It occurred to me this weekend as I hosted a debate on gay marriage that I don't believe marriage is a civil right. Let me just say, I believe that gay people should have the same legal and financial rights as any unmarried couple in a de facto relationship. However, I am opposed to the "redefinition" of marriage.
I don't think marriage is a civil right. When I was single and dyyyyying to be married (yes, I hated being single) were my "civil" rights violated by boyfriend because he didn't want to marry me ? I mean can I go back and sue him because he violated my RIGHT to be a married lady? What about the 70% of black women who are single? Can they sue all the brothers who want to be "ballers" for keeping them single....no, I know they can sue liberal white men for not "crossing over" and marrying them. If marriage is a civil rights, then the liberals have a new set of victims -- single people who want to be married but are not, right? Yes, I am aware that this is ridiculous just as ridiculous as gay people saying that marriage is a civil right.
Some heterosexual people who want to be married will never marry for a myriad of reasons and they just have to live with it. So, I believe that rather than redefining marriage, gay people should just live with it. Just like the 70% of black women who want to be married but AREN'T. Since the beginning of time, I am sure they have been gay people and they didn't cause a stink about not being married -- or they just married the opposite sex (yikes!). What's next? Are their descendants going to ask for reparations for civil rights violations?
This is really JUST about the radical left wing agenda to cleanse our society of religious dogma and what they consider to be antiquated traditions like marriage.
85 comments:
Actually it is.
You don't have to be married in a church but you do HAVE to have a license to be married sanctioned by the jurisdiction in which the marriage is performed.
Now, the question for me is how does the government justify denying that right to two consenting adults?
"you do HAVE to have a license to be married sanctioned by the jurisdiction in which the marriage is performed."
UTS~How does that make it a CIVIL right?
A "civil" right is protection from discrimination.
The opposition to gay marriage is coming primarily from religious groups on religious grounds.
UTS~I am simply positing that marriage is not a civil right. Regardless of where the opposition is coming from to say that to be married is a violation of a gay persons civil rights based on discrimination is not true.
One can argue that they have a "right" to be married but it sure isn't a "civil" right.
I don't care what two consenting adults do in their relationship, I think they should have all of the legal/financial benefits that marriage offers even. But if that's the case then heterosexual unmarried couples should also have those benefits. I just have a problem with the re-definition of marriage and I think I would feel the same way regardless of my faith. They should call it something else -- "civil union", "domestic partnership", "legally sanctioned sodomite love", who cares what you call it but don't call it marriage. A marriage arrangement involves a husband and a wife. Not two husbands or two wives.
Fascinating.
O.K., let's take this from the top.
1. Marriage as defined by a religion and as defined by a government entity are two entirely different things.
2. The definition of marriage in the United States comes from the British Common Law definition, which came from the Catholic Church definition (for the most part).
3. The definition has been changed from the initial inception in US Law; there are age qualifications, race qualification were removed.
4. The question we have today in is one of LAW not religion, we have a secular government. The question comes down to if two consenting adults of the same gender can be married? Should this be allowed?
Someone give me non-religious but legal and perhaps sociological reasons why or why not.
You prove my point.
You have a problem with gay marriage because it offends your religious sensibilities.
Mormons will tell you that marriage could be one husband and numerous wives.
Ok, maybe I should respond in caps and double spaces.
Yes, I have a problem calling it marriage. But who cares? We all know that marriage WILL be redefined. READ THE TITLE GENTLEMAN!!! Is marriage a CIVIL right. I not debating whether or not they should be married because that's really moot. I am simply saying that to contend that marriage is a civil right is preposterous and if these "brilliant" (and I'm being sarcastic) jurist find that marriage is a civil right then every single person in the US has cause for a class-action law suit for civil rights violations.
Black woman should then bring a class-action law suit against all the black men whom they "shack-up" because these men are "marriage adverse" and therefore violated the rights of the woman for violated the rights of these women by not marrying them. One spouse can sue a spouse filing for divorce for a "civil" rights violation.
I'm not debating how God feels about gay marriage -- for what? Who cares what He thinks anymore. Christians don't even care. I'm just saying let's me honest and call things as they ARE. Gay people want to be married because marriage is awesome, I don't blame them. I wanted desperately to be married when I was single. But what if I no one ever asked me? I would just have been single--but would my civil rights have been violated? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Marriage isn't a civil right! That's all I'm saying.
"Black woman should then bring a class-action law suit against all the black men whom they "shack-up" because these men are "marriage adverse" and therefore violated the rights of the woman for violated the rights of these women by not marrying them. One spouse can sue a spouse filing for divorce for a "civil" rights violation."
First you'd have to prove that the woman demanded marriage before they shacked up, slept together etc...which you damn well very rarely happens.
And of course only black men are guilty of shacking up or having pre-marital or extra marital sex.
This is retarded.
UTS~"And of course only black men are guilty of shacking up or having pre-marital or extra marital sex.
This is retarded."
You are right, I should restate that...ALL WOMEN regardless of race will have cause to bring a class action law suit against marriage adverse men who refused to marry them.
You also write:"First you'd have to prove that the woman demanded marriage before they shacked up, slept together etc...which you damn well very rarely happens."I don't know what you would have to prove I just maintain that marriage isn't a civil right.
It's just that being a black woman who dealt with black men who didn't think marriage was necessary and seeing my single friends who also happen to be black going through the same thing....I guess I'm a bit fixed on black men. Plus, white women don't seem to have trouble getting married....but I have no statistics to prove this before you ask...lol
"When I was single and dyyyyying to be married (yes, I hated being single) were my "civil" rights violated by boyfriend because he didn't want to marry me?"
This classic convoluted rightwing thinking.
Marriage involves two "consenting" adults CBW.
Obviously your boyfriend was not "consenting" to marriage.
So, I assume you exercised your freedom of choice and went and found somebody else, right?
"Plus, white women don't seem to have trouble getting married....but I have no statistics to prove this before you ask...lol"
There's that media perception thing again.
Half the women (white) that I work with are either lesbian or complaining that can't find a good man.
3 of them I know for sure are single mothers who have never been married.
UTS~You actually make a good point with the exception of "This classic convoluted rightwing thinking." I would have come up with this "convoluted" thinking even if I were liberal.
But, I guess I can't get around the two "consenting" adults part.
But what if no one ever "consented".People could sue the "unconsenting" partners for discriminating against because they maybe ugly or fat, because they have halotosis or vaginal warts. The unmarried who desperately wish to be married will have cause to come up with any reason for "discrimination" if the law of the land is that marriage is a "civil" right.
It's an issue of CIVIL LIBERTIES. In other words, it's an issue of the gov't stepping in and not legally recognizing or allowing same sex unions. In effect it impedes a persons right to life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness as we are ALL afforded per the constitution.
The struggle of LBGT's is akin to the Civil Right struggle, but people must be corrected on the terminology or the language. It could be deemed a violation of a "civil right" because it seems to be discriminatory or opposed to the Christian Anglo Saxon ethic or definition of marriage. But hey, isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?
I mean, what really is the difference between calling it "marriage" or a "civil union"?
It just seems to me that the debate should not be over a name but instead one of principle. In other words, why support them being able to be legally recognized by gov't only if they don't use the term marriage.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Care to explain that one CBW?
I mean lets be real:when one looks at the history of marriage and even in the bible, it was never a ceremony undertaken by a priest or religious figure. It had more to do with the aquisition of wealth than love or what God handed down.
Something that is always missing from these discussions is in fact the history of the subject.
That said, it wasn't until Rome said hey we have to have a priest preside over a ceremony or whatever to make it legitimate. They only did that then so as to prevent people clubbing women in the head caveman style as they were known to do. Being that Christianity was made the official religion of the land, this is how that one came about. It was more political than spiritual.
Now, nobody has to believe anything I say, but I suggest you take the time to look into it and see for yourselves.
@CBW:
Marriage IS a civil right, within the context of CIVIL LAW; it was established in the Magna Carta in specifically regarding property ownership and survivorship law regarding estates.
Why do you not know this?
@Rippa:
I am in general agreement wit h you, but you wrote: “I mean lets be real:when one looks at the history of marriage and even in the bible, it was never a ceremony undertaken by a priest or religious figure. It had more to do with the aquisition of wealth than love or what God handed down.”
That is a bit overreaching. Marriage as defined by God between Adam and Eve and further restated by Jesus in the Gospels was about procreation and union between two people with God.
Further. The theme of LOVE is present throughout scripture, look at Jacob and Rachel, Abraham and Sarah, Solomon and Makeda, David and Bethsheba, etc., etc.
Rippa~You write"I mean, what really is the difference between calling it "marriage" or a "civil union"?"
Then why not call it that civil union. I submit that I am absolutely biased because of my faith. But I recognize that the many people do not share my religious belief and I don't see the benefit in spouting off my religious position on this matter. But you asked me to explain so I will do so as "secularly" as I can. Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the very nature that gives marriage its unique status in society. It is my fear that forcing marriage to mean all things will force marriage to mean nothing at all. THE PROBLEM with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires. Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen "good." It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.People who argue for creating gay marriage do so in the name of high ideals: justice, compassion, fairness. I do not question their sincerity. Nevertheless, to take the already troubled institution most responsible for the protection of children and throw out its most basic presumption in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom would not be high-minded. It is socially irresponsible.
DJBA~You write:"Marriage IS a civil right, within the context of CIVIL LAW; it was established in the Magna Carta in specifically regarding property ownership and survivorship law regarding estates.
Why do you not know this?"To which I ask how can you not know that it is NOT. Marriage may be a right but it is NOT a civil right and even if I'm wrong then I still say that every gay person already has a right to marry. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or until recently a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone--there is no discrimination involved.
@CBW:
When Blacks and White were not allowed to get married, IT WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE and IT IS NOW for the SAME REASONS. Restrictions that exist are the issue as they were THEN.
Follow your own logic.
"Marriage" between two people of the same sex is nonsensical.
Marriage has been defined since the beginning of time as the joining of one adult male and one adult woman. Any alteration of this has been seen as a perversion (same sex marriage, polygamy, child brides, "shacking up", etc.)
Marriage is the foundation of the family, and the family is the foundation of society. It is the very existence of this structure that allows society to function at all. This is why it is special. Any old friendship, sexual attraction or relationship does not qualify as marriage.
Marriage in a sense is a civil right, meaning it should not be denied because of religion, race, etc. Denying people the right to marry based on an irrelevant factor such as race has rightly been removed from our laws. I maintain that the very nature of marriage is the joining of two adults of the opposite sex, you can't make it a civil right for two people of the same sex to marry.
Just because two adults "consent" to whatever, this does not mean that whatever they've decided to do should be legally recognized. It doesn't mean is should not be recognized either, but that in itself is a useless argument.
And, yes, white women have a hard time with marriage. Perhaps not at the same statistical rate of blacks, but good men are hard to find no matter where you come from.
@Judy:
"Marriage has been defined since the beginning of time as the joining of one adult male and one adult woman. Any alteration of this has been seen as a perversion (same sex marriage, polygamy, child brides, "shacking up", etc.)"
Not so Judy, it has was defined by the Torah as One man and One woman and defined by JESUS as such, but everyone was not nor is not Christians nor required to be in the SECULAR society we live in where Freedom of Religion is granted.
Islam allows for one man to have multiple wives, certain Celtic religions allowed for Polymory, so your statement is historically false and predicated on your own Judeo-Christian colored viewpoint.
The question is not if the church should allow same sex marriage, which I can understand someone stating no based on Christian theological principles, the question is should it be allowed under SECULAR CIVIL LAW
CBW - let me correct you on a tactical flaw in your argument:
[quote]When I was single and dyyyyying to be married (yes, I hated being single) were my "civil" rights violated by boyfriend because he didn't want to marry me ?[/quote]
There is a distinction between an INDIVIDUAL mate of your choosing to marry you or not versus THE STATE agreeing that you are allowed to be married or not.
