Same sex marriage is not a church issue.

[Christianity in crisis?]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

[His Name Is John]

Yes and apparently idolatry is also wrong. Do you think that Christians should be lobbying Congress to outlaw religions such as Hinduism which practice idolatry?

They are different.

Idolatry is considered wrong, but with all religions you are searching for truth. I hate to quote scripture in a debate, but it does give basis for the difference: Jesus says "they will come from the east and from the west and say 'but lord when did I...'"

Jesus is clearly making reference to those who do not recognize him and did not worship him, but if they were devout and good people then he will welcome them.

Now does this mean I think that practices of other religions should be legalized (such as in Islam being able to marry more than one woman)? No of course not.

Legislation should be fitted to what is right and wrong. People in honest search for truth and the worship of God should not be stopped, even if I do not agree with all they practice.

Now let me make something clear, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with someone who is attracted to their own gender in of itself. It isn't wrong in my view, unless they act on it.

Thus I don't think society should allow same sex marriage as that promotes acting on the homosexual impulses.

With homosexuality

[Goat]

Yes and apparently idolatry is also wrong. Do you think that Christians should be lobbying Congress to outlaw religions such as Hinduism which practice idolatry?

They are different.

Idolatry is considered wrong, but with all religions you are searching for truth. I hate to quote scripture in a debate, but it does give basis for the difference: Jesus says "they will come from the east and from the west and say 'but lord when did I...'"

Jesus is clearly making reference to those who do not recognize him and did not worship him, but if they were devout and good people then he will welcome them.

Now does this mean I think that practices of other religions should be legalized (such as in Islam being able to marry more than one woman)? No of course not.

Legislation should be fitted to what is right and wrong. People in honest search for truth and the worship of God should not be stopped, even if I do not agree with all they practice.

Now let me make something clear, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with someone who is attracted to their own gender in of itself. It isn't wrong in my view, unless they act on it.

Thus I don't think society should allow same sex marriage as that promotes acting on the homosexual impulses.

With homosexuality

And what is wrong with a homosexual acting on homosexual impulses in a monogamous relationship?

[His Name Is John]

And what is wrong with a homosexual acting on homosexual impulses in a monogamous relationship?

At last, I wondered why someone didn't ask sooner!

First I will look at the issue of Homosexuality from the view of a very famous Greek Philosopher and arguably the first Scientist. Aristotle believed that in order to understand an object we must understand its four causes:

1. Material - The raw material from which the object is composed
2. Formal - The shape of image the object is
3. Efficient - What change occurred to make the object come about
4. Final - The purpose of the object

Of course, those descriptions are very basic, but you get the general idea. The Final cause of the sex organs is to reproduce, that is their purpose. To use the sex organs in any way other than to reproduce would not be seeking to actualize their potential.

However, there have been some claims which seem as though they would go against the view set down by Aristotle about doing the natural thing.

Here are some common forum posts:

1. Homosexuality is natural, and observable in other species

This argument sounds very convincing until you look at the logical gaps from their reasoning. Just because something is observable in the animal kingdom does not mean that it is acceptable for humans. Over 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions, does that mean that it is natural and morally ok for humans to be cannibals and eat their own kind? You would be barbaric if you suggested such an argument. The jump from 'we can observe it in nature' to 'it is natural for humans to do this' is too great a leap.

Now onto the next popular quote:

2. Homophobia exists in only one species

Which happens to be the only species with a sense of morality. This is very similar to the point. Humans are different from other animals because of a multitude of reasons, one is that we have the ability to reason and make decisions and opinions of certain acts of life such as homosexality.

Now for the final popular quote:

3. Scientists have proven there is a gay gene!

To put it simply, no they haven't. Scientists have speculated that their is a gay gene, but there is no conclusive evidence. This is one rather major myth of the internet, and just isn't factually true. I am not saying there is not a gay gene, but I am saying that to say for sure that there is, is ignorant of the facts.

