Vote: For Morals [Archive] - Christian Forums

RonnyRulz

2nd November 2006, 03:44 PM

Do not vote if the person is moral on some issues and not on others

So don't vote? Republicans and Democrats both are moral on some issues but not on others.

Remember to vote to ban gay marriage.

Why? How is that Christian at all? That's so anti-christian, as well as anti-american to forbid someone freedom. God gave us freedom. God allows sin, God gives us freedom to sin, God gives us freedom to divorce even though it's an abomination, God gives us freedom to commit adultery, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to lie, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to sin, to do whatever we want. God would never make a law to make a certain type of people (homosexuals) feel hated, segregated, like they are horrible people, while at the same time allow divorce, which is equally an abomination.

Only a hypocrite would allow divorce but want to ban gay marriage.

Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel

But that's fully legal, not looked down upon at all, and absolutely not going to be up to be a law passed saying "Ban divorce."

Only a hypocrite would be okay with divorce, which God hates and gives us the freedom to do, but pick on homosexuals out of hate for them, making a law against gay marriage but not divorce, giving freedom for divorce but not gay marriage. BAH!

If I want to vote for someone with great morals, I'm NEVER voting republican. I'd rather vote anything else. I'm not about hating homosexuals and forbidding them their God-given right to sin. God allows adulterers, murderers, liars, and all other kind of sinners. If homosexuality is a sin, why would a christian want to ban it when they dont want to ban any other sin? Ridiculous.

I hate politics, and I'm probably never going to vote because it's all corrupt, but if I ever do, it sure as heck will never be for a hate-filled republican who wants to screw the poor and forbid americans their freedom.

What the crap is wrong with christians and their blind mindless thoughtless militant loyalty to the republican party? Ignorance, that's what. Just because they slap on the word "Christian" doesn't make them Christian, but apparently to most Christians it does. Jesus isn't suppoes to be a name used for political power.Ergh, this upsets me so much that just because republicans say "God" a lot, they immeditely get the mindless support of the zombie-like christians who mindlessly follow Bush like he is Jesus. Bush isn't even close to a real Christian.

Since when did Christianity support war and the death of our soldiers and other's soldiers? Since when did you start a war and slap on the word "Christian" and get all the Christians to support you? Since when did a political government power use "Christianity" as a label to slap on to gain power and support?

Oh yea, I forgot......THE CRUSADES

pgp_protector

2nd November 2006, 03:46 PM

When you vote remember to vote for someone with morals.Do not vote if the person is moral on some issues and not on others,do not vote for the lesser of the two evils.If you compromise it will reflect on you and the candidate you voted on.Remember that Jesus Christ does not compromise and if Christ lives in you, you should not compromise either.Remember to vote to ban gay marriage.It's time for us Christians to vote for people with great morals to lead our nation under God.God Bless you all :)

IOW Don't vote I guess, as in my area there is No one running with "Great Morals"

Every person running in every state has there good points and bad points.

Reformationist

2nd November 2006, 04:26 PM

Why? How is that Christian at all? That's so anti-christian, as well as anti-american to forbid someone freedom. God gave us freedom. God allows sin, God gives us freedom to sin, God gives us freedom to divorce even though it's an abomination, God gives us freedom to commit adultery, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to lie, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to sin, to do whatever we want.

What a ridiculously unbiblical, untenable, and illogical thing to say. Pray tell, what would be the Christian thing to do, violate the institution of marriage, a union that God Himself established, and create/defend legislation that endorses as acceptable that which God calls an abomination?

What you fail to realize is that the homosexual community is afforded, by God, exactly the same rights in marriage as the heterosexual community. They are allowed to marry someone of consentual age of the opposite sex.

Additionally, and I boldly throw down the guantlet to you Ronny, or anyone else who wishes to take up the challange, please cite the biblical support for the claim that God gives you the freedom or allowance to sin. You may have the ability to commit cosmic treason but God is holy and, as such, cannot allow sin. You erroneously equate ability with authority. If you were allowed to sin, sinning wouldn't be punishable. What the Bible DOES say is that sin merits death.

God would never make a law to make a certain type of people (homosexuals) feel hated, segregated, like they are horrible people, while at the same time allow divorce, which is equally an abomination.

You know, it's this kind of liberal, humanistic thinking that is at the root of every problem we face in society today. Those who, like you, would compromise the Gospel so they don't offend someone are the worst kind of evangelists because they take the Evangel out of the process. I bet you go to a seeker friendly church, don't you? You know, the kind that spend church funds on a skateboard ramp, or some other nonsense, to entice kids to come to church.

Only a hypocrite would allow divorce but want to ban gay marriage.

God only permits divorce in limited circumstances but hey, I'm sure He'll be glad to know that you think He's a hypocrite. If you think God doesn't condemn gay marriage you have no clue about the nature of God.

Only a hypocrite would be okay with divorce, which God hates and gives us the freedom to do, but pick on homosexuals out of hate for them, making a law against gay marriage but not divorce, giving freedom for divorce but not gay marriage.

You are all over the map. Is your issue the flippant way that people view divorce? If so, I'm sure you'll find that the majority of us are on the same page as you. If, however, you seek to validate the abomination of homosexual marriage because of the church's tolerance of divorce you approach it from the wrong perspective. Divorcing for the wrong reasons is a sin, and might be sinful for the limited reason the Lord allows. That does not change the sinfulness of homosexuality, nor should it be the basis for violating the covenant of marriage.

BAH!

You show your true colors.

If I want to vote for someone with great morals, I'm NEVER voting republican. I'd rather vote anything else. I'm not about hating homosexuals and forbidding them their God-given right to sin. God allows adulterers, murderers, liars, and all other kind of sinners.

You have one of the most unbiblical views of God I've ever heard. God never allows any sin, no matter how big or small a deal we may make of it. All sin is an abomination to God and He surely does not "allow" it.

I hate politics, and I'm probably never going to vote because it's all corrupt, but if I ever do, it sure as heck will never be for a hate-filled republican who wants to screw the poor and forbid americans their freedom.

Well, in that case I'll count my blessings that you'll probably never vote. That means you won't cast your vote for those who share your unbiblical sentiments.

Bush isn't even close to a real Christian.

LOL! Hello pot, meet kettle.

Since when did Christianity support war and the death of our soldiers and other's soldiers?

Not only is war a regular element in the Bible, it is commanded by God on numerous occasions. You need to brush up on your history.