With that said I think that the present debate at hand is basically a BATTLE OF ATTRITION.
There are some people who are inclined to focus on "The Will Of Man" and what the present society WANTS to allow for the society VERSUS those who make note that the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHOS has allowed large portions of civilized society around the world to consider certain issues settled and thus the society can move head, building upon this level of certainty.
Let me be clear - AMERICA IS GOING TO ACCEPT SAME SEX MARRIAGE AT SOME POINT.
This is NOT an example of "Enlightened Progression". Instead this is a case of a society that has lost its perspective on the FUNCTION OF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
I do not see this as a myopic debate on Gay Marriage. This, instead is the time to up the ENTIRE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE ON TRIAL and focus on how with HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE having been eroded - these type of alternatives have been allowed to come in during the wayward consciousness.
There is no nation around the world in which Gay Marriage has been adopted while Heterosexual marriage rates have remained strong.
I DO NOT BLAME THE HOMOSEXUALS IN THIS DEBATE.
Clearly the fault resides with the failings of those who are otherwise charged with leading our people by being CONSERVATORS of important institutions upon which our culture is built upon
@CF:
"Clearly the fault resides with the failings of those who are otherwise charged with leading our people by being CONSERVATORS of important institutions upon which our culture is built upon"
Get a grip. The world ain't gonna end if Susie marries Becky or Tyrone marries Steve. Good Lord, will you so-calle d CHristians really BEGIN to focus on the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM at SOME point and stop with the dumb stuff.
Show me stats that back up this statement: "There is no nation around the world in which Gay Marriage has been adopted while Heterosexual marriage rates have remained strong."
It is so interesting that there is such a large overlap between those who believe that man has EVOLVED from lower order beings
AND
those who can't see that while the male and female genitalia are COMPLEMENTARY - the female womb moistens to accommodate the copulation with a male.
By comparison the primary orifice that is used by male homosexuals has no such complementary relationship because it serves as the end point of the digestive system. (Ironically some will call my anatomically correct assessment as 'hate speech')
Likewise, DESPITE the fact that the lesbian was "born that way as GOD has willed it to be".....all of her REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS are fully functional and both the "fem" and the "butch" are capable of reproducing IF the qualifying reproductive cells from a male was to inseminate her female reproductive cells at the appropriate time.
I beg to ask - WHAT BEYOND THE WILL OF MAN is the evidence for Homosexual behavior proven? Are their any anatomical or physiological basis for this?
@CF:
"I beg to ask - WHAT BEYOND THE WILL OF MAN is the evidence for Homosexual behavior proven? Are their any anatomical or physiological basis for this"
Good grief man, now you really are barking up the wrong tree. People both hetero and homosexual have all kinds of un-productive will of man type of sex. Fellatio or Cunnalingous don't cause procreation by themselves.
What is NATURAL or PLEASURABLE to people isn't the issue, the ISSUE IS, is there a sociological or legal reason that same sex marriages should or should not be allowed.
DJBA~ There are significant differences between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. First, removing certain state laws banning interracial marriage did not call for a redefinition of marriage but merely an affirmation of marriage. Traditional marriage is not about equal rights but about establishing norms for sexual relationships within society. They banned discrimination based on race because it is an immutable characteristic that each person has from the moment of conception. And the word “race” appears in the Constitution.
A person who participates in homosexual behavior is different from someone who is born with an immutable characteristic. As many people have pointed out, there are no former African-Americans or former Asian-Americans. But there are hundreds of people who have left homosexuality.
"As many people have pointed out, there are no former African-Americans or former Asian-Americans."
Not even Michael Jackson?
"But there are hundreds of people who have left homosexuality."
There are people who have been forced to resist their homosexuality (which I believe is inherent) because of societal and family pressures.
There are also people who have left heterosexual relationships and become involved in homosexual ones.
I personally know several.
"There are also people who have left heterosexual relationships and become involved in homosexual ones."
