Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

[BavarianWheels]

This seems a bad argument, we already legislate morality, murder, rape, child abuse, cheating, lending laws and regulations, many of which directly come from religious beliefs.

True, but none are exclusively "religious" morals.
.
.

Homosexuality being less than desireable is not an exclusively religious moral either!

The mere mention of marriage in this proposition brings about the religious-right to their banner-waving feet...the reality is that this is a fight on semantics. The religious people (and the proponents of Prop. 8 ) do not wish the union of homosexuals to be called a marriage...marriage having been instituted by God between a man and a woman...thus making this a religious issue.

It is my belief that God doesn't really care whether man institutes laws concerning marriage...because God has already given His people His thinking (or law) on it. Christians think that allowing homosexuals to "marrry" will throw this world into a tailspin of sexual perversion. They think by outlawing homosexual marriage they are doing God's will...I believe it's not what God/Christ is concerned with. The Cross is what draws men to God...not our petty civil legislations of God's morality. Let us do what Christ asks us to do, "...Therefor go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you..." Let's do our only part on the salvation of other men...to witness of Christ, and let Christ do the rest. John 12:32

We need only to look back at Israel as they legislated the "do's and don'ts" of God's Law. Legislating religious moral laws on society (apart from the obvious murder, rape, all others that keep society in check) only leads to legalism as the allowing of one leads to the eventual adding of more and more.

Once again,
to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.
.
.

[zoegirl]

but sexual pervesion being declared illegal would help keep society in check.

If we mess with the definition of marriage, at what point would we stop? Why isn't three people in love with each other and committed to each not marriage? At what point do we worry about the social implications?

[cslewislover]

It is my belief that God doesn't really care whether man institutes laws concerning marriage...because God has already given His people His thinking (or law) on it. Christians think that allowing homosexuals to "marrry" will throw this world into a tailspin of sexual perversion. They think by outlawing homosexual marriage they are doing God's will...I believe it's not what God/Christ is concerned with. The Cross is what draws men to God...not our petty civil legislations of God's morality. Let us do what Christ asks us to do, "...Therefor go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you..." Let's do our only part on the salvation of other men...to witness of Christ, and let Christ do the rest. John 12:32

I don't think that by allowing gays to marry that the world will go "into a tailspin of sexual perversion." A lot of the world is already there, lol. I remember this painful argument on another board not all that long ago. Anyway, you quote John 12:32, "Therefore go . . ." It says to teach them to obey Christ, and so by extension, the entire bible since it's written by Christ. No, we shouldn't be legalistic, but we shouldn't publicly condone what's against God's word. I do think gay couples should have rights, but I don't think it should be marriage as defined in the bible, which is the definition that has been used in this country. I don't think loving people means letting them do whatever they want, necessarily, or by pretending you agree with everything they want to do when you know it's wrong.

Anyway, I shun your avatar. It's so creepy (lol). Where is the bright face of Bavarian Wheels?

[BavarianWheels]

but sexual pervesion being declared illegal would help keep society in check.

It would?? I must assume you're living in a fantasy world...or at least keeping yourself from seeing the world as it is.

If we mess with the definition of marriage, at what point would we stop? Why isn't three people in love with each other and committed to each not marriage? At what point do we worry about the social implications?

God never defined "marriage"...the word is what we use to describe it.

On another hand, Christian morals shouldn't be left to the public school system. If you want your children to learn Christian values, I suggest you put some money into your local Christian school system and allow the "world" to define marriage as they please. Bottomline here is...the responsibility of teaching our children Christian morals starts and ends within the family setting.

What about the other kids in society with no family? Be a big brother or a big sister...there are plenty of programs out for the concerned to get involved and make a difference.

I don't think that by allowing gays to marry that the world will go "into a tailspin of sexual perversion." A lot of the world is already there, lol. I remember this painful argument on another board not all that long ago.

Then there's no real reason to legislate it. It's inevitable.

Anyway, you quote John 12:32, "Therefore go . . ." It says to teach them to obey Christ, and so by extension, the entire bible since it's written by Christ. No, we shouldn't be legalistic, but we shouldn't publicly condone what's against God's word. I do think gay couples should have rights

Hold on...what is the called consequence in God's word for homosexual activity...?

...and I mentioned John 12:32 because in it Jesus says, "But I will draw all men to myself." The cross is the draw...Jesus is the draw...not His laws.

but I don't think it should be marriage as defined in the bible,

What if we call it a union and they get everything a "marriage" allows? If Prop. 8 was worded as a "union" instead...?

which is the definition that has been used in this country. I don't think loving people means letting them do whatever they want, necessarily, or by pretending you agree with everything they want to do when you know it's wrong.

Does God force our love and obedience? He tells us to "witness"...sometimes, as the saying goes, our actions speak louder than our words. I think we (Christians) would do more good in sitting back and allowing God to do/allow what He will without trying to "help" His cause by legislating His morals on our society through the State.

Anyway, I shun your avatar. It's so creepy (lol). Where is the bright face of Bavarian Wheels?

That's exactly what I was going for...thank you!
.
.

[Harry12345]

to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.
.
.

What's wrong with that? As far as I'm aware, in California those religious morals are held by the majority. Surely in dealing with matters of 'semantics' we should remember that America is supposed to be a democracy...?

