Bocephus75i said...The common ground is the golden rule!...Why can't we just, "give peace a chance?"
I have good news for you, Bocephus. You already have common ground for those advocating rights for gays. All you are being asked to do is treat them as you would like to be treated.
EaTn said...I believe any couple who can produce offspring be allowed to legally marry. This is the law of nature. I believe any two consenting adults can choose to live together without interference from the law.
I don't think anyone should be able to legally marry. Marriage is an issue for which the state has no legitimate authority and, therefore, the word should be struck from all local, state and federal government laws, codes and regulations. With that change, the state should also rescind the authority of churches to validate civil unions.
A civil union does not a marriage make and vice versa.
conservative said...The moral condition of homosexuals is so bad that God gives them up. Their conscience no longer responds to conviction by God and so they have no restraints on their disgusting behavior.
Conservative - the moral condition of the homosexual is no different than yours. Read Romans 1:18 - 3:19 carefully. You will find yourself somewhere in that list of ungodly and unrighteous people.
But, notice that the list of ungodly people, including you, is bracketed by the more important verses:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17 ESV)
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:21-24 ESV)
Those promises are valid for everyone on the list of the ungodly. If those promises are not valid for the homosexual, they are not valid for anyone else on the list - including you.
I put my confidence in the promise. It's your choice whether you also want to put your confidence in the promise or in your own ability to keep the law.
Note that you and I have had this conversation before. The above is really all that I have to say on the matter. Please feel free to respond. I will concede the last word to you.
Reardon said...Why should the government have any involvement in marriage -- of any kind -- to begin with?
In a country that espouses separation of church and state, the government has no legitimate reason to be involved in marriage. "Marriage" should be struck from every local, state and federal government code where that word appears. And, churches should stop serving as instruments of the court in validating civil unions.
Conservative - you need to do a more objective analysis of whom receives which benefits from public services. Virtually everything that our government does facilitates free market capitalism. Therefore, income and wealth are reasonable benchmarks for assessing who has received the greatest benefits from public service.
Social security benefits are distributed proportional to the amount paid into the system. Therefore, these benefits really do not factor into the equation that I suggested. People on welfare do receive a benefit that is greater than the taxes that they pay. But, our social services are intended to maintain social stability, an essential for free market capitalism to flourish. The wealthy get a nice return on the investment of their tax dollars in social programs.
fairmon - a fair tax system would levy taxes proportional to the benefits received from public services. Such a system would be even more progressive than the our current system.
AndrewLohr said...MT, have you noticed the welfare program in the book of Ruth? Move to a less depressed area, let the poor work hard for minimal wages...
Andrew - have you noticed that Ruth, prior to marrying Boaz, was able to support herself and Naomi on minimum wage. Have you also noticed that, no matter how hard the poor work in this country, they cannot live on minimum wage? Have you noticed the degree to which the federal government subsidizes WalMart because of the amount of money paid out to WalMart employees? Have you noticed the generosity of the 2% compared with Boaz's generosity?
No Sooner Said
Bocephus75i said...The common ground is the golden rule!...Why can't we just, "give peace a chance?"
I have good news for you, Bocephus. You already have common ground for those advocating rights for gays. All you are being asked to do is treat them as you would like to be treated.
The Wedding March
EaTn said...I believe any couple who can produce offspring be allowed to legally marry. This is the law of nature. I believe any two consenting adults can choose to live together without interference from the law.
I don't think anyone should be able to legally marry. Marriage is an issue for which the state has no legitimate authority and, therefore, the word should be struck from all local, state and federal government laws, codes and regulations. With that change, the state should also rescind the authority of churches to validate civil unions.
A civil union does not a marriage make and vice versa.
The Ammo
AndrewLohr said...The 1st amendment gives the NRA the right to talk, and the 2nd gives it the right to shoot.
...and the 1st Amendment also protects treasonous remarks, at least within limits.
The Crusade
AndrewLohr said...Saddam Hussein was a murderer of our own making.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/cheney-marks-tenth-anniversary-of-pretending-there-was-reason-to-invade-iraq.html
Sharia Law
conservative said...The moral condition of homosexuals is so bad that God gives them up. Their conscience no longer responds to conviction by God and so they have no restraints on their disgusting behavior.
Conservative - the moral condition of the homosexual is no different than yours. Read Romans 1:18 - 3:19 carefully. You will find yourself somewhere in that list of ungodly and unrighteous people.
But, notice that the list of ungodly people, including you, is bracketed by the more important verses:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17 ESV)
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:21-24 ESV)
Those promises are valid for everyone on the list of the ungodly. If those promises are not valid for the homosexual, they are not valid for anyone else on the list - including you.
I put my confidence in the promise. It's your choice whether you also want to put your confidence in the promise or in your own ability to keep the law.
Note that you and I have had this conversation before. The above is really all that I have to say on the matter. Please feel free to respond. I will concede the last word to you.
Sharia Law
Reardon said...Why should the government have any involvement in marriage -- of any kind -- to begin with?
In a country that espouses separation of church and state, the government has no legitimate reason to be involved in marriage. "Marriage" should be struck from every local, state and federal government code where that word appears. And, churches should stop serving as instruments of the court in validating civil unions.
The Drones
AndrewLohr said...And the war on fiscal sanity, who is waging that?
K Street
Good News
Conservative - you need to do a more objective analysis of whom receives which benefits from public services. Virtually everything that our government does facilitates free market capitalism. Therefore, income and wealth are reasonable benchmarks for assessing who has received the greatest benefits from public service.
Social security benefits are distributed proportional to the amount paid into the system. Therefore, these benefits really do not factor into the equation that I suggested. People on welfare do receive a benefit that is greater than the taxes that they pay. But, our social services are intended to maintain social stability, an essential for free market capitalism to flourish. The wealthy get a nice return on the investment of their tax dollars in social programs.
Good News
fairmon - a fair tax system would levy taxes proportional to the benefits received from public services. Such a system would be even more progressive than the our current system.
Good News
AndrewLohr said...MT, have you noticed the welfare program in the book of Ruth? Move to a less depressed area, let the poor work hard for minimal wages...
Andrew - have you noticed that Ruth, prior to marrying Boaz, was able to support herself and Naomi on minimum wage. Have you also noticed that, no matter how hard the poor work in this country, they cannot live on minimum wage? Have you noticed the degree to which the federal government subsidizes WalMart because of the amount of money paid out to WalMart employees? Have you noticed the generosity of the 2% compared with Boaz's generosity?