it.

Just what were you trying to say, anyway -- that is in any real opposition to what xzins says?

Once it can be seen there is little to none (afaikt) other than perhaps delving into the forensics of "sin" (if that was what you may have been alluding to) I see no real difference.

Franklin Graham goes on public record saying "gay marriage" cannot be endorsed by "followers" of Christ.

Notice that differs from "gay marriage must be opposed by throwing a hissy fit at every opportunity" or something.

What is the problem with Graham saying that such sins as homosexual "marriage" should not be endorsed? What is the problem with agreeing with the man about it? I don't quite get what the problem is...

We could point out that heterosexual "shacking up" as it used to be called, and has now devolved into more openly casual "hooking up" culture is damaging to individuals and culture too, in ways possible as grievous as homosexuality can or is --- for sin will bear it's own fruits --- which are death.

Is the problem that not enough inclusion of other "not endorsing" other forms of immorality has been talked about enough?

I don't know that you have mentioned it, but many minds turn towards that also.

Yet -- those things are not narrowly the issue, when it comes to this last stage -- which is the tearing down of "marriage" between one man and one women from the place such has been generally enshrined in Western culture (along with most cultures) to being now hijacked and turned into simply another sort of thing where the homo's get to claim all this "love" stuff which should be part of marriage, beyond the "civil union" contracts which in a few States well enough equals "marriage" in the eyes of the law (and in regards to "spousal" benefits too) that there is little discernible difference.

Even there I have my own opposition to "civil union" arrangements, in that spousal benefits generally were received by women for reasons of motherhood and the time and care that can entail, while there is not a single homosexual couple on earth who can produce children through the union of their same-sex bodies. It JUST AIN'T NATURAL.

And now...these same sinners are going after the "word" marriage itself -- seemingly to not only be able to accrue financial benefits, but to force everyone to "accept" their sinful ways as being beyond criticism.