Christian news - breaking headlines from around the United States and the world. Trending hot topics in Christianity.

Ted Cruz Says Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption Should be Left up to the States

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ted Cruz Says Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption Should be Left up to the States

    Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said during Thursday’s GOP debate that he is in favor of leaving the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption up to the states.



    More...

  • #2
    I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Deidre View Post
      I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?
      Hi Deidre,

      I came away from the article recognizing that Ted Cruz will limit himself and his powers by the Constitution. He is a man that draws from the intentions of America's forefathers.

      As for marriage. Traditional marriage never discriminated against anyone. Any man or woman could enter into marriage - a covenant under God. The problem is, homosexual activist do no want equal rights, they want to redefine marriage. The definition of traditional marriage, again, does not discriminate against any man or woman. Any man or woman may enter into a covenant which the state recognized as being between one man and woman under God. This makes the homosexual activists a special interests group. If they were fighting for equal rights then they would fight for any other combination depraved man sees fit. Lastly, I think you're drawing on contract law. Any man, woman, and combination thereof may enter a contract under the state. Whether this needs special recognition or just a notary is up to the state.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Deidre View Post
        I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?
        From a secular perspective, homosexuality is immoral. It doesn't have reproductive value, nor offer male+female parental role models to children. Male homosexuality is very efficient at spreading disease. Homosexuality creates all sorts of modestly challenges, such as when it comes to public restrooms. Homosexuality (especially as the more common version of it, bisexuality) also makes it harder to trust a partner around other people. And, all this assumes that homosexuality is nothing but a different orientation. In reality, homosexuals are at a much greater risk of other mental, moral, and criminal problems.

        Excuse me, but that's a load of complete of flaming pig manure that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. Before SSM, consenting homosexuals already had the freedom to live as they wished (for anyone truly of a libertarian philosophy). SSM is about denying consent to adults. SSM is about the government forcefully promoting this immoral behavior and about the government forcefully prohibiting other people from choosing not to support SSM relationships.

        No follower of Jesus supports SSM.


        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Cornelius View Post

          From a secular perspective, homosexuality is immoral. It doesn't have reproductive value, nor offer male+female parental role models to children. Male homosexuality is very efficient at spreading disease. Homosexuality creates all sorts of modestly challenges, such as when it comes to public restrooms. Homosexuality (especially as the more common version of it, bisexuality) also makes it harder to trust a partner around other people. And, all this assumes that homosexuality is nothing but a different orientation. In reality, homosexuals are at a much greater risk of other mental, moral, and criminal problems.

          Excuse me, but that's a load of complete of flaming pig manure that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. Before SSM, consenting homosexuals already had the freedom to live as they wished (for anyone truly of a libertarian philosophy). SSM is about denying consent to adults. SSM is about the government forcefully promoting this immoral behavior and about the government forcefully prohibiting other people from choosing not to support SSM relationships.

          No follower of Jesus supports SSM.

          Your morality is dictated by your faith, as mine is. But, for many, morality is subjective, and they don't consider homosexuality to be immoral. We are not governed by Christianity, we have a secular government.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by William View Post

            Hi Deidre,

            I came away from the article recognizing that Ted Cruz will limit himself and his powers by the Constitution. He is a man that draws from the intentions of America's forefathers.

            As for marriage. Traditional marriage never discriminated against anyone. Any man or woman could enter into marriage - a covenant under God. The problem is, homosexual activist do no want equal rights, they want to redefine marriage. The definition of traditional marriage, again, does not discriminate against any man or woman. Any man or woman may enter into a covenant which the state recognized as being between one man and woman under God. This makes the homosexual activists a special interests group. If they were fighting for equal rights then they would fight for any other combination depraved man sees fit. Lastly, I think you're drawing on contract law. Any man, woman, and combination thereof may enter a contract under the state. Whether this needs special recognition or just a notary is up to the state.

            God bless,
            William
            Hi William, I like your thoughts to it. But, what do you mean that the definition of traditional marriage doesn't discriminate against any man or woman?
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Deidre View Post
              Hi William, I like your thoughts to it. But, what do you mean that the definition of traditional marriage doesn't discriminate against any man or woman?
              Traditional marriage is an exclusive permanent union between one man and one woman. Take for example, Genesis 1:28, which does not discriminate against race or even religious affiliation. God established a bond with Adam and Eve and all their descendants. The requirements of this covenant are binding upon everyone who has ever lived, since all people are ultimately descended from them.

              Now homosexual activist have attempted to redefine not only traditional marriage, but also what it means to be a "man" and/or a "woman". I agree with Ted Cruz leaving how states deal with homosexual union/contracts or adoption to the state. Lest the Supreme Court deems the state courts incompetent and incapable of defining what is or not a marriage, therefore, making them incompetent and incapable of either honoring or dissolving (divorce) marriages.

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>

              • #8
                But, you are drawing upon the Bible, which only we Christians care about. So, while I hear you ...if someone is an atheist, or a believer but doesn't follow the Bible, their sense of what defines a marriage, will be different than a Christian's ideal. This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not. I don't want to be governed by any religion, there is a need to keep separation of church and state. But, at the same time, I see the slippery slope that redefining marriage will have on other groups of people who wish to validate their marriages, legally. (ie this could stretch into polygamy, etc)
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                  But, you are drawing upon the Bible, which only we Christians care about. So, while I hear you ...if someone is an atheist, or a believer but doesn't follow the Bible, their sense of what defines a marriage, will be different than a Christian's ideal. This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not. I don't want to be governed by any religion, there is a need to keep separation of church and state. But, at the same time, I see the slippery slope that redefining marriage will have on other groups of people who wish to validate their marriages, legally. (ie this could stretch into polygamy, etc)
                  Hello Deidre,

                  I can definitely acknowledge post modernism's influence on recent generations. The above ideas about secularism are rather new to American history. Here's an interesting article on the subject which I think you might enjoy reading: Supreme Court Justice Scalia: Constitution says government can favor religion

                  God bless,
                  William
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                    Your morality is dictated by your faith, as mine is. But, for many, morality is subjective, and they don't consider homosexuality to be immoral. We are not governed by Christianity, we have a secular government.
                    Your support of SSM shows that your morality is not dictated by the Christian faith. And, you can't have it both ways.

                    Morality is not subjected. Any behavior that lacks practical value but is harmful is immoral. Homosexual conduct has no practical value to society, but is harmful, therefor it is immoral.

                    The purpose of getting government in SSM is to take away our rights of consent.

                    Deidr, you have no defense for you position. It is immoral and tyrannical, and not a position that a follower of Christ can hold. Take a look, it's only the "Christian" countries that have SSM. Atheists, when not rebelling against Christianity (e.g. China and Russia) reject SSM. Non-Christian countries around the world universally reject SSM. See, what you're really doing is rebelling against Christ. You're not taking a secular position, you're taking an anti-Christian position.

                    Any church that supports SSM is apostate. Period.

                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post

                      Your support of SSM shows that your morality is not dictated by the Christian faith. And, you can't have it both ways.

                      Morality is not subjected. Any behavior that lacks practical value but is harmful is immoral. Homosexual conduct has no practical value to society, but is harmful, therefor it is immoral.

                      The purpose of getting government in SSM is to take away our rights of consent.

                      Deidr, you have no defense for you position. It is immoral and tyrannical, and not a position that a follower of Christ can hold. Take a look, it's only the "Christian" countries that have SSM. Atheists, when not rebelling against Christianity (e.g. China and Russia) reject SSM. Non-Christian countries around the world universally reject SSM. See, what you're really doing is rebelling against Christ. You're not taking a secular position, you're taking an anti-Christian position.

                      Any church that supports SSM is apostate. Period.
                      You are not in a place to judge me, so spare me your lecture.You have no right to tell another person if they are living a moral life or not, and what type of relationship they have with Christ. I'm not taking any position on the topic, I'm discussing it. Your reaction is so negative, and it really doesn't help Christianity to tear down someone else in Christ. If you continue, I will ask that you no longer address me here. Thank you.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Last edited by DOMINICHI; 03-07-2016, 01:29 AM.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                          You have no right to tell another person if they are living a moral life or not,
                          Why not? Liberals do it all the time. You want the government to tell me that same-sex marriage is moral. You want the government to do more than that.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Please address the OP and not one another. If this does not deescalate the thread will be locked.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                              This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not.
                              All people and geovernments are governed first by God, whether they acknowledge it or not. Also, opposition to SSM is not an exclusively Christian belief. As far as I know all religions and cultures throughout history have recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.
                              Clyde Herrin's Blog
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap