Civil government and Social acceptance of Same Sex relationships

[christundivided]

Let me first say I am glad the amendment in NC passed. In my home county it passed with 75 percent of the vote. I personally voted for the amendment...... and Ill tell you why I did.

Whether you believe the way I believe concerning the sin of homosexuality and the obvious hypocrisy of modern Christianity in focusing too much on homosexuality at the expense of other sins.... there are primary two reason why I voted for the amendment.

First, it was all about the money. Not money in the fact it would cost civil government more. Its about money in the fact you will never convince that a homosexual/lesbian cares absolutely anything to do with marriage. They don't care. The only reason they do care is because someone told them they could do it and it will cost them more money to live within the social structure than a heterosexual couple. Its all about the money. The gay agenda has always been about money. Always. There once was a time that gay/lesbian couple could care less about civil recognition of marriage. They had their "sex" and that's all they cared about. Sex, sex and more sex. As long as they could convert someone and get into their pants..... that's all they cared about. Then when they decided to go "main stream"..... they had to change the subject to something people actually cared about. "Money". Which brings me to second reason I voted for the amendment.

Second. To me... it was primarily about the danger of the "Social Acceptance" of such behavior. I remember as a young man hearing a evangelist say

" the more a thing is done, the more its accepted. The more the thing is accepted, the more people fall victim to the practice".

This so true. There is a great danger in the civil, governmental acceptance of social behavior. We are rightfully taught from a young age that civil government is to be respected as a limiting factor in social behavior. If we had allowed gay marriages to become "law of the land" in NC, then it would have been accepted just as easily as "grass is green" and the sky is "generally blue". I can't fathom such. The idea is entirely grotesque to me.

Passing the amendment didn't stop anyone from practicing the sin of homosexuality nor more than the civil approval of heterosexual marriage stops adultery. However, it did make a statement that such a lifestyle would not receive the benefit "civil governments" endorsement.

Don't you believe its dangerous when civil government ignores its requirement to establish a sense of proper social acceptance?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, I think you're probably right, although I'm sure you're going to see long term committed gay couples from NC coming out of the woodwork (no pun intended) during the next few days.

The liberal spin is that NC is filled with uneducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

 

[Izdaari]

Don't you believe its dangerous when civil government ignores its requirement to establish a sense of proper social acceptance?

I don't actually think that's a proper role for civil government.

 

[Izdaari]

Personally, I think you're probably right, although I'm sure you're going to see long term committed gay couples from NC coming out of the woodwork (no pun intended) during the next few days.

The liberal spin is that NC is filled with uneducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

You mean it isn't!? 

 

[christundivided]

Don't you believe its dangerous when civil government ignores its requirement to establish a sense of proper social acceptance?

I don't actually think that's a proper role for civil government.

Civil governments establish "law". While any "law" will never establish righteousness. Any "law" does set boundaries for acceptable social behavior. If you break the law you receive the judgement of that law. Judgement eventual is a "deterrent" to unacceptable behavior.

It is clear that not only has God defined certain laws over history, he also established a natural order to creation. In this "natural" order/law. There are hard limits and there are "soft" limits. "Soft limits" are the natural result of our actions in sin. The spread of AIDS is still primary the result of homosexual sex. Today. 50 percent of AIDS victims are young black/white homosexual/bisexual men. While not all disease comes as direct result of personal sins. I don't see how in the world any person could deny "AIDS" isn't God's judgement in humanity against homosexuality. The evidence is overwhelming. Lets call this God's "soft limit". God allowed such men to partake of sin but God ordained a judgement on those who do. Even to the point of that judgement being a "deterrent" to those who would follow in their footsteps. Whether this is written in stone/paper or not...... Such things are clearly "natural law".

While I am not dispensationlist, It is clear that God has established that man govern himself through civil authorities. Can you elaborate on just what is the proper "role" of civil government?

I do know that libertarians have greatly distorted the proper role of government. It is not the role of government to establish "liberty" alone. It is the role of government to limit "freedom" where that "freedom" is to the detriment of social order.

Not to get too graphic...... but do you realize just what homosexual sexual practices involve? There was a reason Paul spoke of how homosexuals/bisexuals leave the "natural use" of a women. They have replaced the natural use of the female sex organ with a "faux" representation filled with dung and called it "love"..... or a "human right".

What can't nature's "soft limits" establish "civil law"?

 

[Izdaari]

While I am not dispensationlist, It is clear that God has established that man govern himself through civil authorities. Can you elaborate on just what is the proper "role" of civil government?

Sure. Governments exist to protect us from aggression and to settle our disputes without having to resort to aggression ourselves. That entails handling foreign relations, going to war when necessary for national security (and only then), and having police, courts and a penal system of some kind. IMHO, government should make laws only to protect someone's rights from being violated, not to make people behave morally.

And our Constitution authorizes a few other government activities such as the postal service, and while that's not my ideal, I have no real problem with it.

If no one is being aggressed against or coerced, there's no cause for intervention. And Adam and Steve, or Andrea and Susan, getting married doesn't violate my rights, so whether I like it or not, or consider it immoral or not, I have no cause to complain to government about it.

Yeah, I know, it's a libertarian view, but hey, I'm a libertarian. What else would you expect?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, I think you're probably right, although I'm sure you're going to see long term committed gay couples from NC coming out of the woodwork (no pun intended) during the next few days.

The liberal spin is that NC is filled with uneducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

You mean it isn't!? 

We merely agree with 30 other knuckle dragging states....as well as the Biblical definition of marriage.
But, I'm sure the drag queens in nun garb in Sn Fran are much more sophisticated than we are....

 

[Izdaari]

Personally, I think you're probably right, although I'm sure you're going to see long term committed gay couples from NC coming out of the woodwork (no pun intended) during the next few days.

The liberal spin is that NC is filled with uneducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

You mean it isn't!? 

We merely agree with 30 other knuckle dragging states....as well as the Biblical definition of marriage.
But, I'm sure the drag queens in nun garb in Sn Fran are much more sophisticated than we are....

And don't forget my home town, Seattle AKA San Francisco North. Although I haven't seen any dressed as nuns. Must be just a San Francisco thing.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, I think you're probably right, although I'm sure you're going to see long term committed gay couples from NC coming out of the woodwork (no pun intended) during the next few days.

The liberal spin is that NC is filled with uneducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

You mean it isn't!? 

We merely agree with 30 other knuckle dragging states....as well as the Biblical definition of marriage.
But, I'm sure the drag queens in nun garb in Sn Fran are much more sophisticated than we are....

And don't forget my home town, Seattle AKA San Francisco North. Although I haven't seen any dressed as nuns. Must be just a San Francisco thing.

We can only hope....
I think they call themselves The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

 

[4everfsu]

I voted for the law because I had to only read the first 3 chapters of Genesis to know what the definitions of marriage was by the Creator.

 

[christundivided]

While I am not dispensationlist, It is clear that God has established that man govern himself through civil authorities. Can you elaborate on just what is the proper "role" of civil government?

Sure. Governments exist to protect us from aggression and to settle our disputes without having to resort to aggression ourselves. That entails handling foreign relations, going to war when necessary for national security (and only then), and having police, courts and a penal system of some kind. IMHO, government should make laws only to protect someone's rights from being violated, not to make people behave morally.

And our Constitution authorizes a few other government activities such as the postal service, and while that's not my ideal, I have no real problem with it.

If no one is being aggressed against or coerced, there's no cause for intervention. And Adam and Steve, or Andrea and Susan, getting married doesn't violate my rights, so whether I like it or not, or consider it immoral or not, I have no cause to complain to government about it.

Yeah, I know, it's a libertarian view, but hey, I'm a libertarian. What else would you expect?

So.... you don't think the "gay" agenda isn't an "aggressive" attempt to "coerce" public opinion?

Social opinion is more than just an individual "opinion". It sets a collective social "order" in civil interactions. The ultimate goal of the "gay agenda" is to make those who oppose them guilty of "hate crimes".

Would you be for a constitutional amendment that would make discrimination against the homosexual lifestyle a "hate crime"? I assume you readily believe that "gays" are being "discriminated against".

Also, from theological perspective....

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Paul spoke of how the Gentiles naturally "governed" their own actions by the same "things" contained in the Holy Law. Gentiles that had not the Holy Law of God generally lived by the natural aspects of the "Holy Law".... not even knowing nor considering the law to given to Israel.

Do you see this a mistake by the Gentiles. How would you libertarian views actually correspond with what "Paul" said was a natural law unto "themselves".

I can't help but see how a libertarian view contrasts with the natural law that Paul praised the Gentiles for observing.

If "Gentile law" has historically followed God's "natural law"... Why would you want the same?

Also, if the resulting "natural, civil law" is designed to "convict" mankind's conscience.....

Rom 2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Why would you want such removed from civil law in the name of "liberty". ????

 

[AresMan]

Would you be for a constitutional amendment that would make discrimination against the homosexual lifestyle a "hate crime"? I assume you readily believe that "gays" are being "discriminated against".

I seriously doubt she would. A true libertarian believes in freedom of speech, which would mean that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality can express their views in the free market of ideas.

 

[christundivided]

You illustrate my point perfectly!!

Let's hope one day that Mazin, Muhammed and Khadijah, once in positions of leadership, don't pass legislation against YOU based on the first 3 chapters of the first book of the Quran.

You illustrate my point perfectly.

My interpretation of Hebrew literature on gay marriage is the same as yours but that wasn't my point.

But you have illustrated my point perfectly.

You're being silly. Comparing the glorious nature of the Divine Scriptures to the fiction of the Quran is total nonsense. Not to even mention anyone has to Genesis 1-3 to establish natures law on marriage.

A exclusively homosexual/lesbian lifestyle doesn't produce any offspring. Thus, natural selection ensures their destruction. Even "natures laws".... naturally define the institution of marriage/relationships.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Also, if the resulting "natural, civil law" is designed to "convict" mankind's conscience.....

Rom 2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Why would you want such removed from civil law in the name of "liberty". ????[/quote]

"natural law" ≠ "civil law"

[quote author=christundivided]You're being silly. Comparing the glorious nature of the Divine Scriptures to the fiction of the Quran is total nonsense.[/quote]

I see you missed his point entirely.

[quote author=christundivided]Not to even mention anyone has to Genesis 1-3 to establish natures law on marriage.

A exclusively homosexual/lesbian lifestyle doesn't produce any offspring. Thus, natural selection ensures their destruction. Even "natures laws".... naturally define the institution of marriage/relationships.
[/quote]

You want to use procreative ability as the litmus test on whether or not a sexual relationship is legitimate? Do you realize where this argument leads?

(And I would agree that homosexual activity is sinful.)

 

[Izdaari]

Would you be for a constitutional amendment that would make discrimination against the homosexual lifestyle a "hate crime"? I assume you readily believe that "gays" are being "discriminated against".

I seriously doubt she would. A true libertarian believes in freedom of speech, which would mean that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality can express their views in the free market of ideas.

Yeah, that's what libertarians want: Everybody to be able to have their say, even if it's obnoxious or offensive. We are not in favor of 'hate speech' laws. Don't confuse us with modern liberals aka progressives.

 

[4everfsu]

Since Obama came forth with gay marriage rights, latest poll today out has him behind  Romney by 7% points.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

 

[Reformed Guy]

If we as a society in 2012 can use the christian bible as a basis for laws, legislated by a christian majority, what is to prevent legislators down the road, who by some tragic fluke, were of a Muslim majority, from using the Quran?

Take the Bible out of the equation and ask the same question and you get the same answer.

"If we as a society in 2012, as a basis for laws legislate by a majority, what is to prevent legislators down the road, who by some tragic fluke, were of a Muslim majority, from using the Quran?"

 

[Izdaari]

While I am not dispensationlist, It is clear that God has established that man govern himself through civil authorities. Can you elaborate on just what is the proper "role" of civil government?

Sure. Governments exist to protect us from aggression and to settle our disputes without having to resort to aggression ourselves. That entails handling foreign relations, going to war when necessary for national security (and only then), and having police, courts and a penal system of some kind. IMHO, government should make laws only to protect someone's rights from being violated, not to make people behave morally.

And our Constitution authorizes a few other government activities such as the postal service, and while that's not my ideal, I have no real problem with it.

If no one is being aggressed against or coerced, there's no cause for intervention. And Adam and Steve, or Andrea and Susan, getting married doesn't violate my rights, so whether I like it or not, or consider it immoral or not, I have no cause to complain to government about it.

