Is being against gay marriage homophobic?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

But my point is that there is no secular reason to make straight couples more "valid" than gay couples. This is about gay marriage in principal, not the supreme courts decision on it. Do you agree that a secular institution with no loyalty to any religion has no reason to consider gay couples less legitimate than straight ones?

I'd honestly have to think about this.  The phrase you used has loads of subtle legal implications, and the end product may have any number of unintended surprises that I would not agree with.

People scoffed at the idea that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would end up resulting in men and women using the same bathrooms.  ERA's advocates scoffed at that possibility, but now we're having this massive debate on where folks can go to the bathroom.  Of course, I'm for Equal Rights, but Obergefell is determined by legal "facts".  In legalese, "fact" two plus two equaling four is not necessarily an absolute truth; it could be a compromise between those who believe the answer to be three and those who believe the answer to be five.  I've lived long enough to see lots of unintended consequences to what seemed sound reasoning at the time.

[afleitch]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

But my point is that there is no secular reason to make straight couples more "valid" than gay couples. This is about gay marriage in principal, not the supreme courts decision on it. Do you agree that a secular institution with no loyalty to any religion has no reason to consider gay couples less legitimate than straight ones?

I'd honestly have to think about this.  The phrase you used has loads of subtle legal implications, and the end product may have any number of unintended surprises that I would not agree with.

People scoffed at the idea that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would end up resulting in men and women using the same bathrooms.  ERA's advocates scoffed at that possibility, but now we're having this massive debate on where folks can go to the bathroom.  Of course, I'm for Equal Rights, but Obergefell is determined by legal "facts".  In legalese, "fact" two plus two equaling four is not necessarily an absolute truth; it could be a compromise between those who believe the answer to be three and those who believe the answer to be five.  I've lived long enough to see lots of unintended consequences to what seemed sound reasoning at the time.

Should a secular institution consider remarried divorcees less legitimate than those on their first marriage on the basis that some Christian and other religious denominations (and Jesus himself) take a hard line against divorce?

[Mette Frederiksen Stan]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

I do not oppose SSM because it is a "threat to the sanctity of marriage".  It doesn't affect my marriage at all.  While I do not support it (and never will), I do view it as a fait accompli, and not an issue I would want my elected officials spending endless energy on.  If people think it's OK and wish to partake in such a union (and the activities that go with it), well, that's on them.

I oppose SSM for one reason:  It is an affront to God.  I'm not going to beat people over the head, rhetorically, or harass them in public, but I'm never going to say God's OK with it.  He's not OK with it, at least not according to my Bible.  I'm not going to start threads on this subject, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking about it, but I will stand up and be counted.  Whatever that makes me is up to the reader, I suppose.

The same god that ordered infanticide?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

But my point is that there is no secular reason to make straight couples more "valid" than gay couples. This is about gay marriage in principal, not the supreme courts decision on it. Do you agree that a secular institution with no loyalty to any religion has no reason to consider gay couples less legitimate than straight ones?

I'd honestly have to think about this.  The phrase you used has loads of subtle legal implications, and the end product may have any number of unintended surprises that I would not agree with.

People scoffed at the idea that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would end up resulting in men and women using the same bathrooms.  ERA's advocates scoffed at that possibility, but now we're having this massive debate on where folks can go to the bathroom.  Of course, I'm for Equal Rights, but Obergefell is determined by legal "facts".  In legalese, "fact" two plus two equaling four is not necessarily an absolute truth; it could be a compromise between those who believe the answer to be three and those who believe the answer to be five.  I've lived long enough to see lots of unintended consequences to what seemed sound reasoning at the time.

The ERA has basically nothing to do with the issues that lead to trans people wanting to pee in the right bathroom(I'm not going to give the idea that I and others like me belong with burly men because of our chromosomes any credit).

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

I do not oppose SSM because it is a "threat to the sanctity of marriage".  It doesn't affect my marriage at all.  While I do not support it (and never will), I do view it as a fait accompli, and not an issue I would want my elected officials spending endless energy on.  If people think it's OK and wish to partake in such a union (and the activities that go with it), well, that's on them.

I oppose SSM for one reason:  It is an affront to God.  I'm not going to beat people over the head, rhetorically, or harass them in public, but I'm never going to say God's OK with it.  He's not OK with it, at least not according to my Bible.  I'm not going to start threads on this subject, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking about it, but I will stand up and be counted.  Whatever that makes me is up to the reader, I suppose.

The same god that ordered infanticide?

The same God that sent his only Son to Die for your sins and mine.  THAT God.

The plague of the firstborn in Egypt came from Pharoh, himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

But my point is that there is no secular reason to make straight couples more "valid" than gay couples. This is about gay marriage in principal, not the supreme courts decision on it. Do you agree that a secular institution with no loyalty to any religion has no reason to consider gay couples less legitimate than straight ones?

I'd honestly have to think about this.  The phrase you used has loads of subtle legal implications, and the end product may have any number of unintended surprises that I would not agree with.

People scoffed at the idea that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would end up resulting in men and women using the same bathrooms.  ERA's advocates scoffed at that possibility, but now we're having this massive debate on where folks can go to the bathroom.  Of course, I'm for Equal Rights, but Obergefell is determined by legal "facts".  In legalese, "fact" two plus two equaling four is not necessarily an absolute truth; it could be a compromise between those who believe the answer to be three and those who believe the answer to be five.  I've lived long enough to see lots of unintended consequences to what seemed sound reasoning at the time.

Should a secular institution consider remarried divorcees less legitimate than those on their first marriage on the basis that some Christian and other religious denominations (and Jesus himself) take a hard line against divorce?

No.  And I certainly don't believe that many of the stances a number of Christian denominations have on divorce are Biblically correct.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I hope this thread was started as a joke. Still it should be said that opposing anyone's basic rights and pursuit of equality makes you (or should make you) at least somewhat biased against those people. Next.

[Koharu]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

There is no Biblical basis to believe that a "wife" can mean anything but a woman and a "husband" can mean anything but a man

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/man-and-woman-or-husband-and-wife-1-timothy-28-15

The Greek word for "wife" in this passage clearly refers to a female, although there is a certain amount of debate as to whether or not it means a "woman" or a "wife".

God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:22-24

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hebrew word for "wife" clearly imply a female.

I really wonder what you mean when you say you're a "Christian".  I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but that word means something specific.  Lots of people call themselves Christians because they attend Church, think Jesus's teachings were really cool, or out of habit and culture, but being a Christian is not like being a Democrat or a Republican.

Being a Christian (Biblically Speaking) means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It means that you believe that he is who He says He is.  It means faith in his deity, in his being the second person of the Godhead, who became human, lived a sinless life, and died as a sacrifice for OUR sins, then rose from the dead after winning victory over death, hell, and the grave; that he currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, and that He shall return as promised to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That's the belief that Scripture says is required in order to receive remission of sin and eternal life. 

And it also means believing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that there is no passage of Scripture that refers to a married couple as anything BUT a male and a female.  Not one.  If you can find one, have at it. 

One's belief on Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, military spending, Donald Trump's latest tweet, the Alt Right and Antifa, either way, likely don't have any Eternal Significance as to where you or I will spend Eternity.  Your belief in Jesus Christ, in who He explicitly says he is, in His Exclusivity as the only means by which one can be Saved, in the belief that His Sacrifice is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sin, and that he is, indeed, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is fully Man and Fully God; THAT is what has ETERNAL significance.  Eternity is a long time.  I know lifelong HPs who had deathbed conversions that were (I believe) legitimate; they're with Him Eternally.  I know FFs who rejected Christ's Lordship to the end.  Scripture tells me that absent something that may have transpired in the last tick of their life, they're apart from God, Eternally.  Whatever you may think of me or any of my political writings, THIS IS THE ONLY DEAL GOD OFFERS.  There's nothing else.  I could care less who you vote for, but I don't want you, or the worst HPs on this site for that matter, to be in Hell.  I stand on His Word that He is, indeed, The Way, and The Only Way.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

There is no Biblical basis to believe that a "wife" can mean anything but a woman and a "husband" can mean anything but a man

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/man-and-woman-or-husband-and-wife-1-timothy-28-15

The Greek word for "wife" in this passage clearly refers to a female, although there is a certain amount of debate as to whether or not it means a "woman" or a "wife".

God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:22-24

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hebrew word for "wife" clearly imply a female.

I really wonder what you mean when you say you're a "Christian".  I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but that word means something specific.  Lots of people call themselves Christians because they attend Church, think Jesus's teachings were really cool, or out of habit and culture, but being a Christian is not like being a Democrat or a Republican.

Being a Christian (Biblically Speaking) means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It means that you believe that he is who He says He is.  It means faith in his deity, in his being the second person of the Godhead, who became human, lived a sinless life, and died as a sacrifice for OUR sins, then rose from the dead after winning victory over death, hell, and the grave; that he currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, and that He shall return as promised to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That's the belief that Scripture says is required in order to receive remission of sin and eternal life. 

And it also means believing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that there is no passage of Scripture that refers to a married couple as anything BUT a male and a female.  Not one.  If you can find one, have at it. 

One's belief on Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, military spending, Donald Trump's latest tweet, the Alt Right and Antifa, either way, likely don't have any Eternal Significance as to where you or I will spend Eternity.  Your belief in Jesus Christ, in who He explicitly says he is, in His Exclusivity as the only means by which one can be Saved, in the belief that His Sacrifice is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sin, and that he is, indeed, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is fully Man and Fully God; THAT is what has ETERNAL significance.  Eternity is a long time.  I know lifelong HPs who had deathbed conversions that were (I believe) legitimate; they're with Him Eternally.  I know FFs who rejected Christ's Lordship to the end.  Scripture tells me that absent something that may have transpired in the last tick of their life, they're apart from God, Eternally.  Whatever you may think of me or any of my political writings, THIS IS THE ONLY DEAL GOD OFFERS.  There's nothing else.  I could care less who you vote for, but I don't want you, or the worst HPs on this site for that matter, to be in Hell.  I stand on His Word that He is, indeed, The Way, and The Only Way.

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

There is no Biblical basis to believe that a "wife" can mean anything but a woman and a "husband" can mean anything but a man

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/man-and-woman-or-husband-and-wife-1-timothy-28-15

The Greek word for "wife" in this passage clearly refers to a female, although there is a certain amount of debate as to whether or not it means a "woman" or a "wife".

God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:22-24

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hebrew word for "wife" clearly imply a female.

I really wonder what you mean when you say you're a "Christian".  I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but that word means something specific.  Lots of people call themselves Christians because they attend Church, think Jesus's teachings were really cool, or out of habit and culture, but being a Christian is not like being a Democrat or a Republican.

Being a Christian (Biblically Speaking) means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It means that you believe that he is who He says He is.  It means faith in his deity, in his being the second person of the Godhead, who became human, lived a sinless life, and died as a sacrifice for OUR sins, then rose from the dead after winning victory over death, hell, and the grave; that he currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, and that He shall return as promised to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That's the belief that Scripture says is required in order to receive remission of sin and eternal life. 

And it also means believing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that there is no passage of Scripture that refers to a married couple as anything BUT a male and a female.  Not one.  If you can find one, have at it. 

One's belief on Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, military spending, Donald Trump's latest tweet, the Alt Right and Antifa, either way, likely don't have any Eternal Significance as to where you or I will spend Eternity.  Your belief in Jesus Christ, in who He explicitly says he is, in His Exclusivity as the only means by which one can be Saved, in the belief that His Sacrifice is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sin, and that he is, indeed, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is fully Man and Fully God; THAT is what has ETERNAL significance.  Eternity is a long time.  I know lifelong HPs who had deathbed conversions that were (I believe) legitimate; they're with Him Eternally.  I know FFs who rejected Christ's Lordship to the end.  Scripture tells me that absent something that may have transpired in the last tick of their life, they're apart from God, Eternally.  Whatever you may think of me or any of my political writings, THIS IS THE ONLY DEAL GOD OFFERS.  There's nothing else.  I could care less who you vote for, but I don't want you, or the worst HPs on this site for that matter, to be in Hell.  I stand on His Word that He is, indeed, The Way, and The Only Way.

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

Then just what is the Bible?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God[/u] (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.]2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is it a comic book?  Fairy Tales?  An extension of Aesop's Fables?  Or is it the inspired Word of God?

I'm trying not to be judgmental, but I have found that those who treat the Bible as less than authoritative are folks that are following their own morality.  Letting your conscience be your guide would be great if people's consciences weren't so easily seared.

[ProudModerate2]

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

If someone hasn't figured it out by now, FuzzyBear has a warped interpretation of what Christianity is and should be.
He uses the Bible and his religion to preach bigotry towards others who are different than him (mainly trashing those in the LBGT community and people of color).
He has a heart filled with hate. Sad.

[Koharu]

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

If someone hasn't figured it out by now, FuzzyBear has a warped interpretation of what Christianity is and should be.
He uses the Bible and his religion to preach bigotry towards others who are different than him (mainly trashing those in the LBGT community and people of color).
He has a heart filled with hate. Sad.

Back on ignore he goes. As a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible extensively, it drives me crazy when people claim God defined marriage in some particular way and claims that it's the only way marriage can happen, so I had to respond, but I should have known better.

Anyway, to respond to your "citation," Fuzzy, that is not an ordination of marriage. It's a description of the relationship between men and women. Very different things. It doesn't exclude anyone else from having that relationship, just explaining why men and women are the ones who (usually) seek each other out.

I have no desire to further talk with you because you return to this same method of attack, which I feel reflects poorly on your faith and Christ. I apologize for engaging in the first place, as I should have known better. But when I see folks using the Bible and Christ's name to spread hatred, I get riled. I'm out of this topic and I pray that you can experience peace.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

If someone hasn't figured it out by now, FuzzyBear has a warped interpretation of what Christianity is and should be.
He uses the Bible and his religion to preach bigotry towards others who are different than him (mainly trashing those in the LBGT community and people of color).
He has a heart filled with hate. Sad.

Back on ignore he goes. As a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible extensively, it drives me crazy when people claim God defined marriage in some particular way and claims that it's the only way marriage can happen, so I had to respond, but I should have known better.

Anyway, to respond to your "citation," Fuzzy, that is not an ordination of marriage. It's a description of the relationship between men and women. Very different things. It doesn't exclude anyone else from having that relationship, just explaining why men and women are the ones who (usually) seek each other out.

I have no desire to further talk with you because you return to this same method of attack, which I feel reflects poorly on your faith and Christ. I apologize for engaging in the first place, as I should have known better. But when I see folks using the Bible and Christ's name to spread hatred, I get riled. I'm out of this topic and I pray that you can experience peace.

God Bless you; you must be reading a different Bible than I.

I really pity the people who served as your teachers.  I mean this sincerely; they have apparently convinced you of utter falsehoods.   Consider James 3:1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder how much peace you experience, given that what I post is so upsetting to you.  It's the basic Christian Doctrine of Salvation, based on a Fundamentalist view of Scripture.

There are lots of people who have "studied" the Scriptures.  Indeed, Scripture itself speaks of Satan tempting Christ using Scripture.  Not everyone who knows Scripture is using it for Godly purposes.  I'll let the reader let God reveal to them who is and who isn't.  But I would ask anyone who has actually studied the Scriptures just what the Scriptures are in the first place?

Are the Scriptures the Infallible Word of God, or something else.  I believe they are, in fact, the infallible Word of God.  I believe that based on prayer, on life experiences that confirm their truth, and by the fact that searching the Scriptures never fails to draw me closer to God and hear His voice amidst the noise.  The kind of Faith a child of God has is not a blind Faith; God has left his children with directions on how to live and all we need to know in terms of how to be Saved and to lead others to be Saved.  Those directions are in His Word, and when I receive inspiration in prayer, I line what I discern in prayer with what God's Word says, and God will not contradict His Word in answering prayer.

What is the implication of people believing that Scripture is not the inerrant Word of God?  How do they know what is Right and Wrong; what is Truth and Error?  Can one's conscience be one's guide?  That's a dicey proposition, given the egotistical nature of Man, and the ease with which a conscience could be seared to where people become unthinking and unfeeling toward others.  

I will say this to Koharu:  You don't believe in the Jesus I believe in.  Your reaction tells me that.  I believe that Jesus is who He says He is in Scripture.  So be it if others don't.  I've shared the Gospel message as written.  Lots of people don't believe in the Jesus I believe in.  That IS an issue with Eternal Significance, and God will hold me accountable for not sharing THAT message.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

I have never called anyone this, and I have EXPLICITLY been called this by the likes of Badger, ProudModerate2, and a few others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jude says to contend for "THE" faith.  Not "MY" faith.  Not even "FAITH" in general.  At a certain point, this means that "the faith" means something specific; that there are things that are of "the faith" and there are things that are apart from "the faith".  It means that one can point to certain doctrine and say "THIS is the Apostolic Faith" and to another doctrine and say "THIS is really no Gospel at all!" as Paul said to the Judaizers in Galatia.  "O foolish Galatians; who hath bewitched thee? lamented Paul.  There are times when I read things here about Christianity where Paul could substitute "Atlasians" for "Galatians" and not miss a beat.

[BoJack Horseman]

Yes for the same reason being against interracial marriage is racist. There is no logical reason for preventing two people of different races from marrying other than because you don’t like miscegenation as was the term back then. There is no logical reason for prohibiting two consenting adults from marrying because they’re of the same sex other than that you don’t like LGBT people. You can try and package that however you want, but at the end of the day, homophobia is still homophobia no matter how mild you think it is.

[ProudModerate2]

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

If someone hasn't figured it out by now, FuzzyBear has a warped interpretation of what Christianity is and should be.
He uses the Bible and his religion to preach bigotry towards others who are different than him (mainly trashing those in the LBGT community and people of color).
He has a heart filled with hate. Sad.

Back on ignore he goes. As a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible extensively, it drives me crazy when people claim God defined marriage in some particular way and claims that it's the only way marriage can happen, so I had to respond, but I should have known better.

Anyway, to respond to your "citation," Fuzzy, that is not an ordination of marriage. It's a description of the relationship between men and women. Very different things. It doesn't exclude anyone else from having that relationship, just explaining why men and women are the ones who (usually) seek each other out.

I have no desire to further talk with you because you return to this same method of attack, which I feel reflects poorly on your faith and Christ. I apologize for engaging in the first place, as I should have known better. But when I see folks using the Bible and Christ's name to spread hatred, I get riled. I'm out of this topic and I pray that you can experience peace.

God Bless you; you must be reading a different Bible than I.

I really pity the people who served as your teachers.  I mean this sincerely; they have apparently convinced you of utter falsehoods.

Wow.
Koharu basically told you he/she would pray for you, and FuzzyBear sh*ts all over Koharu's face with this response.
Fuzzy's interpretation of the Bible is king, and all other Christians are apparently wrong.
Now if that isn't evidence that Fuzzy is full of hatred, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Just pure yuk.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes for the same reason being against interracial marriage is racist. There is no logical reason for preventing two people of different races from marrying other than because you don’t like miscegenation as was the term back then. There is no logical reason for prohibiting two consenting adults from marrying because they’re of the same sex other than that you don’t like LGBT people. You can try and package that however you want, but at the end of the day, homophobia is still homophobia no matter how mild you think it is.

This falsehood keeps coming back like cockroaches.

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

This is refreshing; could not have said it better myself.

[DINGO Joe]

Yes

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oh hai

[J. J.]

One thing, and the only thing, where I had a problem with pensions and Social Security.  They were set up, demographically, to have a certain number single persons, who would not have a surviving spouse, who would be eligible for survivor's benefits.  Expanding marriage is going to cut into that number.

Ironically, interracial marriage was fairly rare in the first generation after Loving.  There was no any major demographic problem. 

I also think sham marriages might be more prevalent, not that never heterosexual marriages. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As far as civil marriage is concerned, being against gay marriage is being homophobic. As far as religious marriage is concerned, not necessarily. As I read the Bible, it defines marriage primarily in terms of procreation, not mutual association.

[UncleSam]

I mean civil marriage is just a civil union, being against using the same word idgaf about and isn’t homophobic if you want to splice the religious from the secular beliefs. Anyone who wants to strip the legal benefits of marriage from same sex couples is undeniably homophobic.

[America Needs R'hllor]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

This is just wrong. You can't claim a fact when this "fact" is rooted in YOUR definition of family- yes, marriage is creating a family, but who are you to say WHAT is a family?

Anyway, this is a great post:

To the question: yes, but a mild homophobia, plus we already won that battle so I don't really care if some guy in my town doesn't like my right to marry who I'm attracted to, as long as he leaves me and my rights alone.

On God and gay marriage: I can write paragraphs too.

I am a semi-closeted gay man. A full 6 on the Kinsey scale. I am also a rather strong Christian. I believe that God made me this way for a reason, and it would be... what's the phrase?

an affront to God

Ah yes. It would be an affront to God if I ignored the way He made me. How do I know? I tried to deny/ignore my sexuality for 18 years (mostly so I don't have to be out while still financially dependent upon my homophobic parents) which lead to self-loathing, misery, and, very occasionally, thoughts of suicide. It wasn't until I brought the issue before God, began reading the Bible more frequently (and seeking out what the Bible actually says on the issue, which is... very, very, very little), and discussing the issue with others that I began to become more healthy mentally. I literally cannot fathom why a God I'd want to worship would find my misery to be more appealing than my happiness with someone of the same sex, especially if He created me this way, and especially if He truly is a God of Love.

Then, on a church retreat a few weeks ago, it hit me: I believe that God created me this way in order to be able to speak about oppression on a first hand basis, to be able to bond with other downtrodden people via shared oppression, and to be able to be a Light for Him in a community which some other "Christians" have called "abominations" (despite literally no Biblical justification for this) and virtually given up on. The same night I had that epiphany (I personally believe it was from God), I came out to my best friend, and an overwhelming feeling of rightness came over me in a way that I'd never felt before. That sense of peace has stayed with me since, and while I'm trying to rebuild my headspace after almost two decades of self hatred, I have the overwhelming sense that this is what God meant for me all along; I was just too busy listening to what society (where I live, which is very socially conservative) told me to do, rather than what He was trying to tell me. Coming out and accepting myself has done nothing but bring me closer to God.

My politics is informed by my faith. The way I conduct myself in my sex life is informed by my faith. Every aspect of my life is, when I don't fail (which is often, I admit), an attempt to show God's Love to everyone. You cannot take that away from me just because you read a book differently from me, or because you're uncomfortable with whom I desire to bring into my bed once I marry them. Besides, that last bit is none of your business anyway, and if you attempt to make it your business, you're probably some degree of homophobic.

I myself do not believe in god, but I totally agree with you that anyone who believes their god would want someone to go through that suffering and misery all of their life is worshipping an evil god.