The Red State War On Gay Marriage

[Newby]

Then how on earth did all those bigots of yore manage to use the bible to justify anti miscegenation laws?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" ~ Judge Leon Brazile 1959 anti-miscegenation ruling.

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ~ 1869 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

And how about this gem from Bob Jones University?

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.​

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

You do know that the two verses you quoted have nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, right?

And yet they were STILL used to justify anti miscegenation laws. None of the quotes in the bible have to do with loving, consensual same sex relationship...but that doesn't stop people from using them to justify bigotry.

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

So? No matter how many times you state how they were used by various people, you can't change the fact that they were not speaking about interracial marraige.

Your second statement is wrong, the Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is an abomination. Sex outside of marriage is an abomination, sex for the sake of sex, i.e. lust, is an abomination, between two of the same sex, or two of the opposite sex. Marriage is described as one man and one woman in the Bible, therefore any sexual act not between a married man and a married woman (to each other obviously) is an abomination in the eyes of God. If a man looks at a woman with lust, it is a sin. It's pretty simple, not much to confuse. You can state that you think the Bible is wrong, or you don't believe in God, etc.. but none of that removes the truth that the Bible states what it states. So if someone has religious convictions because they believe in the Bible, and feel it is a sin to promote what the Bible prohibits, they should not be forced by government to go against their religious beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

You do know that the two verses you quoted have nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, right?

And yet they were STILL used to justify anti miscegenation laws. None of the quotes in the bible have to do with loving, consensual same sex relationship...but that doesn't stop people from using them to justify bigotry.

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

So? No matter how many times you state how they were used by various people, you can't change the fact that they were not speaking about interracial marraige.

Your second statement is wrong, the Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is an abomination. Sex outside of marriage is an abomination, sex for the sake of sex, i.e. lust, is an abomination, between two of the same sex, or two of the opposite sex. Marriage is described as one man and one woman in the Bible, therefore any sexual act not between a married man and a married woman (to each other obviously) is an abomination in the eyes of God. If a man looks at a woman with lust, it is a sin. It's pretty simple, not much to confuse. You can state that you think the Bible is wrong, or you don't believe in God, etc.. but none of that removes the truth that the Bible states what it states. So if someone has religious convictions because they believe in the Bible, and feel it is a sin to promote what the Bible prohibits, they should not be forced by government to go against their religious beliefs.

Those bigots knew they had the scripture right when it came to interracial marriage, others know they have it right when it comes to gay marriage. Bigots don't change, just the target.

 

[Newby]

And yet they were STILL used to justify anti miscegenation laws. None of the quotes in the bible have to do with loving, consensual same sex relationship...but that doesn't stop people from using them to justify bigotry.

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

So? No matter how many times you state how they were used by various people, you can't change the fact that they were not speaking about interracial marraige.

Your second statement is wrong, the Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is an abomination. Sex outside of marriage is an abomination, sex for the sake of sex, i.e. lust, is an abomination, between two of the same sex, or two of the opposite sex. Marriage is described as one man and one woman in the Bible, therefore any sexual act not between a married man and a married woman (to each other obviously) is an abomination in the eyes of God. If a man looks at a woman with lust, it is a sin. It's pretty simple, not much to confuse. You can state that you think the Bible is wrong, or you don't believe in God, etc.. but none of that removes the truth that the Bible states what it states. So if someone has religious convictions because they believe in the Bible, and feel it is a sin to promote what the Bible prohibits, they should not be forced by government to go against their religious beliefs.

Those bigots knew they had the scripture right when it came to interracial marriage, others know they have it right when it comes to gay marriage. Bigots don't change, just the target.

You can keep fixating on 'the bigots' all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture you provided above has nothing to do with inter racial marraige. Sorry.

 

[Seawytch]

So? No matter how many times you state how they were used by various people, you can't change the fact that they were not speaking about interracial marraige.



Your second statement is wrong, the Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is an abomination. Sex outside of marriage is an abomination, sex for the sake of sex, i.e. lust, is an abomination, between two of the same sex, or two of the opposite sex. Marriage is described as one man and one woman in the Bible, therefore any sexual act not between a married man and a married woman (to each other obviously) is an abomination in the eyes of God. If a man looks at a woman with lust, it is a sin. It's pretty simple, not much to confuse. You can state that you think the Bible is wrong, or you don't believe in God, etc.. but none of that removes the truth that the Bible states what it states. So if someone has religious convictions because they believe in the Bible, and feel it is a sin to promote what the Bible prohibits, they should not be forced by government to go against their religious beliefs.

Those bigots knew they had the scripture right when it came to interracial marriage, others know they have it right when it comes to gay marriage. Bigots don't change, just the target.

You can keep fixating on 'the bigots' all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture you provided above has nothing to do with inter racial marraige. Sorry.

No matter how many times you deny it, scripture was used. YOU say it doesn't apply, but THEY said it did.

 

[Newby]

Those bigots knew they had the scripture right when it came to interracial marriage, others know they have it right when it comes to gay marriage. Bigots don't change, just the target.

You can keep fixating on 'the bigots' all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture you provided above has nothing to do with inter racial marraige. Sorry.