Yeah, I know, it's a libertarian view, but hey, I'm a libertarian. What else would you expect?

So.... you don't think the "gay" agenda isn't an "aggressive" attempt to "coerce" public opinion?

Social opinion is more than just an individual "opinion". It sets a collective social "order" in civil interactions. The ultimate goal of the "gay agenda" is to make those who oppose them guilty of "hate crimes".

Would you be for a constitutional amendment that would make discrimination against the homosexual lifestyle a "hate crime"? I assume you readily believe that "gays" are being "discriminated against".

Also, from theological perspective....

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Paul spoke of how the Gentiles naturally "governed" their own actions by the same "things" contained in the Holy Law. Gentiles that had not the Holy Law of God generally lived by the natural aspects of the "Holy Law".... not even knowing nor considering the law to given to Israel.

Do you see this a mistake by the Gentiles. How would you libertarian views actually correspond with what "Paul" said was a natural law unto "themselves".

I can't help but see how a libertarian view contrasts with the natural law that Paul praised the Gentiles for observing.

If "Gentile law" has historically followed God's "natural law"... Why would you want the same?

Also, if the resulting "natural, civil law" is designed to "convict" mankind's conscience.....

Rom 2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Why would you want such removed from civil law in the name of "liberty". ????

The only 'gay agenda' I know of, and I know gays who are politically active, is to be treated equally under the law. Just like the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Do they seek to affect public opinion? You bet. And it's working. Public opinion has shifted dramatically in their favor in the last 15 years or so. To coerce it? Some think that way, out of 'progressive' ideology. And I do my best to convince them it's a dumb idea... and one on one, I'm been fairly successful in that.

Your understanding of Natural Law is a little off. I'd suggest reading some Aquinas and Locke. What Paul is talking about is a little different, more like what C.S. Lewis often spoke of, that all humanity has some inkling of right and wrong, given to them by God. But that has little to do with principles of civil government, more like just a given when dealing with humans.

Locke's version of Natural Law is what Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence on. It gives us the right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". It doesn't give us the right to legislate as though we were the national religion in a theocracy. Just the opposite: it gives us the right to be free from that sort of nanny state intervention.

No, I am against 'hate speech' laws. Everybody should have their say, and there is no right not to be offended, by someone's speech or by who or what they marry.

 

[4everfsu]

Yes,  Christundivided, you DID miss my point entirely.

My concern in my post was not WHICH bible is glorious or ficticious. Nor was it the validity or superficiality of the homosexual lifestyle.

It was the separation of church and state and making sure we keep lawmakers from imposing the "glorious" bible's archaic rules into modern day citizen's lives

And SILLILY,

we will also keep lawmakers from imposing the henious Quran ( should they ever try ) into our lives.

But about the bible and gay marriage: y'all are right - it does teach one man and one woman.

By the way,  you certainly have a right to your opinion about gay peoples' motives, but at least speaking  for me YOU ARE SO WRONG AND OFF BASE.

When you say we keep lawmakers from imposing the "glorious" bible's archaic rules into modern day citizen's lives. What examples are you referring to? Thou shalt no kill or marriage is between a man and woman?

Thanks

 

[christundivided]

"natural law" ≠ "civil law"

I made a strong case for such when Paul spoke of how Gentiles did by nature the things contained within the law.... and ALL you have to say is "natural law" isn't "civil law".

How about explaining why natural law can't be "civil law" or better yet... Why it shouldn't be.

You want to use procreative ability as the litmus test on whether or not a sexual relationship is legitimate? Do you realize where this argument leads?

No. School me..... and don't pretend a heterosexual's couple inability to naturally reproduce is apples to apples with a homosexuals "couple" attempt to make sperm and a turd create life. At least a heterosexual couple has the ability to find help and actually produce genetic offspring from their union. You'll never take two queer's sperm and make a human being. Nor will you two dykes eggs and make a human being. Regardless of what you think.... you will never cross God's divine boundaries in such. Even the queers and dykes have to VIOLATE their own relationship to produce offspring. Even then.... IT WILL NEVER BE THEIR OWN GENETIC UNION.

Do you get it? Now.... school me.

Heterosexual Marriage is part of God's plan for proper social reproduction.