Micah wrote:"There is a difference between what the government sanctions and what the government allows. If two men want to live together (Gay or Not Gay) that is their business."
So, the government already allows it then, thanks, that's a point that I've been trying to make.
Micah wrote:"They have to answer to God if they are living in sin."
They have to answer to God for their rejection of him and his son as Lord and Savior. I am fully confident that if they make Jesus Lord, they will cease (eventually) to behave in a sinful fashion, such as practicing homosexuality.
Micah wrote:"If you want government to say we sanction gay marriage and protect their rights to have benefits than I disagree because I feel our government shouldn't support things that are against scripture."
I don't want the government to sanction Gay marriage, I say if we get any law that protects our marriages, we're going to get one that protects their faux marriages as well.
Micah wrote:"I am completely aware that since we have a secular government, that is a part of this world, that may occur. Doesn't mean I support it."
Nor do I, that's just probably what we'll get. I would say if we don't move to secure at least this sort of protection, we won't even get a law that can be used to protect us.
Micah wrote:"I don't believe that God would want us to okay government sanctioned gay marriage just so we can protect ourselves from lawsuits. I think God wants us to do what is right and allow him to take care of the rest."
Okay, but until you can get a plebiscite supporting your view of marriage, you must go for a carve out, or be subjected to laws that may be, as I said, used to destroy you and your family through your marriage.
Micah wrote:"I don't think protecting the cause of righteousness means purposely protecting the cause of the unrighteous. If they get protected as a by-product of a righteous law than so be it."
I think we can get an essentially righteous but vague law that can be used to protect us, but that will be used by those wanting "Gay marriage" and Polyandry and Polyamoury as well. They're doing this already. It won't be any more a marriage because they say it is than it is now, the state does not define marriage, but we could have a law that could be used to protect our marriages and thus our children and our wives as well as our assets.
Micah wrote:"Now to answer the part of your question about healthcare insurance. The reason I am completely against it is for several reasons:"
Yeah, but they don't matter as companies can, and will, and in fact have simply made a legal choice to broaden who they will offer healthcare coverage to, including pets. If you say it's wrong to offer insurance to homosexual "life partners", insurance companies will offer insurance to "whoever lives under your roof" and accomplish the same thing. There are too many loopholes, you can't close them all.
Micah wrote:"I don't find comparing a business relationship to a marriage relationship a valid comparison. Business partners aren't living together, children aren't involved, there is no involvement of extended family, and the relationship in a business is usually completely ended at breakup, whereas a marital divorce can last forever."
Court divorces are the same as breaking up a business partnership. You have assets, they are divided. Generally the two people involved aren't really friends anymore and don't see each other any more than they have to afterwards. Without "Gay Marriage", gay relationships look like joint business ventures, but dividing up the property of marriage, including any children that might be involved, functions the same way.
Christopher wrote:"To my mind, this is just one of a myriad of "what ifs" that we could worry about in our present culture."
No, it's an agenda that is being engaged in now and blinkered behavior will result in a predictable result. Your remarks about "what Jesus says" mischaracterize me and what I am saying. I am performing a task like the watchman. You mistake me for worrying. I'm not worried. Ezekiel 3:17-19:
"Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."
And please don't think that I am claiming a direct revelation from God, I'm not. But if I see something true, and do not warn, I am guilty of it. If I warn, which I am, I have delivered my soul.
Jim wrote:"Well talk about a total miss representation of what I meant."
I used the qualifier "seem". Please don't misrepresent me.
Jim wrote:"Evangalise the world, if you absolutely have to speak."
Ah, well, now I will make a more definite remark. You're telling me that within the body of Christ, I waste my time to teach, that I should only learn the gospel, and preach it.
Hugh McBryde