No matter how many times you deny it, scripture was used. YOU say it doesn't apply, but THEY said it did.

So what? Anyone can use scripture for any reason, what is so hard to understand about that? All kinds of texts are twisted and used by people to rationalize behavior, that doesn't change the truth of the text itself. So is your argument that 'they' were right about the scripture 'they' quoted? Yes or no?

Does the scripture they quoted speak of inter racial marraige? Yes or no? It's a simple answer.

 

[007]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no scriptural tenets against inter-racial marriage, there is scriptural tenets against homosexual acts.

Then how on earth did all those bigots of yore manage to use the bible to justify anti miscegenation laws?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" ~ Judge Leon Brazile 1959 anti-miscegenation ruling.

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ~ 1869 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

And how about this gem from Bob Jones University?

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.​

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

You do know that the two verses you quoted have nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, right?

[MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION]

I bet he doesn't know that Democrats passed laws banning interracial marriage. In 1871, Representative Andrew King, a Democrat of Missouri, was the first politician to propose banning interracial marriage nation-wide. In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery, a Democrat of Georgia, again introduced a proposal in the House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution.

The term anti-miscegenation was first coined by two Democrat pamphleteers Democrats David Goodman Croly, managing editor of the New York World, a Democratic Party paper, and George Wakeman, a World reporter.

 

[Stephanie]

Holy cow, homosexuals are so mistreated and Victims of everything

now they compare themselves to the same as Inter-racial marriage...and slavery

really just pathetic people

 

[Seawytch]

You can keep fixating on 'the bigots' all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture you provided above has nothing to do with inter racial marraige. Sorry.

No matter how many times you deny it, scripture was used. YOU say it doesn't apply, but THEY said it did.

So what? Anyone can use scripture for any reason, what is so hard to understand about that? All kinds of texts are twisted and used by people to rationalize behavior, that doesn't change the truth of the text itself. So is your argument that 'they' were right about the scripture 'they' quoted? Yes or no?

Does the scripture they quoted speak of inter racial marraige? Yes or no? It's a simple answer.

They believed it did. I don't think the scripture about gays has anything to do with consenting adult couples, but you believe it. See how that works?

 

[Seawytch]

Holy cow, homosexuals are so mistreated and Victims of everything

now they compare themselves to the same as Inter-racial marriage...and slavery

really just pathetic people

So you think the discrimination and the language used isn't comparable? It is.
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[Redfish]

And when it doesn't? I'm not a betting person so how does it work when in 10 years no church is forced by law to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith?

If it doesn't I owe you a dollar. that is how 10,000 to one odds work. Well we have a case in Britain going on, you neglected to to quantify location.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | ?I am still not getting what I want?: Gay couple suing church for refusing ?wedding?

Less than two weeks after the coalition government’s gay “marriage” bill was signed into law, a homosexual man has launched a lawsuit against a Church of England parish in Maldon for refusing him and his civil partner the lavish church wedding of their dreams. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle that he has launched the suit because, despite the law, “I am still not getting what I want.”

Suing doesn't equal wining. No church will ever have to perform a ceremony (in the US) against the tenants of their faith. I'll let you know where to send the buck...adjusted for inflation I presume.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

churches are currently being forced to provide free birth control against the tenets of their faith. You will lose that bet.

 

[Newby]

No matter how many times you deny it, scripture was used. YOU say it doesn't apply, but THEY said it did.

So what? Anyone can use scripture for any reason, what is so hard to understand about that? All kinds of texts are twisted and used by people to rationalize behavior, that doesn't change the truth of the text itself. So is your argument that 'they' were right about the scripture 'they' quoted? Yes or no?

Does the scripture they quoted speak of inter racial marraige? Yes or no? It's a simple answer.

They believed it did. I don't think the scripture about gays has anything to do with consenting adult couples, but you believe it. See how that works?

I don't care what 'they' believed, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture 'they' quoted had nothing to do with inter racial marriage, and you can't even acknowledge that fact. Why not? Why do you have to hold onto a lie? Does it make you feel more 'right'?

So who do you think scriptures concerning lust, or the scriptures concerning marriage were talking too then? The children? Non consenting people?

Look, I get that you don't agree with the Bible, or you don't even believe in it, and that's fine. But, it doesn't give you the right to change what the words in it mean. You talk about people using it and twisting it to rationalize what they want it to mean, and you're really no different, you're just on the other side of the issue. The Bible never speaks of marriage between two people of the same sex, it only speaks of marriage between a man and a woman, and it says that any sex outside of that union, a union blessed by God, is sin, it's as simple as that. That means people cheating on their spouses, that means couples living together prior to marriage, that means swingers, that means any act associated with lust.

I have nothing against gays forming a legal partnership, or even 'marrying' in a church if they can find a church that will do so. I just don't believe that it is a union that is blessed or sanctioned by God since marriage in the eyes of God is clearly defined in the Bible. And if a church 'blesses' such a union in the eyes of God, then they're not following the Bible. If two gay people truly love each other and their physical relationship is born of love and not lust, does that make a difference since the Bible speaks of lust? I really don't know the answer to that question, I only know that the Bible clearly states what marriage is, and that it clearly states that physical realationships outside of that union are sin. So if you truly believe the Bible and base your faith on that, then you can never sanction a marriage of two people of the same sex as a marriage in the eyes of God. A secular/legal/state marriage is a completely different ballgame, and I have no issue with that.

