If homosexuals are demonstrating publicly, then they ought to expect that others will be protesting against their public display of sin. What I see in your words and in the words of others is an attempt to stifle dissent. Specifically, a move toward religious toleration as opposed to religious liberty. Such efforts want to confine exercise of religion to the churches only. Free exercise is not permitted beyond the boundaries of one's local church. That's where we're headed and sentiments such as yours are making this a reality.

The selfishness and hypocrisy of what you just said is mind-boggling. You have no problem with Christians acting un-Christian, but two men carrying a baby down the street, minding their own business, is something to get frazzled over. I thought one of the basic principles of Christianity and Jesus's teachings were to love everyone equally and not attempt to punish his children for him. I thought he could handle it all on his own, without anyone elses words or actions. If I'm wrong, just let me know.

Maybe the reason religion is being pushed into only the churches is because people like you are picking and choosing the beliefs you want to actually implement into your everyday life.

The selfishness and hypocrisy of what you just said is mind-boggling. You have no problem with Christians acting un-Christian, but two men carrying a baby down the street, minding their own business, is something to get frazzled over.

That is by far the most ridiculous characterization I've ever seen. I'm not talking about the Fred Phelps type of people here and it's insulting that you would imply that that's what I'm advocating. Christians are not acting "un-Christian" by proclaiming truth. Is that not the role of the prophets of old? Most assuredly it is. And the homosexuals are not "minding their own business" when they're participating in a parade or a protest; they're projecting a message and it's absurd to think that we cannot allow voices of dissent. That homosexuals will hide behind children in order to deflect such dissent is a separate issue entirely.

I thought one of the basic principles of Christianity and Jesus's teachings were to love everyone equally and not attempt to punish his children for him. I thought he could handle it all on his own, without anyone elses words or actions. If I'm wrong, just let me know.

Yes, we ought to love everyone as all people are created in the image of God. However, that doesn't mean that we condone sinful behavior and tolerate it within our midst. Allowing voices of dissent is hardly punishing anyone. The prophets were not punishing people when they proclaimed truth and that's certainly not what's happening today. Indeed, the message of faith and repentance that we find in the Gospel is not a message of condemnation, but of hope.

Maybe the reason religion is being pushed into only the churches is because people like you are picking and choosing the beliefs you want to actually implement into your everyday life.

I'm not picking and choosing anything. To the contrary, religion is being pushed out of society precisely because people like you feel threatened by the free exercise of religion by others.

The complete free exercise of your religion hinders the beliefs of others, so is it just your beliefs that are supposed to continue on into society? Everyone believes that their religion is the "right one," but here's the thing, there are too many for there to be just one "right way." A singular truth. There are many truths. What you see as sinful and wrong, in this case, I see as love in a different sort of packaging. If I'm the reason religion is being taken out of everyday society, and put into church, where it belongs, so people can look past all the religious differences, then good for me. I'm glad I have such a big impact.

I believe that, if there is a God, he/she/it will love and respect all of "his children" as long as they appreciate him and accept him. Not in the eyes of your religion, or even mine, but in their own. So just because you got all of your "God hates gays and their 'sinful behavior'" information from the Bible, doesn't make it so.

And this is obviously a topic we are going to have to agree to disagree on. Because I definitely don't agree with you.

In case it has escaped your memory, Josh is advocating for the removal of government control over marriage, thus allowing anyone - straight, gay, or otherwise - to marry via their personal beliefs in a private setting. Sounds pretty darn fair to me, and I'm a Christian too. So what is this about the Christian faith hindering YOUR beliefs?

The complete free exercise of your religion hinders the beliefs of others, so is it just your beliefs that are supposed to continue on into society?

How does the free exercise of my beliefs hinder the rights of others? I am not forcing individuals to pray with me or to attend church with me. I'm not asking for taxpayer funds to propagate my beliefs. I'm simply stating that I should not, as a matter of conscience, be forced to recognize same-sex "marriages" as valid family arrangements. Since marriage itself is currently a civil institution, the legalization of same-sex "marriage" would put many people such as myself into unnecessary conflicts.

As Christina pointed out earlier, my stance on marriage has been to remove it as a civil institution entirely. I think that is the best compromise one can make. Unfortunately, there are too many statists on both sides who want to use civil government for social engineering purposes.

Everyone believes that their religion is the "right one," but here's the thing, there are too many for there to be just one "right way." A singular truth. There are many truths.

That's a contradiction in terms. There cannot be "multiple truths" as all of these various worldviews contradict each other. Moreover, the existence of multiple truth claims doesn't in any way invalidate the idea that only one of them is correct.

What you see as sinful and wrong, in this case, I see as love in a different sort of packaging.

Yes, because you are given over to a reprobate mind. You suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), a consequence of humanity's fallen nature.

If I'm the reason religion is being taken out of everyday society, and put into church, where it belongs, so people can look past all the religious differences, then good for me. I'm glad I have such a big impact.

That is by far the most tyrannical statement I've read in this entire thread. That you would actually advocate the destruction of religious liberty within society is truly revealing. In fact, it's disgusting.

My Christianity doesn't end when I step outside of my church. I'm not a Christian for just one day out of the week. My Christian worldview is articulated in every aspect of my life, including my place of employment, my school, and how I relate to civil government. Christ is sovereign over all in the life of the Christian individual. Do you honestly think you'll change that? Think again.

I believe that, if there is a God, he/she/it will love and respect all of "his children" as long as they appreciate him and accept him.

First, not everyone is a child of God. In order to be a child of God, one must be adopted by God. In this context I'm speaking of salvation, for there is not a universal salvation for mankind.

Second, we cannot on our own accept God and receive His grace which He freely offers. Left to ourselves in our fallen state, human beings lack the ability to be good or even seek after God (Romans 3:10-18). People cannot come to God unless He first changes their hearts by the working of His Spirit.

So just because you got all of your "God hates gays and their 'sinful behavior'" information from the Bible, doesn't make it so.

This is a complete mischaracterization of Christian theology and biblical exegesis. That the Scriptures signify that homosexual behavior is a sin doesn't mean that we hate homosexuals. I have not distorted or mischaracterized your beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would pay me the same respect.

I just want to mention that I applaud your approach to this thread. Though we have different beliefs, I appreciate that you are clearly and respectably making your argument and sharing your slant on things. It's refreshing to see that despite the cultural variance here, some of us still recognize the value and impact of treating the discussion in an adult manner.

I don't think Christian should make a spectacle of themselves and broadcast their sin before the world any more than I want to see someone else parade their sin before me and the world either.

What about rioters who are of the GLBT who riot the streets because their state voted against gay marriages? Is that okay? Do you agree with that? Did you speak out against that at all?

Here's the Youtube. Hope this works.

Did anyone else lol @ the "rainbow coalition" coming together in that ad? Way to reclaim a gay phrase!
*shrug* If marriage is in the church, make the legal union called something else, for homos and for heteros.
It's so interesting how we are supposed to have a separation of church and state here in the US yet gay marriage is this HUGE issue.
I might mention here my mother comes from a country that is conservative AND accepting of homosexuality... astonishing, no!?

Why is marriage an institution of civil government in the first place? An excellent compromise on this issue is to get the state out of the marriage business entirely.

Maybe this is a silly question, but how would we go about doing that, exactly?

Maybe this is a silly question, but how would we go about doing that, exactly?

I assume you're speaking here of the legal aspects of what I propose. I would respond by saying that all of the benefits of civil marriage could be obtained by a general right of contract. Therefore, a "civil union" could be anything between anyone. For example, if a group of single guys are living in a townhouse and they want to collectively secure their property rights, then all of them could enter into a "civil union" to obtain such legal benefits. It would have nothing to do with their sexuality.

As it stands, I can easily see heterosexuals pretending to be homosexuals in order to get "civil union" benefits. If they're going to abuse it anyway, then why not open "civil unions" up to anyone for any purpose? Well, we already have that in a sense. It's called a general right of contract. Hence I find no merit with respect to the arguments of legal benefits by those advocating same-sex "marriage." They aren't interested in the benefits so much as they are in having the state officially sanction (and therefore, endorse) their lifestyle.

I think it's less about the bragging rights to marriage as it is a symbol of their own commitment.

Do you marry so you can tell homosexual couples that you're married?

I think it's less about the bragging rights to marriage as it is a symbol of their own commitment.

I never said it had anything to do with bragging rights. What I said is that the underlying basis for their movement is the idea that government approval will eventually lead to societal approval. As Justice Brandeis said, the government is the "potent, omnipresent teacher." A hundred years ago this really wouldn't be possible because the state was not so involved in people's lives to act as some type of moral change-agent. Things are very different today. That's the main reason I've often criticized the so-called "Christian Right" because they're using entirely statist means to accomplish their cultural goals.

Do you marry so you can tell homosexual couples that you're married?

That's not really an appropriate question to ask me since I'll probably never be able to get married anyway, but the point is taken. People don't get married to brag about it to other, in most cases anyway. People get married for a variety of reasons.

"Bragging rights" is a figure of speech, in this case, meaning "societal approval."

Okay, my apologies then. I still stand by what I said.

Why wouldn't you be able to get married? Hog wash!

Why wouldn't you be able to get married?

Does God not set aside certain people to be single for the rest of their lives? I don't see any indicators that I ever will get married. Maybe that will change, but I don't see it happening from my present angle.

You're right, I suppose. But I always thought God wanted us to get married and have children. And be happy!! :-)

Not saying that you can't be happy not married, but I am sure there is scripture somewhere that speaks of marriage and the importance of it. Nevertheless, there were plenty of people, in the Bible, who were never married because they were out teaching and witnessing the Glory of God.

I agree 100%

In my humble opinion, it became an institution of civil government so that the people who are scared of anything different could control those they are scared of. Think of African American and Inter-racial couples. It's no different.

In my humble opinion, it became an institution of civil government so that the people who are scared of anything different could control those they are scared of. Think of African American and Inter-racial couples. It's no different.

With all due respect, your humble opinion doesn't match with historical fact. Marriage was a civil institution long before slavery and segregation came onto the scene in North America.

During the Medieval period, the Roman Catholic Church was often intertwined with the civil governments. Thus, certain rites like baptism and marriage because civil ordinances over time. For example, baptism was used as a means of conferring an individual to be a subject of a particular kingdom (kind of like a proof of citizenship). Marriage worked in a similar way. The whole idea was to strengthen the civil kingdoms and preserve the ideal "Corpus Christianum."

Actually I think given your example, she still has a point. Just because the institution of marriage came over the pond as a governmental issue doesn't change your point that it was put in place by the Church, which in modern day is supposed to be separate from government. It just kind of proves (to me) that America is not as progressive as everyone would have us "wee folk" believe.