There was one study where they were able to change the sexuality of a mouse (or a rat, I can't remember which), but it hasn't been replicated and appears at the moment to be an anomaly.

Often people site the study that showed that with identical twins, if one was gay, it was 80% likely the other one was as well. Thus proving that it is genetic. Apart from the fact that it doesn't.

Surely identical twins would have had a similar upbringing?

Lets see if it is the same with identical twins separated at birth (no seriously, that would be much more convincing, and I would be open to the evidence).

Even if it is genetic, it is only 80%. So what about the 20% which aren't gay? Surely if it was just genetic then it would be 100%. Clearly there are other factors at work.

Now, lets move onto my view!

This view was put forward by Aquinas adapting and clarifying some of the teachings of Aristotle. Aquinas claimed that all sexual acts (anal, oral etc.) which did not result in the possibility for reproduction, is wrong. However, this does not mean a homosexuality is wrong, but rather the action which they do is wrong.

Love the individual, hate the action (much like Jesus and the prostitute - Jesus stopped her being stoned, but still told her to 'sin no more'). I would say that homosexuals are called to a life without intercourse.

Now the natural example to give is of people who cannot have children, but the fact remains that they are doing the act their bodies are supposed to, even if the final cause isn't able to come around.

I personally don't believe the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way. I think it is phycological and partially chemical (perhaps even slightly genetic as well) but that doesn't change the fact that just because someone has tendances towards certain actions, that means said actions are right.

I would not allow people to harm others just because they have a gene that makes them more angry. I would spend extra time trying to correct the mistake.

The problem is that homosexuality is a medical condition (I have no idea why it was removed from the list of medical conditions as surely that is what homosexuals are claiming it is more than anyone?), and yet it is being paraded around as if there is nothing wrong with it. You wouldn't have 'infertility pride days' would you? You would spend money in developing cures.

I would say they are like recovering alcoholics. They want to drink and it feels natural for them to drink, but it would be wrong for them to drink. It's hard, and it is expected if they fail on occasion, but they should keep trying.

All this is not mentioning how harmful a homosexual lifestyle is. If you want me to go into statistics, I can.

[Autodidact]

I disagree, it is tied in a small way to religion. Here is my view of it:

Same Sex marriage is immoral because it is against Gods will. Should it be legal, yes. I have no right to impose my belief on another person and vice versa. The reason it is tied in with religion is this. If gay marriage laws are passed there should be a law on the legislation that does not require all churches to mary gays. Churches should decide for themselves whether they will marry gays or not. I can see a gay couple suing a church if they wont marry them on the basis of discrimination.

Every such legislation ever proposed or passed already does this. The fact that Mormons such as yourself are not aware of this is a result of the disinformation campaign by same-sex marriage opponents, including the LDS Church.

No such law suit has ever been filed, in any of the states where these marriages are legal, and if filed would be thrown out.

Also it's interesting that you speak with unique authority about God's will. Who gave you this authority?

[Autodidact]

And what is wrong with a homosexual acting on homosexual impulses in a monogamous relationship?

At last, I wondered why someone didn't ask sooner!

First I will look at the issue of Homosexuality from the view of a very famous Greek Philosopher and arguably the first Scientist. Aristotle believed that in order to understand an object we must understand its four causes:

1. Material - The raw material from which the object is composed
2. Formal - The shape of image the object is
3. Efficient - What change occurred to make the object come about
4. Final - The purpose of the object

Of course, those descriptions are very basic, but you get the general idea. The Final cause of the sex organs is to reproduce, that is their purpose. To use the sex organs in any way other than to reproduce would not be seeking to actualize their potential.

However, there have been some claims which seem as though they would go against the view set down by Aristotle about doing the natural thing.

Here are some common forum posts:

1. Homosexuality is natural, and observable in other species

This argument sounds very convincing until you look at the logical gaps from their reasoning. Just because something is observable in the animal kingdom does not mean that it is acceptable for humans. Over 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions, does that mean that it is natural and morally ok for humans to be cannibals and eat their own kind? You would be barbaric if you suggested such an argument. The jump from 'we can observe it in nature' to 'it is natural for humans to do this' is too great a leap.

Now onto the next popular quote:

2. Homophobia exists in only one species

Which happens to be the only species with a sense of morality. This is very similar to the point. Humans are different from other animals because of a multitude of reasons, one is that we have the ability to reason and make decisions and opinions of certain acts of life such as homosexality.

Now for the final popular quote:

3. Scientists have proven there is a gay gene!

To put it simply, no they haven't. Scientists have speculated that their is a gay gene, but there is no conclusive evidence. This is one rather major myth of the internet, and just isn't factually true. I am not saying there is not a gay gene, but I am saying that to say for sure that there is, is ignorant of the facts.

There was one study where they were able to change the sexuality of a mouse (or a rat, I can't remember which), but it hasn't been replicated and appears at the moment to be an anomaly.

Often people site the study that showed that with identical twins, if one was gay, it was 80% likely the other one was as well. Thus proving that it is genetic. Apart from the fact that it doesn't.

Surely identical twins would have had a similar upbringing?

Lets see if it is the same with identical twins separated at birth (no seriously, that would be much more convincing, and I would be open to the evidence).

Even if it is genetic, it is only 80%. So what about the 20% which aren't gay? Surely if it was just genetic then it would be 100%. Clearly there are other factors at work.

Now, lets move onto my view!

This view was put forward by Aquinas adapting and clarifying some of the teachings of Aristotle. Aquinas claimed that all sexual acts (anal, oral etc.) which did not result in the possibility for reproduction, is wrong. However, this does not mean a homosexuality is wrong, but rather the action which they do is wrong.

Love the individual, hate the action (much like Jesus and the prostitute - Jesus stopped her being stoned, but still told her to 'sin no more'). I would say that homosexuals are called to a life without intercourse.

Now the natural example to give is of people who cannot have children, but the fact remains that they are doing the act their bodies are supposed to, even if the final cause isn't able to come around.

I personally don't believe the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way. I think it is phycological and partially chemical (perhaps even slightly genetic as well) but that doesn't change the fact that just because someone has tendances towards certain actions, that means said actions are right.

I would not allow people to harm others just because they have a gene that makes them more angry. I would spend extra time trying to correct the mistake.

The problem is that homosexuality is a medical condition (I have no idea why it was removed from the list of medical conditions as surely that is what homosexuals are claiming it is more than anyone?), and yet it is being paraded around as if there is nothing wrong with it. You wouldn't have 'infertility pride days' would you? You would spend money in developing cures.

I would say they are like recovering alcoholics. They want to drink and it feels natural for them to drink, but it would be wrong for them to drink. It's hard, and it is expected if they fail on occasion, but they should keep trying.

All this is not mentioning how harmful a homosexual lifestyle is. If you want me to go into statistics, I can.

I too find it easier to win arguments when I write the other side's argument for them. Unfortunately for both of us, this is not really playing fair, is it.

Did you notice that what you did not do is address what is wrong with same-sex relationships?

Your argument, quaintly, claims to be Aristotelian. However, Aristotle did not use his 4-causal analysis for ethics, which would be seriously flawed. He used it to help us determine causation, a question which is not before us.

Your claim is that homosexuality is wrong, that is, immoral, because it uses sex organs for other than their intended purpose, and you know what that purpose is.

Here are some problems with that argument:

You have not established that it is immoral to use body organs for other than their "purpose," assuming they have one, nor do you in all likelihood believe that it is. The purpose of noses is breathing; is it immoral to use yours to hold your glasses up? The purpose of legs is locomotion, is dancing immoral? It's absurd to assert that its immoral to use our bodies for reasons other than their "purpose".

You have not established that our bodies have a purpose, other than whatever purpose we use them for.

Bodily organs may have many purposes. One of the purposes of sex and sex organs is to allow human beings to share intimacy and love.

I doubt that you even think it should be illegal to use sex organs for reasons other than reproduction, do you? Should all non-reproductive sex be prohibited? Should people too old to marry be prohibited from marrying? People who are not fertile? Should masturbation be prohibited?

[Goat]

And what is wrong with a homosexual acting on homosexual impulses in a monogamous relationship?

At last, I wondered why someone didn't ask sooner!

First I will look at the issue of Homosexuality from the view of a very famous Greek Philosopher and arguably the first Scientist. Aristotle believed that in order to understand an object we must understand its four causes:

1. Material - The raw material from which the object is composed
2. Formal - The shape of image the object is
3. Efficient - What change occurred to make the object come about
4. Final - The purpose of the object

Of course, those descriptions are very basic, but you get the general idea. The Final cause of the sex organs is to reproduce, that is their purpose. To use the sex organs in any way other than to reproduce would not be seeking to actualize their potential.

However, there have been some claims which seem as though they would go against the view set down by Aristotle about doing the natural thing.

Here are some common forum posts:

1. Homosexuality is natural, and observable in other species

This argument sounds very convincing until you look at the logical gaps from their reasoning. Just because something is observable in the animal kingdom does not mean that it is acceptable for humans. Over 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions, does that mean that it is natural and morally ok for humans to be cannibals and eat their own kind? You would be barbaric if you suggested such an argument. The jump from 'we can observe it in nature' to 'it is natural for humans to do this' is too great a leap.

And, why is it 'too great a leap'. Because you say so , and get an 'ichy feeling?'

Now, when it comes to cannibals, there is this thing known as 'mutually consenting adults'.. Leaping from cannibalism to gay marriage is just too great a leap.

Now onto the next popular quote:

2. Homophobia exists in only one species

Which happens to be the only species with a sense of morality. This is very similar to the point. Humans are different from other animals because of a multitude of reasons, one is that we have the ability to reason and make decisions and opinions of certain acts of life such as homosexality.

Really?? Can you point to the post on this board that makes that claim? Then, why shouldn't two people who love each other use their reason to commit to each other, no matter what their gender? This does not address that issue at all. It avoids it. Because you don't like it? Because it was 'condemned' some people from a different living conditions and culture than we are wrote it down?

Now for the final popular quote:

3. Scientists have proven there is a gay gene!

To put it simply, no they haven't. Scientists have speculated that their is a gay gene, but there is no conclusive evidence. This is one rather major myth of the internet, and just isn't factually true. I am not saying there is not a gay gene, but I am saying that to say for sure that there is, is ignorant of the facts.

There was one study where they were able to change the sexuality of a mouse (or a rat, I can't remember which), but it hasn't been replicated and appears at the moment to be an anomaly.

And this matters exactly why?

Often people site the study that showed that with identical twins, if one was gay, it was 80% likely the other one was as well. Thus proving that it is genetic. Apart from the fact that it doesn't.

Surely identical twins would have had a similar upbringing?

It shows that hox genes, and the environment in the womb can have an effect. The more interesting one is looking at twins that were separated at birth. Raised in DIFFERENT environment, the correlation between identical twins and homosexuality is just about the same as when they are together. It's not just the same nurture. ..

Lets see if it is the same with identical twins separated at birth (no seriously, that would be much more convincing, and I would be open to the evidence).

This study has been done.. on a very small basis (not many samples ), and it appears to be a coorolation there too.

Even if it is genetic, it is only 80%. So what about the 20% which aren't gay? Surely if it was just genetic then it would be 100%. Clearly there are other factors at work.

Yes, there are,,.. in the womb at that. Some twins share a single umbilical cord, and one twin gets the resources of nutrients and oxygen before the other. That can cause a disparity in development. It also could be environmental in the womb, with modification of hox genes though chemicals. However, none of this actually matters. The reasons for homosexuality are irrelevant.

Now, lets move onto my view!

This view was put forward by Aquinas adapting and clarifying some of the teachings of Aristotle. Aquinas claimed that all sexual acts (anal, oral etc.) which did not result in the possibility for reproduction, is wrong. However, this does not mean a homosexuality is wrong, but rather the action which they do is wrong.

This does not make sense at all. Why should I accept some old philosopher's from several hundred years ago idea about sexuality. There is more to sexuality than reproduction. Why is it wrong?? Because he says so??

Love the individual, hate the action (much like Jesus and the prostitute - Jesus stopped her being stoned, but still told her to 'sin no more'). I would say that homosexuals are called to a life without intercourse.

Why?? Because you don't like it? And, what do you know about what happened between Jesus and the prostitute? Can you show you know with certainty? That story was an interpolation from the original scripture too.. so you can't know for certian, now can you?

Now the natural example to give is of people who cannot have children, but the fact remains that they are doing the act their bodies are supposed to, even if the final cause isn't able to come around.

What their bodies are 'supposed to' according to whom?

I personally don't believe the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way. I think it is phycological and partially chemical (perhaps even slightly genetic as well) but that doesn't change the fact that just because someone has tendances towards certain actions, that means said actions are right.

Yet, other than quote some old religous guy from hundreds of years ago, why is it wrong?

I would not allow people to harm others just because they have a gene that makes them more angry. I would spend extra time trying to correct the mistake.

The problem is that homosexuality is a medical condition (I have no idea why it was removed from the list of medical conditions as surely that is what homosexuals are claiming it is more than anyone?), and yet it is being paraded around as if there is nothing wrong with it. You wouldn't have 'infertility pride days' would you? You would spend money in developing cures.

The places that claim this have a strong religious motivation. Could it be that the mainstream scholarship shows it is not, and it is bigotry and hate that drive the few others that make that claim? One of the guy who comes up with the 'studies' was taken off the board, because of fraud in research, and the tendency to cite himself to prove things.

I would say they are like recovering alcoholics. They want to drink and it feels natural for them to drink, but it would be wrong for them to drink. It's hard, and it is expected if they fail on occasion, but they should keep trying.

All this is not mentioning how harmful a homosexual lifestyle is. If you want me to go into statistics, I can.

You have not made your case. That is for sure.

[His Name Is John]

I too find it easier to win arguments when I write the other side's argument for them. Unfortunately for both of us, this is not really playing fair, is it.

This was based on another post I made in a different forum addressing the main issues people had brought up in the thread, now I agree that perhaps it doesn't fit as well here, but those arguments are common.

I just didn't want people to write out long posts detailing those points I knew someone would bring up.

But I do apologize for such a presumption that the same ideas and questions held there would also be held here.

Did you notice that what you did not do is address what is wrong with same-sex relationships?

I am pretty sure I did.

Homosexuality relies on using the sex organs for something that can never result in reproduction, thus it is a misuse of them and wrong.

Your argument, quaintly, claims to be Aristotelian. However, Aristotle did not use his 4-causal analysis for ethics, which would be seriously flawed. He used it to help us determine causation, a question which is not before us.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Let me re-clarify:

Aquinas took Aristotle's four causes and applied it to morality.

It is Aristotelian in its core, but an evolution of Aristotle's actual theories.

Your claim is that homosexuality is wrong, that is, immoral, because it uses sex organs for other than their intended purpose, and you know what that purpose is.

Here are some problems with that argument:

Fire away!

You have not established that it is immoral to use body organs for other than their "purpose," assuming they have one, nor do you in all likelihood believe that it is. The purpose of noses is breathing; is it immoral to use yours to hold your glasses up? The purpose of legs is locomotion, is dancing immoral? It's absurd to assert that its immoral to use our bodies for reasons other than their "purpose".

That is a good point, and one that (perhaps surprisingly) I have never actually heard before. However I would add that the purpose of legs is movement, dancing involves movement (and if it doesn't then how are you using your legs to dance?).

There is another problem I think you may have missed:

The difference is if you took your nose and stopped breathing, and did an action on your noise which meant you couldn't breath, yes that would be wrong.

Homosexual activity isn't simply an addition to reproduction, it is a replacement for it. The two things cannot be connected.

You have not established that our bodies have a purpose, other than whatever purpose we use them for.

Bodily organs may have many purposes. One of the purposes of sex and sex organs is to allow human beings to share intimacy and love.

That would be very hard to prove, although I do agree in part.

I doubt that you even think it should be illegal to use sex organs for reasons other than reproduction, do you? Should all non-reproductive sex be prohibited?

All sex which cannot result in reproduction: yes.

Should people too old to marry be prohibited from marrying?

No, because there are cases of even very old people being married. Even so the act they are doing is an act that should result in reproduction (although doesn't have to), if they are too old then it is a malfunction of another part of their body which is stopping it, not because they are misusing the sex organs.

People who are not fertile?

Same as above.

Should masturbation be prohibited?

Yes.

And, why is it 'too great a leap'. Because you say so , and get an 'ichy feeling?'

Surely you are joking? In nature we can observe that some animals can breath underwater, does that mean it is natural for humans to do this? Quite clearly no. We cannot breath water, but oxygen.

Now, when it comes to cannibals, there is this thing known as 'mutually consenting adults'.. Leaping from cannibalism to gay marriage is just too great a leap.

And why can there not be two consenting adult cannibals?

But anyway, all I was saying is what is seen in nature cannot be used as what is acceptable within society, you seem to have missed this point (or at least I hope you only missed the point, not that you are actually arguing with it...)

I am not saying cannibalism is comparable to gay marriage in any way other than both are observable in nature, and I would claim both are not natural for humans.

Really?? Can you point to the post on this board that makes that claim?

What about homophobia being observable in only one species or what? Please make it a bit clearer.

Then, why shouldn't two people who love each other use their reason to commit to each other, no matter what their gender? This does not address that issue at all. It avoids it. Because you don't like it? Because it was 'condemned' some people from a different living conditions and culture than we are wrote it down?

That is an answer to an answer, and not meant to be a a justification of the original view.

And this matters exactly why?

Because the most common argument from the gay community is 'but I was born this way'. There is no evidence in that claim, about time they found a new argument to be their key line don't you think?

It shows that hox genes, and the environment in the womb can have an effect. The more interesting one is looking at twins that were separated at birth. Raised in DIFFERENT environment, the correlation between identical twins and homosexuality is just about the same as when they are together. It's not just the same nurture. ..

Wow really, please provide a link to the study I am very interested in reading that.

This study has been done.. on a very small basis (not many samples ), and it appears to be a coorolation there too.

Inconclusive though don't you think?

Yes, there are,,.. in the womb at that. Some twins share a single umbilical cord, and one twin gets the resources of nutrients and oxygen before the other. That can cause a disparity in development. It also could be environmental in the womb, with modification of hox genes though chemicals. However, none of this actually matters. The reasons for homosexuality are irrelevant.

The homosexual community don't seem to think so.

Also if we can identify the reasons then we can work at stamping it out, thus eradicating the immediate problem.

This does not make sense at all. Why should I accept some old philosopher's from several hundred years ago idea about sexuality. There is more to sexuality than reproduction. Why is it wrong?? Because he says so??

You don't have to like the moral theory, but its basis is in nature. It is wrong because it is using the sex organs in a way that cannot do what they were made to do.

Why?? Because you don't like it?

Your tone here seems to be becoming rather emotional. I have explained why. If it is wrong (ultimately in the eyes of God) then clearly you shouldn't do it. I don't care about homosexuality particularly, I don't have strong feelings about it, I just believe that it is wrong.

And, what do you know about what happened between Jesus and the prostitute? Can you show you know with certainty? That story was an interpolation from the original scripture too.. so you can't know for certian, now can you?

So you are saying either that I should hate the person and hate the act or that I should hate the person and not the act or that I should hate neither?

I should hate what is wrong, I should love every individual human.

That story was in the Gospels, it pretty clear that is what the early Christian's believed Jesus taught about the way to relate to sin.

What their bodies are 'supposed to' according to whom?

Evolution?

Yet, other than quote some old religous guy from hundreds of years ago, why is it wrong?

So someone's ethical theory should be disregarded because he is 'some old religious guy'? Or because it was first put forward 'hundreds of years ago'. You know what else was put forward hundreds (no thousands of years ago) that it was wrong to rape.

It's still wrong, the points made as to why it is wrong still stand, as do the reasons why homosexuality is wrong.

The places that claim this have a strong religious motivation. Could it be that the mainstream scholarship shows it is not, and it is bigotry and hate that drive the few others that make that claim? One of the guy who comes up with the 'studies' was taken off the board, because of fraud in research, and the tendency to cite himself to prove things.

It is either a medical defect, or a choice.

They either have no choice in having these feelings which restrict them to a life without reproduction and being attracted to their gender, or they choose to be that way.

You have not made your case. That is for sure.

I don't think that is for sure, but it may be your take on it. It seemed to me (although I may be wrong) you just didn't like what I was saying. That's fine, but then its an emotional problem rather than a logical one.

Of course, Biblical scriptures can be recited to back up this case, but I am sure you have already heard them. If you still maintain that I have not made my case after reading this entire reply, then I will happily attack it in another totally different way.

[99percentatheism]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law.

What about the law that allows homosexuals to tell children that those "funny feelings" they have may be homosexual feelings? Have you ever heard the term "Questioning Youth?"

How about seduction? Chicken Hawk? Pederasty?

It's a recruitment tactic. It is also anti-Christian in every way imaginable. It is calling children to engage in abominations. Unless of course you believe that Christians should also encourage people to sin?

Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as "seperation of Church and State." Show the concept from either the Gospel or the United States Constitution

BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

Christians are discriminated against from Evangelizing the lost AS JESUS COMMANDED.

Whom do you follow? Jesus or secularist dead Englishman that wrote a seditious paper of treason in the late 1700's?

And. in regards to "marriage" to Christians that is . . ., there is only man and woman couplings.

Per Jesus.

[Autodidact]

Christianity in crisis?[/url]"]I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law.

What about the law that allows homosexuals to tell children that those "funny feelings" they have may be homosexual feelings? Have you ever heard the term "Questioning Youth?"

How about seduction? Chicken Hawk? Pederasty?

Are you sure you're not thinking of heterosexuals? The overwhelming majority of this sort of behavior is by heterosexual males. I guess girls don't matter in your world, though.

btw, what law, freedom of speech?

It's a recruitment tactic.

What is?

It is also anti-Christian in every way imaginable.

So true. It's love, which is inherently anti-Christian.

It is calling children to engage in abominations. Unless of course you believe that Christians should also encourage people to sin?

Abominations? Like eating pork, you mean?

Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as "seperation of Church and State." Show the concept from either the Gospel or the United States Constitution

O.K.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

Christians are discriminated against from Evangelizing the lost AS JESUS COMMANDED.

Really? Christians are discriminated against? What on earth could you be talking about?

Whom do you follow? Jesus or secularist dead Englishman that wrote a seditious paper of treason in the late 1700's?

??? You mean our founding fathers? Did Jesus say anything about taking over the government?

And. in regards to "marriage" to Christians that is . . ., there is only man and woman couplings.

Really? Where does it say this in the Bible?

Per Jesus.

Could you quote where Jesus says no same-sex marriage? Thanks.

[Haven]

I won't address the religious reasons for opposing homosexuality -- those are for Christians to work out among themselves. I have no problem with churches and other private religious organizations placing restrictions on LGBT people for doctrinal reasons.

My question is this: why should we legislate to restrict the rights of an entire class of people based upon nothing but certain individuals' religious beliefs? Why should conservative Christian moral beliefs become civil law?

For Christians who support legislating religious morality, I have another question: would you support conservative Muslims' attempts to make Sharia the law of the land? If your answer is "no," please explain why you feel your religious morality should be granted special privilege over the religious moralities of others?