|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ MARTIN ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 7 · Found: 167 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 2/12/13 3:25 PM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
“The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage,” one official says. That is exactly what is happening, and the best commentary on this type of 'madness' is Daniel 4. When people in their arrogance do not want to bow to the true and living God in humility, confessing His sovereignty, righteousness, and truth, God can hand them over to lunacy as a judgment on their sin, as he did with Nebuchadnezzar. There is truly something 'insane' and 'diseased' about a mind that cannot perceive the unnatural character of same-sex acts as violating the order of creation and God's obvious design for human sexuality.
Another official says, “Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.” That is also correct. It is the aim of gay activists not to 'add' a secondary definition of marriage to the traditional definition, still regarded as the 'primary' definition. It is their aim to REPLACE entirely the traditional, biblical definition of marriage with a man-made, gender-neutral definition that is touted as an 'evolutionary advancement' over the old, bigoted, oppressive, discriminatory definition. The whole aim is to attack the Bible as an outdated book filled with bigotry. |
|
|
| 2/12/13 10:04 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
There is a lot of emotion, but no logic, in Mr. Steadman's words; for if he were logically consistent, he would have to advocate as broad a definition of marriage as there are sexual "preferences" in the world. Consistency would require him to say that the statutory definition of marriage should abolish ALL eligibility requirements for marriage based on sex, number, age, and consanguinity. Thus, if four people wish to become a married 'quad,' if a mother wants to marry her son, or a middle-aged man wants to marry a small girl he 'purchased' from her parents in Thailand, then the law must allow for these marriages as well as the so-called 'gay marriages' between two consenting adult partners of the same sex. Mr. Steadman is being inconsistent in wanting to 'broaden' the definition of marriage just so far but not far enough to accommodate EVERY citizen's sexual preference. Hence, there is no logic in his words. On the other hand, it is perfectly logical for society to give legal sanction and benefits to an institution that has proven over millenia to provide the ideal context for the propagation and upbringing of children-- heterosexual marriage-- and to deny those benefits to other forms of sexual union that undermine the future welfare of society. |
|
|
| 2/8/13 8:18 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Wrong Planet,
It is terribly grievous, but not at all surprising, to see the utter lunacy produced when God and His revealed truth are rejected by individuals and societies as the foundation of life. God's judgment on Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is designed to us show us how human pride reduces people to the level of fruit cakes and brute beasts. So, yes, to answer your question, the world has gone nuts, just as German society went nuts in the 1930's when it embraced as its 'savior' a nut case called Adolph Hitler and received with cheers of wild enthusiasm all the garbage spewing from his mouth-- the "big lies" crafted by his propaganda man, Goebbels, who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth." That's exactly what we are seeing in Western nations at the present time, which have blinded themselves to truth by rejecting God and His Word-- and nowhere is the lunacy in more obvious display in our secular universities, which have become bastions of fanatical anti-Christian propaganda. |
|
|
| 2/4/13 8:48 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
It seems to me that the real issue here is not the question "WHO is the baker obliged to serve?" but rather "WHAT SERVICES is the baker required to provide?" His defense should be that he is being asked to provide a service that he has never offered to anyone, which is to provide a cake for a 'mock' wedding ceremony, that in his view as a Christian is not a wedding at all, but a pagan religious ceremony that is directly hostile to his values as a christian. What these two women are wanting him to bake, therefore, is something that he has never offered to bake for anyone-- therefore, he is not discriminating against them, for he would not bake a 'mock' wedding cake for anybody for any reason. The only service he offers is to bake wedding cakes for real weddings. The government is trying to get him to recognize something as a wedding that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize as a wedding, so that is a violation of the first amendment, which allows freedom of religion. It is like 'bloody Mary' trying to impose her belief on all the subjects of her realm that the object in a priest's hands is Christ's body and blood. But it is NOT Christ's body and blood, but bread and wine. This is a clearly a case of the state imposing religious belief. |
|
|
| 1/28/13 5:49 PM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Lex,
In the American system, the law can only be changed in an orderly manner. The Congress cannot lawfully pass a ban on private gun ownership, for example, while the second amendment to the Constitution remains in force. To do that would be to violate the rule of law in this country. To lawfully pass a law banning private gun ownership, our legislators would first have to annul the second amendment to the Constitution. That is not going to happen, however, because Americans would strongly oppose annulling any of the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which secure certain rights to the people-- among them the right to keep and bear arms. So what Seidman is advocating is really outright lawlessness, in terms of our American legal system. By urging legislators simply to ignore the Constitution, so that they can pass any law they feel is expedient in the modern world-- no matter what the Constitution says-- he is really urging the abolition of the rule of law in this country. His position is definitely an attack on the idea that the law is king; for in this country, elected officials have no legal authority whatsoever to pass any law that violates the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/31/13 9:17 AM
