rockmanx
Inccorect. Loving and sex are two differen things. You can love someone but not have sex with them. Sex between two males or two females is the sin. Not love. However we are keeping the law as I will point out later in this post.
Proof that premarital sexual relations is fundamentally against the law of
agape?
Or, in other words, in order for it to be a legitimate commandment of God, it must somehow be represented as a form of violating the law of
agape.
rockmanx
It is a sin. What is sin but going aginst the law/commadment/rules of God. Basically dissobeying God. Even the Herbrew states a man is not to law sexual with a man as he would a woman in Leveticus 18.
This is debatable. There are a number of interpretations that particular prohibitions could have:
engaging in pagan ritualistic sex
engaging in homosexual sex in a woman's bed
engaging in pedastery
and finally, engaging in consensual, love-bound homosexual sex
As there are a number of
possible interpretations, the burden of proof is therefore upon you to verify that the only possible interpretation is in fact the fourth one. And then, of course, explain how this is in violation of the law of
agape.
rockmanx
Sadly marriage is not a right in this country, like driving is not a right. You have to meet the requirements for it.
Those "requirements" can be arbitrarily set. Like holding property. Or being white.
Honestly, is there any legal reason why allowing two consenting adults to engage in a contractual relationship for the benefit of mutual support and legal protection would be so fundamentally unsettling to the legal structure?
This is why the Supreme Court struck down many "requirements" as being unconstitional. I suppose in the next five to ten years we shall finally see whether a county marriage license clerk can also discriminate based off of gender, too.
rockmanx
But the people are the law and if the people don't want accept it in their state for what ever reason, 2/3 makes the law.
If I'm understanding you, then people should be able to, out of solely religious reasons, impede the legal ability for
other people to engage in publicly-recognize contracts?
If a particular religion had something against Latinos, would it be just for them to ban fiestas? What of the civil liberties of piñata-maniacs?
rockmanx
True that a Christian should not let a church dictates how they should vote, but instead how the word of God would have them vote. This requires the person to study the word for themselves. Still it is the place of the pastor to point ou if something goes aginst God's word as well as the people there.
A reasonable argument can be made, based entirely of scriptures, that people should not pay taxes and that alcohol should be banned. However, what is dictated from a religious standpoint is not always feasible, advisable, or wise from a political/judicial standpoint.
HOMG OUTLAW PORK.
rockmanx
Elf Lord Chiewn
You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.
Never heard that marriage was only a Christian term. all culture have their forms of marriage, just the rituals have changed.Then using a Christian definition of marriage to justify withholding a legal status to a minority is particularly unjust, as you recognize that that culture might very well view marriage in a different way.
This is also why bans on polygamy are unjust. As long as everyone is consenting, it does not harm society, and as long as they are unable to get insurance benefits and the legal right to be with their spouse(s) in an emergency room, it hurts the family. There, I've said it: gay marriage bans hurt families. Not idealized families, but real-life, down-to-earth, dad-#1-cookin'-dinner-in-the-kitchen-while-dad-#2-watches-football kind of families.
Y'know, so many people have remarked that it's so much harder to oppose gay marriage when you know at least one couple who would be directly detrimented as a result of said ban. So here's a challenge: meet a gay couple with their own children and household, get to know
and love them, and then turn around and tell them that your religion doesn't accept their lifestyle, therefore you have to rob them of legal protections and privileges that would just be theirs if only one of them had stopped to swap a chromosome.
The Bible doesn't speak against consensual homosexuality because there wasn't an
idea of consensual homosexuality back then. It just wasn't on the radar. As such, the only places you can firmly lay claim to the fact that God finds homosexually repulsive is, ultimately, the individual pastors and theologians who extrapolate based off of turns of phrase and gross
eisegesis. Please do not legislate based off the opinion of well-meaning but legally-inept church folk.
200
200
100
200
200
