NEW AMENDMENT ON THE WAY...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by I Am Blessed 24, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexual Marriage, the Bible and You

    In I Corinthians chapter 7, the Apostle Paul set forth a strategy for effective marriage.
    "...let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband," he wrote in verse 2.

    It is important to note that the great apostle did not outline a paradigm for relationships between two men or two women.

    Throughout his writings, Paul defined methods of ensuring successful relationships between husbands and wives. It was a very important part of his God-breathed epistles to the early church.

    Today these writings are viewed as archaic and outmoded by homosexuals who are currently pressing to have their relationships officially sanctioned by the government.

    While leftists will not acknowledge it, present American law fundamentally reflects biblical tenets, including the Ten Commandments. In order to alter these time-honored laws that sanction the Judeo-Christian vision of marriage, constitutional revisionists are on a quest to secularize America and subsequently destroy the values that characterized the nation for most
    of its glorious history.

    I Corinthians is therefore meaningless in the secular society that allows citizens to do what is right in their own eyes. There can be no definition of appropriate sexual behavior in this scenario because our laws will essentially become situational, lasting only until the next shift in public morals. Under this legal ruse, marriage must be altered to permit homosexuals to marry.

    And this is an unstoppable train. If the sacred bonds of marriage are destroyed, who knows what the future holds. Will men legally marry young
    boys and girls? Will men legally take on multiple wives and husbands? These are not outrageous questions.

    The recent Texas sodomy case brought new light to this escalating issue.

    As Gary Bauer noted, conservatives are concerned about "un-elected judges taking over the authority that elected officials are supposed to exercise."

    Thankfully, there is good news on the horizon.

    The Federal Marriage Amendment

    An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being proposed to protect the sanctity of marriage, securing it as a legal declaration solely between a man and a woman and protecting it from scheming jurists.

    Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) offered the Federal Marriage Amendment on May 21, and it advanced to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

    The amendment reads:

    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor
    state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

    It must be passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to be added to the Constitution. The amendment now has 27 co-sponsors in the House and, while there is no Senate bill yet, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has addressed the need for such an amendment. A companion Senate bill is expected to arrive on the
    scene soon.

    This is timely legislation. Presently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is considering whether seven homosexuals couples that sued the state in an effort to gain the right to marry under civil law should be allowed to do so.

    Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Institute, said, "Should the court rule in favor of same-sex marriage, pro-homosexual activists will undoubtedly resort to lawsuits based on the Constitution's 'Full Faith & Credit Clause' to push for marital rights in every other state. That clause requires states to recognize the 'public acts, records, and judicial
    proceedings of every other state.'"

    Take Action . Now!

    Christians nationwide must become proactive in urging their congressional representatives to support Rep. Musgrave's legislation.

    If ever there was a time for Christians to get involved in the political process, it is now. Currently, homosexual-rights organizations are asking supporters to contact their representatives and urge them not to back Mrs.
    Musgrave's legislation.

    We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation.
    Forty-two million children have been aborted in my lifetime; half of our marriages fail; millions of children are being raised by single parents; and multitudes of American teenagers are sexually active. I don't know if America can survive another dagger in the heart of its moral fabric.

    I urge all readers to contact their representatives to encourage them to support Rep. Musgrave's Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a sacred trust between one man and one woman.

    Please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard today (202-224-3121) and request to speak to your representative and two senators. When connected,
    considerately tell their spokesperson that you are urging him/her to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment. (When speaking to your senators, remember that companion legislation to Mrs. Musgrave's House amendment has not yet come forth. You may say that, when the Senate legislation is written, you hope the senator will support it.)

    To E-mail your senators, click on this link to find his/her address:

    LINK FOR SENATORS

    To E-mail your congressman, click on this link to find his/her address:

    LINK FOR CONGRESSMEN

    Please urge your friends, family members and church family to get involved in this urgent effort to protect the sanctity of marriage in our nation!

    LINK

    [ July 10, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: I Am Blessed 16 ]
     
  2. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    And for an idea of what we're up against, I found "this" little tidbit! Seems even "Christians" are pushing for gay marriages. Just more signs of the times, I guess. :(

    Complete article found HERE
     
  3. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you realize how insulting and inappropriate it is to put quotation marks around the word Christians when referring to those with whom you disagree.

    We have a similar clergy organization in Georgia (with a larger pool of members thankfully) and will be doing the same thing. Fortunately, I think the right wing missed its window of opportunity by about 20 years. A constitutional amendment requires support from a strong majority of the population, which this will not have.

    Joshua
     
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Joshua said:
    Should we use a lower case c instead? Or we could say the alleged Christian....

    Diane
     
  5. j_barner2000

    j_barner2000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bre Joshua, can you provide me with Scripture showing that God has ordained same-sex marriage to be acceptable to Himself? I just have not seen where He has indicated that this is what He intended when He joined Adam and Eve. I just have not seen any reference to marriage between same-sex partners in the Bible.
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or maybe you should just give it a rest, and realize a Christian is someone who trusts Jesus as their savior, and believes he is the Son of God who died for their sins and rose again - a "Christian" is not defined as "someone who agrees with Diane on all secondary doctrines".
     
  7. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joshua, I do not believe ANYONE who calls themselves Christian should condone or support legalization of gay marriages. It flies in the face of what Jesus taught. Would you feel better about it if we called them religious leaders?

    From the article: "Essentially, what these religious leaders are proposing challenges the very core and tenets of their own faith traditions - that God created males and females as the two parts of humanity that are complementary and serve as the foundation of marriage and family life," said Glenn Stanton, senior analyst of marriage and sexuality issues at Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs evangelical media ministry."

    Not sure what you think will fail...a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, or to strike down the amendment to ban gay marriages?
     
  8. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or maybe you should just give it a rest, and realize a Christian is someone who trusts Jesus as their savior, and believes he is the Son of God who died for their sins and rose again - a "Christian" is not defined as "someone who agrees with Diane on all secondary doctrines". </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I would not call this issue a "secondary doctrine". But that's just me, I guess.
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    The primary doctrines those which deal with who Jesus is and what he did for our salvation. If someone is solid on these things, they are a Christian. Errors in non-salvation-related doctrines don't change this, we aren't saved by scoring 100% a doctrinal entrance exam, we are saved by God's grace through faith in his Son. Those who make other issues, like homosexuality, end-times, what kind of clothes to wear, what day to have church on, etc, etc, etc, part of the requirements for salvation (being a "Christian") are essentially adding to the simple salvation message, adding requirements to salvation that scripture does not have.
     
  10. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, so let's just say I believe religious leaders who personally believe in the doctrine of salvation should not publically condone homosexual marriage.

    Is that better?
     
  11. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    BrianT said:
    THE BIBLE SAYS:

     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes computerjunkie, that's better. [​IMG]

    Diane, are you saying one must have perfect doctrine, perfect understanding of the entire Bible, to be saved??? If not, what was the point of that response?

    Diane, how is someone saved? Does John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 ring any bells? [​IMG] Neither mention doctrinal perfection.
     
  13. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    [
    I had the sneakin' hunch you would answer like that!

    So when you hear someone publically referred to as a Christian, no matter what they are saying, do you immediately think, "Oh, that's someone who believes in the doctrine of salvation!" Or do you ever think about what they may be publically reflecting regarding Christian values?

    Does it matter to you?
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, of course it matters. It matters more when denies their salvation simply because of a disagreement over secondary doctrines. Does that matter to you?
     
  15. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    This amendment is absurd.
     
  16. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many denominations whose members call themselves "Christians", but they have no idea what salvation is all about.

    There are many on the church rolls who call themselves "Christians" and will never see the Kingdom of Heaven.

    And, no doubt, there are posters on the BB who say they are "Christians", but their fruit does not bear them out.

    Writing "Christian" instead of Christian should not insult anyone unless they are in doubt about their salvation. It is just how I perceive things. I am merely voicing my opinions and we ALL have those!

    I am praying for this amendment to pass so America does not slide down the slippery slope of Satan's deceptions any faster than it already has...

    JMO,
    Sue
     
  17. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    BrianT, I am not denying anyone's salvation. That is between them and God.

    What DOES matter to me is people who are publically considered Christian (agree or disagree, "clergy" has the general connotation of "Christian") when they are publically condoning a non-biblical standard.

    If non-Christians, non-clergy, want to condone this legislation, so be it.

    "If ever there was a time for Christians to get involved in the political process, it is now." (from the original article)

    Christians (those who believe in the doctrine of salvation) most assuredly need to be involved in the political process, but we need to make sure we are representing Christian, biblical-based
    values when we do.
     
  18. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words computerjunkie, Christian clergy are only authentic when they are in agreement with you on what those biblical values are?

    Joshua

    P.S. Sue, something is insulting because it is rude - not because it is accurate.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that's what Diane intended to say, but you're absolutely right. As couple of points:

    1 - If only Christians with perfect doctrine were saved, probably all of us would be in trouble.

    2 - Much of what we call doctrine isn't doctrine at all, it's difference in interpretation. Modes of baptism, literal vs nonliteral creation, whether Jesus had siblings, etc etc.

    3 - Ultimately, doctrine doesn't save. Jesus saves. Certainly, there are doctrines that are all important (the doctrine of slavation being one), but ultilately, it's the Jesus of salvation, not doctrine of salvation, that saves.
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. using the word in quotes implies that what is claimed by the person is not true. If you replace the quote with the phrase 'so called Christian', it would be considered rude and rather judgemental. It's simply not biblically appropriate for us to judge peoples' salvational states, yet we do so consistently with anyone we don't agree with. Thank God slavation is not contingent one one's political, cultural, or social beliefs, as much as many of us would like to think it is.

    [ July 11, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...