Recently
- R/6 programs help ex-offenders regain livelihood
- It seems that HIV really ‘is a gay disease’
- The face of marriage in America
- CLC urges Blunt to call pro-life special session
- A little honesty, please
Get Involved
Sign Up
Get connected with the latest information on ethical and moral issues throughout the week with ERLC communications.
Talk Back
We want to know what you think about today’s big issues.
Donations
Partner with us as we seek to transform our culture and our nation. Make a financial gift to the ministry of the ERLC.
Internship Program
An internship can be a tremendously formative experience for students as they prepare for their career. An intern will come away with a deep satisfaction of knowing that they were directly involved in affecting issues that impact millions of people.
55 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 10th, 2006, at 1:22am, ELLEN K. WILSON wrote:
MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE AND IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED MAN AND WOMAN.
2 On Jun 16th, 2006, at 11:29am, Matthew Vandeberghe wrote:
I find it incredibly disheartening to know that the majority of Americans desire to protect traditional marriage; however, we are not proportionately represented by our congressional representatives (namely U.S. Senators). Both Oklahoma senators voted to protect marriage, and for that I am immensely proud. I pray that the states who were NOT fairly represented can show their representatives the error of their ways and force the issue. My children deserve to have the few scraps of morality that remain preserved for their future and yours do too. Dr. Land, thank you for your commitment to proclaiming Biblical truths boldly and without compromise. God Bless
3 On Jun 30th, 2006, at 6:15am, Dan Valdes wrote:
We do not the government even more involved in our personal lives. Gay people have a right to marry and it does not at all mean that straight people’s marriages will suffer in any way. How could it?
Gay people need the church. Try to make a friend of a gay person. It’s the Christian way, isn’t it?
Dan Valdes
4 On Jun 30th, 2006, at 3:20pm, Staff wrote:
Actually, an ammendment to the constitution would in fact limit the government in this case, particularly the judicial branch.
Every time this issue has come to a vote in individual states, the ammendment has passed. In terms of a mere democratic process, the will of the public is clear.
Without a Marriage Protection Amendment at the Federal level, it will only take one case, in one court, in one state to mandate gay marriage for all the other states. Why? Because the ‘full faith and credit clause’ of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) requires each state to honor another state’s laws.
Question: Which induces more government power?
A) Legislation passed by elected representatives of the people or
B) a national mandate from a handful of appointed state judges?
5 On Jun 30th, 2006, at 3:59pm, Staff wrote:
Dan stated “Gay people need the church.”
-True. At the very same time, it is not the role of the church to condone sinful and destructive behavior. In Romans Chapter 1, Paul places as much responsibility on the church as he does people who knowingly engage in sinful behavior. (Romans 1:22-31, 32) In other words, the church that condones (any) sinful behavior is a church that is neglecting it’s duty and is (itself) sinning.
Dan also stated “Try to make a friend of a gay person. It’s the Christian way, isn’t it?”
-Yes. Yet again (as the church), a friendship that does not care enough to, in love, speak the truth is no friendship at all. (1 Corinthians 13:6 , Romans 13:13) As with any other destructive behavior (substance abuse for example), it is not a friend who remains silent while his friend damages his body and spirit.
6 On Jun 30th, 2006, at 4:23pm, Staff wrote:
For more on the ERLC’s position on the Federal Marriage Amendment, visit this article by Dr. Richard Land (President, ERLC).
It is interesting to note that, had the Senate voted on the Federal ammendment they way their states continue to vote on this issue, the Federal ammendment would have passed with an 80% vote.
7 On Aug 10th, 2006, at 3:24pm, Robert Cuthbertson wrote:
Even though several states have passed marriage amendments supporting traditional marriage (one man and one women) I think we need an amendment passed by Congress, one man and one women marriage, as God prescribed.
8 On Aug 21st, 2006, at 12:45pm, Judy Kratochvil wrote:
I do not support a constituional amendment that is written the way this one was because it would deny the authority of states to regualte the area of marriage. I do not think that it is necessary for the constituion to define marriage. The Defense of marriage Act does this and protects the authority of states in the recognition of marriages. Most states also have marriage protection acts that havebeen passed into law.
Marriage is one man and one woman under the laws that already exst and have been upheld by the courts. We do not need a constitutional amendment.
9 On Aug 22nd, 2006, at 9:20am, Staff wrote:
TRIVIA: What is the subject of the most recent ammendment to the Constitution?
ANSWER: Congressional pay raises. (Ammendment 27)
We (the ERLC) are of the mind that if congressional pay raises are important enough include in the Constitution, so is marriage.
