[Calvinist]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Forgot to add to the end of my above post, the reason for my questions. If anything, tax deduction or money is more than likely to be the central motif of secular thought. Whether the Gov't or the Homosexual community.

I can't see how the homosexual community is going to argue for Equal Status, when they will not defend other arrangements, woman woman man, man man woman ect. They are not attempting to establish Equal status, that would be in some ways a step towards a self-sacrifice. I don't believe unbelievers have anything else to drive them but selfish intentions and motifs. I think drawing a parallel between God's Ordinance to all mankind contrasted with the homosexual community will unveil the unrighteousness that drives them. That passion that drives them is vile.

And to add to the Traditional Marriage discriminating against anyone. The Traditional Marriage does not even discriminate against unbelievers or any religion as long as God's definition of marriage is kept True. The Ordinance went out to all mankind, and was defined as being between one man and woman, so that they could become one flesh. There are many benefits if we break down "why", another words the complimentary roles of man and woman for potential of Creation. I say "potential" because the argument that older couples can't have children is usually neutralized through this wording. Jesus reiterated these Scriptures when the "Left" and "Right" Hallel and Shema tried to entrap Him. So I do not believe we should argue from political positions leaning left or right, He used Sola Scriptura

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone. Anyone can enter into a "Traditional Marriage." Homosexuals do not want to get married, they instead want to define Traditional Marriage.

Quite right, subject to changing define to redefine.

But in the following post, you let yourself down, Mr (or is it Mrs?) Calvinist.

He used Sola Scriptura

I think you have already been asked not to write in Spanish. This condition is clearly set out in the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up to these Godly forums: You, however, agree to speak in God's language, American English.

[Calvinist]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Quite right, subject to changing define to redefine.

But in the following post, you let yourself down, Mr (or is it Mrs?) Calvinist.

I think you have already been asked not to write in Spanish. This condition is clearly set out in the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up to these Godly forums: You, however, agree to speak in God's language, American English.

Thank you Joanna, I did notice it after posting but I am unable to go back and edit the post.

It is Mr. and is it Mrs, Ms, or Miss?

[Didymus Much]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

...It is Mr. and is it Mrs, Ms, or Miss?

A Ms. at Landover?

You're funny.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

It is Mrs.

A Ms. at Landover?

You're funny.

What about that strange ThinksDesign woman? I bet she calls herself Ms!

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

I can't see how the homosexual community is going to argue for Equal Status, when they will not defend other arrangements, woman woman man, man man woman ect.

I can see how, dear friend. Whatever God likes, sodomites hate, and vice versa, just so that they can spite Him. If the sodomites supported an arrangement such as a man and multiple women, they would support an arrangement that God has blessed, and they can never bring themselves to do so:

[2 Samuel 12:7-8 KJV] 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

[Calvinist]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

I can see how, dear friend. Whatever God likes, sodomites hate, and vice versa, just so that they can spite Him. If the sodomites supported an arrangement such as a man and multiple women, they would support an arrangement that God has blessed, and they can never bring themselves to do so:

[2 Samuel 12:7-8 KJV] 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Yes Pastor, when I read the above in Context I am reminded of the arguments that Polygamist make, that apart of the then foreign relations of conquered lands, conquered kings gave their daughters to the Conquering King in part to seal a treaty. I find resemblance to the demands of certain Muslim demands too. On the same basis I would ask a Polygamist whether they are looking to provide Equal Status for those wanting to engage in Incest or even Pedophile?

And I agree with you Pastor Isaac Peters, there is no limit to the state of Depravity of an unregenerate man. However, homosexuals having seem to identified themselves as a homosexual and of a community where they find much pride, I do not think that most will accept others outside themselves and defend the other communities even as such polygamist. The Homosexual representatives are more than likely not going to make a case for equal status in front of the Supreme Court for all, but instead for only one group, I don't think they would have a chance in America at this point of its depravity with regard to success. Perhaps if they pushed the issue further they may eventually set the stage for someone worse than Obama to take office.

I think that there needs to be a clear distinction made, is group b looking for equal status as group a, and therefore willing to argue for equal status for all groups following, c, d, e? Or are they looking for special privilege or status of only one group?

Lastly, it is obvious that these groups have rejected what is Endowed by their Creator" as they must appeal to man and cannot appeal to the Almighty in Court or Even Natural Law. Saying there is a Gay Gene ect, I ask why wouldn't a witty Lawyer jump on it to introduce Natural Law. I dunno as I am not a Lawyer, but I would suspect that the Lawyer should be a believer and stand for not only our Principals and values, but to Convict the Conscience of America, the way Pastors used to do.

On another note, I read in the last day that there are two instances where Muslims are being denied Sharia law, and I ask on what grounds? I still do not understand how the Constitution defines Religion, and at the same time rejects the then dominant religion of the drafters in various ways, such as having the Ten Commandments in the Court room. I would think that one would need to define it with respect to its context and the author in order to understand the authors meaning. Therefore, arguments that clearly violate the Holy Law or even Natural Law for that matter should be seriously questioned as whether they even fit into the definition of Religion, especially of what is means to say "Their Creator." I was hoping someone could elaborate on this?

Enjoy

[WWJDnow]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Furthermore, the argument presented on its face appears that the one challenging Traditional Marriage wants to provide EQUAL status for all. But if we question them further, and ask, do you oppose more than two being in the relationship? We can then build a further case that they are establishing non equal right,s but only attempting to grant privilege for only a certain group. If they say no, we can ask them why marry then?

I have no problem with a man marrying as many women as he wants to. God's very clear on that point in the Bible. But as soon as you have two husbands involved, it starts ruining everyone else's marriages, and that will be the end of what little civilization we will have left after eight years of Obama's dictatorship.

[Des]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

I don't think anyone is telling these cock gobblers they can't get married.They're just bringing the wrong tools for the job. Nobody tells them they can't go bowling either, but if they show up to the bowling alley with cleats and a football, they're going to be turned back at the door.

Long story short, if gays want to get married, all they need to do is bring a woman and put a ring on her finger.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Yes Pastor, when I read the above in Context I am reminded of the arguments that Polygamist make, that apart of the then foreign relations of conquered lands, conquered kings gave their daughters to the Conquering King in part to seal a treaty. I find resemblance to the demands of certain Muslim demands too. On the same basis I would ask a Polygamist whether they are looking to provide Equal Status for those wanting to engage in Incest or even Pedophile?

If their arguments are based on free exercise of religion and their right to follow the Bible, they do not have to concern themselves with slippery-slope arguments. God's Law allows some things but forbids some other things that to the world look similar; in fact, God's Law can look pretty arbitrary from a worldly perspective. The reason, of course, is that the Lord most high is not bound by human conceptions of logic; if He were, He would not be omnipotent. Secular courts recognize this and accept that a religious belief does not have to "make sense" as the world understands it, but just has to be sincerely held. If anyone tries to set up a slippery-slope argument, the surest way to prove that person wrong is to say that you are exercising your religious right to follow the Bible as it is and to give direct quotations of what the Holy Bible actually has to say about the various subjects. (In that regard, you do know which Bible verses forbid pedophilia, right?)

Saying there is a Gay Gene ect,

Then you and I can agree that the notion of a "gay gene" is utter nonsense, since heritability of characteristics as taught in the Bible is completely different from what secularists say it is:

[Genesis 30:37-39 KJV] 37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

I still do not understand how the Constitution defines Religion, and at the same time rejects the then dominant religion of the drafters in various ways, such as having the Ten Commandments in the Court room.

I think a good starting point for that discussion would be for you to quote verbatim the language of the Constitution that defines religion.

[Calvinist]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

If their arguments are based on free exercise of religion and their right to follow the Bible, they do not have to concern themselves with slippery-slope arguments. God's Law allows some things but forbids some other things that to the world look similar; in fact, God's Law can look pretty arbitrary from a worldly perspective. The reason, of course, is that the Lord most high is not bound by human conceptions of logic; if He were, He would not be omnipotent. Secular courts recognize this and accept that a religious belief does not have to "make sense" as the world understands it, but just has to be sincerely held. If anyone tries to set up a slippery-slope argument, the surest way to prove that person wrong is to say that you are exercising your religious right to follow the Bible as it is and to give direct quotations of what the Holy Bible actually has to say about the various subjects. (In that regard, you do know which Bible verses forbid pedophilia, right?)

Interesting, I would personally put that to the test in hopes that judges would appeal to a higher power. Jesus demonstrated Himself as not only rational but a master logician. I have a problem with accepting something as true solely on the basis of an emotional response as one may claim in all sincerity. I think the difference between what you had shared and what others claim is in part because someone with a sincere belief relies on something outside the Bible, or even unto an interpretation of the Scripture, but I think you are pointing to the Scripture and saying upholding it in sincerity.

Lastly, I think if you find anything that IS illogical in the Bible that that would be an invitation to deepen our understanding of Logic and How it pertains to Scripture. For Example, Jesus has two natures, both divine and human as explained in the Hypostatic Union. On its face it does appear illogical, however, deeper study and understanding will ultimately correct us, and we will no longer make the statement that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. That is an illogical statement. But Logic will help guide us in saying, Jesus is Authentically God and Authentically man which is Logically True.

Regarding the Omnipotent argument, I find it rather similar to the question, "Can God make a square circle."