Further evidence that "sexual orientation" is not immutable. You can most certainly "mute" it....lol
CF@"There is a distinction between an INDIVIDUAL mate of your choosing to marry you or not versus THE STATE agreeing that you are allowed to be married or not."
Yes, UTS called me on that.
Hey Girl,
That was just beautiful. It was not ridiculus at all, it was down right obvious. I believe the first thing we must do is realize that we have in many ways bought into the outrageous reasoning of the left. You are right own, in your presentation. Liberals can come up with the most outlandish concepts and make them sound reasonable. And instead of we, who are Christians, standing up in the defense of truth, we say, okay, that can work. No it can not. Marriage is not a civil right, and sometimes you really have to get a little silly to allow others to see just how ridiculous we have become in our acceptance of just about anything. You go girl. Keep it up.
Conservative Black Woman,
Your naysayers do not see what you are saying because they are looking at this argument from the point of two consenting adults. Well two consenting adults do not write the moral code God does. If someone would show me where in the Bible that God has given us any indication that two men or two women can be married then there would be no more talking about this issue.
It is so sad to see the corruption of the hearts of so many people. First of all it is a sin for two people to engage in sex in any matter outside of what God has instituted. But again, because those who are arguing for same sex marriage is not considering what God has said, you will be conversating with the air. The problem with this whole issue is that these people are clearly saying they reject what God has said about life.
He is the creator of life and He has every right to institute whatever principles He wishes. Man has no right to try and change that. But no matter what gays get from the government they will die with the same issue. It's immoral and sinful in God's eye. Man can redefine anything they want here on earth, but its really irrelevant, because earth is not our final destination. No matter what happens here, on this earth, in this country, in our states, we all will have to die, and the laws of man will not help you at all after that time. The Supreme Court will be of no help to anyone at the Judgement Seat of Christ. Think about it.
Conservativelikenoother~You write"because earth is not our final destination. No matter what happens here, on this earth, in this country, in our states, we all will have to die, and the laws of man will not help you at all after that time. The Supreme Court will be of no help to anyone at the Judgement Seat of Christ."Well you and I know that's the beautiful truth. But unfortunately some Christians either don't believe the word of God or just ignoring in order to "be of the world and not just in it", and of course unbelievers couldn't care less about God. So I was trying to deal with this on secularly. I'm inclined to agree with the comments of Constructive Feedback that this isn't really about gay people and what they do, it's merely a defense of the institution of marriage.
I meant to say deal with this secularly.
"GOD does for You and I and whomever claims the Bible as their authority, who writes that code for people who DON'T."
I believe in a thing called Natural Law.
@Conservativeonlooker:
You wrote: "Well two consenting adults do not write the moral code God does."
GOD does for You and I and whomever claims the Bible as their authority, who writes that code for people who DON'T.
I do understand that Western law has had a strong influence on it by Church Canon Law, however; I posited that the Magna Carta really began the separation from Church Canon law and Secular law, though it was a slow progression. The Magan Carta dealt with land ownership issues, marriage / inheritance issues, criminal law issues etc, in specific for barons and other aristocrats, but it began the movement towards constitutional law that we see in Western countries today.
OF course English Common law evolved from the covenants of that document, as time went on laws applied to all freemen. Of course as we all know, some folks were less “free” than others, and some folks came to the colonies to be more “free”.
Ultimately, we had a revolution and created our OWN law, the Constitution of the United States. Now the values it extols are freedom and liberty for all people, we know however that wasn’t the reality for many people in the United States, however, the founding fathers did not make a document that was not supposed to evolve, in fact, it was to deal with some problems that they left us, (i.e. the inequality of the African slaves, native Americans and women) and new problems as our society grows and changes.
That is why, I posit, the conversation regarding gay rights is a question of LAW. And that is the public discussion that should be had, not morality. Religion deals with the question of morality, however; it must be conceded that that question is subjective, and in a society of many individuals, one can express their subjective morality however we have to govern by a collective law influenced by our subjective morality and ethics.