RonnyRulz

2nd November 2006, 04:39 PM

How can you say that God doesn't allow people to sin?

Does he put a stop to murder? Did he stop the planes from going into the two towers on 9/11? Did he stop the oklahoma city bombing? Did he stop WW2 from happening? Did he stop the genocide of 6 million jews and 6 million other moniorities by hitler? Did he stop the MILLIONS massacred by Stalin? Did he not allow us the free will to choose against him?

How can you say that God doesn't allow people to sin?

His law is against sin, yes, but he doesn't force people to not sin. He allows them a choice. Free will. By creating a physical human US-law, is to force people to not do something. By US-law, we force people to not murder. But by US-law, we don't force people to not divorce, to not adultery, to not lie (mostly), to not get drunk, to not accept Jesus.

Last time I checked, God never forced people to not sin. He gave them free will. It's Man that forces by the creation of laws.

If the Republicans had a bill to ban divorce except by marital unfaithfulness, ban adultery, ban gay marriage, ban lying, ban hate, ban pride, ban anger, and ban sin, then they wouldn't be a hypocrite.

But they will never make a law to ban divorce. People love divorce too much, and no one would stand for that. But people hate homosexuals, so why not ban gay marriage? You cannot be cold on one issue, but hot on the other. That's called lukewarm. That's called loving one sin, but hating other people. That's called hypocrisy.

My true colors do stand, equality. If all sin is against US-law, that's equality. If one sin (divorce) is not, but another said sin (homosexuality) is, that's NOT equality. That's biased, favoritism, based on hate for homosexuals and love for self-appetizing sin.

Here's a few Bible verses that show how God hates divorce, divorce is a sin, makes adultery, but God allows us the freedom to have divorce, despite it being wrong.

Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel

Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Divorce and remarrying is a sin and God hates divorce.

Yet He allows it.

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

JulySheMustFly

2nd November 2006, 04:55 PM

Sounds like you don't want us to vote.

Anyway, my vote isn't swayed by the issue of gay marriage. There is much more than concerns me than that.

mont974x4

2nd November 2006, 04:58 PM

I could never vote for a Dem...at least the modern Dem's. They've been hijacked by secular humnanists and liberal idealogies in their leadership. Their platform is far to close to communism. The repub's aren't much better.

I am conservative in my values, but libertarian in my politics.

Personally, I beleive governemts only job is to provide a safe environment for us to either succeed or fail. That is, law enforcement and protection form foriegn threats. The Church, us, should be the ones ministering to those in need...not the government.

Neither side should force their view. If you want to effect a change....reach the people.

Reformationist

2nd November 2006, 04:58 PM

How can you say that God doesn't allow people to sin?

Does he put a stop to murder? Did he stop the planes from going into the two towers on 9/11? Did he stop the oklahoma city bombing? Did he stop WW2 from happening? Did he stop the genocide of 6 million jews and 6 million other moniorities by hitler? Did he stop the MILLIONS massacred by Stalin? Did he not allow us the free will to choose against him?

How can you say that God doesn't allow people to sin?

Does God punish the sin of murder? Will God punish those who commited the atrocities of 9/11? Will God punish McVeigh and his cronies? Will God punish Hitler and those who killed all of the Jews and all the others whom they killed. Will Stalin be punished for the sins he commited? If you choose to reject Christ, will anything bad happen to you?

I purposely left out your question about WW2 because it builds off the presumption that war is sinful.

His law is against sin, yes, but he doesn't force people to not sin.

Who said He did? What does that have to do with allowing people to sin?

He allows them a choice. Free will. By creating a physical human US-law, is to force people to not do something. By US-law, we force people to not murder. But by US-law, we don't force people to not divorce, to not adultery, to not lie (mostly), to not get drunk, to not accept Jesus.

Last time I checked, God never forced people to not sin. He gave them free will. It's Man that forces by the creation of laws.

This is simply more of the inane nonsense you've stated up to this point. God allows no one to sin. The very fact that sin is punishable by everlasting death shows God's lack of allowance.

If all sin is against US-law, that's equality. If one sin (divorce) is not, but another said sin (homosexuality) is, that's NOT equality.

I agree. Does that change the fact that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is sinful? Should we allow homosexuals to marry simply because divorce is also sinful?

Divorce and remarrying is a sin and God hates divorce.

Okay. Great. What does that have to do with whether homosexual marriage should be banned?

Yet He allows it.

Matthew 19:8

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

Can you, likewise, cite Scriptural support for God allowing homosexual acts?

Didn't think so.

RonnyRulz

2nd November 2006, 05:15 PM

Does God punish the sin of murder? Will God punish those who commited the atrocities of 9/11? Will God punish McVeigh and his cronies? Will God punish Hitler and those who killed all of the Jews and all the others whom they killed. Will Stalin be punished for the sins he commited?

If they accept Jesus and are covered by His Blood, NO, God will not punish them. If they are covered by His Blood, Jesus took the punishment for them. Jesus's Blood is powerful enough to cleanse the sin of murder, 9/11, McVeigh, and even Hitler/Stalin. There's power in the blood. And besides the fact, that will happen after they die, not on earth with man's laws, man's jails, man's punishment.

Who said He did? What does that have to do with allowing people to sin?

To make a law banning gay marriage is to force them to not sin by having a gay marriage. If you have a law to ban gay marriage, you are not allowing people freedom (like allowing people to sin.) That's what it has to do with.

God allows no one to sin.

I can see what you're saying. God allows sin to go unpunished, until death, and then (without Jesus) he doesn't allow them to sin. BUT, while on earth he DOES allow everyone to sin. So why should us Humans try to create laws to not allow people to sin when God DOES allow people to sin on earth.

If you disagree that God allows people to seen while alive on Earth, then I am at a loss for words. What more can I say, murders happen, sins are comitted everyday, and God doesn't stop any of it. He lets people commit crimes. He lets people sin. He allows people to sin. God allows people to die, allows people to murder each other. To say God doesn't allow people to sin is saying that everytime someone attempts to murder someone, God appears in glory and says "NO, YOU CANT DO THAT" and it doesn't happen. But it does. So...I'm confused? i give up on this one, I don't know what else I could say.

You have to at least admit that God allows sin on earth. And thus why should we act like we are better than God and not do the same? Why should we make laws to not allow sin on earth. Why not make US-laws saying you shall be punished for sin in the afterlife? That would be doing what God does. But creating laws that go against what God does (allow sin on earth) is to put ourselves as greater than God. Yet we DO allow sin, either way. The USA allows divorce, allows adultery, allows lying, allows cheating, allows blaspheming God's name in vain, allows sin. And the republicans aren't making laws to ban any of this, only specific things, and like I said, that's picking on a specific people, and called FAVORITISM.

Should we allow homosexuals to marry simply because divorce is also sinful?

YES! That's called equality. Why are you against equality? Why are you FOR being in favor of divorce but against homosexuals? You know for a fact that the Republican Party will never ban divorce or adultery. So why do you say they are our moral leaders? If they are not for banning sin, but only for banning ONE sin, then they are the lesser of two evils. According to you, allowing homosexuals to marry is evil. So, thusly, according to you, allowing divorce/adultery/lying/cheating/deceit/pride/anger is also a sin. Yet the republican party will never touch any of those issues, they'll only touch the homosexual issue. So the Republican Party are, and will continue, according to you, be allowing evil (divorce,adultery,etc.) and thus are the lesser of two evils.

Can you, likewise, cite Scriptural support for God allowing homosexual acts?

Didn't think so.

What you are saying here is that God allows Divorce, but doesn't allow Homosexual acts? That's FAVORITISM.

There may not be a verse in the Bible that plainly shows God allowing for homosexual acts, but there IS this verse in the bible:

Romans 2:11
For God does not show favoritism.

God doesn't favor the freedom of the sin of divorce and not favor the supposed sin of homosexuality. God rather allows the freedom of both, or none. THERE IS NO FAVORITISM WITH GOD. God is NOT more favored for divorce and less favored for homosexuality.

Also, one last point. What does marriage have to do with homosexual acts? They are going to have homosexual sex regardless if they are married or not. The act of getting married doesn't involve homosexual acts. Homosexual acts of sex involve homosexual acts of sex. They're gonna have sex whether you ban gay marriage or not.

The bible does say about homosexual sex, or so it may appear, but where does it say about homosexual marriage?

Hm? Does it specifically say "Thou shalt not have homosexual marriage?" If so, show me. It may say "Thou shalt not have sex with another man." but like I said, sex and marriage are two different things. Marriage is just a union, and also a law contract. Two people can get married and never have sex.

So tell me, bible scholar, where does it say "thou shalt not have homosexual marriage?"

If it's in there, then I'll shut up. If it's not, then where's your basis for banning gay marriage? Gay sex and gay marriage are completely different things.

noparty

2nd November 2006, 05:25 PM

Where in the Bible does it tell Christians to keep homosexuals from getting married? If the Bible sets the standard for marriage, then divorce should be illegal, polygamy legalized, the minimum age of consent repealed, adultery punishable by death, etc.

Banning gay marriage does nothing to stop homosexuality. If the government told me that I was no longer married to my wife, would I move out and start dating other people? Of course not. The government has no authority over marriage. If anything, it would strengthen my marriage. Regardless of what laws get passed, if two people get married, the state of their marriage is between them and God. Whether our man-made government gives them tax breaks or not is irrelevant.

If you believe that the government is a higher authority than God on the subject of marriage, then maybe you should ask yourself which master you're serving.

RonnyRulz

2nd November 2006, 05:31 PM

Reformationist

2nd November 2006, 05:53 PM

I asked, "Should we allow homosexuals to marry simply because divorce is also sinful?"

Your response...

YES! That's called equality.

As this thread, and your contention, stem from the OP claim that we should vote to ban gay marriage, I'll leave your above response to serve as the only applicable indictment against your postion.

The rest of your post is, in my opinion, completely incongruous and based on false ideas about God.

Reformationist

2nd November 2006, 05:57 PM

Regardless of what laws get passed, if two people get married, the state of their marriage is between them and God. Whether our man-made government gives them tax breaks or not is irrelevant.

If you believe that the government is a higher authority than God on the subject of marriage, then maybe you should ask yourself which master you're serving.

First off, I never implied, much less stated, that the government's authority superceded God's authority. Secondly, God calls homosexuality an abomination. A mandate rejecting the validity of homosexual marriage is implicit. And lastly, as I told your esteemed fellow left-wing liberal, the sinfulness of divorce has no bearing on whether homosexual marriage is sinful.

Oh, by the way, no one said anything about extending tax breaks to anyone so, as with so many other points you've raised, that is moot.

silverdawn

2nd November 2006, 05:59 PM

Anyway, my vote isn't swayed by the issue of gay marriage. There is much more than concerns me than that.

Yes, this is an important issue, but it's not the most important thing. You are right.

RonnyRulz

2nd November 2006, 06:02 PM

First off, I never implied, much less stated, that the government's authority superceded God's authority. Secondly, God calls homosexuality an abomination. A mandate rejecting the validity of homosexual marriage is implicit. And lastly, as I told your esteemed fellow left-wing liberal, the sinfulness of divorce has no bearing on whether homosexual marriage is sinful.

Oh, by the way, no one said anything about extending tax breaks to anyone so, as with so many other points you've raised, that is moot.

First off, I never implied, much less stated, that the government's authority superceded God's authority.

You did imply that. By saying we need GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY to ban homosexual marriage on earth, you are saying that we should have an authority that supercedes God's authority of not having such a law on earth.

You never answered me, do you or do you not agree that God allows sin on earth?

Actually, you avoided almost all my questions and statements. You just said "You don't know God" as a defense.

heheheh...I think I just won the debate. I got you, I can feel it. You gave up :P

noparty

2nd November 2006, 06:08 PM

First off, I never implied, much less stated, that the government's authority superceded God's authority. Secondly, God calls homosexuality an abomination. A mandate rejecting the validity of homosexual marriage is implicit. And lastly, as I told your esteemed fellow left-wing liberal, the sinfulness of divorce has no bearing on whether homosexual marriage is sinful.

Oh, by the way, no one said anything about extending tax breaks to anyone so, as with so many other points you've raised, that is moot.

By voting to allow governments to regulate marriage, you are implying that the government's authority supercedes God's. God does call homosexuality an abomination. In fact, the Old Testament says that homosexuals should be killed. Why are we not killing homosexuals? Well, because it contradicts the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbor. If you're for the oppression of anyone, you're not loving them.

