Church Can't Beat the Courts [RE: Gay marriage laws]

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Hello Gang,

    I'm back, but, only for one opinion. For those who thought I wouldn't stay away from the Board [while I write my book], you were semi-right. However, I couldn't let this sad state of affairs, in the golden state, slip by without my opinion..

    Actually, I'm waiting for my editor to get back with me on needed corrections.


    The ballot box no longer works. If you don't believe me, look no further west than California.

    U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned a perfectly legal definition of marriage proposition, which was approved by a majority of Californians.

    If the court is going to be allowed to overturn initiatives voted on by the people, then, what is the reason to trust in the ballot box to bring change?

    IMHO, the church may have to accept the fact that gays can, and will get married. The will of the people does not seem to be adequate to exert its will, any longer.

    The day of voting for change is disappearing before our very eyes.

    Good bye, for a while, again....


    Pastor Paul :type:
     
    #1 righteousdude2, Aug 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2010
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    Just playing devils advocate; suppose a Southern State by a 85-15 % statewide vote was to bring back slavery?
    Of course, a judge would overturn it since it is unconstitutional.
    Now the question becomes ....
     
  3. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    I agree with you Paul. The people don't matter anymore. It's just those elite who make the decisions and we know for a fact that they are liberal and can be influenced to vote for the loudest vote - not the majority vote.
     
  4. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Of Course Slavery was Unconstitutional

    I don't disagree on the slavery issue, but I need to point out to you that being gay is a choice; being a slave was not.

    Still, there is one thing gays will never possess if they gain the right to marry: Their union will not be recognized by the Father as anything other than legalized sin.

    There will always be a spiritual chasm between Holy Matrimony, and marriage in sin. Even if they get a so-called minister [of any faith] to marry them [gays] the marriage will not be acknowledged in the eyes of God's law and the natural flow of His creation.

    Any man or woman who joins a gay/lesbian couple will face the sin of encouraging a sin [tickling their ears - 2 Timothy 4:3], and their blood will be on their hands.

    One more thing... the gay/lesbian agenda is to assimilate into society and normalize their sin. Marriage is just one, of few remaining, barriers they have to tear down in order to be accepted by society. However, you and I know societal acceptance will never mean they are justified before God and getting to heaven until they repent of their sin and return to a heterosexual lifestyle, the natural order of God for both genders.

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Majority opinion does not matter in a discussion of "rights."

    If the people want to overturn gay marriage, then the appropriate procedure is a constitutional amendment.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Seriously?
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Suppose a majority of Americans voted to outlaw Baptist churches.

    Would this matter?
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
  9. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Thanks

    That was an interesting site. They have everything they need [in place] to normalize their sin.

    Not to leave the subject, but, we have the same problem with the Muslims. I read last night where Europe in closing in on being muslim states.

    But, thanks for the LEFT, I know have more info on homosexuality.
     
    #10 righteousdude2, Aug 8, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2010
  10. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    "LEFT" is nothing more than pseudo-conservative, sexist rhetoric.

    Also, it is imperative when one produces a critique of linguistic usage that one at least use proper grammar and spelling.

    You commented, "Proper English dictates when the gender is unknown, the masculine term shall be used."

    This is "proper" only if you assume a sexist, prescriptivist approach to grammar. It may be "PC" in your mind to use "he or she," but it is really an attempt to be sensitive to roughly half of the world's population. I recognize that the construction can be awkward at times, so I recommend other methods of maintaining inclusiveness if possible. Regardless, grammar is established mostly by social convention, not some old grammar text from the turn of the century.

    Your rejection of "Ms." as a title is also misguided. The reason for the usage is to allow a non-specified title when one does not know a woman's marital status. It is also helpful in avoiding definition of a woman's role solely by her marital status.

    Your insistence on the use of the term "spinster" is just blatantly offensive. Avoiding political correctness is no excuse to be intentionally offensive.
     
  11. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well stated.

    This L.E.F.T. business is less about political correctness than it is about a bunch of personal pet peeves. For the love - there is no theological or social reason why a woman has to go by "Mrs." out of respect to her husband. That has nothing to do with pride or respect in the slightest.

    For centuries, women were defined by the men they were married to. This is a purely social construct that needed to be, finally, addressed. A woman's identity is not bound in her husband any more than a man's is bound in his wife. It also inherently linguistically devalues unmarried women, which is a certainly acceptable and respectable status, as well.

    Seriously, we need to find better things to worry about.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    Touchy, touchy,...
    If you desire to be PC, you have the right.
    It is my belief that a woman should be proud to be know as her husbands wife.

    Does not Gen 2:24 tell us that "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (NJKV) ?

    Just curious - do you think that pro-abortionists should be refereed to as pro-choice?
     
  13. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Touchy? I don't have a website with a page dedicated to the terminology.

    It's not a matter of being "PC." It's a matter of not being sexist.

    Regarding the verse you quoted, that's irrelevant to the issue. Marital union does not mean that a woman should be defined by her husband. Are they joined? Yes. However, the woman's identity is not lost in the union, and she should not be expected to define herself by her marital role.

    I have an idea regarding the issue of abortion: why don't we debate the issue instead of debating the terminology?
     
    #14 StefanM, Aug 8, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2010
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >I don't disagree on the slavery issue, but I need to point out to you that being gay is a choice; being a slave was not.

    Says who? I say committing any sexual act is a choice. Being gay is a birth defect.
     
  15. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    My wife is proud to be known as my wife, as I am proud to be known as her husband. Neither of us are intrinsically, completely and inherently defined by this relationship, though. We don't cease to have our own identity.
     
    #16 jaigner, Aug 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2010
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The church can't beat the courts?

    Didn't Jesus say that the very gates of hell cannot prevail against the church?
     
  17. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Splitting Hairs, AGAIN....

    You are great at splitting hairs C4K. But, you do speak the truth about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. However, I need to pint out that the gates of hell are operated by the supernatural presence of Satan and his minions. The courts are politically biased, corrupt, and operated by men [who have not yet tasted the judgement fires of hell upon their lips. Therefore, the church cannot, and will not will not win in their quest to BAN gay marriage.

    You know this as well as any other rational believer. Until Christ's returns, the ever increasing, out-of-control sin of the world rules the day, and I say, that Homosexual unions will be a hill the church should not choose to fight on and die! There are many other, and more worthy causes that can be won and changed.

    Gay marriage is not one of those causes!

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
  18. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many churches leave well enough alone on this issue, knowing that it doesn't change our job or message. It is merely an attempt to make the particular group of folks more comfortable.

    A word from a non-dispensationalist. Here is a rational believer who recognizes that sin is not ever-increasing. It's always been a problem. Go back to 1st-century Rome and the stuff we're dealing with in our culture seem like child's play.

    Gay marriage will do nothing to drag us down further.
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    298

    Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to address an institution that has been left to the states to define and regulate?

    The problem is an activist judge, not the Constitution.
     

Share This Page

Loading...