The consequences of homosexuality are clearly stated in God's word. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and goes against these precepts is committing transgressions.God will be the judge but i venture to say that he will deal with the ones that try to change his laws or live differently than what his commandments direct them to do. We have to take His laws literally, to mean what they plainly say and live accordingly.We just can no longer do what we please as sinners, we have to actually try to live out His directions and trust that He will be there for us. To believe in Christ is one thing, to have an actual relationship with Him is better and I question any homosexual having a loving relationship with God until he repents.
They ARE allowed to marry. Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates.Ann Hecht was/is married to Coleman 'Coley' LaffoonBeautiful Portia de Rossi was married to the dirt-bag Mel Metcalfe who broke up her brother's marriage and ran off with his wife. So she "turned" lesbian and plays married to Ellen Degenerate. Homosexuals ARE free to marry. There is no one stopping them, but "marriage" HAS a definition, and it's not 2 men, or two women or a man and his dog, and not, in this culture, a man and his 7 year old "bride." That's what they hate.Many homosexuals decide to marry for their own reasons. The problem with modern liberals today is they demand society change the definition of "marriage" so it will include their own perversion rather than seek psychological help for their illness.I love how liberals are so quick with the advice--"become Democrat Lite and save yourselves from extinction!"
Yes many are allowed to marry, and many of them have no desire to change the definition of marriage. That is something only pushed by gay activist, who are again very left. Unfortunately there are politicians like Santorum, who have made it clear, that their marriage or civil union; whatever you wish to call it, wouldn't be acknowledged, because people like him only see it as man and woman. As a Christian I agree marriage is between one man, and one woman, as Jesus even stated; however... We're not a theocracy, I would not dare infringe upon someone's personal life because of my religious views, and it annoys me that so many who call themselves Christians, are so quick to do this.Its ignorant to think of the issue in terms of "Democrat lite", or calling someone a liberal. Its a constitutional issue... Are you ok with politicians telling you who, you can and cannot marry? And for the record, I'm far from being a Democrat, and I don't even call myself a Republican. Both parties are ridiculous, both modern liberals, and modern conservatives are ridiculous- neither of them care for, or follow the constitution. I am conservative only with fiscal and national security issues. When it comes to social issues, I'm a classic liberal. Classic liberalism originated in Europe, and the philosophy behind it, actually mirrored the idea or experiment of America. "Can man govern himself?" Classic conservatism is basically common sense stuff, and preserving traditions that make one strong- not behaving like a self-righteous bible thumping prude- which is part of why the Republican party is failing. Its members appear too much as such, which also makes them look too judgmental like many churches... Not going to resonate with many people today, especially younger.
Wrong.There are liberals, and not raging liberals for that matter; who do honestly believe two connecting adults in love should be allowed to marry... I agree with this 100%. It doesn't effect me or anyone else in a negative way, and I wouldn't want someone telling me I can't marry someone I'm in love with.Then we have the gay activist, who are always raging leftist. They don't care about the love and companionship that is apart of marriage, they only care about slapping the face of people who view marriage as a sacred thing between a man and a woman.Then we have the people in the middle.. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gays, who don't believe in gay marriage, because they see it as emulating male/female- and they don't like that. They wish to have civil unions, which in ancient times would be called a covenant (which is what homosexual men did in the ancient world, though they still had to marry a woman and produce children). Unfortunately we have politicians like Santorum, who wouldn't even recognize that, as he mentioned during the primaries. Which means two men, consenting adults in love, in a union; wouldn't be able to receive their partner's benefits if one died, their union wouldn't be respected, meaning coming with the same rights as a traditional couple- this is wrong.Both sides, especially Republicans; do a horrible job at talking about this issue- and it will continue to damage them in the future if they remain on dinosaur mode.
It is not an anomaly. Just observe the animal kingdom and you will notice dozens of mammal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. So it doesn't deviate from our observations.
No, because that is one person inflicting pain and suffering on another. Homosexuality doesn't impact on other people. A very clear and obvious difference.
Its not the job of a political party (government), to dictate laws due to religious beliefs, we are not a theocracy, but a constitutional republic. The Republican party is not a church, its members are not priest, and social conservatism is not a religion. They are all man made and governed institutions, all of which Jesus did not concern himself with. There is no man, and should be no man so arrogant to think, he could bring about God's kingdom, or anything close to it, by pushing policies based on religious convictions.In the ancient world, the word "homosexual" did not exist (if you see that word in your bible, time for a new one). There was however a word used to describe those, who did not procreate, due to them either being cut or damaged (castrated). Men who devoted themselves completely to God, studying, and traveling spreading the word- and helping those in need (missionaries). Then men (or women), who had no kind of sexual desire or lust, for the opposite sex (homosexual). All of these people fell into the category of "Eunuch" (Greek), or Saris (Hebrew/Assyrian). Both words also mean "One who keeps the bed", these were men who guarded the king's wives (in old testament times, men had many wives). A man who was cut or damaged, could still have lustful desires for the king's wives, and could even still do sexual things with them, all of which fell into the category of adultery. A man however who had no sexual lust or desire for women, were always the best choice to guard the bed chamber. Also same sex relationships were no were near done, or viewed as they are in modern times even among those who were gay. In Matthews, Jesus speaks of these type of people, who fell under the category of Eunuch, and basically says, leave them alone, that they too were able to receive the lord. Many of these Eunuchs were ridiculed, and even attacked often, because it was against the law first off, for a man to not marry (Hebrew culture old testament), and in many cases was very odd. which is why many Eunuch felt safer in a king's palace. Corinthians, Romans, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah- have absolutely nothing to do, with two people in love; they're about behavior that had a lot of sexual pagan worship also known as idolatry, and fornication. Fornication was the sexual side of idolatry, performing sexual acts in hopes of some sort of divination. Those these went on in many cultures, especially the ones that surrounded the Israelite people, these acts were never viewed as "ideal" among two men (or women) in love.Now does this advocate gay marriage, or homosexuality? Of course not, we're not made to be homosexuals, if so we would have been specifically designed to be only attracted to the same sex. However due to Adam's actions, mankind is imperfect, and subject to a number of physical, emotional, and mental hardships. Jesus' job was to not only reform the faith (moving it somewhat away from old testament as the world had changed in his time), and give us a prelude of god's kingdom; but also be our redeemer, due to Adam's great mistake. In other words, god knows very well that there are people who are gay, and seek love and companionship from the sex they are emotionally(love), and physically(sex) attracted to. It is unrealistic and cruel to think these people should remain alone for their entire lives, as they did not ask, or choose to be that way, no more someone born deaf, blind, or deformed in any kind of way- who quickly learns that they are different from others around them.Scientist have a lot of theories as to why someone is born gay, as they've been seeing the same behaviors among animals as well. They do know for a fact, its from the mother's side, it happens when the child is in the mother's belly. In some cases someone can be born with a male's body, but the brain and mind of a female, and the other way around. Some scientist believe its a form of birth control, others believe its a way of allowing stronger males to procreate, who knows, though as a Christian you should know, that man is imperfect.Politically, and speaking personally... Two same sex people in love, do not infringe upon my rights or freedoms. If its not picking my pocket, hurting me or those I care for, or destroying the country, then it is no concern of mine- and shouldn't be anyone else's concern. Just leave them be, let them live their lives, let them have a chance at happiness. The country is falling apart economically, and we've got some serious situations headed our way foreign policy wise, and it boils my blood to hear people STILL, going on about gay marriage, and abortion.Wow! You have done at least one thing in your convuluted oratory and that is to let me know how confused you are. No one is perfect, agreed. It stops there, however,I'll refer you to Romans Chp.1 vs 18-32. This scripture was not just written for the people of that day and time but time until infinity. Now you can try to redefine any term for these definitions that you wish, but it won't make them any more acceptable to Christ now than they were when he inspired the real meanings and consequences of them. Abortion is not mentioned in those verses so i'll give you my unrequested opinion of that. Life begins at inception. Do you want the Chapter and verse for that?Killing of an unborn fetus from the mother's womb by abortion is murder. There might be a subject that we can discuss but it can never be this one as i will not be swayed by liberal rhetoric.
Yet you don't see the obverse?In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding and Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream America.No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?Answer: For the money and control.
No sir, but there was a time when freedom was defined as something reserved for the realm of the white man, until our Party stood at the forefront of this nation and dealt a death blow to slavery. There was also a time when voting was defined as a right reserved only for white men, until our Party stood firm and extended the right to vote to all men. There was a time when women were considered unfit for public office, and much less fit to cast a ballot, until many northern and western Republican states started to pass their own laws allowing women the right to suffrage, thus finally forcing Congress to act and pass a national amendment extending the right to vote to women. There was also a time when segregation was the norm, until President Eisenhower desegregated the military and laid the foundation to allow the Supreme Court to find that separate but equal was in fact unequal.We were always at the forefront when it came to going against the grain and granting rights to other, even though it was controversial and had never been done before. Yet here we are today, dragging our feet when it comes to extending the freedom to others to marry whom they see fit. Have we fallen this far from what we used to stand for?
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.) Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)
Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.
This is a very naive view of the Left. It also ignores the fact that only a very small minority of homosexuals actually are interested in "marriage". Trust me, I know! Lived in the Bay Area for 5 years and have many gay and lesbian friends. The vast majority of them eschew the tradtional institute of marriage like the effing plague!So-called gay marriage is a political issue being extolled by the Left as a club to beat Republicans over the head with. IF the majority of Gays and Lesbians voted Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't touch the issue of Gay Marriage with a ten foot pole!
You just don't understand gay people. They tend to be a little bit on the dramatic side. This whole gay marriage thing is a tantrum by gays wanting to rebel against their fathers. Don't play into this idiocy.
Have you even seen a gay parade?