Are you prepared and ready for the stand of your lifetime?

[zoegirl]

My main point is that their is little danger when we look at even what nature has designed. Disregarding beliefs for a moment, basic anatomy and physiology should teach us what is the proper behavior. And homosexual sex does not fit within nature.

However, that aside, yes OUR beliefs. If we believe our God exists and His word is true, then yes, we will fight for this. You throw out "beliefs" as if this is a bad thing. But at the core, YOU fight for what you believe in (currently I guess you would say that "do unto others" is the best description of your MO), don't minimize our "beliefs" as if that is a trivial thing

At this point we have a fair nmber of people who DO believe that not only is homosexual marriage wrong but also harmful to the country. You may think it's wrong...but there is nothing at all wrongwith the debate in the nation and for the fight for morality and the defense of the definition of marriage.

THis is not simply about allowing one group their rights. At the heart of it, this is about defining this "RIGHT" to commit to each toher. If this will change then we must change it to allow for ANY groups to engage in commited pluralistic marriages. WE cannot suddenly talk about rights about one group without including suddenly all of the others combinations of people who might want to commit. We must examine insurance issues, child custody laws, teaching (Heather has three mommie and two daddies? anyone?), oh, andhow about spousal privacy issues in legal matters? Housing issues, lending and credit issues. As crazy as this sounds, though, if you are going to talk about rights and the definition of marrige, IF marriage is simply about people committing to each other, then we must face the facts that many possible groups of poeple are having their rights violated. POlygamy must absolutely be allowed.

[ageofknowledge]

And since we're going down that road... next comes bestiality because after all, as a myraid of public educators, anthropologists, beaucrats, the state run media, and every godless atheist in America will tell you humans are merely animals and who are we to deny humans their right to couple with animals if the animal is willing. Perhaps a new layer of bureaucracy will need to be implemented to manage the rights of animals in these relationships. After that comes even worse unpleasantries... There really is no bottom to Satan's deception.

[ageofknowledge]

They are asking for the right to marry the person they love.

They are selfishly asking society to degrade God's purity and His covenant of marriage designed for a man and a woman to cover an alliance rooted in lust aned sexual immorality a practice which God has already condemned.

You are asking the government to impose limitations on others based on your beliefs.

I'm asking government to maintain limitations that benefit society and align with God's stated purpose and will for His creation. These limitations encompass rape, sex with animals, sex with children, and homosexual marriage.

Images such as this are as inappropriate as claiming Westboro Baptist Church is typical of Christians.

Images like that are as common as gay parades and you don't see thousands of Christians at a time marching down the street acting like this no but it is associated with and indicative of the homosexual community.

[waynepii]

My main point is that their is little danger when we look at even what nature has designed. Disregarding beliefs for a moment, basic anatomy and physiology should teach us what is the proper behavior. And homosexual sex does not fit within nature.

I have no problem with saying that vaginal sex is "proper behavior" or that anal sex is "highly risky". But the fact that I would never engage in anal sex doesn't give me the right to prevent others from doing so. Further, using the risks inherent with unprotected anal sex as justification is tangential at best, seeing as a fair portion of heterosexual couples have tried the practice at least occasionally.

However, that aside, yes OUR beliefs. If we believe our God exists and His word is true, then yes, we will fight for this. You throw out "beliefs" as if this is a bad thing.

You are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine and as is anyone else to theirs. But none of us should be able to use their beliefs to deprive others of their rights.

But at the core, YOU fight for what you believe in (currently I guess you would say that "do unto others" is the best description of your MO), ...

Pretty much - what's wrong with that? Could it be that it sometimes gives an "uncomfortable" answer on some issues?

... don't minimize our "beliefs" as if that is a trivial thing

I've never "minimized" your beliefs but I do object to using them to justify denying the rights of others.

At this point we have a fair nmber of people who DO believe that not only is homosexual marriage wrong but also harmful to the country. You may think it's wrong...but there is nothing at all wrongwith the debate in the nation and for the fight for morality and the defense of the definition of marriage.

I'm old enough to have lived through, and participated in the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s. Talk about deja vu all over again, even many of the anti-same-sex marriage catch phrases are essentially the same as were used 50 years ago in an attempt to keep blacks subjugated.

THis is not simply about allowing one group their rights. At the heart of it, this is about defining this "RIGHT" to commit to each toher. If this will change then we must change it to allow for ANY groups to engage in commited pluralistic marriages. WE cannot suddenly talk about rights about one group without including suddenly all of the others combinations of people who might want to commit. We must examine insurance issues, child custody laws, teaching (Heather has three mommie and two daddies? anyone?), oh, andhow about spousal privacy issues in legal matters? Housing issues, lending and credit issues. As crazy as this sounds, though, if you are going to talk about rights and the definition of marrige, IF marriage is simply about people committing to each other, then we must face the facts that many possible groups of poeple are having their rights violated. POlygamy must absolutely be allowed.

Maybe, maybe not. But we both know the reason you bring this up is to inflame emotions against same-sex marriage. If you feel so strongly about homosexuality, why not get it made illegal again? Denying marriage rights to same-sex couples really makes no sense if same-sex relationships are legal. BTW The only attempts to engage in plural marriage that I know of have used religion as justification.

[waynepii]

And since we're going down that road... next comes bestiality because after all, as a myraid of public educators, anthropologists, beaucrats, the state run media, and every godless atheist in America will tell you humans are merely animals and who are we to deny humans their right to couple with animals if the animal is willing. Perhaps a new layer of bureaucracy will need to be implemented to manage the rights of animals in these relationships. After that comes even worse unpleasantries... There really is no bottom to Satan's deception.

Not likely. Very few animals are competent to enter into contracts.

[waynepii]

They are asking for the right to marry the person they love.

They are selfishly asking society to degrade God's purity and His covenant of marriage designed for a man and a woman to cover an alliance rooted in lust aned sexual immorality a practice which God has already condemned.

There you go trying to get the government to enforce your beliefs again.

You are asking the government to impose limitations on others based on your beliefs.

I'm not asking for any limitations, YOU are asking the government to restrict others in accordance with YOUR beliefs.

I'm asking government to maintain limitations that benefit society and align with God's stated purpose and will for His creation. These limitations encompass rape, sex with animals, sex with children, and homosexual marriage.

Rape and pedophilia involve sex without consent and are illegal, and should stay that way. Bestiality was undoubtedly thrown in solely for emotional effect and is unworthy of comment, except to say that it is also illegal but is pretty much unenforceable (prosecutor: "ms Sheep, can you point out the man who raped you" - what a slam-dunk case that would be ). Same-sex marriage doesn't even involve sex directly, but heterosexual activity is generally legal and is pretty much unenforceable even when illegal. Just as with a heterosexual couple, the couple seeking to be married most likely have been engaging in sexual activity already, and want to formally signify their commitment to each other.

Images such as this are as inappropriate as claiming Westboro Baptist Church is typical of Christians.

Images like that are as common as gay parades and you don't see thousands of Christians at a time marching down the street acting like this no but it is associated with and indicative of the homosexual community.

If you say so. I admit I have never been to a gay pride parade, so I'll bow to your experience on the subject. I assumed you had just seen media coverage of an occasional gay pride parade, similar to my exposure to Westboro Baptist Church. In both cases, the events are controversial and garner much more press than they warrant. BTW There are a number of equally shocking (hetero)sexual extravaganzas - Mardi Gras and others.

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God" - I refer you to a history of Christian marriage (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History). The following is a portion thereof (emphasis added) ...

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.

In the 12th century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and sought romance in adultery. Troubadors invented courtly love which involved secret but chaste trysts between a lover and a beloved.

The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age. Beginning in the 1500s it was unlawful for a woman younger than 20 years of age to marry.

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. This change did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation, where marriage by consent continued to be the norm. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.

Cliff Notes:

• Initially, the church's only involvement in marriage was as a keeper of records of marriages, births, deaths, etc.
• The Catholic Church's involvement in marriage (other than simple maintenance of records) was a result of the Council of Trent (1545).
• Protestant involvement came later, in the 17th century.

