Santorum says Gay Marriage the most important fight of our lifetime

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I'm not going to bother writing out a reply, I'll just quote what those passages mean.

Ephesians 6:5-9

The duty of servants is summed up in one word, obedience. The servants of old were generally slaves. The apostles were to teach servants and masters their duties, in doing which evils would be lessened, till slavery should be rooted out by the influence of Christianity. Servants are to reverence those over them. They are to be sincere; not pretending obedience when they mean to disobey, but serving faithfully. And they must serve their masters not only when their master's eye is upon them; but must be strict in the discharge of their duty, when he is absent and out of the way. Steady regard to the Lord Jesus Christ will make men faithful and sincere in every station, not grudgingly or by constraint, but from a principle of love to the masters and their concerns. This makes service easy to them, pleasing to their masters, and acceptable to the Lord Christ. God will reward even the meanest drudgery done from a sense of duty, and with a view to glorify him. Here is the duty of masters. Act after the same manner. Be just to servants, as you expect they should be to you; show the like good-will and concern for them, and be careful herein to approve yourselves to God. Be not tyrannical and overbearing. You have a Master to obey, and you and they are but fellow-servants in respect to Christ Jesus. If masters and servants would consider their duties to God, and the account they must shortly give to him, they would be more mindful of their duty to each other, and thus families would be more orderly and happy.

Luke 12:47

The last two verses of our text, Luke 12:47-48 are especially significant when viewed in the light of the fact that unbelieving Israel is the unfaithful servant. Judgment, Jesus taught, was meted out according to knowledge. Greater knowledge meant greater punishment, for those who rejected it. Israel had that greater knowledge and thus her discipline as well.

 

[Pisces]

I agree. But that wasn't the beginning of anything resembling what we know as Roman Catholicism.

If you're going to say Protestantism began in the 1500's, then when do you say Roman Catholicism began? And why can't the argument you use against one be turned around and used against the other?

There is no other time that Catholicism came into existence other than Pentecost. Catholicism and orthodox Christianity were considered synonomous during the early centuries of the Church. It's obvious that the same can't be said of Protestantism. The term Roman Catholicism refers simply to that part of the Catholic Church that uses the Latin rite. There are Catholics that are not Roman, for example, Byzantine Rite Catholics are not Roman. These different qualifiers used before Catholic like Roman and Byzantine came into existence as different geograpical areas of the Church developed different rites and customs while believing in the same basic doctrines.

 

[farreri]

Who is God and Jesus?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

He's not for banning government's involvement in marriage. He wants to use the power of the Federal Government to ban gay marriage as he toted his "Freedom!" slogan during his campaign.

Try to justify his bigotry and hypocrisy all you want.

Would homosexuals be banned from having private ceremonies and calling themselves married? No. Government just wouldn't wouldn't be recognize them as married.

 

[erowe1]

for some reason you're under the assumption that vitriol is an adequate substitute for an actual argument

No I'm not. I'm just not going to waste time typing an argument for someone so obviously determined to interpret the Bible in a dishonest tendentious way.

 

[farreri]

Would homosexuals be banned from having private ceremonies and calling themselves married? No. Government just wouldn't wouldn't be recognize them as married.

So government playing favoritism?

 

[farreri]

No I'm not. I'm just not going to waste time typing an argument for someone so obviously determined to interpret the Bible in a dishonest tendentious way.

What's the Bible?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

LOL. Especially the ones that produce a child outside of wedlock, right?

Yes, including that.

But the great thing about Christianity is that through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation all sin can be forgiven.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

So government playing favoritism?

No, I just prefer the government out of marriage entirely. Adding in homosexuals is the opposite of progress on this issue.

 

[erowe1]

There is no other time that Catholicism came into existence other than Pentecost. Catholicism and orthodox Christianity were considered synonomous during the early centuries of the Church. It's obvious that the same can't be said of Protestantism.

All you're doing is reciting a Catholic view imposed back on history. Obviously Protestants wouldn't see it that way. You're not really appealing to any objective facts that an impartial person would accept.

