Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

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

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please address the OP and not one another. If this does not deescalate the thread will be locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Those who would persecute Christians dream up rationalizations for a pretense that their desired oppression is somehow virtuous. One way is to dismiss the values and freedoms that correspond with Christianity by saying those values and freedoms are religious and therefor invalid as part of a "secular" society.

 

Traditional marriage is a universal value, held by all secular societies and all religions, except societies were Christianity is fading. It is an anti-Christian value, not a secular value. But, someone looking to persecute Christians is not going to care about 1) Something that is a Christian value is as least as valid as other values. And, 2) Traditional marriage is a universal secular value, except in societies that are rebelling against Christian values.

 

Churches that support SSM are apostate, not just because this shows they dismiss the authority in scripture and God's values (no love of God), but also because they have no respect for the freedom and conscience of their fellow man (no love of their neighbors). From a Christian perspective, they are reprobates. From a secular perspective, they are tyrants.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m so grateful that not all followers of Christ are condemning of others but rather try to show understanding and mercy…as Christ Himself showed. This doesn’t mean we condone sin, it means we are not merciless. We are all sinners, and Jesus came to save us all. But, to each their own. I have often found it sadly amusing that so many Christians take issue with homosexuality as if it is the only grave sin of all mankind, and forget that heterosexuals commit sexual sin. But, many Christians who are heterosexual don’t want to pull the plank from their own eyes, it’s far easier to point out the ones in their neighbors’ eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This doesn’t mean we condone sin,

 

Have you checked the dictionary for the meaning of "condone"? You don't think supporting the government giving a blessing to a sin is condoning sin? Then there's the other half of government condoning sin, and that's condemning the righteous.

 

I have often found it sadly amusing that so many Christians take issue with homosexuality as if it is the only grave sin of all mankind

 

Right, the sin of Sodom isn't the only sin. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality... Any church that gives open approval to idolatry or adultery, I also won't hesitate to call apostate. But, the topic of this thread isn't idolatry or adultery. Still, when the "tolerant" fascists start fining cake bakers and putting them out of business for refusing to make "happy cheating" cakes for adulterers, I'll be sure to condemn the reprobate tyrants who support such oppression of Christians and everyone of morality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't spend my time pointing out the sins of others, because I'm fallible myself. I'm aware of what Christianity teaches on various moral matters, but if you wish to influence people to Christ, throwing stones at them, and acting superior to them, won't accomplish it. I understand your anger at how the world treats Christians, or how the world's immorality has become ''accepted.'' But, Jesus tells us that while we live in the world, we are not of the world. That should bring us hope. That should BE our message of hope for those who don't yet follow Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy