Ron Cusano

From Wikipledia - However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing such unions by amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[

One correction! Slavery is spoken of and was usual in Old Testament times, but under the New Covenent, all are equal in the eyes of God. Even under the Old Tesstament dispensation, much of slavery was voluntary to pay off debt.

PS - The reason for the constitional ammendment is to make same sex marriage illegal on a Federal Level so it can't be overturned on the state level.

That is not true. Sodomy and same sex marriage is the law in most states. It has become more of an issue in recent years. The battle now by liberal groups is to enact law to ALLOW same sex marriage because it does not exist at present.

The problem with that argument is, none of those things are addressed in the Bible, except divorce, and that was allowed under Mosaic Law and in the New Testament, if adulty was involve. People may THINK those laws came from the Bible, but that did not.

This wasn't directed to me with a question so I am only going to say this . . . This Reverend claims to be educated at a Conservative school but his whole argument is full of false liberal Christian argument, reeking with lies and misrepresentations. If I remember correctly, he claims that paul only mentions homosexuality twice in Ephesians, I think he said, and it is never described as we know homosexuality today! What a pile of dung! Apparently he has never read Romans Chapter 1. I know many people who have been teaching and studying the scriptures for 50 years who are clueless about them.

I know you are smarter that that! There is only none state in the union that sanction homosexual marriage, and I believe that will be overturned. Gay people cannot get married in this country. They are seeking a constitutional ammendment to keep it that way.

Yes, in the eyes of God, sis is sin, and the "wages of sin is death"! We are not talking about the law of God that demands perfection, we are talking about man's law. We are not talking about making everything that is sinful against the (man's) law, we are talking about man's law sanctioning and condoning what the Bible say's is an abomination. If we lived in a Christian Theocracy with laws based entirely upon the Bible, which we don't nor does the Bible advocate, what you said would be true. But that is not the case or the issue. We are told to obey man's law, unless it is in contridiction with the laws of God.

Well I guess those "right-wingers" must have been around a very long times, since homosexual marriage has been banned by law since this country was founded. I don't know, I think this country did OK, don't you?

Don't be so sarcastic! That is not what I am saying at all and you know it. I am saying let the Bible interprete itself.

The fact the the verse was speaking about Sodom and homosexuality and not about premartial sex. Of course premartial sex is a sin and against God's Law, but that is not what is being discussed in this verse. That is what you are taking out of context.

I didn't see a question there or I would have answered you. I don't care to pick or choose laws, I will just not support laws that I consider to be wrong or against my faith. You see that as a problem?? If you want to take things out of context and make your own interpretation, as I said, suit yourself. You either believe the Bible or you don't.

Just for the record, the terminology in the verse that you quoted said "unnatural vice"! Homosexuality is unnatural which premartial sex is not "unnatural" or against nature. If you want to take something out of context and give it an alternative meaning, against what is obvious, knock yourself out.

Suit yourself!

I did read it wrong and I apoligize, but I strongly disagree with your answer. I believe that they would take a stand against this abomination in no uncertain terms, in much the same way Jesus did with the moneychangers in the Temple.

Premartial sex is sinful, but it is not an act against nature is it? Sodom was known for it's homosexuality witch is an "unnatural act or vice", if you want to use that terminology"! You can say anything can mean anything, but you need to look at the context of how it is used to understand it's meaning. For example, if I said "We celebrated the holiday on December 25th with presents around the tree". Hey, the holiday could mean Easter or Ground Hog Day because both are holidays. But in the proper context of how holiday is used in that sentence, it is describing a specific holiday that is celebrated with a tree and presents, therefore Christmas is to be understood from that context.

Because you are talking about laws that would prohibit you from worshiping God as you see fit, and that never was the issue. My question was how would Jesus and the other Fathers of the Church vote on an issue that would sanction and condon an abomination?? You said you would abstain. Do you think they would do the same? Or, would they, as they always did, take a stand against sin and unrighteousness whenever they cam across it??

And it is accurate. Taken in context, it can mean nothing else by homosexuality, which is what Sodom was known for. In the very next verse it speaks about them "defileing the flesh"! Beastility is not even something to consider because it is never ever mentioned in connection with Sodom. I suspect you picked that up from someone elses post. You asked previously what I meant about picking and choosing verses to believe and changing or not believing verses that were inconvenieve with you opinions. This is exactly what I meant. The meaning of the verse is clear and obvious, and you want to change it's intent and meaning to support your opinion.

Not within the context of that verse, and not speaking about a city that was known for it's homosexuality. Beastiality was not an issue that we know about in Sodom. There is no reason to indicate that "strange flesh" could mean adultry, and every reason to indicate that is means homosexality, which Sodon was noted for.

And I agree with everything you just said, but you are missing the point. We are not talking about any laws that prohibit or require anyone to worship or not worship any way they please. We are talking about laws that condon and make legal acts the the Bible and God calls abominations. There is a very big difference here.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that. But, you made a statement about "strange flesh" not meaning homosexuality in the verse I sent to you. You havn't answered regarding what else it could possible mean in the context of that verse. Please respond.

OK then, suppose you tell me what "strange flesh" means here in the context of this verse about Sodom?? That is certainly your choice! I am just pointing out that is it inconsistant with scripture. What you do with that information is your business.

PS - To answer the rest of your rant . . . I am against abortion, against gay marriage and in favor of the right to bear arms. I have made of secret of that and spoke about it several times. If being anti-abortion is anti-choice, guilty as charged. So what are you ranting about. As far as being pro-death, anti-help for the needy - give me a break. I don't think that even you believe that!! Apparently you see all Conservatives that way, and you are flat out wrong. I personally believe my positions on these things are in accordance with my biblical beliefs. You take exception to what I quote and say from the Bible? That's your right, but it's meaningless unless there is something specific that you have found wrong. I would love to discuss it with you. I have often be told that I lose my temper on this thread, but you do it more that I do.

OK, here are a few verses to make the point(s) we discussed - You say that homosexuality does not have a bad effect on society and did not in Sodom. Apparently Jude disagrees - Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 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. About weather a Christian ought to take a stand against sin (homosexuality & same sex marriage) 1 Peter 4:11 - If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ . . . How we vote is speaking publically about what we believe. Is condoning an abomination giving glory to God? 1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Same argument, Is condoning an abomination holy? Rom 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.| Can you abhor an abomination and vote for it too?? Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin . An abominable sin is certainly unrightousness! There are countless more, but this should make the point.

Think what you want! You are apparently sick of hearing things you don't believe or understand. I can't so anything about that. You want to discuss scripture, let's do it! I don't care what you think of me personally. I think you are fustrated because you hear truth and can't come with good reason to dispute it.