10 On Aug 28th, 2006, at 8:47am, Kent Hogan wrote:
On most issues, I am strongly a conservative, state’s rights advocate. But on the issue of marriage protection, I see no alternative to the federal government stepping in to protect the traditional definition of marriage as one man with one woman. In every state where a vote has been offered to the people, they go it right and chose to protect marriage. Yet representatives in Washington often ignore the will of the people in favor of deviant and alternative definitions. If the federal government is in a state today where they can and will take a step toward an official ammendment to the Constitution, then I am for it.
K.H.
King, NC
11 On Sep 10th, 2006, at 12:50pm, Patrick Greene wrote:
Marriage should be shared with gay and lesbian American citizens. I am in a 28 year traditional marriage with my wife Karen, and we want to share the institution of marriage with our fellow gay and lesbian citizens.
The law should be changed so they can be married by the justices of the peace.
12 On Sep 20th, 2006, at 7:33am, Rev Michael Bresciani wrote:
Marriage should be protected between a male and a female only. Perversion is a precursur to Gods judgement. Flaunting it before God is asking for the wood shed, not a very smart thing to do.
M. Bresciani
Louisiana
13 On Oct 6th, 2006, at 6:51pm, William wrote:
Yes, Marriage b/w a man and woman is still honorable and blessed in the sight of our awesome God!!!!
William
Ohio
14 On Oct 7th, 2006, at 4:08pm, William Oakley wrote:
To protect marriage as an holy institution of a man and a woman an amendment to the constitution is not needed. In fact, it is not warranted. Thank goodness it is very difficult to amend the constitution! Moralizing through the constitution is wrong thinking as we learned after the prohibition amendment and reversal. Christians should think positive about all their relationships. Being pro-active in our execution of beliefs is much better than trying to tack on negatives to the constitution.
15 On Oct 15th, 2006, at 8:24am, Tony wrote:
Not until I see the church doing more to stop the much bigger problem of no-fault divorce.
I personally cannot become really motivated about stopping gay marriage when the church did little or nothing when my marriage was falling apart and my plea’s to the church and prayers to God for restoration were fruitless.
If my SBC church believes marriage is Holy, I certainly did not see it in the lack of effort presented in saving my marriage.
Want my support for a marriage amendment? Get busy in putting MY marriage back together. Show me that you really support the family, not just with your words, but with your very efforts in putting my family back together.
16 On Oct 25th, 2006, at 9:58am, LandonSandy wrote:
NO because it undermines Christian dialogue between the LGBT community and uses us Christians as political tools.
Yes you may vote for the candidates who are “pro-family” and yes you may get a few years without the dreaded Gays and Lesbians being able to get married, you and your gay countrymen may even go your entire life without it, but they will strike it from the books one day and you will be viewed as just another genderist(or some other word they will make up) in some history book somewhere. So look at other issues in the people you elect, and ask yourself if these politicians really care about your values and religion or just your vote.
17 On Oct 27th, 2006, at 5:34pm, John Robinson wrote:
No. History has shown that tinkering with the Constitution in order to mandate morals always fails.
18 On Nov 9th, 2006, at 3:42pm, terry wrote:
Isnt there a way to have a marriage by the church for men/women totally seperate & independant of the state?
Why not have a legal union offered by the state that would be required of everyone who wants to be treated legally as “united” or whatever the politically correct term would be ?
19 On Nov 16th, 2006, at 1:28am, Jill wrote:
Marriage is a blessing from God, intended for 1 man and 1 woman. Why is it that we allow our government any authority in whats not theirs to give. (Marriage license) We would not even be dealing with these issues! How many ministers and preachers do you know willing to marry 2 men or 2 women or a 1 man and his horse?
20 On Nov 30th, 2006, at 10:54am, Jenn wrote:
Homosexuals are sinning just like everyone on this earth does; instead of asking for forgiveness, many (not all) force their beliefs on others and want their ways accepted as right. They want us to accept homosexuality and the marriage of two homosexuals, but how can we that when it is sinful? What we need to be doing is forming communities/groups in which Christians and homosexuals can come together peacefully and WITHOUT JUDGEMENT and admit that we all sin. Then anyone who wanted to learn more of Jesus could stay for worship and sermon. I have faith that this could help many homosexuals who realize that they need help just like any other sinner! I know that this wouldn’t work for every homosexual who comes, but God works miracles and I know that he can change lives dramatically. There are Alcoholic Anon. groups, why not Homosexuals Anon. groups? Only when people start working together to help and not judge, will issues like gay marriage be resolved.
