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


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.


Just because its right in your mind doesn't make it right in God's word.

Send the children to live with the first set of non-perverted family you can find. These "loving, nurturing, and committed" people are considering the children first aren't they? They have made arrangements if tragedy were to strike them both to have the children cared for, haven't they? They are surely going to have them live with a real family (man-woman married) with Bible based principles and love for God, aren't they? Or, maybe not! Maybe they are just concerned with promoting their sin sick agenda.

Kindofblue, do you ever study the Bible about these situations and consult God's word before you buddy up with perversion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just because its right in your mind doesn't make it right in God's word.

Send the children to live with the first set of non-perverted family you can find. These "loving, nurturing, and committed" people are considering the children first aren't they? They have made arrangements if tragedy were to strike them both to have the children cared for, haven't they? They are surely going to have them live with a real family (man-woman married) with Bible based principles and love for God, aren't they? Or, maybe not! Maybe they are just concerned with promoting their sin sick agenda.

Kindofblue, do you ever study the Bible about these situations and consult God's word before you buddy up with perversion?


They are actually paying me to make good arrangments for their children after they die. If they both die, the children will go live with another couple (who happen to be heterosexual and married). If one dies, the other will continue to raise them.

They have no sick agenda. They are two people who have made a commitment to one another to share their lives together and raise their children together. What we are protecting against is a rogue family member trying to take their children away from them just because this family member may not agree with their sexual orientation.

I fully support their right, and my only regret really is that they cannot adopt the children together.

And yes, they are absolutely looking out for their children first. They love their children the same way I love my children. Their life does not look much different from my life. They go to work to provide for their children, they work hard caring for their children, they go to dinner together, have fun on the weekends, take their children to parks, the zoo, go visit grandma and grandpa, etc. They want nothing other than to protect their family. So we are setting up wills, making sure there is life insurance in place to provide for the children if one or both of them die, etc. No different from any other family, except that the law does not recognize their life long commitment. Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They are actually paying me to make good arrangments for their children after they die. If they both die, the children will go live with another couple (who happen to be heterosexual and married). If one dies, the other will continue to raise them.

They have no sick agenda. They are two people who have made a commitment to one another to share their lives together and raise their children together. What we are protecting against is a rogue family member trying to take their children away from them just because this family member may not agree with their sexual orientation.

I fully support their right, and my only regret really is that they cannot adopt the children together.

And yes, they are absolutely looking out for their children first. They love their children the same way I love my children. Their life does not look much different from my life. They go to work to provide for their children, they work hard caring for their children, they go to dinner together, have fun on the weekends, take their children to parks, the zoo, go visit grandma and grandpa, etc. They want nothing other than to protect their family. So we are setting up wills, making sure there is life insurance in place to provide for the children if one or both of them die, etc. No different from any other family, except that the law does not recognize their life long commitment.

Why bother calling yourself a Christian when you reject so much of what God says?

No sick agenda? They are living in a sin which God calls an abomination. A sin so great that God calls for the death penalty for those who engage in this sin.

Children are to be raised by parents, which is their mom and dad, alternately by a surviving spouse, grandparents, or others who do not choose to live in the sin of homosexuality.

There is no justification for placing children in the keeping of homosexuals and the only way anyone could support such a thing is to say to God they don't care what He says, they are going to ignore His Word and do as they please. Such is a state of rebellion, another grievous sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why bother calling yourself a Christian when you reject so much of what God says?

No sick agenda? They are living in a sin which God calls an abomination. A sin so great that God calls for the death penalty for those who engage in this sin.

Children are to be raised by parents, which is their mom and dad, alternately by a surviving spouse, grandparents, or others who do not choose to live in the sin of homosexuality.

There is no justification for placing children in the keeping of homosexuals and the only way anyone could support such a thing is to say to God they don't care what He says, they are going to ignore His Word and do as they please. Such is a state of rebellion, another grievous sin.


Their only agenda is to protect their family, something I am sure you would do as well if your family were under assault. And yes, I believe strongly that these children are right where they need to be. Do you propose we rip these children away from their parents? Parents who provide well for them physically and emotionally? One of which gave birth to the children? The only parents these children have ever know. Yeah...that is a Christian attitude.

If the law required a sinless life to raise children, I guess none of us would be fit parents, now would we.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Their only agenda is to protect their family, something I am sure you would do as well if your family were under assault.

kob, would you say that this "arrangement" is indeed a "family?" If so, on what basis do you allow yourself to define "family" in this way...or I guess I could ask what justification you have for calling this a "family." Who gets to define "family?" That's what it comes down to. Those of us who believe that God created the "family" (male and female; man, wife, children, grandpa, grandma, extended, etc.) to glorify Himself through their proper and natural relationships--to reflect Christ and the Church--understand that we do not nor ever will have the prerogative to redefine "family," since we had nothing to do with its creation. If you decide to adopt a new definition of "family," you're overstepping your bounds; you are a rogue acting radically outside your rights. (I just proofread a PhD student's paper on this very subject (theology of family); there's no way anyone in the world can say that God's definition and descriptions of "family"--or His intentions for "family"--are at all ambiguous or flexible...especially when it comes to sexual perversion!)

I'm not blowing off any extenuating circumstances...I understand things aren't always ideal (and I noticed you haven't addressed my previous post in that regard). However, redefining "family" to suit somebody's "emotional bonds" or "lifelong (perverted sexual) commitment" still isn't our prerogative. Children should not be raised by perverts; nor should they be instructed that such a way of life is "normal," as that only perpetuates more perversion, which eventually rips apart the fabric of any society. I'm afraid your tunnel vision is preventing you from seeing the big picture. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

kob, would you say that this "arrangement" is indeed a "family?" If so, on what basis do you allow yourself to define "family" in this way...or I guess I could ask what justification you have for calling this a "family." Who gets to define "family?" That's what it comes down to. Those of us who believe that God created the "family" (male and female; man, wife, children, grandpa, grandma, extended, etc.) to glorify Himself through their proper and natural relationships--to reflect Christ and the Church--understand that we do not nor ever will have the prerogative to redefine "family," since we had nothing to do with its creation. If you decide to adopt a new definition of "family," you're overstepping your bounds; you are a rogue acting radically outside your rights. (I just proofread a PhD student's paper on this very subject (theology of family); there's no way anyone in the world can say that God's definition and descriptions of "family"--or His intentions for "family"--are at all ambiguous or flexible...especially when it comes to sexual perversion!)

I'm not blowing off any extenuating circumstances...I understand things aren't always ideal (and I noticed you haven't addressed my previous post in that regard). However, redefining "family" to suit somebody's "emotional bonds" or "lifelong (perverted sexual) commitment" still isn't our prerogative. Children should not be raised by perverts; nor should they be instructed that such a way of life is "normal," as that only perpetuates more perversion, which eventually rips apart the fabric of any society. I'm afraid your tunnel vision is preventing you from seeing the big picture.

Absolutely! :goodpost:
Link to comment
Share on other sites


kob, would you say that this "arrangement" is indeed a "family?" If so, on what basis do you allow yourself to define "family" in this way...or I guess I could ask what justification you have for calling this a "family." Who gets to define "family?" That's what it comes down to. Those of us who believe that God created the "family" (male and female; man, wife, children, grandpa, grandma, extended, etc.) to glorify Himself through their proper and natural relationships--to reflect Christ and the Church--understand that we do not nor ever will have the prerogative to redefine "family," since we had nothing to do with its creation. If you decide to adopt a new definition of "family," you're overstepping your bounds; you are a rogue acting radically outside your rights. (I just proofread a PhD student's paper on this very subject (theology of family); there's no way anyone in the world can say that God's definition and descriptions of "family"--or His intentions for "family"--are at all ambiguous or flexible...especially when it comes to sexual perversion!)

I'm not blowing off any extenuating circumstances...I understand things aren't always ideal (and I noticed you haven't addressed my previous post in that regard). However, redefining "family" to suit somebody's "emotional bonds" or "lifelong (perverted sexual) commitment" still isn't our prerogative. Children should not be raised by perverts; nor should they be instructed that such a way of life is "normal," as that only perpetuates more perversion, which eventually rips apart the fabric of any society. I'm afraid your tunnel vision is preventing you from seeing the big picture.


Annie, it could not be said any better than what you posted. Spot on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Le 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Ro 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Ro 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Ro 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Ro 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

The sin of the sodomites is an abomination to the Father, & even in the Old Testament Days those partaking of this sin were issued the death penalty, because it is so vile.

Why would any Christian think it’s a good thing for vulnerable children to be put into the home with two sodomites? It will have an adverse effect on the children.

You ignore God's Word, & become you very on god instead of standing on the instruction God has given us. And or, you just follow the ways of this world.

A home, is not made up of 2 men, nor is it made up of 2 women, its made up of only one man, & one woman, that becomes one flesh.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It matters not what our government calls a home, a family, we are to obey God, & Him only.

Seems you more concerned about the sodomite family than the actual welfare, well being, of this child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I've missed something in this thread I apologize.

Does the OP have the legal authority to remove the children from their present situation or to mandate their placement in the future? Under our current legal system, is there anyone who can do this, if the OP can't?

Isn't the real issue in two parts? (1) The OP should use everything within his scope of influence to encourage the placement of the children into a traditional family, if circumstances come about that will permit same to happen. If he can't/won't, then as a Christian, he should remove himself from this advisory position. (2) While society can't prevent conception of a baby by a gay mother, society can stop the approval of adoption of children by one or more gay parents.

However, the increasing approval homosexuality, by society, the battle to deny adoption, isn't likely to be fought. We can't legislate morality, but we sure can legislate keeping children out of immoral situations via adoption regs. Why isn't this one of the battle cries of born again Christians everywhere? Right beside, if not in front, of the definition of marriage as only being the union of a man and a woman.

I don't have the words to state how strongly I am opposed to the adoption of children by homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I've missed something in this thread I apologize.

Does the OP have the legal authority to remove the children from their present situation or to mandate their placement in the future? Under our current legal system, is there anyone who can do this, if the OP can't?

Isn't the real issue in two parts? (1) The OP should use everything within his scope of influence to encourage the placement of the children into a traditional family, if circumstances come about that will permit same to happen. If he can't/won't, then as a Christian, he should remove himself from this advisory position. (2) While society can't prevent conception of a baby by a gay mother, society can stop the approval of adoption of children by one or more gay parents.

However, the increasing approval homosexuality, by society, the battle to deny adoption, isn't likely to be fought. We can't legislate morality, but we sure can legislate keeping children out of immoral situations via adoption regs. Why isn't this one of the battle cries of born again Christians everywhere? Right beside, if not in front, of the definition of marriage as only being the union of a man and a woman.

I don't have the words to state how strongly I am opposed to the adoption of children by homosexuals.

All true Bible believers and Christ followers take such a stand.

Unfortunately we have so many false teaching churches, pastors and seminary professors out there proclaiming their humanist doctrine over that of Bible doctrine that many professing Christians side with sin and the devil on this matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Isn't the real issue in two parts? (1) The OP should use everything within his scope of influence to encourage the placement of the children into a traditional family, if circumstances come about that will permit same to happen. If he can't/won't, then as a Christian, he should remove himself from this advisory position. (2) While society can't prevent conception of a baby by a gay mother, society can stop the approval of adoption of children by one or more gay parents.

I think you're defining at least the first issue correctly, Oldtimer. As a Christian--as someone who recognizes that God created (and is therefore the only one who can define the parameters of) the institution of marriage/family--I should be doing my best to help others toward being blessed by falling in line with that reality. Reality--the "way things really are"--transcends politics, society's opinions, etc. So, if I'm an estate planner, there's no way I'm going to encourage a "lifelong commitment" between sexual perverts, or encourage the adoption of children by said perverts. (IMO, a "lifelong commitment" is worse than an uncommitted homosexual relationship, because it shows that the participants are dead set on continuing in their perverted way of life, with little hope of repentance.)
As far as the second issue goes, I think society (unanchored upon truth as it is) is going to do whatever it wants, no matter what Christians say. Homosexual marriage and adoption are going to be commonplace by the time my grandkids are adults. My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking and accept the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites


My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking, and accept for the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society.


Yes, and we need to have ready our Bible based answer to the crowd who has accepted the devil's position to redefine family and marriage. I believe Satan is making an all out no holds barred attack against God with this most recent attack on God's marriage institution and image of Christ and the church.

I think your answer to kob is a great example of an appropriate reply. I will include some direct references to specific scriptures and borrow from you liberally if you have no objection.

I guess what I'm saying is we need to practice what we're going to preach...often. Because the attack is so obviously against Jesus Christ we need to know the relevant scriptures (Gen., Ex., Psalms, Eph. and others). Anywhere the Bible addresses the man-woman, husband-wife, child-parent relationship we would do well to revisit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you're defining at least the first issue correctly, Oldtimer. As a Christian--as someone who recognizes that God created (and is therefore the only one who can define the parameters of) the institution of marriage/family--I should be doing my best to help others toward being blessed by falling in line with that reality. Reality--the "way things really are"--transcends politics, society's opinions, etc. So, if I'm an estate planner, there's no way I'm going to encourage a "lifelong commitment" between sexual perverts, or encourage the adoption of children by said perverts. (IMO, a "lifelong commitment" is worse than an uncommitted homosexual relationship, because it shows that the participants are dead set on continuing in their perverted way of life, with little hope of repentance.)
As far as the second issue goes, I think society (unanchored upon truth as it is) is going to do whatever it wants, no matter what Christians say. Homosexual marriage and adoption are going to be commonplace by the time my grandkids are adults. My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking and accept the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society.


True, to surrender to their way, to support their way, is approving, agreeing with, supporting thier sins.

But for some, to support them, to agree with them, support them, means making money, not to, they will call that losing money.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

There will always be some that will not take a stand on God' truths, because of the love of money.
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...