[ageofknowledge]

And since we're going down that road... next comes bestiality because after all, as a myraid of public educators, anthropologists, beaucrats, the state run media, and every godless atheist in America will tell you humans are merely animals and who are we to deny humans their right to couple with animals if the animal is willing. Perhaps a new layer of bureaucracy will need to be implemented to manage the rights of animals in these relationships. After that comes even worse unpleasantries... There really is no bottom to Satan's deception.

Not likely. Very few animals are competent to enter into contracts.

I'm sure when the sexually immoral finally have their way that people who wish to engage in this form of sexual immorality will work closely with the government to assess selected animal's receptivity. There was a time in this country where the ability to make a simple X could bind one into a written contract. A chimp can make a X just fine. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the first big push to "liberate" simians which include Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and apes (which are classified right along with humans as platyrrhines) came from the homosexual community. Those wishing to engage in beastiology would, of course, attempt to piggyback the legitimization of their immorality on top of Civil Rights legislation just as homosexuals have working hard to redefine our language to make their position more palitable. For in their view, "they are asking for the right to marry the person they love" just like homosexuals and yes they extend personhood to cover animals.

When you begin discarding God's standards picking and choosing what you want to keep and what you don't, things don't simply tumble down to your comfort zone. There is always someone more depraved than you that wants to drag things down to their level and then there are people beneath them and so on.

[waynepii]

And since we're going down that road... next comes bestiality because after all, as a myraid of public educators, anthropologists, beaucrats, the state run media, and every godless atheist in America will tell you humans are merely animals and who are we to deny humans their right to couple with animals if the animal is willing. Perhaps a new layer of bureaucracy will need to be implemented to manage the rights of animals in these relationships. After that comes even worse unpleasantries... There really is no bottom to Satan's deception.

Not likely. Very few animals are competent to enter into contracts.

I'm sure when the sexually immoral finally have their way that people who wish to engage in this form of sexual immorality will work closely with the government to assess selected animal's receptivity. There was a time in this country where the ability to make a simple X could bind one into a written contract. A chimp can make a X just fine. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the first big push to "liberate" simians which include Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and apes (which are classified right along with humans as platyrrhines) came from the homosexual community. Those wishing to engage in beastiology would, of course, attempt to piggyback the legitimization of their immorality on top of Civil Rights legislation just as homosexuals have working hard to redefine our language to make their position more palitable. For in their view, "they are asking for the right to marry the person they love" just like homosexuals and yes they extend personhood to cover animals.

Bestiality is generally illegal but the laws are virtually unenforceable, so anyone who has the hots for the local sheep can pretty much have his way with her (or him), requiring only a modicum of care and discretion to avoid prosecution.

When you being [did you mean "begin" here?] discarding God's standards picking and choosing what you want to keep and what you don't, things don't simply tumble down to your comfort zone. There is always someone more depraved than you that wants to drag things down to their level and then there are people beneath them and so on.

But anal sex, even between males, is generally already legal (there probably are a few sodomy statutes still on the books, but they are also unenforceable). How does preventing a same-sex couple that wants to formalize their relationship involve discarding God's standard?

[ageofknowledge]

There you go trying to get the government to enforce your beliefs again.

>Actually the homosexual community expends much time and energy trying to get the government to enforce their homosexual beliefs upon all of us. A proposition we are resisting. And maintain is the correct word not impose as you have suggested. Homosexuals are the movers and shakers attempting to tear down the status quo and force their beliefs upon the rest of us.

Rape and pedophilia involve sex without consent and are illegal, and should stay that way.

>Oh I agree it should but when you reject Creator God and/or His holy standard then what ultimate reason do you have to justify taking the liberty away from those who wish to engage in such behavior if the participants decide they are willing? In ancient history homosexual pedophilia was both legal and consensual amongst Roman and Greek pagans. Some homosexuals today, in fact, point to this as a model of where they want things to "progress."

Bestiality was undoubtedly thrown in solely for emotional effect and is unworthy of comment, except to say that it is also illegal but is pretty much unenforceable.

>No it wasn't. That's you not realizing that your own logic must allow these behaviors to occur if you are to be consistent as I explained in my previous post and not rob liberty from those who wish to "love" "persons" in this way.

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

[waynepii]

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

Did you read my entire post? Or did the church just take about 1600 years to get the memo in which God ordained marriage?

[ageofknowledge]

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

Did you read my entire post? Or did the church just take about 1600 years to get the memo in which God ordained marriage?

Yes I did but your assertion that God's definition of marriage is a recent development simply isn't true. God's definition goes all the way back to the first man and the first woman.

God created the first man and woman and He established marriage upon which societies have centered around through the ages. Genesis 2:18-25 provides the blueprint for a Biblical marriage relationship. It gives us clear guidelines to have fulfilling marriage relationships as God originally intended.

[waynepii]

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

Did you read my entire post? Or did the church just take about 1600 years to get the memo in which God ordained marriage?

Yes I did but your assertion that God's definition of marriage is a recent development simply isn't true. God's definition goes all the way back to the first man and the first woman.

And it took the church 1600 years to get involved in marriages???

I did not assert that God defined marriage "recently", the church did so - why did it take so long?

[ageofknowledge]

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

Did you read my entire post? Or did the church just take about 1600 years to get the memo in which God ordained marriage?

Yes I did but your assertion that God's definition of marriage is a recent development simply isn't true. God's definition goes all the way back to the first man and the first woman.

And it took the church 1600 years to get involved in marriages???

I did not assert that God defined marriage "recently", the church did so - why did it take so long?

Christianity is a dispensation of God that began with Jesus Christ. Initially, there was no need to define marriage as all of the early Christians were Jewish converts from Judiasm; a belief system which already contained God's definition of marriage and enforced it under the law. As gentiles converted from paganism to Christianity, a need arose to educate these new gentile converts. Read Ephesians 5. Most probably written between 80-100 AD (certainly not later than about 170 AD), the epistle is but one example which clearly reveals Christian instruction regarding marriage in the early Christian church.

Wikipedia does contain many instances of scholarly information and much of it's information is fine; however, it is often unreliable, biased, and omits important pieces of information as that article did regarding this discussion. The authenticated historical manuscripts prove that marriage was defined and taught very early on in the Christian church.

[ageofknowledge]

How does preventing a same-sex couple that wants to formalize their relationship involve discarding God's standard?

>Scripture reveals God's standard and his standard is, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality...because these are improper for God's holy people." Ephesians 5:3.

Specifically regarding the sexual immorality of homosexuality His Word declares: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9.

It was illegal under the law as shown in Leviticus 18:22, "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act" and Deuteronomy 23:17.

Homosexuality is universally condemned in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as are adultry, fornication, etc... What is not condemned is the person that turns away from their sexual addictions and sexual immorality releasing and turning to God through Jesus Christ (there are various excellent Christian recovery programs available to assist people with this). They are loved, accepted, and welcomed.. not condemned with those that reject God, His standard, and provision for their sin.

[waynepii]

BTW In a prior post you referred to marriage as having "always been" and "ordained by God."

>Yes that's correct. The union of a man and a woman, ordained by God, goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (not Steve btw).

Did you read my entire post? Or did the church just take about 1600 years to get the memo in which God ordained marriage?

Yes I did but your assertion that God's definition of marriage is a recent development simply isn't true. God's definition goes all the way back to the first man and the first woman.

And it took the church 1600 years to get involved in marriages???

I did not assert that God defined marriage "recently", the church did so - why did it take so long?

Christianity is a dispensation of God that began with Jesus Christ. Initially, there was no need to define marriage as all of the early Christians were Jewish converts from Judiasm; a belief system which already contained God's definition of marriage and enforced it under the law. As gentiles converted from paganism to Christianity, a need arose to educate these new gentile converts. Read Ephesians 5. Most probably written between 80-100 AD (certainly not later than about 170 AD), the epistle is but one example which clearly reveals Christian instruction regarding marriage in the early Christian church.

Eph 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

That sure is a definitive recipe for modern marriage .