It's not that you can go through a list of things that distinguish Catholics from Protestants and show that the apostles lined up consistently with the Catholics. You just have this system that you look at history through where the Catholic Church claims to trace its origin to Pentecost and simultaneously claims that Protestants can't do that. Protestants look at history and say the catholic-with-a-little-c church began at Pentecost, that it never had anything to do with what would become Roman Catholicism, that genuinely saved Protestants also belong to this catholic-with-a-little-c church, not because they're Protestants, but because they have the faith in Jesus that the apostles preached.

It's like you're saying that the Catholic view of Church history is the correct one and then saying you know that to be true because that's what the Catholic view is.

 

[MelissaWV]

No, I just prefer the government out of marriage entirely. Adding in homosexuals is the opposite of progress on this issue.

Pretty much that, and that should be the end of it.

 

[king_nothing_]

No I'm not. I'm just not going to waste time typing an argument for someone so obviously determined to interpret the Bible in a dishonest tendentious way.

If you don't want to "waste your time" to type a rational argument, then don't reply at all. You obviously do think pure vitriol is a useful substitute to some degree for a rational argument, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to type it out in the first place.

 

[farreri]

No, I just prefer the government out of marriage entirely. Adding in homosexuals is the opposite of progress on this issue.

Me too (government out of marriage entirely), but as long as it is involved in marriage, government has to equally apply it or it's discrimination. Agreed?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Pretty much that, and that should be the end of it.

So far 31 states have banned government recognition of homosexual "marriage." Next step is to get constitutional amendments in all those states banning heterosexual marriage.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

So, someone tell me the dangers if gays are allowed to get married.

It may spark a lot of threads on these forums from members of other forums. Otherwise... nothing.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Me too (government out of marriage entirely), but as long as it is involved in marriage, government has to equally apply it or it's discrimination. Agreed?

No, I don't.

But since you do, how about polygamous marriage? Why aren't you pressing for the government recognition of that?

 

[rprprs]

At what level of physical attractiveness do these pictures cross the line between making a point and serving other ends?

I'm not sure. But I'm certain that many of the written arguments presented in this thread have already crossed that line.

 

[farreri]

No, I don't.

But since you do, how about polygamous marriage? Why aren't you pressing for the government recognition of that?

Who says I'm not? Why should the Sister Wives family be discriminated against? It's part of their religion. Aren't you for freedom of religion? I am.

 

[erowe1]

If you don't want to "waste your time" to type a rational argument, then don't reply at all. You obviously do think pure vitriol is a useful substitute to some degree for a rational argument, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to type it out in the first place.

I'm not inclined to write thoughtful paragraphs. But I have no such disinclination simply to type what jumps out from your posts as obvious to the most casual observers, which is that you don't have a clue. If you don't want people to think you don't have a clue, then step one is to admit that you don't, which would mean being willing to treat the data honestly. Step two would be to get a clue. And step three would be to come back here and say something worth saying.

And yes, I only replied again because you told me not to.

 

[Pisces]

All you're doing is reciting a Catholic view imposed back on history. Obviously Protestants wouldn't see it that way. You're not really appealing to any objective facts that an impartial person would accept.

It's not that you can go through a list of things that distinguish Catholics from Protestants and show that the apostles lined up consistently with the Catholics. You just have this system that you look at history through where the Catholic Church claims to trace its origin to Pentecost and simultaneously claims that Protestants can't do that. Protestants look at history and say the catholic-with-a-little-c church began at Pentecost, that it never had anything to do with what would become Roman Catholicism, that genuinely saved Protestants also belong to this catholic-with-a-little-c church, not because they're Protestants, but because they have the faith in Jesus that the apostles preached.

It's like you're saying that the Catholic view of Church history is the correct one and then saying you know that to be true because that's what the Catholic view is.

It probably seems that way because I wasn't really prepared for this discussion tonight so I'm not ready to bring a lot of facts into what I'm saying for fear of getting some small historical detail incorrect. And then getting called on it. I'd have to get my books out and make sure I have all my names and dates right before I can properly argue what I've been saying tonight.

I was actually born and raised a Lutheran. I always wondered though, why there were so many different denominations when part of Christ's prayer before His arrest was for His followers to be unified. That led me to study the history of the Church and the writings of the early Christians in depth. That study, along with other reasons, led me to convert to Catholicism. That was over fifteen years ago and between work and family, I don't have all that history memorized.