You can choose to follow the word of Jesus and love your neighbor, or you can twist some old testament verses to justify your own hateful predjudices. It's up to you.

And I brought up tax breaks because, unlike marriage, the government has the authority to regulate those.

Reformationist

2nd November 2006, 06:23 PM

You did imply that. By saying we need GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY to ban homosexual marriage on earth, you are saying that we should have an authority that supercedes God's authority of not having such a law on earth.

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Is it your contention that God comdemns homosexuality but authorizes homosexual marriages?

You never answered me, do you or do you not agree that God allows sin on earth?

God doesn't allow sin anywhere. He may, for His own purposes, not stop someone from sinning but those sins must be atoned for. Do you not understand that if God allowed sin then that sin wouldn't be punishable?

Actually, you avoided almost all my questions and statements.

Ignoring and avoiding are two, entirely different things.

You just said "You don't know God" as a defense.

No. I said that if you believe God condones gay marriage you don't understand God's nature.

heheheh...I think I just won the debate. I got you, I can feel it. You gave up :P

Well, I very well may "give up" but if you think you'll walk away a winner then you're sadly mistaken. Your views are humanistic and destructive. That makes you anything but the winner in this debate.

mont974x4

2nd November 2006, 08:13 PM

hmmm where does gov't authority come from? How are we to act towards gov't and those in authority?

noparty

2nd November 2006, 08:47 PM

Or more importantly, how do we act towards government when that government contradicts the teachings of Christ? Paul says we should obey the government, but of course, Paul spent the better part of his adult life in jail for not obeying the government. When our government tells us not to love our neighbors, to discriminate and judge others, to kill without reason, then it's time for Christians to decide where their allegiances lie.

mont974x4

2nd November 2006, 09:00 PM

RonnyRulz

3rd November 2006, 05:36 AM

God doesn't allow sin anywhere. He may, for His own purposes, not stop someone from sinning but those sins must be atoned for. Do you not understand that if God allowed sin then that sin wouldn't be punishable?

You used webster before, so I'll use it against you, because you used it against others

Definition of allow:

5 a : PERMIT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/permit) <doesn't allow people to smoke in his home> b : to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent <allow the dog to roam>

Ignoring and avoiding are two, entirely different things.

Yea, you're right, they are entirely different things. But you know what? They also reach the same conclusion: You ignoring OR avoiding my facts and logic. No matter what I say, you are admitted you are closing your mind and closing your ears to hear anything I say. But that's your choice, if you want to continue to sin, and to not love, then that's your thing, I can't stop you. All I can say is consider it, to love homoesxuals instead of hating them. Jesus's commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you."

Everyone can read amongst both of our arguing and reach their own conclusion. Since you decided to not reply to my last statements against you, I guess I have nothing more to say.

Good day.

Starcrystal

3rd November 2006, 11:59 AM

I have yet to find ANY candidate who is acceptable on all issues. The Republicans usually are against abortion and gay marraige which I fully support. But they are often pro war, big spending and anti environment.
Well, let's not say anti environment, but their policies like allowing loggers to clear cut in the Tongass and Sequoia forests is a desecration of Gods creation. It's like they are saving the babies to give them a marred & polluted world. Or saving babies just so 17 -18 years later they can use them in their war machine in some remote country over some stupid issue.
The democrats are usually pro environment and cater more to the poor but they also support the sins of abortion, as well as unconstitutional gun control.

The Republicans waste money on a war on drugs when they could use the money for other purposes and even create jobs and capital by legalizing marijuana and taxing it. (I'm talking both the THC containing and the non THC hemp that can be used for many things timber is now used for, as well as clothing)

So who do you vote for?

noparty

3rd November 2006, 12:10 PM

noparty..the thing is, we aren't forced to do those things. That is a key diference. If we were in NAZI Germany, or a Muslim nation, then that would be diferent. In the US, we aren't forced...we can, but we don't have to.

Correct. We are not forced to support our government when it contradicts the teachings of Christ. I choose not to, and I would hope that other Christians would do the same.

mont974x4

3rd November 2006, 01:18 PM

Correct. We are not forced to support our government when it contradicts the teachings of Christ. I choose not to, and I would hope that other Christians would do the same.

I beleive we are to obey those He has placed in authority unless they explicitly command us to go against Him. Looking to biblical examples of civil disobedience is helpful in understanding this. Thus far, I don't see the US government placing us in that position.

noparty

3rd November 2006, 01:40 PM

I beleive we are to obey those He has placed in authority unless they explicitly command us to go against Him. Looking to biblical examples of civil disobedience is helpful in understanding this. Thus far, I don't see the US government placing us in that position.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with obeying the government when the will of that government corresponds to the will of Christ. When the government takes actions that contradict the commandments of Christ, should we support that government and those actions? Anyways, we're getting off topic.

The question is whether the government has the authority to regulate marriage or not. If God recognizes gay marriage, then there's nothing the government can do to prevent that. If God does not recognize gay marriage, then there's nothing the government can do to validate it. The government is not the mediator between God and Man. Any decision that the government makes to regulate it is usurping the authority of God. And Christians that believe that the government is a higher authority than God on the subject of marriage need to reevaluate things in my opinion.

mont974x4

3rd November 2006, 02:25 PM

I thought the thread was about voting based on morals in general...not just one specific moral issue.

I can't vote democrat because I think they have a pro-abortion stance. I know many who can't vote Republican because they think they are against the poor.

As to the gay marriage issue? Are we directed by God, in His Word, to force our beliefs on people using the gov't process available to us? What about stem cells? (of which I have done quite a bit of research and find that most people are grossly uninformed). What about abortion?

noparty

3rd November 2006, 02:50 PM

I thought the thread was about voting based on morals in general...not just one specific moral issue.

I thought that when I saw the topic as well. Upon reading the initial post though, I realized that was not the case.

I can't vote democrat because I think they have a pro-abortion stance. I know many who can't vote Republican because they think they are against the poor.

As to the gay marriage issue? Are we directed by God, in His Word, to force our beliefs on people using the gov't process available to us?

I don't think so. We're particularly not directed to twist God's words to promote our own agendas that do not correspond to the teachings of Christ and then force those beliefs on people. I think that's been my point all along.

What about stem cells? (of which I have done quite a bit of research and find that most people are grossly uninformed). What about abortion?

