Friday, March 25, 2011

Why SSM is wrong.

Also, Jesus Christ personally defined marriage.
Posted by at
Labels:

12 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

    from Rusty B...Just today a news story broke online and will likely hit the MSM soon. I would love to get your reaction.
    Louis J Marinelli, III continues to hold to his Catholic belief that homosexuality is immoral.
    Marinelli is a man who was one of the National Organization for Marriage's earliest activists, an effective strategist who founded NOM's national tours up to this past summer, the man who had launched NOM's official facebook page. So, he has been as opposed to gay people as you, but he questions some parts of NOM's positions.
    LOUIS MARINELLI: I quoted from the research of Paul Cameron when I said for NOM that "homosexuals have a shorter life-span." I must say that when I quoted this man I was not aware of his history....I retract this statement.
    I once wrote or implied that all homosexuals are single, even if they had at some point or another, been legally married by the state. While in the eyes of the Catholic faith, these same-sex unions aren’t recognized as marriages insofar as holy matrimony is concerned, I retract this statement now that I have been able to see and distinguish and understand the differences between religious and civil marriage.
    Any support or endorsement of what Peter LaBarbera does I retract. ..It is clear that he is just a hateful man and I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with him.
    Furthermore, the issues Peter takes on, even if they were true, are not in themselves valid reasons for denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage. I am aware how he was upset by my public support for the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" in December. His reasoning for such seemed to be something along the lines of “in order to protect marriage, you have to oppose everything homosexuals do”. If that were the case, Peter, how far should we go in restricting homosexuals’ lives?
    As far as my comments about the hijacking of the civil rights movement, I would say that while the offenses the gay community endure from the public are similar, the issue as it pertains to the government are totally different. 

    ..I agree that what the gay community are fighting for are their civil rights. So in that way, it is indeed a civil rights movement but not the civil rights movement. That is to say, a new civil rights movement, not an extension or continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
    I think a lot of work needs to be done for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, to change the culture of promiscuity in our country and we would be doing ourselves a favor to focus our energies on that instead of singling out and lying the blame on one of the many guilty parties. 


    On multiple occasions I have said something to the effect of “homosexuality is wrong”. And in my opinion it is. My transition from an opponent of same-sex marriage to a supporter does not mean I suddenly think homosexuality is a good thing. 

    
I personally disagree with it. The same way I disagree with many other things other people do with their lives. That doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to prevent homosexuals from being homosexuals or to take away their constitutionally protected civil rights as American citizens.

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/04/g-a-y-exclusive-exposure-to-nom-could-lead-to-unintended-side-effects-national-organization-for-marriage-tour-organizerfac.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. MantronikkApril 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

    1. Mr Marinelli has the right to support the redefinition of marriage if he so chooses.

    2. I am not "...opposed to gay people..." I would ask you to not bear false witness against me anymore. I peacefully oppose those who would redefine marriage and I disassociate with people that reject sexual sanity; if my best friend told me that he was having a sexual relationship with his sister because he has had a vasectomy, I would remove him from my life. Are you upset at the fact that I walk away from the glbt community?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    First off, I watched the interview above and I respect the right of the Catholic church to teach what it believes and to not be pressured to marry or not marry any couple. Liberal churches should have the same opportunity.
    Also, the Bishop seems not to realize civil laws in the US are not Bible verses interpreted into statute.
    The article I forwarded to you was from a Catholic former activist/leader in NOM. It seemed interesting, but I'm not sure you read it given your responses. I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand your position better.
    Rusty B.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MantronikkApril 11, 2011 at 7:46 AM

    What is a "liberal" church? A church is either going to adhere to scripture or it isn't. When it doesn't, it is no longer a house of the Lord. Also, ALL of our civil laws come from the ten commandments, so I don't get what you're saying when you say Bible verses are not interpeted into statute.
    Rusty, if you support same-sex "marriage," how can you call yourself a Christian? Do you think that you can ignore the words of the Word of God and be a part of his ministry? Jesus clearly states in Matthew 19:4-6 that a marriage is between one man and one woman. If you reject this concept, how can you consider yourself a minister? Do you think that you can be a minister of Jesus Christ's kingdom and cast aside his teachings? As you are trying to understand my position, I am trying to understand your's.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousApril 11, 2011 at 5:04 PM

    You ask some good questions. The first, "What is a liberal church?" (see Matt 5 and 23 where the values of Jesus are at odds with the conservative religious leaders of his day).
    A liberal church is one that follows the teachings of Jesus to care for the poor and bring the good news to captives and justice for those who are oppressed, i.e.:
    Liberal Christians abolished slavery while many conservative churches quoted verses which condoned it. Liberal churches supported women's rights to vote and own property while many conservative churches quoted verses to oppose it.
    Liberal churches supported interracial marriage while conservative churches quoted God's curse on Ham and other Bible verses to oppose it.
    Liberal churches supported the non-violent civil rights marches of Dr. Martin Luther King while conservative Christians quoted Bible verses to oppose it.
    Liberal churches supported women's full participation in the life of the church, including ministry, while many conservative churches quoted Bible verses to oppose it.
    Perhaps in time, gay marriage will be seen as just one more small part of the liberal movement that few conservatives question.
    In the Spirit of the Beatitudes,
    Rusty B.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM

    "A church is either going to adhere to scripture or it isn't." Please name the one that is perfectly in line with scripture on every issue. There are hundreds of denominations which claim to be the only ones adhering totally to scripture. They can't even agree among themselves. For instance, in evangelical denominations like the Baptists and the Assembly of God there is disagreement on issues from speaking in tongues to the proper way to baptize with each side claiming "clear, scriptural proof."
    Some say the Catholics are going straight to hell while Catholics say they alone can trace their lineage back to the Apostles and Jesus.
    If we declare apostasy every time there's a disagreement on a new social issue, we will create more disunity in the body of Christ. I think we need to recognize that what unites us is greater than what divides us.
    With hope for Christian unity,
    Rusty B.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousApril 11, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    The ten commandments are a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, but they have never been turned into civil statutes. For instance, there is no law against "coveting" your neighbor's wife or ass (a thought crime). And the first 3 commandments have to do with God and gods, also not laws. Sure, we have laws against stealing and murder, but so does every nation.
    In the Bible itself, you will never find the phrase "the ten commandments" except where translators added it as a heading. In the Bible text the only reference is to the ten devarim, which means "statements."
    But Jesus said, "A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you." I find that one the most challenging one of all.
    Rusty B.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousApril 11, 2011 at 5:47 PM

    Finally, Jesus was addressing divorce in Matthew 19. He warns against it in the strongest possible words in all 4 Gospels. Jesus states plainly divorce is against God's will. He says anyone who divorces his spouse and remarries is living in sin. Yet, the very same churches that demand someone vote for "one man, one woman" marriages are not consistent with Christ's teachings because divorce is as common among them as it is for society at large. That is spiritual advice straight from Jesus being ignored by the churches. It certainly gives one pause.
    But the statements of Jesus in Matthew 19 have nothing to do with American civil laws regarding government-issued marriage licenses today. Regardless of what one believes about marriage, there is no Biblical mandate to vote one way on a ballot issue. To say otherwise is to make the same mistake Muslim fundamentalists are making with Sharia, the same mistake the Catholic church made back during "The Dark Ages" when the scriptures and the government were not separated.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MantronikkApril 11, 2011 at 5:50 PM

    http://www.dividedbytruth.org/BD/wpfib_part1.htm

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-15&version=NIV

    http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2011/04/discussion-with-mr-rusty-blustering.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. MantronikkApril 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM

    Christian divorce is allowed in cases of adultery or abandonment.

    http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2011/04/discussion-with-mr-rusty-blustering.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. MantronikkApril 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM

    Jesus clearly defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Since the slave is not greater than the Master, how can you be a Christian and support same-sex "marriage"?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&version=NIV

    http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2011/04/discussion-with-mr-rusty-blustering.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. MantronikkApril 11, 2011 at 6:11 PM

    Most people don't know that the Word of God/The Bible SUPPORTS interracial marriage.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012:1-8&version=NIV

    http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2011/04/discussion-with-mr-rusty-blustering.html

    ReplyDelete

Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)