 |
| Ottawa |
From the news today, the Canadian Supreme Court has decided that proposed Federal Government legislation allowing same-sex marriage is constitutional. The government, however, cannot force religious organizations to perform homosexual marriages against their beliefs.
The Liberal government will take the court's decision as advisory and will have a vote in the House of Commons on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage.
I would have preferred to see the court state the obvious, that marriage traditionally has encompassed a man and a woman, and for good reasons. The union of a man and woman can, if normal health is present, lead to the sexual production of a family. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the production of a family unit, even if both partners are completely healthy. This is clearly a difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and as one critic argued, the latter are really homosensual unions.
I would have hoped that homosexual unions would have been given civil union status with all the same basic rights of heterosexual marriages, with the understanding that there was by nature a fundamental difference. However, many in our society do not want to reason with these issues but, rather put rights ahead of truth. I support homosexual rights because this is a democracy, but as a Christian, and intellectual, reason also tells me that marriage by definition is sexual and can, under normal circumstances, lead to sexual reproduction. I am not saying that a heterosexual couple that marries and cannot have children is not a valid marriage, nor is a marriage invalid where no children are produced by choice. I am stating that generally, with normal health, a heterosexual marriage includes the natural ability to sexually reproduce, and this is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.
I strongly hope that Christian institutions are, in the future, not in legal trouble because of their rejection of same-sex marriages. I think that Christian organizations need to share the gospel in love with homosexuals, but Christian groups need to keep membership in churches and leadership positions for committed believers who realistically do struggle with sin, but don't openly live lives contrary to Scripture. If the Christian Church, for the most part, keeps its membership clean while still being open to witnessing, then there may be few instances where a member of some Christian group desires to wed someone of the same sex. This would help to avoid the danger of Christian morality and standards being found illegal or unconstitutional by Canadian governments and courts.
 |
| Duffey Lake, British Columbia |
http://www.parl.gc.ca/
ReplyDeleteBILL C-38: THE CIVIL MARRIAGE ACT
C. Religious Marriage (Clause 3)
Clause 3 recognizes that officials of religious denominations may refuse to perform marriages that are at odds with their religious beliefs. It is worth noting that the Court’s reference decision considered a differently worded provision of the draft legislation under which “[n]othing in this Act affects” religious officials’ freedom not to officiate at same-sex marriages. The Court found that provision ultra vires Parliament’s constitutional authority, in that it related to those who may perform marriages, a matter over which provincial legislatures have exclusive competence under subsection 92(12) of the Constitution.(27) A revised version of that provision’s terms is set out in the preamble’s seventh paragraph where, as noted, it serves to provide context and rationale for the legislation.
Ultimately, the Court observed, “it would be for the Provinces, in the exercise of their power over the solemnization of marriage, to legislate in a way that protects the rights of religious officials while providing for solemnization of same-sex marriage” (par. 55). In this regard, the Court added, “[i]t should also be noted that human rights codes must be interpreted and applied in a manner that respects the broad protection granted to religious freedom under the Charter” (par. 55). In the Court’s view, “it … seems clear that state compulsion on religious officials to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs would violate the guarantee of freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter” (par. 58).
Throughout the Bill C-38 legislative process, questions were raised as to whether the recognition language set out at clause 3 is sufficiently distinct from that of the more declaratory language of the former draft provision to pass constitutional muster. The matter may not arise, in the absence of a legal challenge to the provision.
D. Freedom of Conscience and Religion (new clause 3.1)
The House of Commons Legislative Committee heard from a number of witnesses opposing Bill C-38 that a primary concern from their perspective related to the bill’s inadequate protection of religious freedom, and of expressive freedom based on religious belief, for both religious institutions and officials as well as individuals. The absence of parliamentary authority to remedy this perceived failing owing to the constitutional division of powers was seen by these witnesses as particularly problematic. Acknowledging that the solemnization of marriage and other practical contexts in which the guarantee of freedom of religion is engaged largely fall under provincial jurisdiction, some were of the view that the bill could and should enhance the level of protection available in respect of areas of federal jurisdiction. To address this perceived deficiency, the government proposed, and the Committee adopted, a new provision under which,
For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Please see a related blog article where I commented:
ReplyDeletehttp://conblogeration.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-conservatives-oppose-gay-marriage.html
best blog best pics
ReplyDeleteCheers, Roland.
ReplyDeleteFurther comments I made related to this topic:
ReplyDeletehttp://ruthie-zaftig.blogspot.com/2007/03/intolerance.html
A fellow blogger pointed out last night that old persons that get married cannot have children. This is a good point which I overlooked in my article. The physical sexual act of intercourse would be the same for all heterosexual couples and would be natural regardless of whether or not pro-creation could take place. With homosexual acts, the acts remain homosensual as there is no act that could ever lead to pro-creation, although I realize some of these same acts that do not lead to pro-creation are committed in heterosexual relationships. I suppose they could be called heterosensual.
ReplyDeleteFrom the news today, the Canadian Supreme Court has decided that proposed Federal Government legislation allowing same-sex marriage is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteSome Americans, for years, have talked about how great socialized medicine would be, and have commended Canada's system. Now, if Obama becomes President, we may have that. Stupid Americans.
And now, the United States is starting to become just as wicked and evil as Canada is, as far as homosexual marriage. Stupid Americans.
I suspect that America will not enjoy its status as the last remaining superpower much longer, largely because of its wicked rebellion and immorality against God.
Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the production of a family unit, even if both partners are completely healthy.
Yes, and if all marriages were homosexual marriages, the human race would become extinct, possibly within one generation.
I would have hoped that homosexual unions would have been given civil union status with all the same basic rights of heterosexual marriages, with the understanding that there was by nature a fundamental difference.
I would have hoped that it would have remained outlawed, since homosexual marriage, I fully believe, only builds up God's wrath against the country that legalizes it.
Homosexuals are notoriously polygamous when it comes to dating or partners, so I personally do not see them as being faithful in a monogamous relationship. But that is a moot point, because a homosexual marriage is worse than adultery.
Homosexuals don't want equal rights. They want special rights. They want to be able to practice abominable sin and have everyone be fine with it. Maybe we should give pedophiles the same rights with children! After all, most pedophiles are homosexuals, anyway.
Or maybe someone should work to legalize marriage with animals! Maybe a Pastor should perform a marriage ceremony where a man marries a dog or a cat or a goat!
However, many in our society do not want to reason with these issues but, rather put rights ahead of truth.
Exactly. and they want to put rights ahead of morality and obedience to God. They don't want to be accountable to God (though they are merely hiding their heads in the sand, because they cannot escape that).
I support homosexual rights because this is a democracy
Then you are supporting abomination against God.
I am stating that generally, with normal health, a heterosexual marriage includes the natural ability to sexually reproduce, and this is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.
That is one proof of it being unnatural, but that is a minor point compared to the fact that God sees it as an abomination.
I think that Christian organizations need to share the gospel in love with homosexuals, but Christian groups need to keep membership in churches and leadership positions for committed believers who realistically do struggle with sin, but don't openly live lives contrary to Scripture.
This is the one single point where I strongly agree with you. As Christians, we should love homosexuals, and witness to them, but we should not tolerate their sin. There are Christians who were formerly homosexuals, but, after being saved, are now completely heterosexuals (just like there are Christians who were addicted to heroin before they got saved, but, after being regenerated, that addiction immediately disappeared). However, there are also born-again Christians who still struggle with homosexuality (just as there are born-again Christians who still struggle with pornography). And the church should minister to them and offer them help and guidance. Churches such as the Metropolitan churches, which teach that God condones homosexuality, are basically churches of Satan, because they are not Christian churches (except in name), and they are in complete rebellion against God; they are supporting and promoting the agenda of Satan.
If the Christian Church, for the most part, keeps its membership clean while still being open to witnessing, then there may be few instances where a member of some Christian group desires to wed someone of the same sex.
And if any Pastor performs such a 'wedding' ceremony, he is sinning against God.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI think an error you have made is that you fail to see, in legal terms at least, that Christianity has lost the culture war, even in America.
This is a problem with many American fundamentalists and conservatives.
I am not supporting an abomination against God by compromising with laws in order to try and protect my right as a Christian to worship in a church that does not perform same-sex marriages. Do you really think we will get anywhere by trying to force Christian morality as a small minority on the majority of people in the Western world? Please think about it.
In Canada, my compromise position which you incorrectly state is supporting an abomination, was rejected and same-sex marriage was made the law of the land.
If the majority of persons in Canada want same-sex marriage I can support homosexuals right to sin against God in a democracy (although I would not grant them marriage status) as I can support the right of those living in heterosexual sin to sin against God, or I can support the right of some to worship false Gods (Hinduism, Islam) or to twist the gospel of Christ as do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints. If we err too much the other way, and I know you are not suggesting this, we risk a religious theocracy which is also very dangerous.
We can only hope that those in power that hate our beliefs will TOO BE TOLERANT in order that we too can have religious rights.
So Jeff, we too must be tolerant if we want others to tolerate us!
I am not supporting their actions, but merely their right to be wrong. It is also wrong to attempt to force Christian morality on a democratic society that hates God.
In a more moral society I would like to see abortion on demand illegal and homosexuality seen as a psychological problem where people need help.
But, on some secular issues in our present state we must allow persons the right to be wrong, as the majority have supported this in Canada and we do not have the right to prevent it.
God will judge, and as you know no one gets away with anything.
Thanks my friend.
Good one Russ.
ReplyDeleteI see your point.
I would rather live in democratic Australia where stuff happens than the Peoples Republic of China where everything is illegal that's for sure. At least you can go to Church anytime you like in Australia without being arrested.
Russell from the land down under.
Excellent points, Russell.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI think an error you have made is that you fail to see, in legal terms at least, that Christianity has lost the culture war, even in America.
No, I don't fail to see that. But the Christian is still to stand against sin.
If the majority of persons in Canada want same-sex marriage I can support homosexuals right to sin against God in a democracy (although I would not grant them marriage status) as I can support the right of those living in heterosexual sin to sin against God, or I can support the right of some to worship false Gods (Hinduism, Islam) or to twist the gospel of Christ as do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints.
Freedom of Religion is not the same as morality. Would you support the right to murder? Would you support the right to rape? If pedophilia ever became legalized, or underage marriage ever became legalized, and if you had a daughter, would you support the right for a 45-year-old man to marry your 10-year-old daughter?
If we support immorality, where does it stop?
We can only hope that those in power that hate our beliefs will TOO BE TOLERANT in order that we too can have religious rights.
So Jeff, we too must be tolerant if we want others to tolerate us!
Again, you're mistaking religious rights with immorality. The two are not the same. Moral rights are different from religious rights.
I suspect that, if you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have fully supported Hitler.
HI guys, seems like the debate has heated up a bit. The bow has been drawn and now Russ somehow would have supported Hitler. Wow.
ReplyDeleteWhile I live in a democratic society and believe in it I very often dont agree with the decisions that are made. They are wrong and I thought Russ made the point somewhere.
The question I ask people is, "how do you stop sin from happening?" March, placards, petitions, or whatever. WWJD. Not sure he would have done any of that stuff but certianly did not condone sin.
As I mentioned in a comment previously I was attacked or ambushed by a very learned Hindu (Doctor of Medicine) and an Atheist on Saturday night. I felt I gave a good defence of the Christian faith while not once putting down their immoral behaviour and un-Christlike manner.
I think sometimes fighting fire with fire is not what Christ would have done.
Just a thought.
Russell, still down under, but next Monday heading off to the Philippines and China.
Exactly, Russell.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be more deep consideration of what I am stating here.
Cheers.
I think an error you have made is that you fail to see, in legal terms at least, that Christianity has lost the culture war, even in America.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't fail to see that.
I disagree.
But the Christian is still to stand against sin.
We are to stand against sin, but also realize that in a democracy the state may establish laws that are not Biblical. The state may have laws that are sinful. This may be the will of the majority of people.
We are not to attempt to eradicate all evil, we are to live and proclaim the gospel. We do not in an extreme case set up a gang and blow up abortion clinics or Hell's Angels' club houses.
I am not stating that is your view.
We can support in general terms the rights of persons to live ungodly lives, without supporting each and every law. This includes to a point immorality and false religion where these rights are given. That is why I can support rights for homosexuals as a compromise by the will of the people, in a democracy without violating Biblical views on marriage. Therefore my article opposes same-sex marriage. Clearly people live as homosexual couples freely in Canada, and the government has recognized this fact. I think it is wrong for it to be marriage, but understand these people have rights to be a legal couple according to the state and apparently the will of the people. I do not support this as morally right, but as a right, as by nature a right in the kind of democracy we have, and the kind of democracy where I can be a Christian and the vast majority of people are not.
I therefore acknowledge these democratic rights, the same type of rights that allow me to have a Christian worldview in public as a member of a religious minority. I DO NOT support them in the sense of moral or religious agreement and do not believe homosexuals can have Biblical marriage within the Church.
I do not support abortion on demand, but realize the state reasons women do have some rights over their own body. Western states have erred with these rights and I do not have the personal right to prevent a woman from having an abortion.
If the majority of persons in Canada want same-sex marriage I can support homosexuals' rights to sin against God in a democracy (although I would not grant them marriage status) as I can support the right of those living in heterosexual sin to sin against God, or I can support the right of some to worship false Gods (Hinduism, Islam) or to twist the gospel of Christ as do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints.
Freedom of Religion is not the same as morality. Would you support the right to murder? Would you support the right to rape? If pedophilia ever became legalized, or underage marriage ever became legalized, and if you had a daughter, would you support the right for a 45-year-old man to marry your 10-year-old daughter?
If we support immorality, where does it stop?
Your reply is not balanced or well-thought out. I stated in the article I do not support same-sex marriage and so clearly I do have limits. You go to extremes without carefully considering the subtly of what I am stating.
I do not support murder, but do I have the right by force to prevent a woman from having an abortion? Again, Jeff, think about it. Can we logically sustain anti-abortion laws when the majority of persons in the West are pro-choice? I do not support pro-choice or same-sex marriage, but at the same time it is not God's will for me to support laws, which would fail anyway, which force my minority views on others.
Even God will not force his rule. Those outside of Christ, likely the majority, are sent to the lake of fire and are not within the Kingdom of God. If God does not force his rule on the unregenerate, neither should we. I support in general and limited terms, as noted, the democratic rights of persons to live in a sinful world with unBiblical principles.
We can only hope that those in power that hate our beliefs will TOO BE TOLERANT in order that we too can have religious rights.
So Jeff, we too must be tolerant if we want others to tolerate us!
Again, you're mistaking religious rights with immorality. The two are not the same. Moral rights are different from religious rights.
So what is your point? Are you going to force a Christian view of moral and religious rights on a secular majority?
I suspect that, if you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have fully supported Hitler.
Nonsense, you need to cool off and think and pray. I have already taken a stand against the evil of same-sex marriage and therefore have limits as noted.
I may or may not have participated in an attempt to overthrow the Nazis (see Romans 13), but I would not support them as I do not support dictatorships.
Your friend,
Russ:)
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteAfter considering that point more, I changed my mind. In America, we have not yet lost the cultural war (and I think that we are the only country in the world that can claim this). You have, but we have not. I believe that we eventually will, and it could be soon, but we are still fighting it. Even some people in Washington and in Hollywood are fighting it. I do think that you are right in the sense that we are losing, but we are still fighting, and we are still making some advances at times. In general, however, the large number of Christians in this country are, in many ways, asleep, as too many of them prefer to keep within the walls of their local church, rather than taking more action.
We are not to attempt to eradicate all evil, we are to live and proclaim the gospel. We do not in an extreme case set up a gang and blow up abortion clinics or Hell's Angels' club houses.
And who was advocating that? Certainly not me. I would never do or advocate anything like that.
It is also wrong to attempt to force Christian morality on a democratic society that hates God.
Then, by that same logic, it is wrong to force gay marriage on a society where the majority is against it, which is the case in America.
Can we logically sustain anti-abortion laws when the majority of persons in the West are pro-choice?
Actually, in the United States at least, the majority of persons are not pro-choice. However, the media here, and lobbyists, are largely pro-choice (and so they try to portray that the majority are pro-choice), and they are the ones that speak louder (and often have more money), even though they are actually the minority.
I do not support murder, but do I have the right by force to prevent a woman from having an abortion?
I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S., you DO have the right to speak out against it, or even peacefully protest against it. And I never said anything about force.
I do not support pro-choice or same-sex marriage, but at the same time it is not God's will for me to support laws, which would fail anyway, which force my minority views on others.
Is it God's wills for the tiny minority of gays (in the U.S., because I can't speak for any other country) to force their minority views on others?
Even God will not force his rule.
False. If Jesus reigns on this earth for 1000 years, He certainly will force His rule. And, in eternity, once again, He certainly will force His rule. He only does not do so now, because He is allowing those who are rebelling against Him so wickedly, time to repent.
Those outside of Christ, likely the majority, are sent to the lake of fire and are not within the Kingdom of God. If God does not force his rule on the unregenerate, neither should we.
And you don't think that is God forcing His will on the unregenerate? Do you actually think the unregenerate will skip happily into the Lake of Fire, singing as they go?
We can only hope that those in power that hate our beliefs will TOO BE TOLERANT in order that we too can have religious rights.
The minority forcing their will to be legalized, to the point of jailing Christians here in the U.S. when they disagree (which is already happening here), is a demonstration of their intolerance. You can only hope that they will not be any more intolerant than they already are, which is likely a vain hope, because their intolerance will likely grow to become even more intolerant against Christians.
As far as supporting the Nazis, you probably would not have fully supported them, so I was wrong in saying that.
I may have misunderstood you Russ, since in one paragraph you say you support gay marriage, and in another paragraph you say you don't support it. I see gay marriage as being worse than abortion, and having even more negative ramifications than abortion does, and I also see it as worse than murder, in God's eyes. Therefore, I become furious when I hear people supporting it, because I think it is something that sickens and disgusts God. And, in that mindset, I was seeing you as having liberal influences, and did not catch the subtleties of what you were saying. So, I apologize for my rash remarks.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Russ,
ReplyDeletePart of my fury was also because I had just made a comment on another blog site that talked about the upcoming vote on gay marriage in Florida, and almost all the (pro-gay marriage and/or anti-Christian) commenters were attacking the author of the blog post, so I fully expect them to now aim their guns at me, and accuse me of bigotry and homophobia, and call me a hate-monger. Then, after reading your subtle post and comments immediately after that, it seemed that you were, at least in part, taking their side, or at least compromising. So, in that sense, I felt somewhat betrayed. But again, I was viewing it from a perspective of expecting a full onslaught attack on that other site (plus, having been verbally attacked in the past on this issue), and, when you did not come out and say outright that it was wicked and evil, but instead, used subtle language, I misinterpreted what you were saying, and I felt like you were partially supporting those who are very likely about to attack me.
So, again, that's part of the reason why I went overboard with my remarks.
I was just doing some quick research to see how accurate my "majority" statements were, regarding the U.S.
ReplyDeleteRegarding abortion, according to American Conservative Daily:
"A new poll conducted by CBS News makes it clear that a majority of Americans are pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion.
The October survey finds 54 percent of Americans take one of three pro-life positions opposing all or almost all abortions and another 16 percent want more restrictions on it.
The October 12-16 poll asked Americans to tell CBS News their “personal feelings” on abortion. The survey found that 16 percent of the public only favors allowing abortions “only to save woman’s life” and another 34 percent think abortions should only be allowed in the very rare cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.
Another four percent of Americans want all abortions to be made illegal.
With the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Alan Guttmacher Institute showing that less than two percent of all abortions are done in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life, the CBS News poll shows 54 percent of Americans oppose 98 percent of all abortions.
According to the survey, just 26 percent of the public wants abortions permitted in all cases. Another 16 percent want abortions to remain legal but to be subject to greater restrictions than they currently face."
As far as gay marriage, back in Dec. 2003, according to CBS News:
"Despite last month’s Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that the state could not deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, Americans continue to oppose laws allowing homosexual couples to marry or to form civil unions -- and the number opposing gay marriage is higher now than it was in July before the Massachusetts action.
Some 61 percent of respondents in a CBS News/New York Times poll said they were against gay marriage, up from 55 percent in July, and only 34 percent said they favor gay marriage, down from 40 percent five months ago."
Then, in June 2008, CBS News reports:
"...30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry..."
"In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry."
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteAfter considering that point more, I changed my mind. In America, we have not yet lost the cultural war (and I think that we are the only country in the world that can claim this). You have, but we have not. I believe that we eventually will, and it could be soon, but we are still fighting it. Even some people in Washington and in Hollywood are fighting it. I do think that you are right in the sense that we are losing, but we are still fighting, and we are still making some advances at times. In general, however, the large number of Christians in this country are, in many ways, asleep, as too many of them prefer to keep within the walls of their local church, rather than taking more action.
We are not to attempt to eradicate all evil, we are to live and proclaim the gospel. We do not in an extreme case set up a gang and blow up abortion clinics or Hell's Angels' club houses.
And who was advocating that? Certainly not me. I would never do or advocate anything like that.
I stated:
I am not stating that is your view. But, it was not in the original version, but I added clarity to the comment.
I do think the culture war is lost, at least for now.
It is also wrong to attempt to force Christian morality on a democratic society that hates God.
Then, by that same logic, it is wrong to force gay marriage on a society where the majority is against it, which is the case in America.
I never stated it should be forced. I am against same-sex marriage and always have been.
Can we logically sustain anti-abortion laws when the majority of persons in the West are pro-choice?
Actually, in the United States at least, the majority of persons are not pro-choice. However, the media here, and lobbyists, are largely pro-choice (and so they try to portray that the majority are pro-choice), and they are the ones that speak louder (and often have more money), even though they are actually the minority.
In the West, I stated.
I do not support murder, but do I have the right by force to prevent a woman from having an abortion?
I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S., you DO have the right to speak out against it, or even peacefully protest against it. And I never said anything about force.
We do have rights, to what exact extent I do not know.
I do not support pro-choice or same-sex marriage, but at the same time it is not God's will for me to support laws, which would fail anyway, which force my minority views on others.
Is it God's wills for the tiny minority of gays (in the U.S., because I can't speak for any other country) to force their minority views on others?
I do not support it being forced, nor was the article suggesting that it should be.
Even God will not force his rule.
False. If Jesus reigns on this earth for 1000 years, He certainly will force His rule. And, in eternity, once again, He certainly will force His rule. He only does not do so now, because He is allowing those who are rebelling against Him so wickedly, time to repent.
I realize that Jeff, as you know. You make a good point. God will bring about rule, but in the context I stated he will not force unregenerate persons to believe in him and be ruled by him, either in the millennium, if a literal thousand years or in the culminated Kingdom. Compatibilism/soft-determinism does not reason humans are forced or coerced.
If there is a literal millenium, Christ will rule, but after the millenium there is a rebellion, and so it appears these persons still freely rejected God. Again, God does not force rule in the sense of belief and I doubt these rebellious persons were sinless or followers during the millenium even with God's law. I gather that they would probably be breaking laws before the end of the millenium quite possibly. Perhaps this would mean instant death.
Those outside of Christ, likely the majority, are sent to the lake of fire and are not within the Kingdom of God. If God does not force his rule on the unregenerate, neither should we.
And you don't think that is God forcing His will on the unregenerate? Do you actually think the unregenerate will skip happily into the Lake of Fire, singing as they go?
Again, not in the context I noted, of course he is sending persons to the lake of fire. That point was never debated, in fact I brought it up!
In a sense they are freely away from God and his earthly rule in the lake of fire, and there is no force or coercion in the context I mentioned which was earthly belief and following God and his laws!
We can only hope that those in power that hate our beliefs will TOO BE TOLERANT in order that we too can have religious rights.
The minority forcing their will to be legalized, to the point of jailing Christians here in the U.S. when they disagree (which is already happening here), is a demonstration of their intolerance. You can only hope that they will not be any more intolerant than they already are, which is likely a vain hope, because their intolerance will likely grow to become even more intolerant against Christians.
As far as supporting the Nazis, you probably would not have fully supported them, so I was wrong in saying that.
I may have misunderstood you Russ, since in one paragraph you say you support gay marriage, and in another paragraph you say you don't support it. I see gay marriage as being worse than abortion, and having even more negative ramifications than abortion does, and I also see it as worse than murder, in God's eyes. Therefore, I become furious when I hear people supporting it, because I think it is something that sickens and disgusts God. And, in that mindset, I was seeing you as having liberal influences, and did not catch the subtleties of what you were saying. So, I apologize for my rash remarks.
Jeff, I DO NOT ANYWHERE SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE in this article!
I would not support Nazis, Communists or like.
I accept your apology. My Mom says be nice we are supposed to be friends...to me.
Jeff, please realize this was written as a political, philosophical piece and not primarily a theological/Biblical piece like my other articles on homosexuality.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Agreed, and we also need to pick our battles.
Thanks for the information and support Jeff and Russell.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I hope we understand each now.
God bless you my brothers!
The article was written as if a homosexual was reading it, as well as a Christian. I therefore concede basic rights in Canada (civil union) but take a stand for Biblical marriage and deny that same-sex marriage can be such. The article was as noted not primarily a theological/Biblical piece but a political/philosophical one.
ReplyDeleteI am also opposed to homosexual adoption.
Jeff, please realize this was written as a political, philosophical piece and not primarily a theological/Biblical piece like my other articles on homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think I did not take it in the context in which it was written. I read it in the midst of our upcoming vote on it here, and also, as I stated, immediately after I posted a comment on a blog site that I am expecting a lot of hateful replies against me. I also recently researched the awful medical consequences of homosexuality, and in the midst of doing that, had to wade through the sick, perverted practices that homosexuals partake of, which includes even more perversions than what I realized (including pedophilia and other things).
After viewing a DVD of the radical, extremist Muslim agenda to take over the world, and their attacks in virtually every country of the world over the past several years or so, and thinking about 9/11, the tsuami, record-breaking hurricanes, children killing children in the past couple or so decades, and now the worldwide financial disaster we are experiencing (plus the emergency tactics which Bush took today, which helps on a very temporary basis, but may very well end in disaster)...
After considering all of these things, and now watching as the world is becoming more and more a global Sodom and Gomorrah, I am convinced that this is a time when Christians need to wake up, because prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes, and things will not only get worse, but it is looking more and more like the Great Tribulation may occur in our lifetime (maybe even in the next few years), if the Rapture does not occur first.
I am thinking that I may very well end up spending time in prison for taking a stand for Christ, or possibly even killed. Christians alive today, even in America, may have to endure physical torture for our beliefs. The other day, I watched a video of a man in the U.S. who had to go to jail because he complained about his kindergarten child being brainwashed to accept homosexuality and gay marriage in school. Even in the U.S., parents no longer have rights. And soon, if a Pastor speaks out in the pulpit against gay marriage, he may have to go to jail or prison. Of course, in many countries of the world (especially Communist and Muslim countries), physical persecution against Christians has been going on for a long time now.
Please watch this video concerning Gay Marriage
I don't understand the need for gay marriage when civil unions provide all the same legal recognition. Heterosexual couples are increasing choosing civil unions over marriage because they have no desire for a Biblically-based commitment. Why would homosexuals demand acceptance of gay marriage unless it was to go beyond mere tolerance, and demand approval from churches? Even though the claim is made that ministers would not be forced to perform gay marriages against their beliefs, it is very likely that the number of churches endorsing gay marriage will only continue to grow, and that negative public pressure against so-called intolerant churches will also grow, possibly to the point where it may be practically impossible to survive as a traditional church. God will preserve His children no matter what happens, of course.
ReplyDeleteThose are good points, Chuck.
ReplyDeleteBut as you know some would like full recognition, and some would like no legal recognition at all for homosexual relationships.
Like me, you suggest a compromise in light of the secular nature of our society.
Trawling through your backpages here and came across this your first post. I think it perfectly reasonable that Monotheism, in this case Christianity abides by its own club rules. Immoral in my eyes but noeetheless part of the curriculum, part of the rule book. However, one thing I note that is wrong is this statement...I would have preferred to see the court state the obvious, that marriage traditionally has encompassed a man and a woman, and for good reasons. The union of a man and woman can, if normal health is present, lead to the sexual production of a family. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the production of a family unit, even if both partners are completely healthy. This is clearly a difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and as one critic argued, the latter are really homosensual unions." My eldest daughter and her lover are about to engage on havig a family. Ria does not want to conceive or give birth but my daughter does. It will be a natural birth. Male sperm meets female eggs. After that two Lesbians will have a family. Homosexuals therefore can have children.
ReplyDeleteTrawling through your backpages here and came across this your first post. I think it perfectly reasonable that Monotheism, in this case Christianity abides by its own club rules. Immoral in my eyes but noeetheless part of the curriculum, part of the rule book. However, one thing I note that is wrong is this statement...I would have preferred to see the court state the obvious, that marriage traditionally has encompassed a man and a woman, and for good reasons. The union of a man and woman can, if normal health is present, lead to the sexual production of a family. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the production of a family unit, even if both partners are completely healthy. This is clearly a difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and as one critic argued, the latter are really homosensual unions." My eldest daughter and her lover are about to engage on havig a family. Ria does not want to conceive or give birth but my daughter does. It will be a natural birth. Male sperm meets female eggs. After that two Lesbians will have a family. Homosexuals therefore can have children.
ReplyDeleteYes, they can have children, but not by only or truly natural means. There is a third party male involved. Of course any female that is of age and healthy can have a child, even lesbians.
ReplyDeleteDepends on how you define 'natural' here. Natural birth but not process. Something else must be entered into the equation for a homosexual to have a child. That is the point, sir.
@ work thanks my friend.
BTW, I wish your daughter and partner well, even with my disagreement. To be clear.:)