# Would you be for or against a constitutional amendment



## alexstin (Jan 17, 2008)

that marriage is only between a man and a woman?


----------



## envybeauty (Jan 17, 2008)

what would be the benefit to anyone if marriage was defined as such by law?


----------



## gone_fishing (Jan 17, 2008)

People are voting but folks are afraid to talk.

Ok, I'll bite. In this state in NC gay marriages are not accepted, acknowledged, PERIOD.

I had a person come in for a consultation several months ago and she wanted a divorce from a woman she had married in Massachusetts. Easy answer in NC, we told the lady - you aren't married here in the first place.

Now there is an act that says each state has to honor another states judgment/order in a legal case - but in this case NC does not even recognize their marriage license as being a valid document because it is a no no here.

My personal opinion?

Gay marriage is an abomination. There are few things God calls an abomination in the bible but he is very clear about this in Leviticus. Now does that make gay marriage worse than other sins - not so, and if it is then I'm not the one to judge.

Should it be part of our constitution? Well I'm not in agreement with the separation of church and state but since that is the way things are, no - I wouldn't necessarily add it to the constitution although this country was "supposedly" founded on christian principles - no since in politicians pretending like they are all holy now when half of them have their penises in the mouths of some woman who is not their wife.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 17, 2008)

nvybeauty said:


> what would be the benefit to anyone if marriage was defined as such by law?


 
So that it cannot be re-defined, or taken out of context by those who have no respect for what the pure definition is and always will be. "A union between a man and a woman."

Actually marriage is an "Inalienable Right" which is a 'set order' created by God.

"Inalienable" means *incapable of transfer*. 

*What God gives to man* cannot be negated, superseded or undone by man. One man (or group) cannot deprive another of his rights. One man (or group) cannot change the meaning of marriage.

We have the God-given right to maintain the true definition of marriage. 

"Selah.....'group'...."


----------



## PaperClip (Jan 17, 2008)

I ain't scurred! LOL!

The State of Michigan voted on this very question in 2004, I believe. I voted against changing the amendment. Regardless of the benefit or detriment of such a law, I felt that I had to vote according to MY CONVICTIONS, which is comprised of my spiritual, political, moral, cultural beliefs. The totality of my convictions are not easily dissected.

Since that vote, I have met a number of people who are in homosexual relationships, including one classmate who has been with her partner for 25 years. Wow....some hetero marriages don't last that long. How about I'm still in line for my marital relationship to manifest (in 2008) and I'm doing it GOD'S WAY so what's up with that? But I digress....

I have come to care about my classmate and she's clear on my perspective and I'm clear on her perspective. We have had conversations concerning the benefits that hetero couples have via the recognized marital contract, e.g., health insurance, willing property, etc. I said to her that if that what she wants, then the argument needs to be reframed to be more inclusive. The issue with health insurances and related topics is not exclusively a homosexual issue. There are hetero folk in various (sexual and non-sexual) partnerships who could also benefit from that sharing of health benefits, etc.

But then my classmate made the point about being able to express their relationship and the desire for it to be legally recognized and so on.... If nothing else, our conversations have let me know that being part of a (sexual, religious) majority has its benefits, but not as much as White supremacy....

I feel as though I am digressing again but my main point is in the lead....


----------



## cutiebe2 (Jan 17, 2008)

Since there is a seperation of church and state I am in favor of Gay marriage. As long as they are not married in a church it is good with me. I am not Gay but I feel for those who are and feel morally and religiously conflicted. Still, since I feel there sins do not affect mine, they should be able to do as they please. I don't judge, I leave that to God. Since this "sin" has no affect on my life I say let them be happy.

I believe there are no big decision in life. I you want to argue that gay marriage would be immoral for the US or against God, I point to the small steps before this the America has already made against God. :shrug:


----------



## gone_fishing (Jan 17, 2008)

ETA:

If it was on my ballot tomorrow, yes I'd vote for that amendment and I'd pray for it's ratification ASAP.


----------



## PaperClip (Jan 17, 2008)

cutiebe2 said:


> Since there is a seperation of church and state I am in favor of Gay marriage. As long as they are not married in a church it is good with me. I am not Gay but I feel for those who are and feel morally and religiously conflicted. Still, since I feel there sins do not affect mine, they should be able to do as they please. I don't judge, I leave that to God. Since this "sin" has no affect on my life I say let them be happy.
> 
> I believe there are no big decision in life. I you want to argue that gay marriage would be immoral for the US or against God, I point to the small steps before this the America has already made against God. :shrug:


 
The core of my position is based on me (feeling like I) have(ing) to answer to the Lord on how I personally upheld the principles of the Bible, in my personal, professional, political actions. Interestingly, I feel like I'm at a crossroads because on one hand, Republicans are supposed to be the party that upholds Christian principles with regard to abortion, gay marriage, etc. But when it comes to equality and equity for people of color, the Christian/religious right has either remained silent or has functioned to expand the gaps that exist economically, socially, and politically.

Recently, I have been wondering if my political responsibility should be toward my spiritual/religious side or my socially conscious side. I wonder if I should vote for a party that seemingly upholds my religious beliefs but does nothing to uphold my place as a woman of color in this country. Or vice versa? 

The violations that the U.S. has done against the Lord have been anything but small. But the larger question for me at this point is for what am I responsible politically? How should my political beliefs align with the Word of God?


----------



## cutiebe2 (Jan 18, 2008)

RelaxerRehab said:


> *But the larger question for me at this point is for what am I responsible politically? How should my political beliefs align with the Word of God?*




I feel that in these times, trying to insert religious views into American politics will leave you holding the short end of the stick.  Obviously Americans and the rest of the western world does not uphold Christian beleifs like they used to, unless we would not even be having this topic.

Recently my friend has been showing me movies on the "last days" the details are shady but one clear message in all is the the degradation/ immoral actions of society cannot be stopped, it takes on a life of its own. The best you can do is live you life according to how you believe God wants you too.

I don't think you should have to fight for Gay rights if you do not believe in them, but you don't have to try and stop it either. This can be applied to other aspects of current politics.


----------



## alexstin (Jan 18, 2008)

cutiebe2 said:


> I feel that in these times, trying to insert religious views into American politics will leave you holding the short end of the stick.  Obviously Americans and the rest of the western world does not uphold Christian beleifs like they used to, unless we would not even be having this topic.
> 
> Recently my friend has been showing me movies on the "last days" the details are shady but one clear message in all is the the degradation/ immoral actions of society cannot be stopped, it takes on a life of its own. *The best you can do is live you life according to how you believe God wants you too*.
> 
> I don't think you should have to fight for Gay rights if you do not believe in them, *but you don't have to try and stop it either*. This can be applied to other aspects of current politics.



What is your scriptural basis for this line of reasoning?


----------



## gone_fishing (Jan 18, 2008)

You know...I just realized this was posted in the christian forum. And all this time I've been trying not to bible thump.

Alexstin I created another thread about voting and our responsibilities as a Christian. It's called should Christians Vote Democrat or Republican but I posted it before I realized this questions was posed in a Christian Forum.

I was waiting for the backlash and was very confused when there wasn't any  until I saw the forum under which it was posted.


----------



## alexstin (Jan 18, 2008)

adequate said:


> You know...I just realized this was posted in the christian forum. And all this time I've been trying not to bible thump.
> 
> Alexstin I created another thread about voting and our responsibilities as a Christian. It's called should Christians Vote Democrat or Republican but I posted it before I realized this questions was posed in a Christian Forum.
> 
> I was waiting for the backlash and was very confused when there wasn't any  until I saw the forum under which it was posted.






There was a HUGE debate about this on another forum I visit.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

cutiebe2 said:


> Since there is a seperation of church and state I am in favor of Gay marriage. As long as they are not married in a church it is good with me. I am not Gay but I feel for those who are and feel morally and religiously conflicted. Still, since I feel there sins do not affect mine, they should be able to do as they please. I don't judge, I leave that to God. Since this "sin" has no affect on my life I say let them be happy.
> 
> I believe there are no big decision in life. I you want to argue that gay marriage would be immoral for the US or against God, I point to the small steps before this the America has already made against God. :shrug:


The definition here is the separation of Sin and Righteousness.  The 'Church and State' cliche' is a cop-out comment.  All through the Bible, any wars that were fought were those wars that God fought for the sake of righteousness.  The enemies were those who did not choose God.  Period!   

The Children of God were always ordered to wipe out the other lands, who dd not follow Him, and to take their spoils.   There was no other reason for war. 

God is the Originator of Righteousness.  God is the Lead in fighting for it.  God is the Lead for enforcing it!  For those who followed Him were blessed, and those who did not were cursed.  

So this foolishness about Church and State is just that...foolishness.  It's man's way of rebellion and insisting upon being in sin.  

This foolishness about one sin is no greater than another is just that...foolishness.  For it is a cop-out for those who want to continue in the lifestyles which they refuse to be delivered from. 

While sin is sin, there are still different levels and repercussions from different acts of sin.   Yes, the ulitmate is judgement, but there are various degrees of judgements which is in the word of God.   In the book of Leviticus, there were different punishments for each act of sin/offenses.  

My point is this.  You cannot excuse homosexuality as no worse than any other sin.  It is an ongoing epidemic which is going out of control.  The reason the Bible speaks of sin in the end times becoming out of control, is because of those who call themselves Christians who Compromise, put their heads in the sand, turn their heads with the foolish notion that homosexual sins do not affect anyone else's sin, is in serious denial and under a serious deception of the enemy.  

Homosexual sins DO indeed affect everyone else's.  To allow them to marry, to allow them to parade their behavior publicly, to allow them to teach our children in schools that homosexuality is 'normal' and acceptable, is an even GREATER sin.  For they are spreading this sin into our generations.  

For a Christian to sit back, turn their head, walk away and to say this is okay, is sad and it's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And I'm ashamed of anyone who thinks that they can pass this off as minor.  For this is not a Christian.  It's a tool of satan.  For even now, we have gay churches, who teach that homosexuality is accepted by God.  They compromise scripture to accomodate their sin.   And this is by far a GREAT sin.


----------



## Nice & Wavy (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> The definition here is the separation of Sin and Righteousness. The 'Church and State' cliche' is a cop-out comment. All through the Bible, any wars that were fought were those wars that God fought for the sake of righteousness. The enemies were those who did not choose God. Period!
> 
> The Children of God were always ordered to wipe out the other lands, who dd not follow Him, and to take their spoils. There was no other reason for war.
> 
> ...


 
ITA with this whole, entire post.

Thanks again, Shimmie!


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

Nice & Wavy said:


> ITA with this whole, entire post.
> 
> Thanks again, Shimmie!


Precious Wavy, the word of God is plain on this matter and it doesn't take rocket science to know that homosexuality is not God!  Period!   Since when is homosexuality qualification for legislation and then others turn around and say that religion isn't.   

(Smack my head) ??????     Give me a decent break!  What's the difference?   

What do people want to 'twist' and turn the laws to validate what is and always will be sin?   So what people are saying is that it's okay to legislate 'gays' and to delegislate Godliness.  

Oh well....


----------



## Nice & Wavy (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> Precious Wavy, the word of God is plain on this matter and it doesn't take rocket science to know that homosexuality is not God! Period! Since when is homosexuality qualification for legislation and then others turn around and say that religion isn't.
> 
> (Smack my head) ??????  Give me a decent break! What's the difference?
> 
> ...


 
It's typical in this day and age we live in for people to believe this.  Homosexuality didn't start in the last 50 years, it's been going on for a long time.

Sodom and Gomarrah is a prime example of how far homosexuality goes when the men wanted to have sex with the male angels.  Boy, did they get their reward or what?

Love the person...hate the sin.  People however, are going to have to remember what happens when you go against God's Word...not a good thing at all


----------



## alexstin (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> Precious Wavy, the word of God is plain on this matter and it doesn't take rocket science to know that homosexuality is not God!  Period!   *Since when is homosexuality qualification for legislation *and then others turn around and say that religion isn't.
> 
> (Smack my head) ??????     Give me a decent break!  What's the difference?
> 
> ...




Hmmmm, I had someone tell me that God is for human rights and I responded so should siblings be able to marry? And they said Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. I said, He didn't mention incest either. 

This "anything goes" world we live in is a trip.


----------



## Nice & Wavy (Jan 18, 2008)

alexstin said:


> Hmmmm, I had someone tell me that God is for human rights and I responded so should siblings be able to marry? And they said Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. I said, He didn't mention incest either.
> 
> This "anything goes" world we live in is a trip.


 
You said it...next it would be "I love my dog...and want to marry it...it feels the same way about me, so I don't see what's wrong if we love each other."  Yep, next stop: Animals


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

Nice & Wavy said:


> It's typical in this day and age we live in for people to believe this. Homosexuality didn't start in the last 50 years, it's been going on for a long time.
> 
> Sodom and Gomarrah is a prime example of how far homosexuality goes when the men wanted to have sex with the male angels. Boy, did they get their reward or what?
> 
> *Love the person...hate the sin.* People however, are going to have to remember what happens when you go against God's Word...not a good thing at all


I totally agree with Loving the person, not the sin.  That's God.   

Precious Wavy, you know how much I love my babies.  But just because they 'want' something to go their way, doesn't mean it's going to happen.   If what they want is wrong, the answer is no.  If it's right, than the answer is yes.   It's just that simple.  

They can fuss and cry and threaten, picket, fall out, all they want, but wrong is not going to be *legislated* in my household...period!  

Josiah made it plain, "Choose you this day, whom you will serve. As for me and my house (my family), we will serve the Lord."

Where do Christians get off thinking they can override this?  I don't think so!!!  It's ride or die.   To accomodate gay rights, is accomodating and validating sin.  Which adds to the sin and it's damage to humanity and far worse, to one's walk as a Christian.  

I understand fully about caring for human rights; gays are still very much human and most deserving of love and respect.  But to legalize homosexuality and to override the true meaning of marriage which is ordained as between a man and a woman, is accomodating the sin.  

It's ride or die with Jesus!


----------



## gone_fishing (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> The definition here is the separation of Sin and Righteousness. The 'Church and State' cliche' is a cop-out comment. All through the Bible, any wars that were fought were those wars that God fought for the sake of righteousness. The enemies were those who did not choose God. Period!
> 
> The Children of God were always ordered to wipe out the other lands, who dd not follow Him, and to take their spoils. There was no other reason for war.
> 
> ...


 
ITA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Nice & Wavy (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> I totally agree with Loving the person, not the sin. That's God.
> 
> Precious Wavy, you know how much I love my babies. But just because they 'want' something to go their way, doesn't mean it's going to happen.  If what they want is wrong, the answer is no. If it's right, than the answer is yes. It's just that simple.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

alexstin said:


> Hmmmm, I had someone tell me that God is for human rights and I responded so should siblings be able to marry? And they said Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. I said, He didn't mention incest either.
> 
> This "anything goes" world we live in is a trip.


This gay theory is twisted and a contridiction. What they are really saying is make gay legal and righteousness illegal. They are trying to say that you cannot legalized morality. 

Well what happens when gays file suit when someone robs them, embezzles funds from their accounts. Ummmm, since morality has been delegislated, they won't have a case...

God gave us morals for everyone's benefit to cover every situation that harms anyone. Morals are not about gay lifestyles, it's about protecting the rights of ALL humanity. 

The real reason for this issue is that people do not want to feel bad, or to have a concious, or a conviction about what they are doing wrong. If they can create a law that says it's okay, then they can feel that they can get away with whatever sin they are in. 

Prayer has been 'removed' from schools and many public events, arenas. It's been 'accused' that we (Christians) cannot 'force' our beliefs upon someone else.  Okay...I agree with that...'force' is not right.  

YET...on the other hand, gays are 'forcing' their beliefs upon our children in schools, by teaching them that homosexuality is as 'alternate' and acceptable lifestyle.   it's being 'over' presented in the media and in literature. 

NOW...it that right?  NOOOOOOO!  What right does a gay person or gay advocate have to teach this sin to my child?

             I am not compromising. I am not a whimp, I will not back down.


----------



## alexstin (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> This gay theory is twisted and a contridiction.  What they are really saying is make gay legal and righteousness illegal.  They are trying to say that you cannot legalized morality.
> 
> Well what happens when gays file suit when someone robs them, embezzles funds from their accounts.  Ummmm, since morality has been delegislated, they won't have a case...
> 
> ...




That's it my dear!


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

alexstin said:


> That's it my dear!


I added this to my post...

Prayer has been 'removed' from schools and many public events, arenas. It's been 'accused' that we (Christians) cannot 'force' our beliefs upon someone else. Okay...I agree with that...'force' is not right. 

YET...on the other hand, gays are 'forcing' their beliefs upon our children in schools, by teaching them that homosexuality is an 'alternate' and acceptable lifestyle.  It's being 'over' presented in the media and in literature.
____________________________

Pastor Alexstin, it's 'backwards'. The very thing that we (Christians) are being accused of -- is the very thing, that those who accuse us are doing themselves. 

 ???????? smh ?????????


----------



## PaperClip (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie, you talking real good up in here....


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

RelaxerRehab said:


> Shimmie, you talking real good up in here....


I've only had one cup of coffee today...  .  Decaf...

I'm just getting started....


----------



## alexstin (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> I added this to my post...
> 
> Prayer has been 'removed' from schools and many public events, arenas. It's been 'accused' that we (Christians) cannot 'force' our beliefs upon someone else. Okay...I agree with that...'force' is not right.
> 
> ...



See, I've always said. Even though, you don't have a Holy book that helps you with life choices you get your beliefs from SOMEWHERE.  So I get my beliefs from the bible and yours come from Socrates. Wha's the difference? Oh yeah, I forgot..my bible has been labeled a religious book so we can't use *those* principles to govern the people.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

alexstin said:


> See, I've always said. Even though, you don't have a Holy book that helps you with life choices you get your beliefs from SOMEWHERE. So I get my beliefs from the bible and yours come from Socrates. Wha's the difference? *Oh yeah, I forgot..my bible has been labeled a religious book so we can't use those principles to govern the people.*


That's my point...  They want to push God out.  But the truth of the matter is that God was always and still is about legislation...but HIS principles, not man's.

OH!  A perfect example is the history of the different kings in the Bible.  Praise God!  The kings who did righteous were following the order of God's legislation.  God the originator of legislation.   The evil kings were the ones who tried to 'change' (actually opposed) God's legislation.  

I hope I'm making sense.  I due for another cup of decaf.


----------



## CandiceC (Jan 18, 2008)

RelaxerRehab said:


> Shimmie, you talking real good up in here....


 
She is, isn't she?


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

CandiceC said:


> She is, isn't she?


I'm just tired of 'us' being pushed around and pushed back 'unjustly'. 

Love you CandiceC...


----------



## Evolving78 (Jan 18, 2008)

I don't care about gays having rights like health insurance etc...  The thing that gets me is that gays want their relationship to be recognized and excepted equal to an union between man and wife and that is what I don't agree with.  Nowadays you can be gay and be able to share benefits with your SO, so that isn't neccessarily what the real issues are.  Just like the gay community fought really hard for it to be the norm in the media as well.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 18, 2008)

shortdub78 said:


> I *don't care about gays having rights like health insurance etc...* The thing that gets me is that gays want their relationship to be recognized and excepted equal to an union between man and wife and that is what I don't agree with. Nowadays you can be gay and be able to share benefits with your SO, so that is neccessarily what the real issues are. Just like the gay community fought really hard for it to be the norm in the media as well.


@ the bolded.  I'm so glad you shared this.  For it's another example of their 'pushing'.  

I agree, all should be entitled to health benefits, assigning someone they trust to be a trustee or decision maker in the event that they are unable to.  That's life's necessity.   But for ALL persons, not just gays.  

But how many non-gay singles, widows, or other categories that need the same?   The gay right pushers were selfishly pushing these 'requests' for themselves only.   So it's not a valid reason to change the definition of marriage.    

I totally believe and practice humanity.  I don't hate gays and believe it or not when I'm with them (family, friends, associates, business, etc.) I treat them with the same respect and care as I do everyone else.  They are still human and still loveable and still an extension of God's love.  

It's the Lifestyle...that I oppose and the pushing of it upon us.  

In love...


----------



## PaperClip (Jan 18, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> @ the bolded. I'm so glad you shared this. For it's another example of their 'pushing'.
> 
> I* agree, all should be entitled to health benefits, assigning someone they trust to be a trustee or decision maker in the event that they are unable to. That's life's necessity. But for ALL persons, not just gays. *
> 
> ...


 
Exactly...exactly...exactly....to everything and esp. the bolded.


----------



## Southernbella. (Jan 18, 2008)

I think marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.


----------



## gradygirl (Jan 19, 2008)

lauren450 said:


> I think marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.


 
What she said!!!


----------



## somethingdifferent (Jan 19, 2008)

I don't think a constitutional amendment should be used to limit our freedoms. Typically, they expand our rights. 

Though, I do believe marriage is between man and woman, I would be against an amendment that defined that.


----------



## barbiesocialite (Jan 19, 2008)

i am wayyyyyy beyond against supporting the DOMA act

I am a proud card-toting rainbow-flag waving LESBIAN and I think that me and every other same-gender loving person deserves to be just as trapped and miserable in a marriage as any heterosexual person lol


----------



## Pam Pam (Jan 19, 2008)

I believe that marriage should be between man and woman.  I don't care who the devil uses to tell the world otherwise.  

Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever.


----------



## Pam Pam (Jan 19, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> I added this to my post...
> 
> Prayer has been 'removed' from schools and many public events, arenas. It's been 'accused' that we (Christians) cannot 'force' our beliefs upon someone else. Okay...I agree with that...'force' is not right.
> 
> ...


 
Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Pam Pam (Jan 19, 2008)

Nice & Wavy said:


> You said it...next it would be "I love my dog...and want to marry it...it feels the same way about me, so I don't see what's wrong if we love each other." Yep, next stop: Animals


 

And I can see that happening the way people are crazy about their pets.  

They won't give a homeless person a quarter, but they'll leave their dogs $80,000,000...go figure.


----------



## divya (Jan 19, 2008)

None of the above. The issue should NOT be voted upon at all.  Separation of church and state must be upheld.  When religion and politics mix in this sinful world, the result is not a positive one.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 19, 2008)

divya said:


> None of the above. The issue should NOT be voted upon at all. Separation of church and state must be upheld. When religion and politics mix in this sinful world, the result is not a positive one.


"Separation" is why this world and politics is so messed up.  Corruption is present because God has been eliminated.  The current result is obviously negative.  

The 'state' as it is now, needs serious deliverence which can only come from being in alliance with God and *His order*, not man's. 

_"The children of Isreal asked God for a king; but God didn't want to do this thing.  The children kept asking, til' God said yes. But He gave them a warning, this is not my best."_

_First was King Saul, who stumbled and fell; he summoned a witch straight from hell....._

And so history reveals.  When God is left out of a country's rule... corruption is the only result. It's in all of our faces every single day.  
The mess of the laws made by man and not God.

*Proverbs 29:2*

_When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. 
_
Separation from God...that's the real danger...

_ _


----------



## Nice & Wavy (Jan 19, 2008)

barbiesocialite said:


> i am wayyyyyy beyond against supporting the DOMA act
> 
> I am a proud card-toting rainbow-flag waving LESBIAN and I think that me and every other same-gender loving person deserves to be just as trapped and miserable in a marriage as any heterosexual person lol


 
I want to inform you that in no way am I miserable or trapped in my marriage.  My marriage is ordained by God because that was His intentions from the foundations of the world.  Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN was created by God, not man, also from the foundations of the earth.  God said that a Man shall cleave to his Wife and the two shall become one flesh.  That is what marriage is and that's what I have...Praise the Lord!

No same-gender persons have the right to call what they have a marriage because it was/is not ordained of God, therefore it can't be.  Call it something else, but a marriage..it's not.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 20, 2008)

Nice & Wavy said:


> I want to inform you that in no way am I miserable or trapped in my marriage. My marriage is ordained by God because that was His intentions from the foundations of the world. Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN was created by God, not man, also from the foundations of the earth. God said that a Man shall cleave to his Wife and the two shall become one flesh. That is what marriage is and that's what I have...Praise the Lord!
> 
> No same-gender persons have the right to call what they have a marriage because it was/is not ordained of God, therefore it can't be. Call it something else, but a marriage..it's not.


Well said...  And this I 'KNOW' to be truth. So I totally agree. 

As for 'same gender' unions, there is more dysfunction, infidelity, and confusion than in heterosexual unions.   The very two (same gender) persons who fought so hard for gay marriage 'rights' ... divorced! 

*Note to Barbie*...the _ _ _ _ word in 'your siggy'


----------



## divya (Jan 20, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> "Separation" is why this world and politics is so messed up.  Corruption is present because God has been eliminated.  The current result is obviously negative.
> 
> The 'state' as it is now, needs serious deliverence which can only come from being in alliance with God and *His order*, not man's.
> 
> ...




That has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. The individual must make the choice to follow God, and that choice cannot be coerced or forced by any government.  That is NOT the will of God. The history of Christianity is a prime example of why it is not right to combine church and state. Separation of church and state is about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion. 


Matt 22: 16-22 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, *neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.* Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, *Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.*

In other words, let the government handle those things which are for the government. God will handle those things that are of God. The government has no business telling people what they should or should not believe, ruling on matters of Godliness.

(FYI: I do not support homosexuality and believe that it is wrong.  However it is not a matter for the state to deal with)


----------



## alexstin (Jan 20, 2008)

divya said:


> That has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. The individual must make the choice to follow God, and that choice cannot be coerced or forced by any government.  That is NOT the will of God. The history of Christianity is a prime example of why it is not right to combine church and state. Separation of church and state is about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion.
> 
> 
> Matt 22: 16-22 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, *neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.* Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, *Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.*
> ...



Jesus never advocated for a religion. The church (we who have been called out from the world) most definitely should be involved in the policies that affect our nation. 

As I've written before: The Church(His ecclesia) is the agency by which the influence of the Kingdom of Heaven is spread. That influence, which is the Kingdom of God in us, brings about change through the Holy Spirit. Ecclesia just means "the called out ones" which is why Jesus said "My" church. There was no need to say MY if there were no other ecclesias. 

The ecclesia were the ones who met with the King to get this thoughts on the issues concerning his kingdom. They then took the mind of the King and made sure that what he wanted done was carried out.   A king always promotes his kingdom not a religion.

 So, Caesar had a "church"(ecclesia).  For it was the Romans who took this Greek word and put it into practice.  That is why the separation of church and state is a nonissue.

We are the ones who take the mind and will of God to the people. Nothing religious about it.


----------



## divya (Jan 20, 2008)

alexstin said:


> Jesus never advocated for a religion. The church (we who have been called out from the world) most definitely should be involved in the policies that affect our nation.
> 
> As I've written before: The Church(His ecclesia) is the agency by which the influence of the Kingdom of Heaven is spread. That influence, which is the Kingdom of God in us, brings about change through the Holy Spirit. Ecclesia just means "the called out ones" which is why Jesus said "My" church. There was no need to say MY if there were no other ecclesias.
> 
> ...



God instructed us on how to spread the gospel, which did not involve attempting to force others through the government. If you disagree, please see Christ's example. Further, it is NOT true that a king always promotes his kingdom and not a religion and history show this. That is the reason why the Bible addresses the issue.

We can show through history how kings have attempted to advance their religious policies.  How do you think the Sabbath was "changed" by man to Sunday? It began with Constantine trying to make Christians honor the sun god on the first day of the week. What happened? Finally, Constantine and the newly established Catholic church came to an agreement and they decided that they had the authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday.  Now the majority of Christians believe in following all the 10 Commandments, save one (the 4th).



> "Probably very few Christians are aware of the fact that what they call the 'Christian Sabbath' (Sunday) is of pagan origin. "The first observance of Sunday that history records is in the fourth century, when Constantine issued an edict (not requiring its religious observance, but simply abstinence, from work) reading 'let all the judges and people of the town rest and all the various trades be suspended on the venerable day of the sun. At the time of the issue of this edict, Constantine was a sun-worshipper; therefore it could have had no relation whatever to Christianity. "-- HENRY M TABER, "Faith or Fact" (preface by Robert G. Ingersol) page. 112.
> 
> "I challenge any priest or minister of the Christian religion to show me the slightest authority, for the religious observance of Sunday. And, if such cannot be shown by them, why is it that they are constantly preaching about Sunday as a holy day? . . The claim that Sunday takes the place of Saturday, and that because the Jews were supposed to be commanded to keep the seventh day of the week holy, therefore the, first day of the week should be so kept by Christians, is so utterly absurd as to be hardly worth considering.... That Paul habitually observed and preached on the seventh day of the week, is ,shown in Acts 18:4-- 'And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath' (Saturday). "--Id., pages 114, 116.



So again how is separation of church and state a nonissue?

Secondly, have you read Christian history? If so, how can you say that separation of church and state is a nonissue when thousands of people were murdered when they choose to defy the state and honor God as they believed?

Not to mention, there were laws enforced by in this country by the states forcing people attend church on Sunday.  Those people did not believe as such were targeted. Please look up these things and see just why the separation of church and state is necessary. Even the Christian church itself has enough doctrinal variation that such rulings are oppressive. Ruling on an issue such as homosexuality is just the tip of the iceberg...  Who determines just what Godly values are? The individual who reads, studies and is convicted by the Holy Spirit or should it be the government, backed by people who feel their way should be what everyone else follows? 

*Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.* Matt 22:21


----------



## alexstin (Jan 20, 2008)

A King may promote his religion in the context of his Kingdom but that is not the focus of a kingdom. Kings are all about advancing their kingdom. Now how they do it varies. But advancing their kingdom has always been the main issue.

What kingdoms do you know of that were more interested in advancing a religion as opposed to having more people and land come into their kingdom?

I have studied Christ's example.   God instructed us to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. What exactly does that entail?  Why is that Christ begin His ministry in the Gospels talking about the Kingdom and ended His earthly ministry in Acts talking about the Kingdom and not a religion?  At exactly what point did the message of the kingdom become a religious one?

God has said that we are citizens. If you see your relationship with God as religious then so be it.






divya said:


> God instructed us on how to spread the gospel, which did not involve attempting to force others through the government. If you disagree, please see Christ's example. Further, it is NOT true that a king always promotes his kingdom and not a religion and history show this. That is the reason why the Bible addresses the issue.
> 
> We can show through history how kings have attempted to advance their religious policies.  How do you think the Sabbath was "changed" by man to Sunday? It began with Constantine trying to make Christians honor the sun god on the first day of the week. What happened? Finally, Constantine and the newly established Catholic church came to an agreement and they decided that they had the authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday.  Now the majority of Christians believe in following all the 10 Commandments, save one (the 4th).
> 
> ...


