Jump to content


Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

T_O_Bull

By T_O_Bull,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted

 

Let's wait for DBQ to answer.

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses.

 

As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional.

 

As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful.

 

As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years."

 

And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran)

 

 

I disagree with your stance. I will spend as much time as I have to speaking against these stances until minds are changed.

 

But I respect the non-rancorous tone in which you made your stance clear. It is through reasonable conversation that we will come to, if not a change of heart, at least an understanding.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Dbqgolfer Three-Star Recruit

Dbqgolfer

Posted
Posted

 

 

Let's wait for DBQ to answer.

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses.

 

As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional.

 

As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful.

 

As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years."

 

And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran)

 

 

I disagree with your stance. I will spend as much time as I have to speaking against these stances until minds are changed.

 

But I respect the non-rancorous tone in which you made your stance clear. It is through reasonable conversation that we will come to, if not a change of heart, at least an understanding.

 

Ditto

Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Heisman Winner

It'sNotAFakeID

Posted
Posted

 

Let's wait for DBQ to answer.

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses.

 

As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional.

 

As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful.

 

As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years."

 

And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran)

 

 

Couple points I want to make.

 

1) There's a major difference between homosexual conversion therapy and therapy that sought by others with problems (e.g., alcoholism). The former results in no undue harm to innocent people whereas the latter could potentially harm innocent others. A homosexual-oriented person does not bring harm to family members, friends, or random people on the street. Alcoholism has a very well-documented detrimental effect on family, friends, and random people on the street. That alone is enough to dismiss the statement that gay conversion therapy would work because people who deal with other sins via therapy have worked. There is no problem that needs to be fixed.

 

2) This is perhaps more idealistic than anything else, but I just wish we didn't deny services to anyone based on their pretty rational beliefs, and just do what they set out to do. A wedding cake maker makes cakes for weddings; these people should do it regardless of whether they agree with the other person's (once again pretty normal) lifestyle. There is so much contention over really trivial, unimportant to you, matters, that we will refuse to do our jobs for someone who likes something we don't like?

Link to comment

Guy Chamberlin Defensive Coordinator

Guy Chamberlin

Posted
Posted

It's always a tricky balance between science and faith, but if Christians are going to drive cars, use computers, and have their lives saved by scientific advancements like insulin, they need to accept the fact that around 10% of the human population in every culture, probably throughout history and quite possibly stretching into the animal kingdom, is homosexual. There can be a healthy debate as to why -- built-in population control, a modest anomoly like being left-handed -- but long before "Will & Grace" was a hit on network television, homosexuals walked the Earth just as God made them.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Heisman Winner

It'sNotAFakeID

Posted
Posted

It's always a tricky balance between science and faith, but if Christians are going to drive cars, use computers, and have their lives saved by scientific advancements like insulin, they need to accept the fact that around 10% of the human population in every culture, probably throughout history and quite possibly stretching into the animal kingdom, is homosexual. There can be a healthy debate as to why -- built-in population control, a modest anomoly like being left-handed -- but long before "Will & Grace" was a hit on network television, homosexuals walked the Earth just as God made them.

 

I've always wondered why, if God didn't approve of homosexuality and if he created humans, why did he create homosexual humans?

Link to comment
tschu All Conference

tschu

Posted
Posted

Obviously God made them heterosexual but SATAN THE DEVIL came to convert them to homosexuality and those gay heathens gave in to Satan's will because they are weak sinners. Also Satan gives people cancer and God is like "Hell no I'm not gonna cure it LOL"

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...