Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Nc Votes For Traditional Marriage


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yesterday, North Carolina held primary elections. On the ballot was a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage solely being between a man and a woman. In effect it bans gay marriage on a constitutional level that reinforce laws already on the books. Thus, removing the power of judges to overturn the laws. (Yes, there will be suits filed to void the amendment, if passed.)

This has been the focus of this primary, overshadowing everything else that was on the ballot, including the national elections. Gay rights activists have pulled out all the stops to try to get this amendment defeated. I even received a robo phone call from Bill Clinton requesting my support.

There have been marches and demonstrations, along with tear jerker TV ads about people who would suffer so much harm if this passed. One I remember was an unmarried woman in an abusive relationship with a man. Supporting this amendment would cause her even more grief. More ads about the harm it will do when children can't get insurance and everything else supporters could throw at the wall and hope it would stick. Regardless of how deceptive the concept was in relationship to reality.

News media kept reporting on how close the vote would be on this. Lots of coverage of the gay supporters. Especially, when the big names in society and politics expressed their opposition to the amendment.

The people have spoken!

Election Results:
For the amendment - 61%
Against the amendment - 39%

Obama is "disappointed" according to the news this am.

BTW, 21% of the Democrats chose No Preference instead of Obama for president.

Edited by Oldtimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Probably, in the end, it will make no difference, the time will come when the Supreme Court will protect the homosexuals civil rights being as they live in a country that proclaims man & woman has personal freedoms to pursue happiness, & proclaim each state has to recognize the marriage of man & man, or woman & woman any time they move across a state line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

News this morn is filled with Obama's newly stated pro position on gay marriage. Along with American Idol's Clay Aiken (from NC) comments. BTW, Clay only revealed his preference AFTER the Idol competition ended.

Jerry, I'm sure you're right. As we move closer to the end of times, "tolerance" is being transformed into "condone". We are no longer to love our neighbor and find their sin to be unacceptable in our own lives. We are to love our neighbor and honor their sin, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I find it interesting that JBiden made the comments he did before BO did. I think this was planned all along. BO is losing the youth vote and I believe his "evolution" was completed in order to try and garner support from those under 40 - because it is that age group which supports "gay marriage" in more quantity. However, blacks are mostly against "gay marriage", so he may lose some of his core supporters by doing this. I hope he does. Thirty states have approved bans on "gay marriage", so this could be a problem for him in Nov. (I didn't listen to BO's remarks [i can't stand to hear him speak!], but someone commented that his whole "announcement" was basically all about himself - how the military is protecting HIM, how it's HIS staff, etc., etc....he is one big narcissist!)

SCOTUS may indeed rule against the state bans. But there are movements out there (like the Tenth Amendment Center) that are aggressively educating people as to state's rights and nullification. It may not do any good, but it is encouraging to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was suprised that this passed in a state to banned same sex unions, while other states approved it.
here is from a portion of the letter from Obama's administration
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't have the exact figures handy, but believe there's about 30 states with laws/constitutional amendents that ban same sex unions. And around 7-9 that support same sex marriage. I'm sure someone will correct me if these figures are off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder, many times, about that word freedom, & how it is used.

Us Christians use the word, freedom, quite regular, & talk about our Christian freedom in this America, & how some are trying to take it away. Yet at the same time, we try to block the freedom of others, trying to make them live as we feel they should.

Do we think we can make all Americans to conform to Christ, & follow Him, by making the laws of God, the law in America? Them create heaven on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So I have an honest questions for you all. I am helping a lesbian couple with their estate plan, and am having some difficulty because they are not "married" per se. For all intents and purposes they are. They have are in a long term, monogamous reltionship, and they have two beautiful children, and would marry if the law would allow it. Unfortunately, it will not, and that makes planning their estate rather difficult for various reasons.

Anyway, so to my question, we all know or will know same sex couples, and will know same sex couples with children. My daughter goes to school with a girl who has two moms. My clients are a committed couple with two children. So, From a Biblical perspective, what would you say a couple in this situation should do? Should they "divorce" and seaprate? That is wrong, in my mind because they have chilren who know and love them both as parents. In my mind it is right for them to stay together to raise the children they decided to have. It would be wrong to tear this family apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, From a Biblical perspective, what would you say a couple in this situation should do? Should they "divorce" and seaprate? That is wrong, in my mind because they have chilren who know and love them both as parents. In my mind it is right for them to stay together to raise the children they decided to have. It would be wrong to tear this family apart.

From a biblical perspective, this is not a "couple" or a "family." The Bible is clear that homosexuality is unnatural and indicative of a depraved society (Romans 1). The Bible is also clear that "marriage" means a man and a woman (precedent established by God in creation, and echoed throughout Scripture as well as nature). Certainly, there were examples of polygamous heterosexual marriages in ancient Near Eastern cultures (which generally brought nothing but familial strife), but never once is same-sex "marriage" condoned or even mentioned, for that matter. All references to sexual relationships between same-gender persons are negative--it's not even ambiguous. All NT references to marriage/family assume one man with one woman, along with their children. There is no other option. All directives to married couples/families are to "wife," "husband," and "child(ren)." Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church: the head of the woman is the man, just as Christ is the head of the Church; the wife submits to the husband as the Church submits to Christ, and the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the Church. It's so clearly laid out; how anyone can miss it is beyond me. The Greek words for man, woman, husband, and wife are nonambiguous.

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind.


Whether you like it or not, there are "families" that do not look like the "traditional" family. My clients and friends are one of many, many examples. My daughter's friend at preschool is another example.

I raise a very, very legitimate question. You will encounter same sex couples, who are in monogomous relationships that have children. People in these type family situations are a reality of life, like it or not. So the question of how we as Christians relate to these people is very important, as Chirst loves them like he love you and me.

So do you propose that in that situation it is right to tell the couple to split? If so, who gets the children? Who has the legal rights to the children? Even though not legally married, they will have assets owned jointly, joint bank accounts. Who has rights to raise the children? How are they to divide property? As a Christian, should I tell them to split up, or stay together for the children? I have come down on the side to stay together and raise the children they decided to have together.

Religious marraige, and marriage for legal purposes, though often combined, are two very different things. I am not saying churches should marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony. I am saying that same sex couples are a part of our life. They have legal issues. A secular recognition of that, whether you call it marriage or civil union, in my mind, is important to deal with these issues from a legal standpoint.

But even moreso, from a religious standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how God would want a gay couple who has children who know them both as mommy would want them to separate. God hates division of families and divorce, after all. If a mother and father have a child, and are not married, many Christians would tell them to get married and raise the child, rightfully so. Why should it be different for a gay couple who have children?

I am not even speaking of the morality of same sex relationships. I am just speaking in the interest of children and dealing with legal issues that come up. But I am interested when you have two moral issues in conflict, like we have here. Perhaps the best answer for a same sex couple with chilren who come to Christ is to say live together as a couple, raise the child, but abstain from sex. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is your relationship with this couple formal or informal? That is are you a lawyer or a representative of a bank or other financial institution, and are "required" to assist them? Or, are you a friend who's simply lending a hand? In other words, are you in a position to back away from this and let someone else handle it, since it's apparently challenging your beliefs?

I'm not an estate planner. That said, as a general rule (laws will vary by state), documents can be drawn up to specifiy exactly what is to be done with what a person leaves behind on this earth. With a capable attorney, I could leave everything I own to my neighbor's cat with detailed instructions for the cat's care. There are various types of Power of Attorney that can be granted to someone else. This person does not have to be a relative by blood or marriage. Trusts can be established with specific guidelines on utilization. Property can be co-owned - ie survivor gets the car if something happens to me.

If this is a business relationship with this couple for estate planning, it's no different, in my humble opinion, than that of an auto mechanic, contractor installing a patio, or a house painter. These are human beings exchanging monies for services. If I could not tolerate (does NOT mean condone) their lifestyle, and treat them with respect as humans beings, then I would not do business with them. If their sin (whatever it may be) polluted my faith, then I would not do business with them.

Look at it from this standpoint. If I hire a Jewish, Amish, Morman, Catholic, JW, Hindu (or any other belief system other than my own) to install an air conditioner, I do not expect them to try to convert me to their religious beliefs as a part of what they been contracted to do. Nor do I expect to push my beliefs onto them. Yes, I'll witness, if the opportunity presents itself, as the Holy Spirit leads. However, if I try to force my beliefs onto them, regardless, I'm afraid the end result would be to drive them further from Christ. I know, if they tried to force their beliefs on me, I'd quickly terminate the AC contract and send them on their way.

Lastly, would I help a gay couple plant a garden in their backyard? Yes. Would I help solely as a way to "lecture" them about their lifestyle. No. The grey area in between, lending a neighbor a hand and using the opportunity to witness for the Lord, would have to be handled on an individual basis. If my help is portrayed as approving of their lifestyle, NO. If my help is portrayed as the honorable thing for a professing Christian to do, YES. Giving blankets to a neighborhood drunk (we have one in our area who lives in an unheated shack) is the right thing to do. Giving him money to go to the ABC store isn't.

In closing, I can't offer specific scriptures to back up this opinion, other than the two greatest commandments. If I find myself in a situation where I can't do that, then I need to remove myself from that situation.

Hope this makes sense, as I'm writing from straight off the top of this feeble head, before I head back outdoors to get back to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Those involved in homosexuality should do what anyone living in sin should do, and that is to repent. Having children involved in the sin is no excuse to continue in sin. In fact, having children involved is even more reason to repent and get the children away from such a sinful life.

A Christian is to obey God and follow Him, not use his feeble human reasoning to consider there might be some "better way".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Those involved in homosexuality should do what anyone living in sin should do, and that is to repent. Having children involved in the sin is no excuse to continue in sin. In fact, having children involved is even more reason to repent and get the children away from such a sinful life.

A Christian is to obey God and follow Him, not use his feeble human reasoning to consider there might be some "better way".


When your in business, its about making money.& most people will do business with anyone, that is if they can make money off of them.

Just as two bothers, twin brothers, in business together, they refuse to take a stand against false teaching churches, or that that might make their business lose business, customers, if they stood on God's truths, it would cost them business, money, customers.

Also, they refused to take a stand against homosexuality, that too, might lose them business, so in church, or in their business life, or public life, they proclaim, one church, is good as any other church. The most important thing is, that a person is a member of a church, attend church, no matter what name it has, or what it teaches. Both of them teach Bible study classes at their church, which at one time was a very conservative Baptist Church.

Many people that are in business, feels, its oK not to take a true stand for God, if it causes them to lose money, & or lose the high life. Of course some of them don't know any better, no one will teach them any different, & even if they did, they would refuse to sacrifice for the sake of Christ.

Of course, they will always have an excuse, & they can make the excuse sound very good. Yet, so does many that do not own their own business.

Rightly issues like that, is what separates those who truly follow Christ, from those who do not.

Plus, many pastors will not stand up against the business owners, for generally they will support their church more than others, & are more outspoken. Of course, many of theses pastors knows well, if they stand against these people, they will be shown the road, so they scratch their back, feed their itching ears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whether you like it or not, there are "families" that do not look like the "traditional" family. My clients and friends are one of many, many examples. My daughter's friend at preschool is another example.

I raise a very, very legitimate question. You will encounter same sex couples, who are in monogomous relationships that have children. People in these type family situations are a reality of life, like it or not. So the question of how we as Christians relate to these people is very important, as Chirst loves them like he love you and me.

I'm not questioning the existence of people who don't follow God's plan for the family...who seek to redefine "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor am I questioning God's love for them (in the sense that He loves the world enough to die for them). How we as Christians relate to these people is indeed important...I agree with you there, too.

So do you propose that in that situation it is right to tell the couple to split? If so, who gets the children? Who has the legal rights to the children? Even though not legally married, they will have assets owned jointly, joint bank accounts. Who has rights to raise the children? How are they to divide property? As a Christian, should I tell them to split up, or stay together for the children? I have come down on the side to stay together and raise the children they decided to have together.

I'm not sure what your role is in the situation...Can you really "tell the couple to split"? If so, on what grounds, from their perspective? I'd have to know more about how you fit into the situation to have an opinion on what you should do. I don't think (from a biblical/moral, psychological, emotional, practical, or any other standpoint) that it is healthy, natural, or desirable for children to grow up with two parents of the same sex. Both boys and girls need a dad and a mom. That's ideal, of course...I'm not naive enough to think that that is how every family can be...There is death, and divorce, and single motherhood--all results of either direct sin or the curse that is on the earth because of sin. However, I believe it is much better for a child to grow up with a single parent--feeling the void that he should naturally feel due to the absence of the parent of the other gender--than to grow up nurtured by someone of perverse sexual desires and habits. In the first scenario, at least he gets some sort of idea (albeit only because he experiences the incompleteness) of what a proper family is. In the latter, he gets a completely false idea of what a family is...made all the more insidious because of the fact that he "feels" loved and nurtured by "two parents." Is it better to be raised by wolves (to learn wolfish habits) in a nice, cozy den than it is to be raised by mountain goats (to learn their toughness and hardiness) in the less-than-ideal environment of rocky hillsides and exposed mesas? (Stupid analogy? Maybe. But hopefully it makes my point, especially when you consider the two kinds of animals as symbols.)

Religious marraige, and marriage for legal purposes, though often combined, are two very different things. I am not saying churches should marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony. I am saying that same sex couples are a part of our life. They have legal issues. A secular recognition of that, whether you call it marriage or civil union, in my mind, is important to deal with these issues from a legal standpoint.

Why wouldn't the legal issues encountered by two homosexual persons be the same as, say the legal issues encountered by two non-homosexuals who own anything together? I have two single friends who have lived together as housemates for years. Now, one of them is moving away due to a job change. They've bought a lot of things together...furniture, pets, etc. So, now who gets Fluffy and who gets Sammy? Who gets the couch and who gets the Keurig? They have to work it out just like anyone else would...and if any disputes arise, they can (hopefully) be settled by a mediator like a pastor, or in court if need be. Haven't these kinds of things been going on long before homosexuality became accepted in our society? Sure they have. We don't need "civil unions" between homosexuals any more than we need "civil unions" between siblings, parents and children, business partners, roommates, friends/acquaintances who invest/share things together or any other "partnership" which has the potential of running into a dispute rising out of a disagreement of "who owns what" when there is a parting of ways.

Unfortunately, children have the potential to become victims whenever sexual sin is involved. It's one of the things people who are bent on satisfying their lusts often don't even stop to consider. In certain cases, they build very real and strong emotional bonds that they have no business building with children, and it's tragic how this selfish behavior hurts the kids in the long run.

But even moreso, from a religious standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how God would want a gay couple who has children who know them both as mommy would want them to separate. God hates division of families and divorce, after all. If a mother and father have a child, and are not married, many Christians would tell them to get married and raise the child, rightfully so. Why should it be different for a gay couple who have children?

I've already addressed this, I think. It should be different for homosexuals because they are living in abomination to God. What they have is not a "family," but a gross aberration. It is not beneficial for any child to grow up with two mommies or two daddies. If anything, it only perpetuates the acceptance of sexual abnormality in society. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...