How would gay “marriage” affect tax law, survivorship laws, dependency laws, etc.? Is there any scientific or sociologic proof that gays marrying would adversely affect non gays? Should gay unions be called marriages, or should there be another construct within civil law to accommodate a same sex union? Where is this discussion? This discussion is clouded by people saying “the Bible says”.
Now, as many of you know or have guessed, I am a very vocal Christian and what the BIBLE SAYS is important to ME, however, I know I’d have a problem if someone was trying to restrict my freedom predicated on what “The Qu’ran, the Vedas, The Enuma Elish, etc.” say., because I do not accept those books as MY authority, simple as that.
Similarly, many people do not accept the authority of the Bible, as they should not be forced to. The Bible has to be accepted by CHOICE, nowhere in scripture does Jesus imply, infer or command that Christians force HIS rules as expressed by scripture on ANYONE.
Within the “Christian Community” (as diverse a community that is) it is expected that Christians debate the issue of same sex marriage, because supposedly everyone in that community should be considering Christ in their choices, but OUTSIDE of the Christian Community, Christians have a right to have their opinion heard, and to vote anyway they choose BUT, I think there are better things to do with our time that actually forwards the ministry of Jesus Christ, protesting same sex marriage seems to do the opposite, but that is another discussion.
It is my opinion, that in the greater diverse community of America, we have to have more than “The Bible says” to use as a predicate for denying someone their equal rights under the constitution. My conclusion, and suggestion, is that the LGBT community, steer this discussion to the LAW, and inform people outside of their community that this is an issue of law, not personal religious or philosophical position. Just saying…
@CBW:
I wrote: "GOD does for You and I and whomever claims the Bible as their authority, who writes that code for people who DON'T."
You replied: "I believe in a thing called Natural Law."
Define natural law.
Natural Law:
Natual law: a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
general principles of law applicable to all societies; became a fundamental concept of the Roman empire's legal system; related to Stoic ethical theory.
https://www.mountdesales.net/data/files/news/ClassroomLinks/Foundations_Unit__Key_Terms.doc
A theory that has been tested many thousands of times and found always to be true, eg, the law of gravity.
www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/glossaryn.html
set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/N.html
a statement that expresses generally observed behavior
www.learnchem.net/glossary/n.shtml
God, or nature, or universal reason has given humanity a law from which the norms of all human law must be derived. The role of human beings is to simply deduce natural law correctly. There is very little agreement on the definition of "right reason," however.
www.hfienberg.com/irtheory/intlawdefinitions.html
Naturally occurring principles of existence which regulate the manner in which manifestation occurs. Those parameters of Nature/God which channel material existence in universally consistent ways to facilitate evolution. ...
www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/glossary.html
Traditionally, the system of rules and principles that should guide human behavior which, despite any laws or other regulations enacted, might be discovered through rational intelligence and morality.
www.krootlaw.com/info-library/legal-dictionary/
Law “which is so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man, that w/o preserving its maxims, the peace and happiness of humanity can ...
www.swheath.com/doc/polsc215chapter1.htm
This law is based on the natural tendencies of a thing. It can refer both to general moral principles, such as justice, fairness, and respect of other persons, and to specific moral prescriptions. ...
homepage.mac.com/jackbartlett/.Public/FS%20Glossary
@CBW:
BTW, I disagree with your whole "immutable" characeristics point. Subjective, reproductive parts are not the issue, biology is one set of issues, this deals with legal questions.
@CBW:
"Natural Law" is a very bad standard, it can be argued that it is NATURAL to have 4 wives, or to have two husbands based on patterns we see in nature.
Sorry, that is not a concrete objetcive standard, purely subjective.
Morality AIN'T Natural, the natural state of man is LAWLESSNESS and to be governed by their own Greed and selfishness, or do you disagree with that BIBLICAL truth?
DJ Black Adam,
You asked an exceptional question when you put for the question?
Who writes the laws for everyone else?" God does.
It does not matter if you are a believe or a non-believer your creator is still God. God did not just create believers, He is the creator of all of heaven and earth. Just because you have chosen to reject God's law does not mean He must write a different set of commands for you.