----------



## divya (Jan 20, 2008)

alexstin said:


> *A King may promote his religion in the context of his Kingdom but that is not the focus of a kingdom. Kings are all about advancing their kingdom. Now how they do it varies. But advancing their kingdom has always been the main issue.*
> 
> What kingdoms do you know of that were more interested in advancing a religion as opposed to having more people and land come into their kingdom?
> 
> I have studied Christ's example.   God instructed us to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. What exactly does that entail?  Why is that Christ begin His ministry in the Gospels talking about the Kingdom and ended His earthly ministry in Acts talking about the Kingdom and not a religion?  At exactly what point did the message of the kingdom become a religious one?



That is irrelevant to the discussion.  That does not change the fact that enforcing one's faith through the government is not the right approach. The term religion is used by many now - whether you choose to use it or not is a personal choice. However, that is besides the point.  The Bible tells us what preaching the gospel entails...

Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

We have so many different examples throughout the Bible of how spreading the gospel but it does not tell us to go about enforcing Christianity through the government.

Are you in fact arguing that the persecution of the past due to the unification of church and state makes no difference because the motive of the king is to advance his kingdom? Does that somehow make the oppression a nonissue? So because someone's motives behind certain actions are different, that makes the wrongdoing a nonissue?


----------



## alexstin (Jan 20, 2008)

divya said:


> That is irrelevant to the discussion.  That does not change the fact that enforcing one's faith through the government is not the right approach. The term religion is used by many now - whether you choose to use it or not is a personal choice. However, that is besides the point.  The Bible tells us what preaching the gospel entails...
> 
> Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> ...




It has alot to do with it because you're equating God's Kingdom with religion.

If you want to be technical about enforcing Christianity..... God never said spread Christianity. But we'll agree to disagree since we both know that homosexuality isn't right.


----------



## divya (Jan 20, 2008)

alexstin said:


> It has alot to do with it because you're equating God's Kingdom with religion.
> 
> If you want to be technical about enforcing Christianity..... God never said spread Christianity. But we'll agree to disagree *since we both know that homosexuality isn't right.*



That's cool b/c  seems like we may both be missing either other's point anyway. But yes, homosexuality is wrong and is certainly another indication that our society is decaying. Let's just pray for Christ's soon coming...


----------



## shalom (Feb 5, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> The definition here is the separation of Sin and Righteousness. The 'Church and State' cliche' is a cop-out comment. All through the Bible, any wars that were fought were those wars that God fought for the sake of righteousness. The enemies were those who did not choose God. Period!
> 
> The Children of God were always ordered to wipe out the other lands, who dd not follow Him, and to take their spoils. There was no other reason for war.
> 
> ...


----------



## shalom (Feb 5, 2008)

alexstin said:


> Hmmmm, I had someone tell me that God is for human rights and I responded so should siblings be able to marry? And they said Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. I said, He didn't mention incest either.
> 
> *This "anything goes" world we live in is a trip.*




I agree, it is a trip.


----------



## shalom (Feb 5, 2008)

Nice & Wavy said:


> Shimmie said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with Loving the person, not the sin. That's God.
> ...


----------



## chellero (Feb 5, 2008)

I am personally against the idea of gay marriage, and for the amendment.  Gay people can't have a marriage.  

I do find it interesting that some of the people who are so strongly against gay marriage because it is a clearly goes against God's word, are fine with a divorce and second marriage.  The Bible speaks about that as well.  I don't see how we can as Christians insist that other people be denied marriage based on the Bible while ignoring the Bible when it suits us.  Or even worse claiming that God would want you to do something that the Bible clearly speaks against.


----------



## carcajada (Feb 5, 2008)

I would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage. No question about it.


----------



## Bunny77 (Feb 5, 2008)

ClassyND said:


> I would definitely vote in favor of gay marriage. No question about it.



Same here... and I'm against a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 5, 2008)

Now that's sick... just plain sick to legalize gay marriage.  How grievous to the heart of God.  And it has absolutely nothing to do with no sin is greater than another.  

The question is:  Why legalize a sin?  

Nice & Wavy, Pastor Alexstin, Relaxer Rehab, Mocha 5.....
 ' Come get me...'


----------

