Gays Fight for One Simple "Word"

The majority of people cast their vote for Obama for President as well. Get over it.

 

==It is worse than that. They want to create a situation in which any disagreement with them is "hate" and anyone who speaks out against them is guilty of a "hate crime". They want to shout down anyone who dares disagree with them. In fact they seek to silence all opposition. I know that Pastor Paul already knows this, but if there are any doubters out there they should take a look at this.

 

II Timothy
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.
Traitors heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having the form of Godliness, but denying the powers thereof:
FROM SUCH TURN AWAY.

 

Obama: If elected I will use the bully pulpit for gay causes

He once again said he backs the "complete repeal" of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's "gay marriages." It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage." Ever since it was passed homosexual activists have viewed it as a significant legal barrier to nationwide legalization of "gay marriage."

"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether," he wrote. "Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." :tonofbricks:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27510

 

Curious question, which I heard asked the other day: why does the state/federal government have to be concerned with what marriage is or isn't at all, from a Christian perspective; surely it is the business of the Church and of the Church alone to decide what a marriage is in the eyes of God? If the state wants to say that my dog is legally 'married' to my cat, then so what?

 

Martin, I believe you have hit on the crux of the matter. Sodomites will not rest until they have superior rights, even to God himself, at least that is their goal. It's the same goal as Satan, their god.

 

I hope much of this ends up only being empty campaign promises.

 

Leviticus18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:22-31
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Matthew 5:14-15
14. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick;and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Nuff Said!:thumbs: :thumbs:

Or am I :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

All very good and true, but what has that got to do with the State, as opposed to the Church?

 

The government if of the people and not the church. All we can do as a church is petition the government not to deny us as a church or make us do what opposes our beliefs.

This we did in Canada, and we are not forced to perform "gay marriages" or unions. And, we don't even have separation of church and state.

Cheers,

Jim

 

In regards to the OP, it is economically driven. It's not so much about the title of "marriage" as it is about receiving the "spouse's" benefits from their job. It is a way to get something for nothing. It will only be a matter of time before the 40 year old man wants to marry the 15 year old girl to get onto her healthcare provided by her parents and a 50 year old person wants to marry their elderly mother to put her onto their healthcare.

 

The gov't is concerned because of the legal ramifications of what marriage means. All kind of laws are connected to legal marriage that are very significant. People who are not legally married (except in a very few states that recognize "common marriages") do not have the same legal rights of inheritance, legal control over children, property rights, right to divorce and those legal issues, etc.

Marriage is a legal act in the U.S. Therefore, how it's defined by the states and/or Federal gov't is extremely important to Chirstians who believe that marriage is for a man and woman only.

 

We need to pray for the true Christians in California that will no doubt be persecuted by the liberal left.

Ever wonder why you never see a homosexual on the conservative right?

Because they are wrong...

When you align yourself with the left.. you are yoked up with sin...

 

I suppose I'm questioning the extent to which marriage should be a matter of public law per se rather than merely a private arrangement between two individuals (enforceable in the courts if necessary as any other private arrangement is), sanctified, in the case of Christian male-female couples, by the Church....?

 

It's not a question of should marriage be a matter of public law - it is a matter of public law codified long ago.

Employers that provide medical insurance as an employment benefit would be required by law to provide the same benefits to the partner of a gay marriage as the husband/wife of a traditional marriage. This would not only be an additional economic hardship but could also be objectional to the employer on a faith/moral grounds.

The income tax code includes provisions for married persons because society sees a benefit in the family as a social unit. Some of the benefits to society found in a traditional family may not be present in a gay marriage but those income tax code provisions would by law then be available to them.

Just a couple of examples.

 

2Timothy 2:23. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.:tonofbricks: :tonofbricks: :tonofbricks:

 

There are some states that will never allow this nonsense regardless of what California, Vermont, or Connecticut does. Maybe it is time to put marriage back where it belongs, in the church only. Maybe these brilliant state governments should be limited to civil unions, whatever that means. Why do we need government approval, such as a marriage license, to put a seal on an institution ordained by God?