Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Right

Bruce - everything you've said here has been stated over the years and it hasn't helped you. So just admit you DON'T have a justifiable reason to be against this and learn to accept it. You are on the wrong side of history.

>> If the church were truly separate from the state, then they should not be entitled to tax exempt status. << >> I find your logic a bit muddled (if they are separate, the state would have no authority by which to tax the church), but strangely, I agree with you that the church should not be tax exempt. Fear of losing their tax exempt status had muzzled many a modern pastor from speaking out on the myriads of immoralities committed by our modern executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Removal of the tax exempt status would also remove the muzzle from the pulpit of the modern church.

>> You are free to practice your religious beliefs and hold on to whatever your religion of choice tells you to believe within your churches and homes, but that's where it ends...<< >> So, what if I should reverse your argument. You are free to believe whatever you want in your own home, but that's where it ends -- you cannot advocate for your belief in homosexual marriage in the public arena. It is irrational for you to tell me I must confine my beliefs to my home, while you remain free to advocate for yours in public.

>> Bruce - please give us examples of how someone else's marriage will affect your day-to-day life. << >> O. K. When I was in school, 95 and up was the standard to earn the grade of "A." Then, the standard was lowered to 90 for an A. This "cheapened" the value of the grade because there was now no distinction between those who studied very hard and made (say) a 98, and those who studied less and managed to eek out a 90. Grade inflation has now eroded the value of looking at a person's GPA as an accurate measure of accomplishment. In the same way, when a lifestyle that God's Word soundly condemns as an "abomination" (in half a dozen places -- some, long narritaves) is given the "status" of marriage, it erodes the value of all true marriages. And so, degrades/erodes all of society -- which has effects upon everyone living it that society. History has shown that all great civilizations that cast off moral restraint, eventually die out (witness the Roman, Greek, and more recently the British empire). Yes, these nations are still around "in name," but their greatness has faded away -- they are merely shadows of what they once were. Furthermore, the institution of marriage is sacred, and was ordained by God as Male and Female (and affirmed as such by Christ Himself). To call something "marriage" that is NOT marriage is to profane God, which brings judgement upon the nation that does so -- and that affects all people (the legalization of abortion is another example of a society in decline). Now you may likely reject all of this, but that (your rejection) does not prove it false. And I repeat: the Left and irreligious, want Christians to keep Biblical ideas of morality to themselves, but (irrationally) the Left and irreligious want free rein to advocate for their ideas of "morality" in the public square. Certainly it is unreasonable for you to want Christians to keep silent regarding their beliefs while you are free to advocate for your beliefs. I point to the Bible and 5,000 years of history (that has rejected homosexually as normal) while you have only the modern "culture" of the last couple of decades.

Bruce - please give us examples of how someone else's marriage will affect your day-to-day life.

I have always found it strangely amusing that the Left, and irreligious, advocate for all sorts of Biblically immoral behaviors and lifestyles, while -- at the same time -- they condemn Christians for advocating for the type of country in which *they* would like to live. Jesus said: "This is the verdict: the light [speaking of Himself] has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light and do not come to the light because their deeds are evil" (John 3:19-20). So, according to Jesus, true "hate" comes from those who love the darkness [evil] rather than from the children of the light (true Christians). Nevertheless, the children of darkness are fond of calling Believers -- "haters," because Belivers reject the normalization of what the Bible calls: immorality. But Jesus says it is only natural -- a part of their nature -- that those who live in darkness do so. So, I pray for all who live in darkness.

>> Why don't all the religious right hetrosexual [sic] haters take their sacred marriages and move to Alaska. << >> It is a common ploy to label those who take a stand for Biblical moral principles -- as haters. This is simply a tactic to stop the conversation. It has been my experience that the irreligious Left foments far more actual "hate" than true Christians. But at least you got the part about "sacred marriages" correct. Marriage *is* a sacred institution ordained by God between male and female (and affirmed as such by Jesus). And although it is true that the institution of marriage does get abused because of divorce, a divorce is one "act" is sin while homosexuality is a "lifestyle" of sin (according to many places in the Bible). Although the Bible refers to both as sin, there is a vast difference between committing "a sin," and living in a "lifestyle" of sin. Do I hate homosexuals? No. But neither should a sinful lifestyle be promoted/advocated as normal.

>> I am not a religious zealot, however, I can foresee the end of TAX-FREE Churches in America if the Supreme court votes to allow Gay marriage throughout the U.S.A. << >> My question is: if the Left truly believes in the so-called "separation of church and state" (not found anywhere in the Constitution), then were does the Left get the authority to give churches tax exempt status to begin with? If they are truly separate, then the government would have no right to tax churches in the first place. The reason I attribute the enacting of "tax exempt status" for churches to the Left is, it was a concept and advocacy of Lyndon B. Johnson to silence Texas churches after they began to speak out about the massive fraud committed in the election that first sent him to Congress. (You can google: Lyndon Johnson election fraud, and read all about it.)

>> I'll be happy when the Rick Santorums and the Pat Robertsons of this country wake up and realize they've been preaching the opposite of what Jesus would do... << >> While I don't care for Pat Robertson at all;I think he's a nut, Jesus Himself said marriage was to be between "Male and Female": (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV -- pointing back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24). So before you begin enlisting Jesus to support homosexual marriage, you might check what He *actually* said. (The Greek word translated "female" -- when Jesus said "Male and Female" -- means adult woman, not two men).

I am not a religious zealot, however, I can foresee the end of TAX-FREE Churches in America if the Supreme court votes to allow Gay marriage throughout the U.S.A.. All a gay couple has to do is to go to any Church that believes it is a sin for Gays to Marry and demand to be Married in that Church. If the Church denies them because of their beliefs then that Church could lose it's TAX EXEMPT status and have to pay Property Tax as well as Income Tax on all Monies and goods received as donations. That would most certainly BANKRUPT most Churches and they would have to CLOSE Their Doors. Since a lot of Churches cover City blocks their Property Taxes would be astrnomical if they had to pay them. I really think that this is the real insidious goal of the GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT. To End ORGANIZED Relgion and Churches in the Entire U.S.A. You probably won't post this becauuse it is so TRUE and you don't want it to get out.