As for religion being defined in the constitution I'm going to research that in the coming week unless someone wants to save me some leg work? Lastly, I'm only aware of principals, concepts and truths of the Bible that would oppose Pedophile, if there is a direct verse, please by all means share it Pastor.

Awesome discussion,

God bless

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Yes Pastor, when I read the above in Context I am reminded of the arguments that Polygamist make, that apart of the then foreign relations of conquered lands, conquered kings gave their daughters to the Conquering King in part to seal a treaty. I find resemblance to the demands of certain Muslim demands too. On the same basis I would ask a Polygamist whether they are looking to provide Equal Status for those wanting to engage in Incest or even Pedophile?

Of course the advocate of sodomite marriage would dismiss the slippery slope arguments pertaining to incest (claiming there is no offense against justice if there are two - or more - consenting adults) and pedophilia (since the child is not a consenting adult, and therefore unable to maturely enter a legal contract of sorts). But we know their real motivation - they seek to ridicule and torment the Sweet Redeemer by rubbing their filthy back doors in His Glorious Face. Being blessed (and cursed?) to omnipresence, the Lord no doubt is forced to see the sloppy, disgusting, grunt-fests of two - or more - sodomites as they taunt Him for the sheer hope of making Him weep.

And I agree with you Pastor Isaac Peters, there is no limit to the state of Depravity of an unregenerate man. However, homosexuals having seem to identified themselves as a homosexual and of a community where they find much pride, I do not think that most will accept others outside themselves and defend the other communities even as such polygamist. The Homosexual representatives are more than likely not going to make a case for equal status in front of the Supreme Court for all, but instead for only one group, I don't think they would have a chance in America at this point of its depravity with regard to success. Perhaps if they pushed the issue further they may eventually set the stage for someone worse than Obama to take office.

Indeed. The cry of "equal marriage" ends only with sodomy for these sodomites, as it once ended with race for the negro. I pray every day that equality will not reach other factions of currently marginalized groups, as that clearly goes against the Divine Design of the Creator (Isaiah 10:15; Jeremiah 18:6; Romans 9:19-22; 2 Timothy 2:20).

I think that there needs to be a clear distinction made, is group b looking for equal status as group a, and therefore willing to argue for equal status for all groups following, c, d, e? Or are they looking for special privilege or status of only one group?

I think we've well established the fact that sodomites are incapable of recognizing the well-being, or lack thereof, of those who are not eager to bend over and grab their own ankles, if you know what I mean.

Lastly, it is obvious that these groups have rejected what is Endowed by their Creator" as they must appeal to man and cannot appeal to the Almighty in Court or Even Natural Law. Saying there is a Gay Gene ect, I ask why wouldn't a witty Lawyer jump on it to introduce Natural Law. I dunno as I am not a Lawyer, but I would suspect that the Lawyer should be a believer and stand for not only our Principals and values, but to Convict the Conscience of America, the way Pastors used to do.

I laugh at how conveniently they've abandoned this idea that science would redeem their disgusting habits, even so far as suggesting sexuality isn't binary, and instead decided to embrace the concept of marriage solely within the context of freedom of choice! As if that freedom isn't anything but hidden shackles for the youth of a nation, being forced to recognize non conventional partnerships as equally valid so long as they are entered into freely by consenting adults. I don't envy them the day they'll attempt their so-called rational, secular arguments against the LORD's Divine Justice (Ecclesiastes 12:13)!

On another note, I read in the last day that there are two instances where Muslims are being denied Sharia law, and I ask on what grounds? I still do not understand how the Constitution defines Religion, and at the same time rejects the then dominant religion of the drafters in various ways, such as having the Ten Commandments in the Court room. I would think that one would need to define it with respect to its context and the author in order to understand the authors meaning. Therefore, arguments that clearly violate the Holy Law or even Natural Law for that matter should be seriously questioned as whether they even fit into the definition of Religion, especially of what is means to say "Their Creator." I was hoping someone could elaborate on this?

Enjoy

I'm not familiar with politics, and I don't know what the Constitution says, but I know what the Holy Bible says. I don't much care to put stock in the idea of keeping to the spirit of what the authors themselves thought because that opens a whole can of worms with regard to the argument of most of them being deists at best, perhaps even atheists, and openly hostile against the idea of coupling religion with politics. I think we should simply continue lobbying for Christian ideals in Congress, maintaining the fear of God in schools, and stamping out atheistic rebellion until most of our laws reflect a theological approach, then talk of ratifying the Constitution ought to go down more easily.

[Calvinist]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Of course the advocate of sodomite marriage would dismiss the slippery slope arguments pertaining to incest (claiming there is no offense against justice if there are two - or more - consenting adults) and pedophilia (since the child is not a consenting adult, and therefore unable to maturely enter a legal contract of sorts).

Very nice Mary,

What about the reversal of the argument? Are they going to deny various sciences regarding social statistics? The lack of the male role model or two parents resulting in higher crime rates, increased burden on society through financial support, ect? I believe the family is the last stand pertaining to solidarity, and why I personally was so against public schools in the upbringing my offspring. I don't want secular ideology brainwashing my children.

I'd hope that whatever lawyer is defending Traditional Marriage, is himself a born again believer. If cases like this are going to trial, and we are made aware of them, we should pray for them.

God bless

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

Very nice Mary,

What about the reversal of the argument? Are they going to deny various sciences regarding social statistics? The lack of the male role model or two parents resulting in higher crime rates, increased burden on society through financial support, ect? I believe the family is the last stand pertaining to solidarity, and why I personally was so against public schools in the upbringing my offspring. I don't want secular ideology brainwashing my children.

I'd hope that whatever lawyer is defending Traditional Marriage, is himself a born again believer. If cases like this are going to trial, and we are made aware of them, we should pray for them.

God bless

I hope that whatever lawyer is defending Traditional Marriage is a Born Again Believer, too, because he'll need the power of the Holy Ghost to set his tongue aflame when advocates of sodomy use their God-mocking statistics and amoral facts to argue the studies made famous by God's own servant Paul Cameron have been debunked a long time ago. But you are correct friend, it makes no difference to them from whence they get their material - objective evidence or meth-inspired hallucinations - so long as they can stick their thumbs up at the Holy King of Kings.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Let's Make History

... Jesus demonstrated Himself as not only rational but a master logician. I have a problem with accepting something as true solely on the basis of an emotional response as one may claim in all sincerity. I think the difference between what you had shared and what others claim is in part because someone with a sincere belief relies on something outside the Bible, or even unto an interpretation of the Scripture, but I think you are pointing to the Scripture and saying upholding it in sincerity.

Lastly, I think if you find anything that IS illogical in the Bible that that would be an invitation to deepen our understanding of Logic and How it pertains to Scripture... But Logic will help guide us in saying, Jesus is Authentically God and Authentically man which is Logically True.

Regarding the Omnipotent argument, I find it rather similar to the question, "Can God make a square circle."

Logic is so alluring, isn't it? I am nowadays very suspicious when it comes to using classical logic as a well-deserved weapon against heathens and atheists. I must agree with our pastor that God is beyond logic and in some cases also beyond reason. If we start defending His position with logic we are not only patronizing Him but also opening the chasm of potential fallacies that can be eventually used against us, for Satan. I demonstrate only a few points here:

1. Genesis 1:1
Beyond all logic. Logic says that nothing can come out of nothing. Yet God irrevocably demonstrates Creation ex nihilo. It is beyond logic. If we say it is logical then the ridiculous Big Bang can be defended by the same argument by replacing "God" with "Quantum fluctuations". That is NOT another name for God because it lacks sentience, awesomeness and direct interaction with us men in history. It is deism at best. But if we go beyond logic and accept that logical rules only apply to our understanding, we shall have a much more realistic view on God.

2. Causality is broken with God.
We are used to trusting causality in real life. Certain events (jumping off a roof) lead to predictable consequences. Not so with God and supernatural intervention. If we follow logic, miracles become violations of the rules, whereas we KNOW that the supernatural is the REAL state of being and the materialistic laws just a state of the Fallen world.

3. Jesus
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
With secular logic this is a fallacious argument. It is a false dilemma (I'm only doing this as a demonstration, Ladies, and I do not really think like this, sorry!). In the secular world things are not black and white but murky. Obviously, there are many alternatives: following Jesus by 13%, or believing almost everything except of slaying His enemies before Him (Luke 19:27). There are more alternatives than two on earth but that logic does not count for God. He creates logic and natural laws but is not bound by them.

4. Generalizations
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Again, in the secular world this is nonsense. If I accidentally disobey the speed limit I'm not guilty of sodomy, am I? This is the hasty generalization fallacy when applied between humans. Jesus disagrees. Salvation and sin come in quanta. 100% or 0%. If you are guilty of withholding a dime of your income tax you're a murderer. That is what God requires. Totality beyond logic!

5. Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Again, a generalization and ad hominem in the secular world. Not defensible by logic. For logic, a person could do charity or save children from a burning house and do a good thing. God disagrees, an atheist can do no good. Everything becomes evil and corrupted. It is a fallacy if we follow logic but God doesn't. That makes Him God.

Accept it. Repent. Get a baptism. Be saved. I enjoy these conversations and would like continue them in Heaven. As for now, I'm worried for your attachment to logic and defending an entity that really needs no defending. I'm praying for you, friend!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer