Gay Marriage Amendment - Page 6

Brucev · 03-25-2012, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

And yet the south still lost.
Guess that settles the gays in combat debate.

Sadly for America, the N.E. financial interest successfully used the federal apparatus and the burgeoning immigrant population to subjugate the Southern states and deny them their right of self-determination. They bastardized the COTUS by making of it a irreversible document which was never the intent of the framers. Now the whole nation is forced to live with the consequences of their over-reach in the form of a squatter's administration of a gansta government.

**RichardB** · 03-26-2012, 06:35

"They bastardized the COTUS by making of it a irreversible document "
????

Even in Jim Crow Southern Schools I learned that the Constitution has been amended several times since the Civil War.

Noles26 · 03-26-2012, 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarpleyg

Not even sure what gives a government the right to define marriage.

+1

Marriage was destroyed by Man and Woman, not Man and Man.

If it doesn't concern you, leave it alone.

auto-5 · 03-26-2012, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

Like it or not, Scripture condemns without exception homosexuality. At no point is it every in any way affirmed. This is the uniform witness of Scripture. As to creeds, they are merely the formulations of men, useful but subordinate to Scripture. As to what local churches or larger denominations might hold on a matter, their positions may be useful as the creeds they develop. But they stand in the light of Scripture and are without any authority except as they affirm Scripture. If they speak contrary to Scripture, they are in error and are to be condemned for their error. They may call their decisions/positions christian, but that does not make their positions christian.

It also condemns the eating of shellfish and the planting of different crops in a given field. But all that was before Jesus died for our sins.

Your sins are forgiven! Not through your own deeds because we are all sinners but through the love of Jesus Christ who died for our sins. He and He alone gets to judge.

Brucev · 03-26-2012, 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by auto-5

It also condemns the eating of shellfish and the planting of different crops in a given field. But all that was before Jesus died for our sins.

Your sins are forgiven! Not through your own deeds because we are all sinners but through the love of Jesus Christ who died for our sins. He and He alone gets to judge.

If one is an orthodox Jew, such issues as shellfish, etc. are of concern. I am not a Jew. I am a Christian.

If in the New Testament record there was at any point any indication that Jesus affirmed aberrant sexual behavior of any sort, there would be a basis for arguing for the acceptance of homosexuality. That affirmation is absent from Scripture. On the other hand, the uniform witness of the Bible is that homosexuality is never anything but fundamentally and without exception to be condemned. This is explicit in Paul's letter to the Romans and his letters to the Corinthians. There is no equivocation on the matter.

Brucev · 03-26-2012, 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardB

"They bastardized the COTUS by making of it a irreversible document "
????

Even in Jim Crow Southern Schools I learned that the Constitution has been amended several times since the Civil War.

I beg your pardon. My mistake. I wrote "making of it a irreversible document." I wrote of the COTUS. I should have referenced the union effected by the COTUS. No where in the founding documents of our nation was the union ever envisioned as only a choice to enter with no option of leaving. The War Between the States constituted the decision of northern power brokers to deny a "divorce" to the Southern states as the cost of that divorce would have been for the north inconvenient.

**RichardB** · 03-27-2012, 06:19

St Paul condemned many other behaviors which are not prohibited by secular constitutions.

On the Confederate Flag tome it was posted that Madison, one of the primary authors of the Constitution, wrote in 1830 that bailing out of the union was not an option for a state.

Gunhaver · 03-27-2012, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

Sadly for America, the N.E. financial interest successfully used the federal apparatus and the burgeoning immigrant population to subjugate the Southern states and deny them their right of self-determination. They bastardized the COTUS by making of it a irreversible document which was never the intent of the framers. Now the whole nation is forced to live with the consequences of their over-reach in the form of a squatter's administration of a gansta government.

It's ok Bruce, you can just come out and say it. "Damn gays couldn't outfight us so they went and outsmarted and out resourced us and set our slaves free and then went and let them into political office."

Brucev · 03-27-2012, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

It's ok Bruce, you can just come out and say it. "Damn gays couldn't outfight us so they went and outsmarted and out resourced us and set our slaves free and then went and let them into political office."

Perhaps you are just confused. You apparently believe in mythology... such as the myth promulgated that the sovereign state that entered into the COTUS did so with the understanding that there was no exit.

Now perhaps you can explain just how homosexuals of the antebellum era led proud and loud in the War Between the States? Come on now. Be specific. Just who were the Northern homosexual leaders who can be cited?

Natty · 03-28-2012, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

It's ok Bruce, you can just come out and say it. "Damn gays couldn't outfight us so they went and outsmarted and out resourced us and set our slaves free and then went and let them into political office."

Not only that, they are now the police...

Yankee sympathizers are very proud of what they have turned the police into...

**RichardB** · 03-28-2012, 16:46

Fat cops come in all races, genders, and are from the north, south, east, and west.

http://www.google.com/search?q=fat+c...w=1173&bih=742

GRIMLET · 03-28-2012, 17:03

Just a question.
What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage by a justice of the peace where no Bible was used and the ceremony taking place in a court room.

I understand Christians are upset about a not hetero marriage before God, but how does the above ceremony offend?

Not trolling or flaming. Just asking for clarification.

Stover918 · 03-28-2012, 17:06

Take it back to the closet. I'm tired of it being put in my face. Even kids think its ok. What would happen if I had a white pride parade? Now the military is a disgrace. I'm sure the whole world laughs at us now. What else can they **** up?

