Why is gay marriage part of the anti-Christian movement….

No, not pure folly, although imo questionable. But going by the general tone of what Christ is purported to have said and taught I think that they have the advantage. Although again, it's not really my area.

 

Perhaps you should read the chapter again... I don't think the context applies here at all.

He gave love to them. He treated them with love.

It's not love to deny others the civil privileges I enjoy, just because I might be disapproving of it, regardless of what my religion says.

It wasn't. It was invoked against gay marriage, at which point I pointed out - quite correctly, unlike you - the folly of doing that.

 

It doesn't matter what you think, because you're an enemy of Christ.

Yes it was, by you.

 

Like I said, "love" doesn't require or even involve tax breaks and entitlements

Jesus didn't deny anyone's civil privileges. It would have been Roman law and it didn't have a thing to do with religion.

 

Cute.

Go back and read the OP. Count how many times the name Jesus appears in it.

I preemptively accept your admission of willful ignorance.

You're missing the point.

There are two possible sides in the debate - either you are for or against legalization of civil same-sex marriage. The OP argues that, if you are a Christian, you have to be against same-sex marriage. I am arguing that it's not nearly as simple as the OP makes it out to be; that treating those brothers and sisters with love would mean allowing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, because it is what they so strongly desire.
It's certainly more loving than denying them that right.

 

Not all Christians are against homosexuals.

 

You are right. So let's repeal all tax breaks and entitlements for heterosexual marriages since "love" doesn't require or even involve tax breaks and entitlements.

 

Amen to that!

 

They are not given because of love to heterosexuals. The OP wanted them given to homosexuals because of love.

 

I think your thought is convoluted and specious; in any case, homosexual couples should NOT be discriminated against, because it isn't constitutional.

 

No, the OP on this thread said that Christians should be against legal same-sex marriage because of their religious teachings.

I said that, given a dichotomy of being either for or against legal, civil, same-sex marriage, being for it is a more Christian perspective than being against it.

You're the one that's extending that simple statement into needless irrelevancies.

 

Has nothing to do with their homosexuality. two people of the same sex don't make babies, regardless of their sexuality.

 

Satan Rules on this Earth....God Rules throughout the Universe and in Heaven.

Mankind has been given the choice by God, which direction to choose. The side of Evil and Sin or Good.

Those that choose Satans Evil and Sin....After life on Earth - Burn in eternal Hell.
Those that choose God's way....After life on Earth - Share Life Eternal in Heaven.

There are many that choose the way of the Evil and Sin. Thus there is no Homosexuals in Heaven.

God did not create homosexuals. - Satan did.

FACT ​

 

Cute, nothing. It's true.

Doesn't matter. You invoked the name of Christ in support of "gay marriage" and then said you didn't, so you're lying.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you were looking in a mirror as you typed this.

 

I often times WISH, that Jesus had addressed specifically or directly, what Christians were to say/do concerning homosexual people.

And it's irrelevant what you emphasize above; sorry to tell you jb... that while babies are sometimes made because of sexual activity, that is NOT all that sexual activity is about. And yes, what I said applies to homosexual people as well.

I'm sure that you have your values/beliefs... but so do others; you cannot expect others to honor or hold to the same. Well, you can do that... but it would be foolish to do so.

 

LOLOL, I didnt say it was what sex was about. Its what marriage laws are about

I think constitutional requirements regarding discrimination should always be adhered to and I think everyone should hold the same view.

 

In any case, people/laws SHOULD NOT be discriminating against homosexual people; that is clearly the bottom line where most Americans are concerned.

You can chuckle, guffaw, whatever... but I'm dead-serious about what I advocate in this matter. I may not be perfectly on-point or even the best communicator... but I won't stop trying to change this society (even a little bit at a time); I've already seen it make a big difference over time.

I can't (generally) argue with that; but as we know, the 'devil' is in the details.

 

There is no discrimination. It is gays who choose not to enter marriages.

 

You lie.

You lie, again.

 

dixon, making babies has nothing to do with marriage.

 

unfortunately, you'll need to prove the existance of a god, satan, heaven and hell before you declare it as "fact".

good luck

 

same argument was used against interracial marriage. it didn't work then either.

 

Marriage is not about making babies. First of all, people have babies all the time without being married. Secondly, there is no fertility test that must be passed before a couple can marry. Heterosexuals who are infertile can marry. Finally, children are not even mentioned in traditional marriage vows.

Marriage is about economics. In almost every culture, marriage involves some type of economic or political activity. There are dowries, land ownership, hereditary titles, lines of succession, community property, tax breaks, and alimony. Nobody signs a prenuptial agreement before they get married stating that they must bear children, but people do sign prenuptial agreements on how assets are to be divided.

 

Correct, when the woman is married, the dad is identified, and his obligations to both his children and their mother is established and the child has the benefit of both mom and dad together in a stable home, to care and provide for the children.

If she is single, the father might not even be known and has no obligation under the law unless he is identified. And even if he is, he has no obligation to support the woman he got pregnant. And the child doesnt have the benefit of both mom and dad together in a stable home, to care and provide for the child.

Encouraging sexually active couples made up of a man and a woman to marry before babies are born leads to more children in stable homes with both mom and dad and fewer children with only a single mother to rely upon.

But for the potential of births its doubtful the institution off marriage would have even evolved. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples to discriminate against homosexuals, its limited to heterosexual couples because they are the only ones who make babies. Husband and wife, father, mother and children. It's biology. Thats why even in cultures where homosexuality was accepted, they weren't marrying gay couples.