[cslewislover]

which is the definition that has been used in this country. I don't think loving people means letting them do whatever they want, necessarily, or by pretending you agree with everything they want to do when you know it's wrong.

Does God force our love and obedience? He tells us to "witness"...sometimes, as the saying goes, our actions speak louder than our words. I think we (Christians) would do more good in sitting back and allowing God to do/allow what He will without trying to "help" His cause by legislating His morals on our society through the State.

Anyway, I shun your avatar. It's so creepy (lol). Where is the bright face of Bavarian Wheels?

That's exactly what I was going for...thank you!
.
.

Would you agree that we are God's hands and witness to him when we do charity? I don't think we represent God only by doing what seems warm and fuzzy (lol). I don't think this is an easy issue, since I don't like legislating morality either. It just seems like it's more right to teach God's word as much as possible, not hide it when it's unpopular. And I try to make the point about loving, but you don't want to accept it. Oh well.

I assumed that about your avatar, but is there a bright side?

[BavarianWheels]

to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.

What's wrong with that? As far as I'm aware, in California those religious morals are held by the majority. Surely in dealing with matters of 'semantics' we should remember that America is supposed to be a democracy...?

If you want the state to tell you (and the generations to come) what is right and wrong then by all means, vote yes on prop. 8 and any other proposition that promotes biblical laws. Apparently it's not enough for us that God said it...we seem to need the State's seal of approval instead of God's simple and clear word.

Protect marriage? Since when does God and His word need protecting...and who are we to fathom that we can?

Would you agree that we are God's hands and witness to him when we do charity? I don't think we represent God only by doing what seems warm and fuzzy (lol).

Yes...I agree...we are His hands and His witnesses...so what does the witness of a vote against homosexual marriage do as a witness to a homosexual? Let's take a look at the marriage of sinners in light of God's union of perfect man and perfect woman (Adam and Eve)...would you say we've represented exactly what God intended in His idea of marriage? If not, then we must also legislate against marriage where there's a chance of divorce, abuse, cheating, and all the rest that falls within the "Christian" idea of acceptable acts within marriage.

I don't think this is an easy issue, since I don't like legislating morality either. It just seems like it's more right to teach God's word as much as possible, not hide it when it's unpopular. And I try to make the point about loving, but you don't want to accept it. Oh well.

Who's job it it to teach? If we aren't doing the teaching, then we must want the State to teach for us...and we sit back and say, "Well heck...I voted yes on Prop. 8...how much more can I do to teach that God opposes homosexuality and marriage thereof?" It's laziness.

I assumed that about your avatar, but is there a bright side?

The bright side is that I also look to Christ for my salvation.
.
.

[cslewislover]

Would you agree that we are God's hands and witness to him when we do charity? I don't think we represent God only by doing what seems warm and fuzzy (lol). I don't think this is an easy issue, since I don't like legislating morality either. It just seems like it's more right to teach God's word as much as possible, not hide it when it's unpopular. And I try to make the point about loving, but you don't want to accept it. Oh well.

Who's job it it to teach? If we aren't doing the teaching, then we must want the State to teach for us...and we sit back and say, "Well heck...I voted yes on Prop. 8...how much more can I do to teach that God opposes homosexuality and marriage thereof?" It's laziness.

Well, how do you propose we teach, then, besides privately in our churches?

I assumed that about your avatar, but is there a bright side?

The bright side is that I also look to Christ for my salvation.

That's nice, of course. If I were a stranger, I wouldn't know that from your avatar. I don't like "precious moments" stuff, but . . . anyway, you can forget about it if you want. I had been having a little fun with it. .
.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
I was in the middle of editing my post when you posted the above...
.
.

[cslewislover]

.
.
I was in the middle of editing my post when you posted the above...
.
.

I don't know. Just because the institution of marriage isn't perfect in our fallen world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
I was in the middle of editing my post when you posted the above...
.
.

I don't know. Just because the institution of marriage isn't perfect in our fallen world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Try to what?
.
.

[cslewislover]

.
.
I was in the middle of editing my post when you posted the above...
.
.

I don't know. Just because the institution of marriage isn't perfect in our fallen world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Try to what?
.
.

Keep it as we understand God wants it.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
I was in the middle of editing my post when you posted the above...
.
.

I don't know. Just because the institution of marriage isn't perfect in our fallen world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Try to what?
.
.

Keep it as we understand God wants it.

...and we understand it perfectly? Maybe.

My argument is hardly that it's not wrong. My argument is that it's not the job of the State to legislate God's laws (from a Christian's perspective) and certainly homosexuals wanting to get married are not desecrating the institute of marriage anymore than sin already has...

It is no more "wrong" for homosexuals to get married, than for a man and a woman to fornicate...are you willing to legislate this and similar laws of God through the State? Where, if at all, do you draw the line?
.
.

[cslewislover]

I don't know. Obviously, our culture has let things go slowly. Maybe we should bring back stoning for ALL the offenses .

[Harry12345]

I don't know. Obviously, our culture has let things go slowly. Maybe we should bring back stoning for ALL the offenses .

Over here, abuse within marriage has legal consequences.
Adultery has legal consequences.
So the whole 'perfect marriage' thing doesn't cut it.