Perhaps one day soon you will believe God's Word, which says that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Hmm, interesting. But is there actually something I can do, myself, me as a fallible sinful wretch, having the ability to do something which would create that missing belief in God's Word in me?

Hmm, or isn't it God that has to do something for me, or act in/on me, in order for a wretch like me to come to belief in Him?


Well at least you didn't use that 's' word (if that was intentional).

1. Does Same Sex Marriage necessarily include "homosexual behavior", however you are defining that?

2. Is "homosexual behavior", however you are defining that, considered a disqualifying factor when you apply for your SSM license (a simple secular agreement between two adults (usually!) and the State. Sometimes shotgun-wielding family members like to get involved for 'reasons'.

Jesus will make Himself known to all who truly seek truth. Everyone who truly wants to be saved, will be saved. Seek and ye shall find....

It was intentional.

Not any more than real marriage necessarily includes heterosexual behavior. There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" in a God-honoring society.


A nation that grants a license for so-called "Same Sex Marriage" is already on the fast track to ruin.

I thought you'd take the Calvinist position: the only way someone gets saved is because God has pre-ordained to change their heart, and there's nothing anyone can otherwise do about becoming one of the elect.

That's good.

If "homosexual behavior" is your issue, and it is not a necessary part of SSM, then why are you against all SSM regardless of whether it includes "homosexual behavior"?

There is such a thing in the United States, and many other countries.

This is just preaching.

Is it not clear that the state's marriage license is a secular contract that has nothing whatsoever to do with any theological marriage? You do understand that gay and lesbian folk don't stop being gay or lesbian if they are not legally permitted to marry their partner? You do understand that a church can decide whether or not they want to perform a theological marriage service for ANYONE they don't want married?

Because same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron.

One of the many exercises in wickness in the world today.

Amen!

The state shouldn't be endorsing wickedness.

Yes, I understand that.

At the moment the above is true. At least here in lovely California, there are some who want to make a willingness to perform same-sex "marriages" a condition of obtaining a license to officiate at weddings.

Anti gay marriage = anti human rights.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?d...843X.105.3.440

Who are the bigger perverts: Those who would perform such a study, or those who would post the results of said study in a Religion Forum?

i can sense your erection from here buddy

What "rights" do humans have? And who or what determines what those "rights" are?

If humans are just evolved pond scum and/or are just bags of chemicals, how are "rights" anything other than a byproduct of brain barf gurgling in our brains?

Since the Bible teaches that all humans are made in the image of a God, Christians have a firm foundation for establishing human rights.

Hmm? Where's the necessary contradiction?

Your claim of wickedness is a personal one based only on your particular theology, which the state does not endorse by law. A marriage license from the state holds no theological weight, just as a religious marriage ceremony holds no legal weight (before or after a church wedding, the parties still need to obtain their marriage license from City Hall in order to be considered married by the State).

But do you? Denying a couple the option of getting married does not stop them from engaging in all the fun activities you are so against.

Then, what is the practical effect of denying SSM, beyond making them feel like second class citizens?

I don't know what one has to do with the other, or whether you are comparing religious vs. State marriage. Since SSM is the law of the land, public officials are obligated to provide them a marriage license, if legally appropriate.

PS Saying things like "there are some who want to" is called weasel words. I'll explain further in another reply.

Jesus confirms what marriage is here:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning [Adam and Eve] made them male and female*,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?**

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. - Matthew 19:5-6a

*A reference to Genesis 1:27

**A reference to Genesis 2:24

Have you always been a pervert, or is this a recent development?

I would like to encourage you to repent and believe the Gospel.

Which has no applicability to any laws concerning marriage in the United States.

You say you are against state-sanctioned same sex marriage, and then describe the standards of a sectarian marriage.

While each institution uses the same label 'marriage', I don't think it's too confusing for you to differentiate, in which case you are equivocating.

Human rights are determined by human beings, not by any of the make believe gods. That you continually whiff on this and proudly display it in print EQUALS indoctrination instead of thinking conclusions.

The brains/minds of these humans is generally considered the most complex thing in the universe. So yes, much to your shock, it is capable of thinking its way to morality ... instead of having it handed to them authoritarian style by a god. If you think you are pond scum, and your wife is pond scum, and your children are pond scum, and the nobility realized in mankind at times is pond scum ... then good for you. But in fact you don't think this. You just mime it for the religions sake.

That brain barf you like to cite is coming from the most complex reality we know of in the universe. Far more complex than, say, any of the imaginary gods.

The whole argument of morality coming from god as objective is a complete farce. What they mean by objective here is "authoritarian and universal." LOL at objectivity being that which comes from dubious, invisible, imaginary beings.

If a "firm foundation" means it comes from one of the thousands of man-made religions, then I guess so. But if man makes up gods to pontificate on rights, then its all still humanistic, isn't it? Or man doesn't make up gods? Is that your position?

Citation, please?

I didn't get the memo that scientists had studied the entire universe and reached that conclusion.

So, if (when?) the Satan-inspired Democrat party* becomes kewl with 30-year-old men "marrying" 12-year-old boys, you'd be fine with calling that a "marriage?"

Note well: I am not asking if you would approve of the relationship itself, but rather would you have a problem calling such an arrangement a "marriage" (if it was legal)?

Thanks.

*If slaughtering unborn babies in the womb (and calling it a right) isn't full-blown Satanism, I don't know what it is.

I understand why I didn't get the memo. The issue number of Scientific American, where it is reported that the scientists investigated the entire universe and found that the human brain was the most complex thing in the universe, will suffice.

Thanks in advance.

Since we are not in the same room, I suspect that the only erection that you could possibly be sensing is your very own (or that of your buddy lying next to you).

Under specific circumstances, adults in the United States already can (and do) marry children:

Also, you might want to check any partisan bias before expressing your outrage. These predatory marriages are most common in southern / Republican-controlled states (from same wiki article: "According to a Frontline report... the states with the highest rates of child marriage in 2010 were: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri."). Dare you look into the religious beliefs of these adults marrying children? I wonder what proportion identify as Christian, and even use their religious beliefs as justification.


To answer your question: despite my objections to them happening, yes these are still called marriages, because that's the legal term. Do you think you can reject legal terms just when you don't approve of the circumstance? How would you petition the Congress to change child marriage laws if you don't acknowledge that child marriage happens?



Indeed.

PS "What's wrong with slaughtering unborn babies in the womb according to your worldview"?

Bump

This dudes obviously gay.

As usual, the religion just doesn't apply to reality. Yahweh killed every fetus on earth, and Christians are forced to call this holy and righteous. He killed every child, baby and fetus on the planet and now is used as a great defender of the unborn's rights. The religion is an appalling inversion of reality and morality.

He's for sure a pervert of some sort.

In my opinion, any moderator that would allow that kind of post would likely also be a pervert.

But, this ain't my website, so they can allow whatever they please.