2A advocates agaist gay marriage, hypocrites?

[yotewacker]

I think we have strayed some from the OP's question. The question was, is it hypocritical to support the 2nd Amendment, yet oppose homosexual marriage?

I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. To further narrow things down, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.

I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

In the Old Testament, self-defense was a part of the Mosaic Law. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said if you didn't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

As a Christian, I have a duty to obey the laws of the land where I live. However, if those laws conflict with God's laws, then I need to follow God.

The Second Amendment does not conflict with God's laws. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both in conflict with God's laws. Therefore, I must oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Does this make me a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite? In man's eyes, perhaps it does. However, my duty is to God, not to man.

My thoughts also. Well said.

 

[GoNavy]

To be clear; Yes it is in my eyes hypocritical to be pro 2A and not to support equal rights for same sex unions under law.

Marriage is a religious term, and the right of Freedom of Religion precludes the government from forcing a religion to perform same sex marriages.

Marriage is not a religious term. It is a contract between 2 people. Holy matrimony is a religious term.

 

[Designer99]

I think we have strayed some from the OP's question. The question was, is it hypocritical to support the 2nd Amendment, yet oppose homosexual marriage?

I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. To further narrow things down, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.

I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

In the Old Testament, self-defense was a part of the Mosaic Law. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said if you didn't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

As a Christian, I have a duty to obey the laws of the land where I live. However, if those laws conflict with God's laws, then I need to follow God.

The Second Amendment does not conflict with God's laws. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both in conflict with God's laws. Therefore, I must oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Does this make me a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite? In man's eyes, perhaps it does. However, my duty is to God, not to man.

If you are a Christian, then you would have to agree with Paul and his letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 5:12
"12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside."


Paul says: What other people do is none of your business, unless they are members of the church.


p.s. Jesus was a socialist.

 

[theblackhat]

However; Freedom of Religion is also equally Freedom from Religion, therefore; disallowing same sex unions founded on religious belief is unconstitutional.

I concur. My issue isn't with whether or not gay marriage should be legalized, but rather the government mandating religious institutions, businesses, etc be forced to perform and/or allow for same-sex marriage in their organization.

 

[mrjarrell]

I concur. My issue isn't with whether or not gay marriage should be legalized, but rather the government mandating religious institutions, businesses, etc be forced to perform and/or allow for same-sex marriage in their organization.

In every state that currently has gay marriage on the books, no religious bodies are forced to do squat. It's the same in states without gay marriage. This is a non starter as an argument. No church, anywhere, is required to marry anyone against their wishes and, if gay marriage became the law of the land tomorrow, it would remain the same.

 

[Bunnykid68]

In every state that currently has gay marriage on the books, no religious bodies are forced to do squat. It's the same in states without gay marriage. This is a non starter as an argument. No church, anywhere, is required to marry anyone against their wishes and, if gay marriage became the law of the land tomorrow, it would remain the same.

Churches are not even forced to do hetero marriages either, my neighbor just got married last week at the court house.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In every state that currently has gay marriage on the books, no religious bodies are forced to do squat. It's the same in states without gay marriage. This is a non starter as an argument. No church, anywhere, is required to marry anyone against their wishes and, if gay marriage became the law of the land tomorrow, it would remain the same.

However, there are churches and congregations out there now that are willing to perform same sex marriages, but the civil authorities are interfering with those religious practices by prohibitting them from doing so.

 

[mrjarrell]

However, there are churches and congregations out there now that are willing to perform same sex marriages, but the civil authorities are interfering with those religious practices by prohibitting them from doing so.

This is very true and the flip side of the coin that people refuse to accept.

 

[Compatriot G]

If you are a Christian, then you would have to agree with Paul and his letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 5:12
"12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside."


Paul says: What other people do is none of your business, unless they are members of the church.


p.s. Jesus was a socialist.

Never said I was judging anybody. The judgement has already been pronounced. I'm just repeating the verdict of the Judge.

 

[Compatriot G]

That doesn't address my question. There are a lot of things I oppose from a moral standpoint (religious or not), but don't believe government has jurisdiction to control those behaviors.

Your post implied that your opposition to something (in this case gay marriage) translated into favor for the government controlling it to satisfy your moral code. Is this the case? Do you support legislation denying contractual equality?

Normally, I take the view that even if I don't agree with something, I will support your right to do it. In this case, however, I can't state that.

 

[GoNavy]

Never said I was judging anybody. The judgement has already been pronounced. I'm just repeating the verdict of the Judge.

people are free not to be governed by your religious beliefs.

 

[88GT]

p.s. Jesus was a socialist.

Hardly. Else our sins would have been paid for by someone else's blood.

 

[Roadie]

OK, one warning from one Mod, now another one from me..



We are getting pretty close to, if not over, the "No Religious Content" line. Please keep this in mind before your next posts.

Thanks

 

[Tombs]

I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

Let me cut this down to speak to what's really at the heart of what you're saying.

Yes, every state constitution recognizes an eternal creator, as well as our federal constitution. This is how freedom in this country works, or worked rather.

But I feel many people have taken this to mean their religions laws trump others' religions laws. So then comes the question, how do we prevent oppressive laws being recognized by the government and enforced on the people? Simple, the state does not.

I then direct you to the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This gets pushed as separation of church and state, typically with the wrong context. What it means is that the government does not establish a religion of their own, nor prevent you from practicing your religion.

So what does this mean for you? It means, if your religious beliefs tell you not to marry someone of the same sex, then do not. It does not mean that your religious belief trumps the needs and concerns of everyone else, they're free to believe as they want as well. Providing the government does not force a church to preform gay marriages, it is in accordance with the law.

Man it's hard trying to answer a religious statement without religious content, lol.

 

[mrjarrell]

Let me cut this down to speak to what's really at the heart of what you're saying.

Yes, every state constitution recognizes an eternal creator, as well as our federal constitution. This is how freedom in this country works, or worked rather.

But I feel many people have taken this to mean their religions laws trump others' religions laws. So then comes the question, how do we prevent oppressive laws being recognized by the government and enforced on the people? Simple, the state does not.

I then direct you to the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This gets pushed as separation of church and state, typically with the wrong context. What it means is that the government does not establish a religion of their own, nor prevent you from practicing your religion.

So what does this mean for you? It means, if your religious beliefs tell you not to marry someone of the same sex, then do not. It does not mean that your religious belief trumps the needs and concerns of everyone else, they're free to believe as they want as well. Providing the government does not force a church to preform gay marriages, it is in accordance with the law.

Man it's hard trying to answer a religious statement without religious content, lol.

Hate to burst your bubble but the US Constitution is a secular document. There's no mention of any supernatural entities at all in it.

 

[Tombs]

Hate to burst your bubble but the US Constitution is a secular document. There's no mention of any supernatural entities at all in it.

You are correct, sorry about that mistake.

I mean the Declaration of independence.

 

[maxmayhem]

Laws should be moral and just or they are not laws. Government gets its authority from God. Like it or not one day God will judge mankind and he will also judge the nations and their governments. Meanwhile, we live in an age of grace.

 

[Roadie]

OK then, guess it's that time..