I'm pretty sure that thread already exists several times over. :)

SteelDisciple

3rd November 2006, 03:09 PM

When you vote remember to vote for someone with morals.Do not vote if the person is moral on some issues and not on others,do not vote for the lesser of the two evils.If you compromise it will reflect on you and the candidate you voted on.Remember that Jesus Christ does not compromise and if Christ lives in you, you should not compromise either.Remember to vote to ban gay marriage.It's time for us Christians to vote for people with great morals to lead our nation under God.God Bless you all :)

I don't vote. All politicians are liars and thieves. Morality does not exist in the american political system.

There is no "right" vote...You are voting for evil or evil. No inbetween.

MikeK

3rd November 2006, 03:23 PM

First off, I never implied, much less stated, that the government's authority superceded God's authority. Secondly, God calls homosexuality an abomination. A mandate rejecting the validity of homosexual marriage is implicit. And lastly, as I told your esteemed fellow left-wing liberal, the sinfulness of divorce has no bearing on whether homosexual marriage is sinful.

Oh, by the way, no one said anything about extending tax breaks to anyone so, as with so many other points you've raised, that is moot.

Tax breaks and the right to make decisions in the name of your sick spouse is about all that a government sactioned marriage is. Because the government allows a gay couple to marry does of course not force God to recognize that marriage. If you desire to make one rather benign, victimless sin illegal, why not make ALL sin illegal? I could understand that argument at least, but many today are arguing for laws against SOME sins, usually sins that they themselves are not tempted to commit, so they of course won't be targeted by these laws. Doesn't make sence to me.

mont974x4

3rd November 2006, 05:43 PM

As long as I am safe and free to reach individuals with the Gospel, I can handle some policies that I don't agree with. Personally, after looking at it seriously, liberals are a huge threat to this. I vote accordingly. Security and individual rights are my key issues.

Marriage amendment or not, we need to love them, pray for them, and work to lead them to Christ. Whether the Feds decide to act Consitutionally and allow states to handle abortion or MM issues or not...we need to pray for them, love them, and show them Christ. It's the individuals that matter.

I do have to keep reminding myself that no one is authoirty unless God allows gives them that auhtority. Whether they believe it or not, they are His instruments and part of His plan. Pharoah, for example.

Followers4christ

4th November 2006, 02:21 PM

So don't vote? Republicans and Democrats both are moral on some issues but not on others.

Why? How is that Christian at all? That's so anti-christian, as well as anti-american to forbid someone freedom. God gave us freedom. God allows sin, God gives us freedom to sin, God gives us freedom to divorce even though it's an abomination, God gives us freedom to commit adultery, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to lie, even though it's an abomination. God gives us freedom to sin, to do whatever we want. God would never make a law to make a certain type of people (homosexuals) feel hated, segregated, like they are horrible people, while at the same time allow divorce, which is equally an abomination.

Only a hypocrite would allow divorce but want to ban gay marriage.

Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel

But that's fully legal, not looked down upon at all, and absolutely not going to be up to be a law passed saying "Ban divorce."

Only a hypocrite would be okay with divorce, which God hates and gives us the freedom to do, but pick on homosexuals out of hate for them, making a law against gay marriage but not divorce, giving freedom for divorce but not gay marriage. BAH!

If I want to vote for someone with great morals, I'm NEVER voting republican. I'd rather vote anything else. I'm not about hating homosexuals and forbidding them their God-given right to sin. God allows adulterers, murderers, liars, and all other kind of sinners. If homosexuality is a sin, why would a christian want to ban it when they dont want to ban any other sin? Ridiculous.

I hate politics, and I'm probably never going to vote because it's all corrupt, but if I ever do, it sure as heck will never be for a hate-filled republican who wants to screw the poor and forbid americans their freedom.

What the crap is wrong with christians and their blind mindless thoughtless militant loyalty to the republican party? Ignorance, that's what. Just because they slap on the word "Christian" doesn't make them Christian, but apparently to most Christians it does. Jesus isn't suppoes to be a name used for political power.Ergh, this upsets me so much that just because republicans say "God" a lot, they immeditely get the mindless support of the zombie-like christians who mindlessly follow Bush like he is Jesus. Bush isn't even close to a real Christian.

Because of man's rebellion, God put us in to slavery of sin (Romans 1:18-32),Not freedom.If we wish to break the bonds of slavery and have freedom we need Jesus Christ in our lives.If we are Christians then we must apply God's word,In all parts of our lives even political.Christians must vote on morals and not what their party tells them too.By the way I never said to vote or don't vote on Bush.All I said was to vote on morals.Homosexuality and abortion are not moral.God Bless

noparty

4th November 2006, 04:46 PM

Because of man's rebellion, God put us in to slavery of sin (Romans 1:18-32),Not freedom.If we wish to break the bonds of slavery and have freedom we need Jesus Christ in our lives.If we are Christians then we must apply God's word,In all parts of our lives even political.Christians must vote on morals and not what their party tells them too.By the way I never said to vote or don't vote on Bush.All I said was to vote on morals.Homosexuality and abortion are not moral.God Bless

Also immoral: Lying, killing, torture.

RonnyRulz

5th November 2006, 06:45 AM

Yea, but don't tell that to the christian right, they'll get offended that they are hypocrites.

marke

5th November 2006, 09:52 PM

Perhaps you need a refresher on what God considers Evil.

Pro 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Pro 14:25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.

Pro 6:16 These six Jehovah hates; yea, seven are hateful to his soul:

Pro 6:17 a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 a heart that plots wicked plans, feet hurrying to run to evil,
Pro 6:19 a false witness who speaks lies, and he who causes fighting among brothers.

Pro 8:32 And now listen to me, O sons; for blessed are those who keep my ways.

Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and do not refuse it.

Pro 12:22 Lying lips are hateful to Jehovah, but those who deal truly are His delight.

Pro 16:7 When a man's ways please Jehovah, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

Rom 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

1Th 5:15 See that none gives evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue the good, both towards one another and towards all.

Pro 20:11 Even a child is known by his own doings, whether his work is pure and whether it is right.

Pro 21:13 Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.

Pro 22:16 He who crushes the poor to multiply for himself, and he who gives to the rich, only to come to poverty.

Pro 24:29 Do not say, I will do so to him as he has done to me; I will give to the man according to his work.

Pro 25:19 Trust in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.

Pro 29:7 The righteous knows the plea of the poor; the wicked cares not to know it.

Pro 29:12 If a ruler listens to lies, all his servants are wicked.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness.

Now, go ahead and vote. You know right from wrong and you've had six years to view the actions of the republicans. Do you stand with the teachings above or with your "moral" people.

Don't you know you are condemning yourself by your words and actions concerning gays. Are you without sin? If so, go ahead and throw the first rock.

I note you quote John 3:16. Sounds like 3:19 is more appropriate. If you consider people who run this country as having great morals, you might want to spend a little more time reading the New Testament so you can discern good from evil.

Nothing the republicans have done over the past six years even remotely resembles Christian teaching. Don't be deceived by words. You know them by their fruit and if their fruit resembles the verses above do you really want to vote for people who do these things. Better to follow the teachings of Jesus and become dead to the world than support people who do the things God considers evil.

God bless. Let go and let God run the world. Your vote is NOT needed.

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 12:46 AM

God is the one who gives people authority. I happen to believe that in our country He uses our votes to accomplish that.

Oh, and before anyone gets too happy go republican bashing....I suggest a close look at the democrat...if for nothing else...fairness.

noparty

6th November 2006, 01:13 AM

God is the one who gives people authority. I happen to believe that in our country He uses our votes to accomplish that.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I find it interesting that I've never heard that verse quoted while a democrat was in power. Admittedly, I grew up in pretty conservative churches. Also, I'm perplexed as to why God puts people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power. We're told to support the leaders because they're appointed by God. Are we to support the leaders of OUR nation because they're appointed by God, or ALL nations because they're also appointed by God? If the latter, are we thwarting the will of God when we overthrow the leaders of other countries? I don't claim to have the answer.

Oh, and before anyone gets too happy go republican bashing....I suggest a close look at the democrat...if for nothing else...fairness.

Agreed. But since a choice between two right-wing parties is not really a choice at all for those of us not on the right, tactical voting is a harsh reality.

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 01:31 AM

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I find it interesting that I've never heard that verse quoted while a democrat was in power. Admittedly, I grew up in pretty conservative churches. Also, I'm perplexed as to why God puts people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power. We're told to support the leaders because they're appointed by God. Are we to support the leaders of OUR nation because they're appointed by God, or ALL nations because they're also appointed by God? If the latter, are we thwarting the will of God when we overthrow the leaders of other countries? I don't claim to have the answer.

Agreed. But since a choice between two right-wing parties is not really a choice at all for those of us not on the right, tactical voting is a harsh reality.

Look at how God used Pharoah. I don't understand all He does, but I trust Him.

EDIT: Remember, God often commanded war. Perhaps looking at the reasons would be helpful. Most often it was to protect His people from the influence of other nations idolotry and keep them from playing the harlot. Now, look at today and consider the true nature (and goals) of Islam. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. As a combat verteran I know it's horrible, but I also know it is necessary at times.

Interesting you think the choice is between two right wing parties...I consider it a choice between two left wing parties. :D I guess much woulod depend on our view of governemt and what we consider is their purpose.

Personally, I think the purpose is pretty much limited to war (protecting us from foreign threats) and criminal prosecution/punishment (internal threats)..and little else. They have no business in business, schools, health care or other social experiments.

YLT
Rom 13:1 Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God,
Rom 13:2 so that he who is setting himself against the authority, against God's ordinance hath resisted; and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment.
Rom 13:3 For those ruling are not a terror to the good works, but to the evil; and dost thou wish not to be afraid of the authority? that which is good be doing, and thou shalt have praise from it,
Rom 13:4 for of God it is a ministrant to thee for good; and if that which is evil thou mayest do, be fearing, for not in vain doth it bear the sword; for of God it is a ministrant, an avenger for wrath to him who is doing that which is evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of the wrath, but also because of the conscience,
Rom 13:6 for because of this also pay ye tribute; for servants of God they are, on this very thing attending continually;
Rom 13:7 render, therefore, to all their dues; to whom tribute, the tribute; to whom custom, the custom; to whom fear, the fear; to whom honour, the honour.

Protestante

6th November 2006, 02:01 AM

Its not as easy as in the US here in Australia. When there is nobody moral to vote for, you don't have to vote. Here, after 18, voting is compulsory. So in less than a month I'll have to start voting and being politcally (locally) aware. Eeek!

noparty

6th November 2006, 03:01 AM

Keep in mind that Paul wrote Romans. Obviously he didn't put too much stock in obeying his leaders since he went to jail for disobeying those very leaders.

Interesting you think the choice is between two right wing parties...I consider it a choice between two left wing parties. :D I guess much woulod depend on our view of governemt and what we consider is their purpose.

I assume you've seen http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ? It seems to lean pretty libertarian, but I'm not sure who originally built it. It's a pretty good indicator of where you stand politically compared to the rest of the globe. Plus, it's fun! :) Check it out if you haven't already. That's a good indicator of why I say both the dems and repubs are right-wing.

RonnyRulz

6th November 2006, 04:47 AM

I know many who can't vote Republican because they think they are against the poor.

THINK? You mean know? lol

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 11:57 AM

Contrary to that thought, Republicans are not against helping the poor...they just work the issue in a diferent way. IMO, a more biblical way.

we are not supposed to maintain the poor, but rather help them through the rough spot while they get on their feet.

Only those who truly could not support themselves are to be maintained. And their family had that responsibility first and the church second....never the government.

The well intentioned but poorly executed welfare system does more harm than good. As does raising the minimum wage.

I doubt many Dems would get elected if the citizens would really dig in and see what their leadership is doing and trying to do.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 01:33 PM

Tax breaks and the right to make decisions in the name of your sick spouse is about all that a government sactioned marriage is. Because the government allows a gay couple to marry does of course not force God to recognize that marriage.

So you're for the government recognizing as valid the matrimonial union of one man to another or one woman to another?

If you desire to make one rather benign, victimless sin illegal, why not make ALL sin illegal?

While I seriously doubt that any governmental basis for objection to homosexual marriage is its sinfulness, I find it rather odd that a Christian water down the commission of cosmic treason as "one rather benign, victimless sin."

God bless

noparty

6th November 2006, 01:43 PM

Homosexuality = Cosmic treason?

That's my favorite assessment of the day.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 01:59 PM

Homosexuality = Cosmic treason?

That's my favorite assessment of the day.

Like all sin, homosexuality is an assault against the righteousness of God.

To avoid any further presumptions, I offer a revised equation:

Sin = Cosmic Treason

noparty

6th November 2006, 02:19 PM

I don't think anyone in the thread has claimed homosexuality is not a sin. The question is how we as Christians are to react to homosexuality, or more importantly how we are to react to homosexuals. Hate and fear or love and compassion? In my opinion, banning gay marriage does nothing to stop homosexuality or help homosexuals. It just further polarizes people and breeds hate.

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 02:19 PM

Yep, we must take care to treat ALL sin as equally horrendous....as opposed to singleing out one particular sin.

nicely done.

MikeK

6th November 2006, 02:30 PM

So you're for the government recognizing as valid the matrimonial union of one man to another or one woman to another?

No, I'm for the government ignoring marriage and letting all adults choose who they want to represent them in case of grave illness. I don't really care at all what the government thinks of my marriage and weather they recognize it or not, but apparently to some people it is very important.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 02:47 PM

I don't think anyone in the thread has claimed homosexuality is not a sin.

Well, I don't know how you interpret it but, when someone suggests we should condone homosexual sin in the name of equality, I would say they are trying to make the gravity of the sin immaterial.

The question is how we as Christians are to react to homosexuality, or more importantly how we are to react to homosexuals. Hate and fear or love and compassion?

And the loving thing to do is what, condone the sin and endorse gay marriage? If not, what?

In my opinion, banning gay marriage does nothing to stop homosexuality or help homosexuals.

Pray tell noparty, what should do, not seek the banning of gay marriage?

It just further polarizes people and breeds hate.

Calling evil that which is evil may offend those who would rather continue in their sin than submit to God's authority but it certainly should not cause us to refrain from taking whatever steps we can to establish as civilly illegal that which God condemns.

Despite what certain people here seem to think, the loving action toward those who suffer from a homosexual proclivity is to enlighten them to the depraved nature of their sin and encourage them to, and assist them in, submitting to God's holy Law.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 03:06 PM

No, I'm for the government ignoring marriage and letting all adults choose who they want to represent them in case of grave illness.

So people without federally recognized spouses have no right to establish who will represent their interests in the case of grave illness? Does not a Last Will and Testament allow us to define, not only the arbitor of our estate but, our wishes, including who we want to represent us?

I don't really care at all what the government thinks of my marriage and weather they recognize it or not, but apparently to some people it is very important.

Well, as a Christian, I appreciate it when anyone takes a stance that is in keeping with biblical principles. It should be an important issue to any who see the parameters that God established for marriage as important.

God bless

noparty

6th November 2006, 03:19 PM

Well, I don't know how you interpret it but, when someone suggests we should condone homosexual sin in the name of equality, I would say they are trying to make the gravity of the sin immaterial.

There are lots of sins that are not illegal. Lying is not illegal. Gossip is not illegal. Adultery. Not observing the sabbath. Whatever. Is it our duty as Christians to try to get the government to illegalize those things?

And the loving thing to do is what, condone the sin and endorse gay marriage? If not, what?

That's a good question. Jesus's method for helping sinners usually started with talking to them. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm not so sure Jesus would go running to the government asking them to regulate marriage.

Pray tell noparty, what should do, not seek the banning of gay marriage?

Okay.

Calling evil that which is evil may offend those who would rather continue in their sin than submit to God's authority but it certainly should not cause us to refrain from taking whatever steps we can to establish as civilly illegal that which God condemns.

Despite what certain people here seem to think, the loving action toward those who suffer from a homosexual proclivity is to enlighten them to the depraved nature of their sin and encourage them to, and assist them in, submitting to God's holy Law.

I'm pretty sure most homosexuals already know what the Bible says about them and how Christians feel towards them.

MikeK

6th November 2006, 03:31 PM

So people without federally recognized spouses have no right to establish who will represent their interests in the case of grave illness? Does not a Last Will and Testament allow us to define, not only the arbitor of our estate but, our wishes, including who we want to represent us?

Sadly, only sometimes in both cases.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 03:45 PM

There are lots of sins that are not illegal. Lying is not illegal. Gossip is not illegal. Adultery. Not observing the sabbath. Whatever. Is it our duty as Christians to try to get the government to illegalize those things?

You've missed the forest for the trees. God condemns homosexuality. In His Word, God has established valid matrimony as the union between a man and a woman. We, as Christians, have taken up the Cross of defending the Law of God. If you feel that lying, or gossip, or adultery, or failing to observe the Sabbath are sinful then you should do all you can to help others avoid succumbing to those sins. The covenant of marriage is an issue that is regulated, or ruled upon, by the government, regardless of whether you may see it as a sin that is no less or more egregious than any other. Therefore, as it is a union that carries with it social considerations over which the federal government currently exercises authority, it is their perrogative to recognize as valid, or not, any union which would benefit from those social considerations.

You see, the issue of the validity of homosexual marriage isn't whether a homosexual couple can stand before an official and exchange vows. That already happens. The issue is whether the federal government is obligated to recognize that union as valid and deserving of the same benefits as that between a man and a woman.

So, take a stand. Should the federal government be required to recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple and extend to them the same marital benefits as those enjoyed the lawful union of a man and a woman?

Okay.

Okay what? I asked you if believe we should not seek the banning of gay marriage.

I'm pretty sure most homosexuals already know what the Bible says about them and how Christians feel towards them.

Really? Tell me, since you seem to think you speak for us all, how do obedient Christians feel towards homosexuals?

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 03:54 PM

Sadly, only sometimes in both cases.

And do you believe that the appropriate answer to this dilemma is to condone homosexual marriage?

I would find it completely appropriate that those who choose to live in opposition to the Law of God should suffer the ramifications of doing so. If their choice to live in sinfulness renders them unable to serve in that capacity and they suffer as a result, they would have to learn that living in opposition to God is not the wise thing to do. It's something we all face when we sin. Bottom line, sinful lifestyles, of which homosexuality definitely qualifies, result in suffering.

Strange, I never hear anyone coming to the defense of those who ruin their lives through alcohol abuse or gambling or any other ungodly lifestyle. It's only those who live an ungodly life of homosexuality that people act as if they aren't doing anything wrong. Not saying that is your stance Mike. Just commenting in the general sense.

noparty

6th November 2006, 04:05 PM

So, take a stand. Should the federal government be required to recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple and extend to them the same marital benefits as those enjoyed the lawful union of a man and a woman?

I don't think the government is obligated to recognize any marriage. Nor do I think they have the authority to regulate marriage.

Okay what? I asked you if believe we should not seek the banning of gay marriage.

Me personally? I'm okay with not seeking the banning of gay marriage.

Really? Tell me, since you seem to think you speak for us all, how do obedient Christians feel towards homosexuals?

I believe different obedient Christians feel differently towards homosexuals, but I think all of those feelings have been amply conveyed in the past.

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 04:06 PM

Legislation to combat sin never works. This is proven by history...the drug war, prohibition, for example.

With that in mind, I oppose the Marriage Amednment and favor a grass roots efforts to reach individuals. Pray for them and with them...be light, in love, grace, and mercy...not in condemnation. Remember we were all slaves to sin before Christ and only He can save them. This applies to all sin, not just sexual sin.

Jesus is a good example, and admittedly a hard one to follow. He never condoned the sin, or whitewashed it, or watered it down, but He did hold people accountable in such a way that we should all strive to follow.

Jay...the forgiven and redeemed drunk adulterer and fornicator

noparty

6th November 2006, 04:15 PM

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 04:19 PM

I don't think the government is obligated to recognize any marriage.

Okay.

Nor do I think they have the authority to regulate marriage.

As there are thousands and thousands of people who have been joined in homosexual marriage, I would say that the government neither does, nor tries, to regulate marriage. What they do regulate, however, is whether they will recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple. This, of course, comes to bear when discussing the issue of what benefits will be extended to the union of a homosexual couple.

You see, people try to cloud the issue. The issue from a strictly secular perspective is, should people who are joined in homosexual matrimony receive the same incentives as joined in heterosexual marriage.

I would say no. You seem to be on the other side of the debate.

Me personally? I'm okay with not seeking the banning of gay marriage.

Bit of a slippery slope you slide down. I'll ask you point blank. Do you feel that the government should recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple and, in doing so, make them eligible for the same benefits as those extended to hetero married couples?

I believe different obedient Christians feel differently towards homosexuals, but I think all of those feelings have been amply conveyed in the past.

Yet you felt the need to restate the "love them" perspective, as if it were in opposition to the "don't recognize their marriage as valid" perspective.

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 04:19 PM

:D If you're Green party I would imagine we agree on more than we care to admit. ;)

Besides, as Christians, we are family and altho we may disagree on some things we should try and focus on things we do agree on. :thumbsup: And ensure that those things we agree on are the big things so we don't get hung up on little things that we are free to disagree on.

:scratch: Did that make sense?

Jay

mont974x4

6th November 2006, 04:22 PM

Oh, and since I don't believe the gov't should be in the incentives business...they shouldn't recognize any marriage.....since the only reason for doing so is for financial reasons on a personal level.

Of course, much would be solved with a fair tax system as opposed to the one we have now which is at best...questionable, in the Contitutional sense.

MikeK

6th November 2006, 04:24 PM

And do you believe that the appropriate answer to this dilemma is to condone homosexual marriage? [/QUOTE]
I don't think that the government should either sondone or forbid it.

Strange, I never hear anyone coming to the defense of those who ruin their lives through alcohol abuse or gambling or any other ungodly lifestyle. It's only those who live an ungodly life of homosexuality that people act as if they aren't doing anything wrong. Not saying that is your stance Mike. Just commenting in the general sense.

Look no further, my friend, I will come to the defence of gambling addicts and drunkards, at least to the extent that I "defend" gays. I don't believe that the government has any right to stop adults from gambling or drinking simply because they are addicts. If a man is robbing banks to fund his gambling addiction or driving drunk, those are separate issues that need to be dealt with and harshly, but I don't think that the government should be outlawing gambling and drinking for these folks. I never said that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, I think that there is something very wrong with it....I just don't think that we need laws forbidding it.

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 04:33 PM

I just don't think that we need laws forbidding it [gay marriage].

The "law" is regarding homosexual marriage has been, thus far, exclusively related to whether homosexual married couples should get the same benefits as hetero married couples simply because they engage in an ungodly lifestyle?

The point about the alcoholics was that, unlike the homosexual marriage issue, no one is pursuing an increase in the government issuance of benefits to someone simply because they are alcoholics or gambling addicts.

God bless

noparty

6th November 2006, 04:42 PM

Okay.

As there are thousands and thousands of people who have been joined in homosexual marriage, I would say that the government neither does, nor tries, to regulate marriage. What they do regulate, however, is whether they will recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple. This, of course, comes to bear when discussing the issue of what benefits will be extended to the union of a homosexual couple.

You see, people try to cloud the issue. The issue from a strictly secular perspective is, should people who are joined in homosexual matrimony receive the same incentives as joined in heterosexual marriage.

I would say no. You seem to be on the other side of the debate.

Fair enough.

Bit of a slippery slope you slide down. I'll ask you point blank. Do you feel that the government should recognize as valid the union of a homosexual couple and, in doing so, make them eligible for the same benefits as those extended to hetero married couples?

What benefits are you referring to? If you're talking about the right to visit each other in the hospital or make decisions for each other in the event that one person can't make the decisions for themselves, then yes, I think gay couples should be able to do that. In fact, I think that should be independent of marriage or sexual relationship. If I want my best friend to be able to visit me in the hospital and make decisions for me, I should be able to give him that right. A sexual relationship should not be mandatory for that.

Yet you felt the need to restate the "love them" perspective, as if it were in opposition to the "don't recognize their marriage as valid" perspective.

I love you, too. ;)

Reformationist

6th November 2006, 04:50 PM

What benefits are you referring to?

I'm referring to whichever benefits are extended to hetero married couples that are not extended to homosexual married couples that homosexual couples feel should be extended to them.

If you're talking about the right to visit each other in the hospital or make decisions for each other in the event that one person can't make the decisions for themselves, then yes, I think gay couples should be able to do that. In fact, I think that should be independent of marriage or sexual relationship. If I want my best friend to be able to visit me in the hospital and make decisions for me, I should be able to give him that right.

If you take issue with whom the hospitals allow to visit you or make decisions for you in the case of grave illness/injury, your problem is with the hospital, not governmental legislation.

A sexual relationship should not be mandatory for that.

First off, I am not aware of any policy, governmental or otherwise, that requires that the relationship be a sexual one for it to be deemed valid. Secondly, homosexual couples are generally in sexual relationships.

I love you, too. ;)

Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

God bless