 

[kidrocks]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination why did he create homosexuals then? I've always maintained that of the 12 apostles at Christs last supper... you can bet that one of them was a closeted homo.

 

[Seawytch]

So what? Anyone can use scripture for any reason, what is so hard to understand about that? All kinds of texts are twisted and used by people to rationalize behavior, that doesn't change the truth of the text itself. So is your argument that 'they' were right about the scripture 'they' quoted? Yes or no?



Does the scripture they quoted speak of inter racial marraige? Yes or no? It's a simple answer.

They believed it did. I don't think the scripture about gays has anything to do with consenting adult couples, but you believe it. See how that works?

I don't care what 'they' believed, it doesn't change the fact that the scripture 'they' quoted had nothing to do with inter racial marriage, and you can't even acknowledge that fact. Why not? Why do you have to hold onto a lie? Does it make you feel more 'right'?



So who do you think scriptures concerning lust, or the scriptures concerning marriage were talking too then? The children? Non consenting people?



Look, I get that you don't agree with the Bible, or you don't even believe in it, and that's fine. But, it doesn't give you the right to change what the words in it mean. You talk about people using it and twisting it to rationalize what they want it to mean, and you're really no different, you're just on the other side of the issue. The Bible never speaks of marriage between two people of the same sex, it only speaks of marriage between a man and a woman, and it says that any sex outside of that union, a union blessed by God, is sin, it's as simple as that. That means people cheating on their spouses, that means couples living together prior to marriage, that means swingers, that means any act associated with lust.



I have nothing against gays forming a legal partnership, or even 'marrying' in a church if they can find a church that will do so. I just don't believe that it is a union that is blessed or sanctioned by God since marriage in the eyes of God is clearly defined in the Bible. And if a church 'blesses' such a union in the eyes of God, then they're not following the Bible. If two gay people truly love each other and their physical relationship is born of love and not lust, does that make a difference since the Bible speaks of lust? I really don't know the answer to that question, I only know that the Bible clearly states what marriage is, and that it clearly states that physical realationships outside of that union are sin. So if you truly believe the Bible and base your faith on that, then you can never sanction a marriage of two people of the same sex as a marriage in the eyes of God. A secular/legal/state marriage is a completely different ballgame, and I have no issue with that.

See, you interpret passages to be against gays. Others interpret passages to be against interracial marriage or desegregation. You both think you're right and others think one or both of you is wrong.

Both are using the bible to justify their own bigotry.

 

[Seawytch]

If it doesn't I owe you a dollar. that is how 10,000 to one odds work. Well we have a case in Britain going on, you neglected to to quantify location.



LifeSiteNews Mobile | ?I am still not getting what I want?: Gay couple suing church for refusing ?wedding?

Suing doesn't equal wining. No church will ever have to perform a ceremony (in the US) against the tenants of their faith. I'll let you know where to send the buck...adjusted for inflation I presume.

churches are currently being forced to provide free birth control against the tenets of their faith. You will lose that bet.

No churches are not.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...mpt-from-u-s-contraception-coverage-rule.html

No church has ever been forced to perform an interfaith or interracial marriage, have they?

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15065204

 

[ScienceRocks]

I wonder when Texas is going to legalize gay marriage?

 

[natstew]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination why did he create homosexuals then? I've always maintained that of the 12 apostles at Christs last supper... you can bet that one of them was a closeted homo.

God didn't create Queers, they're an aberration, a freak of Nature. How does it feel to be a freak, Homo?

 

[Bombur]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination why did he create homosexuals then? I've always maintained that of the 12 apostles at Christs last supper... you can bet that one of them was a closeted homo.

God didn't create Queers, they're an aberration, a freak of Nature. How does it feel to be a freak, Homo?

God also created stupid immoral people like yourself.

 

[bodecea]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination why did he create homosexuals then? I've always maintained that of the 12 apostles at Christs last supper... you can bet that one of them was a closeted homo.

God didn't create Queers, they're an aberration, a freak of Nature. How does it feel to be a freak, Homo?

You should tell us.

 

[kidrocks]

All this back and forth about homos wanting to be married, when after it's all said and done, the facts still remain....

In the eyes of God homosexuality is an abomination, and no two men nor two women married by some charlatan preacher in a sinners church will ever be married in the sense of marriage in the eyes of GOD. Marriage to God is the holy union between a man and a woman, period, end of story.

The only marriage that can ever be had here on earth between two homosexuals is a blasphemous marriage, an abomination in the eyes of God. Those engaging in it will surely burn in hell.

If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination why did he create homosexuals then? I've always maintained that of the 12 apostles at Christs last supper... you can bet that one of them was a closeted homo.

God didn't create Queers, they're an aberration, a freak of Nature. How does it feel to be a freak, Homo?

My, how you are angry. Are you gay? If you are it's ok because God loves fags.