My pistols, however, I always kept by me

Gunhaver · 03-28-2012, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRIMLET

Just a question.
What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage by a justice of the peace where no Bible was used and the ceremony taking place in a court room.

I understand Christians are upset about a not hetero marriage before God, but how does the above ceremony offend?

Not trolling or flaming. Just asking for clarification.

The problem is with the benefits that automatically come with legal marriage recognized in all 50 states vs. the ridiculous amount of work involved for a civil union couple to line up those same benefits. It's actually a very long list.
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Gunhaver · 03-28-2012, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stover918

Take it back to the closet. I'm tired of it being put in my face. Even kids think its ok. What would happen if I had a white pride parade? Now the military is a disgrace. I'm sure the whole world laughs at us now. What else can they **** up?

My pistols, however, I always kept by me

How exactly is it being put in your face? Do you wake up to a homosexual couple making out on your front lawn every morning? Might want to turn the garden hose on them.

You see gay men holding hands or kissing or whatever just like hetero couples have always done and you just can't handle it. You're not man enough to let people go about their business that doesn't hurt you. It's weak and pathetic that you let it bother you so much. Do you avoid giving a woman a kiss in public for fear that you might offend some homo couple?

Your arguments always boil down to, "You can't do that because I have a problem with it but I'm going to do it even if you have a problem with it."

Gunhaver · 03-28-2012, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

Perhaps you are just confused. You apparently believe in mythology... such as the myth promulgated that the sovereign state that entered into the COTUS did so with the understanding that there was no exit.

Now perhaps you can explain just how homosexuals of the antebellum era led proud and loud in the War Between the States? Come on now. Be specific. Just who were the Northern homosexual leaders who can be cited?

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/11...ighty-then.jpg

GRIMLET · 03-28-2012, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

The problem is with the benefits that automatically come with legal marriage recognized in all 50 states vs. the ridiculous amount of work involved for a civil union couple to line up those same benefits. It's actually a very long list.
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

I understand the financial implications. It would seem big insurance would like this. More dependants, more premiums.
I don't see people protesting gay marriage in terms of insurance.
A civil union vs a civil ceremony. How is it different?

Gunhaver · 03-28-2012, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRIMLET

I understand the financial implications. It would seem big insurance would like this. More dependants, more premiums.
I don't see people protesting gay marriage in terms of insurance.
A civil union vs a civil ceremony. How is it different?

? Um, civil union is to civil ceremony as marriage is to marriage ceremony.

What does big insurance have to do with it?

GRIMLET · 03-28-2012, 19:51

Ok.
Then why do so many people have a problem with gay marriage and not civil unions.
If a marriage is before God and God is against nonheteros then the marriage wouldn't be recognized in Gods eyes. Right?
Not arguing or making a point. I'm trying to understand different points of view.

GRIMLET · 03-28-2012, 19:57

If a hetero, man and woman, couple unite in a courthouse and have a meeting with a judge and become legally married, is that a civil union? It doesn't meet the way Christians normally do it so I wouldn't think it would be a marriage before God.
It is a marriage before the state. A marriage in certificate only.
Am I correct?

Gunhaver · 03-28-2012, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRIMLET

If a hetero, man and woman, couple unite in a courthouse and have a meeting with a judge and become legally married, is that a civil union? It doesn't meet the way Christians normally do it so I wouldn't think it would be a marriage before God.
It is a marriage before the state. A marriage in certificate only.
Am I correct?

The issue is only with what the government recognizes as a legally binding marriage. There are probably gay couples that want the churches to marry them "in gods eyes" but the churches are not required to treat everyone equally.

There are thousands of laws, legal documents, case law records and who knows what else that have the words, "marriage" or "married" in them and it's an ongoing process to hash what happens under different circumstances in court. The simplest solution is to just expand legal marriage to homosexuals. Sure beats rooting through all those papers to amend them with, "and civil unions too".

randrew379 · 03-29-2012, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLWyandotte

We are a country where 83% of people claim religious affiliation and 76% of them are Christians, we are about as far from third world as you can get.
Laws are based on commonalities in morality and human decency. The fact that so many of our laws have basic biblical premise should be a clue.
When the United States had a higher church-going population so many years ago, the crime rates weren't near what they are today. Chipping away at organized religion and the good it does is furthering the moral decay and creating a nation of thugs and dirtbags. I'm not saying if you don't go to church you are either of those, but denying that there are more people living now that have no regard for humanity is a serious case of denial.

It seems that NH has the fewest number of churchgoers and the lowest crime rate of all states if what I read recently is correct.

glockin-45 · 03-31-2012, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by morrismma

Its because the biggest part of the group that oppose it are religious. Any time its debated that is one of the first view put forth is "God hates it", "Its against God" Which is all an uniformed and not researched opinion But when you say GOD SAID everybody runs.

Just because you don't believe in the Bible, oh well. Let me say, we should not lay man with man, just as well as man with dog. Why? because God hates it.

ponders · 03-31-2012, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by faawrenchbndr

God already did.

He made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

^^^^this^^^^ and also it wasnt Adrian and Eve

Gunhaver · 03-31-2012, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by glockin-45

Just because you don't believe in the Bible, oh well. Let me say, we should not lay man with man, just as well as man with dog. Why? because God hates it.

Just because you do believe in the bible, oh well. We hear complaints about the gay agenda and normalizing gay behavior. Who's accepting it? Society. Believers are very concerned with who doesn't believe in the bible. Non-believers could care less that you do.

Do you feel the shrinking influence of the bible yet?