Posted on 12/07/2012 12:34:14 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Edited on 01/07/2013 10:04:55 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes, it most certainly is a gang-land style attack on Christianity.
I’ve caught some flack in the past for my stated position that some homosexuals may actually be “born that way.” So, I’ll publish the Scripture that leads me to believe this.
Romans 9:19-23 NIV
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
Sodom and Gomorrah. I am no longer praying for America, except to ask the people return to the beliefs of the founding. The Government we elected is utterly corrupt and the devil is so busy I don’t know how he gets all this work done.
Amen and Amen!
“I see nothing in the previous jurisprudence that shows this will be anything other than a 5-4 vote overturning the lower courts and upholding the laws. Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Kennedy/Alito will stick together on this one. The four others will too but will be in the minority — for now.”
How bout Roemer and Lawrence?
The question is if the meaning of a word can be wholesale re-written AND the people have no say in the matter.
Unfortunately, the Prop 8 case won't be decided in that fashion. It will simply be a standing denial. With a confusing ruling that doesn't support marriage.
MAYBE... Cause unknown there are as well people that are more inclined to do any manner of things -some which are intrinsically disordered. These people may just have a heavier cross to bear than others not so inclined...
The only flack you would get from me is if you are implying or suggesting that what actions God has declared sin or actions self destructive, or actions society regards as destructive are somehow okay if one is more inclined toward such actions. OR even worse, that these inclined people have no choice but to for instance engage in these disordered actions....
I wasn't dreaming. It took me two minutes of research to turn these up:
“It may be said, therefore, to be a rule of universal recognition in all civilized countries that in general a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere.” Pennegar v. State, 87 Tenn. 204 (Supreme Court of Tennesee, 1889).
"Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state . . . which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state." South Dakota Codified Law § 25-1-38.
If I had another 10 minutes I could have found a lot more. I am not saying that SCOTUS will necessarily apply this to gay marriages; my point is only that there is certainly precedent pointing that way.
Remember that God is fully aware of all the ways the evil one deceives us and tempts us. Yes, God has given us free will and we all choose poorly at times and sin (all of us do that in some ways).
But God’s love remains steadfast as does His willingness to forgive the truly repentant heart. And we can truly rejoice in that! It is incumbent on us to tell people the Good News of Christ so that all can hear and have the opportunity of complete forgiveness and salvation.
God loves you. You are precious to Him.
Merry Christmas!
Reynolds v. United States, 1878...
It defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Reynolds v. United States, 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.
I read your entire post, so I understood the larger point you're considering.
Still, I wonder if I can prevail on you to defend your supposition from the standpoint of parallel citations. What I mean is this: if you're right and the attraction to people of the same sex is genetic, then it seems unlikely to be the only such inborn preference. I'm not referring here to some people's affection for one flavor or aroma but for something more fundamental. So, can you cite any other inborn preference, or is homosexuality unique? In other words, if there is such a class as inborn preferences, of which homosexuality is but one, it would tend to strengthen your case, but if not....
“I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional ...”
I assume you mean SCOTUS rather than POTUS?
I resist saying they are born that way because if we accept that, then they will be protected under the ADA.
Also, regardless of whether they are born that way, it is a behavior.
If we accept that they act the way they do because they were born that way, then we almost accept the adulterer, the thief, the murderer, and those who commit every other sin and crime against God. In short, if we accept this premise, then we have to accept the conclusion and defense that they will ultimately offer: “I’m not responsible. Don’t blame me. It’s His fault. I’m just the victim.”
God made each of us with the ability to sin and the ability to resist sin. Some are stronger than others. God can forgive each of us if we accept the sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for our sin. The best way we can demonstrate to God and to others that we have done so is to make the best effort we can not to continue to sin.
What kind of gratitude does it show if we sin, allegedly admit to our sin, allegedly see forgiveness, then turn around and amp up that same behavior?
Homosexuality is abnormal. The left and the homosexual lobby can try to spin it as much as they want. But it is unnatural and abnormal. Homosexuals live a lifestyle and constantly see the “norm” cast in their face every day. They are also exposed to God’s stance on their behavior (it is an abomination to God, and that term is not used lightly in the Bible). In short, they are constantly reminded of their abnormal and unnatural behavior.
Not only do they not want to cease the behavior, and not only do they want us to stop making them feel abnormal and relaying God’s abhorrence to their behavior, and not only do they want us to accept and embrace their behavior, what they really want to do is force us to alter the message of God to be one of full acceptance of their behavior.
As a Christian, I am to love the sinner and hate the sin. Loving the sinner does not entail embracing and excusing and condoning and enabling that very behavior that is to be hated. It is contradictory.
We can’t force them to stop their behavior and can’t force them to seek forgiveness, but we sure as heck don’t have to sit back and allow them to force us to embrace their sin and ingratitude as normal and as the new status quo of salvation.
As unpopular as it is and as certainly as it will eventually be ruled a “hate crime” (as surely as the sun sets on every great nation eventually), we must love the person but tell them what they are doing is wrong, abnormal, a damage to society, an affront to God and we do not accept it.
It is not marriage. At best, it is a legal contract, like leasing a bungalow at the shore for a week, and, at best, means no more than that to God and, at worst, will result in His wrath.
The government forcing universities and hospitals affiliated with the Catholic church to pay for contraceptives, abortion, and eventually euthanasia, is setting the precedent that no institution can “opt out” of this type of legislation issued by the totalitarian state.
Religion has long been an obstacle to the State implementing their religion of atheistic human secularism. They have been gunning for Christianity for decades. This and healthcare will help to reduce Christian institutions to nothing more than fraternal organizations.
Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our bosses in black robes uphold it, I bet they will simply attempt to repeal it with another popular vote. I have my doubts if prop. 8 would pass today in Ca.
Freegards
Oh, no I didn’t suggest that homosexual attraction is genetic. You must have missed my first post at #62 wherein I said:
As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that those who claim they were born that way, probably were, but are suffering from a neurological condition like seizures, etc. for which science should find a cure/treatment. That is not to say that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it absolutely is. One makes a conscious choice to engage in homosexual acts just like one chooses to engage in heterosexual acts.
Agreed. But more than that, we’ve lost the battle to convince them that they suffer from a neurological disorder and should be begging science to find a cure/treatment for their disorder. We have to stop allowing them to equate homosexuality with civil rights.
I think "genetic" would mean that a condition could be inherited; that is, passed from one generation to another.
Not every condition which is "congenital" has to be "genetic".
I've just never heard anyone who contends that same-sex preference is inborn actually describe the process of how a preference could occur that way. It would be different if they could point to such inborn preferences generally and contend that homosexuality is but another example, but they never do. That failure is not fatal to such an argument, but it is tremendously suggestive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.