21 On Dec 23rd, 2006, at 11:53am, Jeffery G. wrote:
It’s just one more federal intrusion into state and private matters. Besides, people will still be gay anyway.
22 On Jan 2nd, 2007, at 12:25pm, angie wrote:
To the comment about having a friend that is gay. I have had many over the years. The stronger I become as a Christian the harder it becomes for me to not tell the truth as I believe it regarding the gay lifestyle. I have shown great love and loyalty to my friends over the years. But as soon as I began to get honest with them when I was asked, they no longer could accept me and my values. These friendships have changed over the years. I just don’t want to see my children grow up in a world that beleives marriage is between the same sex if the person wants to marry the same sex.
23 On Jan 4th, 2007, at 12:28pm, Nathan wrote:
sometimes I feel that we would much rather have the government legislate our morality for us while we stay in the shelter of our pews and pulpits. It might actually be the best time to do what Jesus did… not change the laws, but change hearts. The problem is that most Christians are afraid of the homosexual community, and so we would rather keep them at arms distance and have the congress tell them what values they should have. When will we embrace them as people, introduce them to Christ and have Him change their hearts? Maybe we wouldn’t need laws like this is the church got out and did it’s job… love people.
24 On Jan 11th, 2007, at 10:20am, Eric wrote:
History has shown what happens when minority rights are determined by a vote of a majority; the Holocaust in Germany, segregation in the American south, genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. A majority has the moral imperative to ensure the rights of a minority, even when at odds with the principles involved. To consider otherwise is a reversion to a primitive “law of the jungle” mentality.
25 On Jan 11th, 2007, at 3:42pm, MT wrote:
Yes, I support a Marriage Protection Amendment, because that is the only way to protect marriage between a man and woman. I can’t understand why Congress on both parties don’t see that and support the majority of the people. It’s said the states should do the protection, which is fine, if the Judical powers don’t intervene as they do quite often, regardless of the public wants.
MT
26 On Jan 16th, 2007, at 12:32am, PRW wrote:
Yes I support the Marriage Protection Amendment because we need the freedom of expression through the diversuty presented when a man chooses to marry a woman. It is foundational to the freedom we enjoy as Americans. I believe true diversity embraces the traditional contract of marriage.
27 On Jan 16th, 2007, at 11:36am, JC wrote:
When a nation has to stop and define a basic institution such as marriage, I would have to say that nation is no longer capable of discerning truth. The one institution responsible for dispensing truth is the Church. If the nation no longer knows truth, than obviously the Church no longer presents it. The word that comes to mind is “Ichabod.” That may be a hard pill for many pastors to swallow, but that happens to be what truth is all about. It is not relative as many would have us to believe.
28 On Jan 19th, 2007, at 3:44pm, Carla Stout wrote:
If I profess to be a Bible believing, born again child of God, how can I not agree the the Marriage Protection Act? God first instituited marriage between a man and a woman, who are we to contrdict what God has joined together
29 On Jan 22nd, 2007, at 7:47pm, Eric wrote:
It is indeed dismaying to see the number of posters who are using their religion as a guise for their supremecist tendencies. Any religious connotation of ‘marriage’ was lost when the Chapel of the Wailing Elvis, in Las Vegas, or ol’ bubba the local justice of the peace was granted a lisence to marry couples in a civil ceremony. THAT is what is at issue here; CIVIL marriage, between CONSENTING ADULTS; no religious connotation, no faith required. Denial of this on ‘religious’ grounds is dominionism; supremecism of the self appointed; bigotry by Bible.
I heard the same arguments in the ‘60s, against integration, in the ‘70s, against interracial marriage.
30 On Jan 23rd, 2007, at 7:41pm, PRW wrote:
Marriage is a gift of God I am pleased I enjoy thia trusted relationship with my wife. The joy that relationship provides give sme strengthe and happiness each day. It is truly eye opening that some angry and hate filled people rant against this basic institution which defines families and our civilization. I do pray for them and hope they can come to a trusting relationship with Jesus Christ. It is here they can find peace and grace He provides through giving Him our trust and hope.
31 On Jan 24th, 2007, at 7:42pm, SWM wrote:
When the issue of same sex marriage was voted on in my state, I voted against allowing it. However, I do not believe that the federal government needs to be involved in this issue. The people of each state are better served by the process of discussing the issue among themselves and then taking action at the state level. Amending the U.S. Constitution is both unwise and unnecessary.
32 On Feb 21st, 2007, at 11:15am, ROC wrote:
I don’t believe my marriage needs any protection from the federal government.
33 On Mar 7th, 2007, at 9:06pm, AB wrote:
Having come out of a homosexual background, I have a perspective that perhaps many others in the SBC do not have. I was on the receiving end of well-meaning friends and pastors as they counseled me in my struggle with homosexuality. However it was not the words of condemnation and force into a different lifestyle from those friends and pastors that ultimately freed me from same sex addiction. It was the Holy Spirit, prayer, and God’s grace, period! That said, I must urge SBC leaders not to force the anti-homosexuality agenda through legislation which will only further divide, but rather to pray and plead with God to help us bridge the gap so that we can effectively minister to this hurting community. I cannot support the Marriage Protection Ammendment.
34 On Mar 8th, 2007, at 8:15pm, Lisa wrote:
As a Catholic Christian, I am morally and spiritually obligated to support such an amendment. We do not pick and choose to which parts of our faith we will adhere. God Himself instituted marriage between a man and a woman. Who are we to contradict God? This is not politics, it is not bigotry, it is a undeniable truth. There is nothing to debate or argue.
35 On Mar 9th, 2007, at 11:04pm, eric wrote:
“This is not politics, it is not bigotry, it is a undeniable truth. There is nothing to debate or argue”
Well Lisa, you seem to have overlooked a small detail; the Constitution of The United States of America. Under that small, overlooked document, which establishes the rule of law in the aforementioned United States of America, there is NO provision for YOUR morality to override anyone’s right to the pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, Lisa, YOUR determination, and YOUR arrogation of what their legal rights should be, IS bigotry, IS politics, and IS a form of Christian dominionism.
YOUR morality is no different than the christianists that supported slavery, or opposed interracial marriage; they too had a plethora of biblical references to mask their bigotry.
History is filled with those who used religion as a convenient sheild for dark and unholy motives. Is this nation truly free, or is freedom exclusive to those who agree with your views?
36 On Mar 10th, 2007, at 4:14pm, steve wrote:
Lisa, by admitting you’re a catholic christian you are also admitting you have picked and chosen a faith to adhere to (if you’d been born into a Moslem family you’d probably be using the same arguments from a Moslem perspective).
You say god instituted marriage - I say where’s your proof? (you’ll need to start with proving a god actually exists).
You say “there is nothing to debate or argue” but here you are.. debating and arguing.
Your so-called “undeniable truth” is simply a statement of faith - it is not based on logic.
I’m sure you mean well but it’s time for people who share your beliefs to really examine how they arrived at their current position. How can a belief system based upon a hotchpotch of stories written by ignorant men in unsophisticated times really have any credibility?
37 On Mar 13th, 2007, at 12:46am, Paul wrote:
The amazing thing is the intolerance expressed by the the previous responder. I will pray for you and hope you can show respect to people who disagree with you. I do believe it is your motives and your agenda that is being forced upon believe who do “truly” disagree with you. Since I do believe in God it is my sincere hope and prayer that you can find peace and joy in Christ.
38 On Mar 13th, 2007, at 4:55am, helen alen wrote:
I saw Dr. Land on MSNBC, Hard Ball, yesterday, 08/12/07. He quoted Harry Turman, I believe, about if a man cheats/lies on his wife he will lie to me, etc., etc. If you have the exact quote I would appreciate you sending it to me. It really made me think about who I will vote for in the presidential primary. I was strongly leaning toward Guilano?, but after listening to Hard Ball, I am reexamining my ideas. I have always had influence on my family, and I want to be able to give good reasons/agruments as to why I am voting the way I do. I don’t frequently listen to Hard Ball, but when I saw Dr. Land, I decided to listen to the “conversation"--it was good and educational.
Thanks for your work and GOD BLESS
helen
39 On Mar 19th, 2007, at 12:47pm, LAM wrote:
Ah yes, the Biblical model of marriage, where a 45 year old man marries one (or two or five) 13 year old girls. Be real, folks, you don’t adhere to the biblical model of marriage any more than you live your lives by the literal word of God.
If we stop using the Bible as the basis of the argument, what else do you have? And don’t give me Dobson’s false data. DO YOUR OWN THINKING.
40 On Mar 19th, 2007, at 8:30pm, eric wrote:
Would you also favour repealing the 1st Amendment, garuanteeing freedom of religion, in favour of the 1st Commandment, mandating adherance to Christianity? Such is the slippery slope toward establishing theonomy in America! We are ALL free, or we are NONE of us free!
According to the SBC [or at least part of it], homosexuals don’t even exist! http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314166|CHID611100|CIID2036152,00.html
[part 2, 2nd paragraph] “First and foremost, a homosexual person simply does not exist. Homosexuality should be considered as an adjective—a behavior—and not as a noun or label defining a person. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, one of the foremost experts on the causes of homosexuality as a sexual disorder and founder of NARTH, National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, states, “There is no such thing as a homosexual person. We are all heterosexuals.”
Somebody should explain that ‘denial’ is not just a river in Africa!!!
41 On Mar 20th, 2007, at 3:24pm, steve wrote:
Paul, if you reread your post with some critical analysis you’ll note that you didn’t provide any evidence or arguments to support the Christian point of view with regard to the topic in hand. This is not surprising given that Christians generally have to argue from a worldview based upon faith rather than logic. Such a lack of rational thinking often leads to Christians having to attack the messenger rather than the message - allowing the message to get through would destroy their security blanket.
You ask for respect yet you openly show disrespect for non believers by saying you’ll pray for us - you don’t show respect to vegetarians by offering them a piece of meat.
42 On Mar 21st, 2007, at 1:49pm, MAUREEN wrote:
I THINK MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN. I HAVE GAY RELATIVES AND I LOVE THEM DEARLY. I THINK THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF BEING MARRIED YET IT SHOULD BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE, SAY FOR INSTANCE A LEGAL UNION, ABSOLUTELY NOT A MARRIAGE. THIS WORLD IS HERE BECAUSE OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN. WE ARE ALSO ONE NATION UNDER GOD AND I DON’T KNOW WHY WE AREN’T FIGHTING FOR THESE BELIEFS.
43 On Mar 21st, 2007, at 6:06pm, eric wrote:
American society is far more threatened by those who post in all caps than by any deleterious effects of same-sex marriage. .... ;)
Seriously, Maureen, what ‘beliefs’ would YOU advocate fighting for, that would not denigrate someone else’s rights?
When was the Christian [or any other] religion granted copyright on the term ‘marriage’? Remember; this is CIVIL marriage; the kind conducted at city hall, or at the Chapel of the Everwailing Elvis, in ‘Vegas. Sanctity? Riiight!
44 On Mar 21st, 2007, at 7:30pm, madi wrote:
In the peramble to the united states constitution says that we have the right to the persuit of happyness, if being married to a gay partner makes them happy who are you to say they cant? Also, if we are all equal, why does it matter if you are gay, we all have the right to choose(the 9th ammendment) so let them choose their partner they have to live with them not you. Finally, we have law set in place that say we have the right to privacy so let us have it!!! if it bothers you when they kiss turn away if PDA bugges you DON’T LOOK!!!!!!
45 On Mar 30th, 2007, at 9:58am, PETE BLUEM wrote:
ONE MAN ONE WOMAN PERIOD ! IF IT IS NOT THAT THAN ALL ELSE GOES AND SO DOES OUR COUNTRY,STATE,CITIES,TOWNS,JOBS,CHURCHES, HOMES,AND OUR KIDS. THAN GOD WILL REALLY JUDGE AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE. PUT YOUR SEAT BELTS ON.
46 On Mar 30th, 2007, at 9:08pm, eric wrote:
Pete: Perhaps you would care to respond to my question in post # 40: “Would you also favour repealing the 1st Amendment, garuanteeing freedom of religion, in favour of the 1st Commandment, mandating adherance to Christianity?”
I have asked this question several times on this and other forums. To date, NOBODY has responded.
If you believe that civil law should be written in accordance with Biblical law, why bother with the peripherals? Go to nimero uno: The ‘prime directive’ in Christianity! Why has NOT A SINGLE “CHRISTIAN” answered this simple, straightforeward question?
47 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 10:05am, Terry Dietzler wrote:
I would not. You cant force a belief. Besides, believing in God does not require you to believe in “religion”.
You do not need to believe in God to adhere to laws based on the laws of God.
48 On Apr 8th, 2007, at 7:51pm, K.G. wrote:
Traditional marriages have never been threatened by people who have same sex relationships. Can they prevent heterosexuals from marrying and having families. Of course not.. Then how is the institution of marriage between man and wife threatened.. It has been a thriving institution for centuries throughout the civilzations , I haven’t seen anything that has destroyed it yet.
49 On May 17th, 2007, at 1:16pm, Tony wrote:
I see in about a years time no one has addressed the very real point I made about my SBC church (and to an extent the folks here) not working effectively to save existing marriages.
More marriages are being destroyed by No Fault Divorce and do-nothing churches than will ever be destroyed by allowing Same Sex Marriage.
I am in no way in favor of same sex marriage. However, I believe the intense focus on that issue has distracted the church (SBC and others) from the very real crisis that is occurring in the church.
The Barna research indicates that divorce rates are really no different in the church compared to outside the church and the SBC seems to have one of the highest if not THE highest divorce rate of any church body.
more to follow
50 On May 17th, 2007, at 1:25pm, Tony wrote:
continued from above…
Yet, when I went to my SBC church for help with my marriage. I couldn’t find it. I could find sign up sheets for petitions regarding the defense of marriage act or similar efforts.
Where is the effort to strengthen what existing marriages mean, by getting rid of no-fault divorces, calling on churches to lovingly confront members who are unfaithful, using the process described in Matthew 18.
Too many think of that as a process to ex-communicate a member, but the way I read it, it is far from that. The idea of the process is to entice the member back into fellowship.
Perhaps too many are beating other sinners over the heads with 20# King James study Bibles, instead of offering them the hope of real joy in Christ.
As was mentioned above, the former homosexual who cited that it was love and grace that won him out of that life, not judgmental attitude.
51 On Sep 14th, 2007, at 9:44pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:
I support a Federal marriage amendment as a compromise but I see it as only fighting flames. What’s the next Federal amendment going to be? Gays are not allowed to adopt? Gays are prohibited from being hired as public kindergarten teachers? etc. These flame-fighting tactics are advocated by Christians who know what the Bible requires. This brings me to respond to Eric’s question. I propose not a repeal of the first amendment but a Federal amendment replacing Article VI paragraph 3’s “no religious oath” test with a belief in the Divinity of the Old and New Testaments. Contrary to others on this forum it doesn’t require that Federal officials believe in Christianity but only that our laws will be based on the Bible. This is not a Baptist view and encourage Eric and others to search the web for wods like theonomy, reconstructionist, conservative presbyterian, and you will find other Christians who believe this.
52 On Sep 17th, 2007, at 9:08am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Harry,
I must say that while I haven’t agreed with many (most) of your posts to ERLC.com articles, you just said something I applaud you for clarifying:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing this out! There are many who’ve attempted to put the SBC (and ERLC) under that ‘reconstructionist/theonomy’ banner and it just has no bearing in fact.
Thank you for stating that this is NOT a Baptist view. :-)
53 On Dec 10th, 2007, at 1:33pm, sandra lynnz wrote:
I think it is unfair. My sister and uncle are gay and I love them with all my heart. If you had a gay person in your family would you treat them any different? Wouldnt you want them to be happy and have the joys of marrage like you? I mean really people, look at what your saying. Your willingly making people unhappy because you think that it will messup your kids life or the future. That in my mind is just selfish. Really it is because even if gay marrage isnt pasted now its still going to be here when your kids grow up and you never know your kid could be gay. Its not going to make the world end, really its not going to. Try thinking about the issue more in depth before you hurt others. I, personily, am ashamed at you people, I mean im 17 and i have grasped the fact that even if someone is gay the have a right as people of this world to be happy, just like you and me.
54 On Apr 18th, 2008, at 6:47pm, Chris M. wrote:
Marriage is a joke. It has been for a long time now, certainly before all this gay marriage imbroglio started. Ever since Adam and Eve, marriage has proven itself to diminish people, not enrich them. Right from that very first marriage, the husband got royally scammed by the actions of his wife. How is that different from today, when most marriages end at the behest of women because they are “bored” or don’t “feel fulfilled”? And, who foots the bill for her new and exciting life, more often than not?
55 On May 1st, 2008, at 10:56am, Edward McCartney wrote:
Responding to Eric, (eric) at # 46, although I acknowledge the law of God and Christianity and the rest of the scriptures to be superior to any thing that man apart from God has written, such as the United States’ Constitution, where is the first commandment so called mandating adherence to Christianity? I am aware of the first commandment of the ten (10) that God gave to Israel through Moses in Exodus 20:1-3; and Mark 12:29-30, which was of Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5. If any person that claims to be a Christian would subordinate the words of Moses or Jesus to the words of man, you might consider that such an one might be guilty of idolatry, and might be a false brother in the light of II Corinthians 11:26.
Considering Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, and the second paragraph of the sixth article of the American constitution in the light of Deuteronomy 28, do you think that a theonomic amendment might help? otherwise consider II Kings 17.