We are all in subjection to the adherence of God's rule, even if some chose to reject it, they will still be judged by it in the end. So even though you and all of the others who support gay-marriage, would like to take God out of the equation, you can not, because God, man and the law are forever intertwined. There is nothing, man can do to separate you are release you from the consequences of reject God's natural laws.
It is the depravity of man that desires him to rebel against God, and that depravity results in rebellion. His rebellion will be the instrument by which He will be judged before God and no man, no man's laws, no man's courts, no man's reasoning, will be able to save you from the sentance that will result from your rejection and rebellion against God and Him alone. You are not disagreeing with me in your assertions, you are disagreeing with God, as I have no authority over your choices and your judgment.
DJBA~You write"Morality AIN'T Natural, the natural state of man is LAWLESSNESS and to be governed by their own Greed and selfishness, or do you disagree with that BIBLICAL truth?"
Good point....except that I maintain that Natural Law is not predicted or given by man. Any law apart from natural law is merely a human construct. You prove my point, that because it is the nature of man to follow after darkeness any abandonment of Natural Law is a step in the direction of tyranny as there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law. Which is why the Liberal left is hell bent on redefining marriage. The don't care about the human rights of gay people....they care about advancing their godless socialist agenda and are simply using gay people as their useful idiots on this one.
I meant to say Natural Law is not predicated by man...sorry for the typos.
@conservaticelikenoother:
"Who writes the laws for everyone else?" God does."
Maybe you are not following along. In God's PERFECT will His rules are to be followed and are by all of nature, excpet the free will that is given to MAN allows mand to operate in God's permissive will.
So sure, from my pespective as a CHRISTIAN "MY" God's law is FINAL, it is my CHOOSEN authority, however, all people do not CHOOSE God's Law, nor do all people agree what that Law is or Which GOD is to be followed.
We do not live in God's Kingdom Yet, therefore in our SECULAR Nation, with freedom of religion, people have very different standards on their moral authority.
By what RIGHT do you feel to imposse YOUR GOD's Law on people who have not choosen it, as you see that GOD allows them NOT TO. Are you second guessing HIM?
@CBW:
"Which is why the Liberal left is hell bent on redefining marriage. The don't care about the human rights of gay people....they care about advancing their godless socialist agenda and are simply using gay people as their useful idiots on this one."
Maybe so, maybe not, doesn't cahnge the fact that NATURAL LAW is subjective not concrete. What YOU BELIEVE is Natural LAw may be what I can agree with, but what a Wiccan or a Pagan or a Yorubist or a HINDU or an ATheist believes maybe entirely different. WHO are you to IMPOSSE OUR Definition on people who have not CHOSEN it?
DJBA~"WHO are you to IMPOSSE OUR Definition on people who have not CHOSEN it?"I understand what you are saying but Truth is absolute as it should be. It is not relative. A cat is a cat, not because I say so but because it is so if a Yorubist, Wiccan, or whomever says no a cat is not a cat it's a dog do we then change the definition of cat. There has to be a standard, or moral code that guides a society otherwise anything goes.
Will we be arguing about whether or not plural marriage is a civil right next? I'm sure people who are involved in polygamy can make a case that their "civil" rights are being violated. I mean if marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex is acceptable then wouldn't marriage between 10 consenting adults be that much better?
@CBW:
Again, I know what you belive, and what I believe, but in THIS country you and I have a right to be able to practice our faith and believe what we believe, and other people have a right to believe what they believe and completely disagree with us. And honestly, would YOU want to live in a country that impossed Islamic Sharia law on YOU? We live in a country that allows for religious expression, and therefore one cannot subject others to our standard people have to CHOOSE IT.
You wrote: "Will we be arguing about whether or not plural marriage is a civil right next?"
I am sure that will be the next arguement. Some people will predicate this on THEIR gods and religious beliefs which are different from ours.
SO AGAIN, the question becomes one of Law and Sociology, not religious morality.
DJ Black Adam,
Let me say this in a different manner. When a non-believer choses to leave their world of darkness and become a follower of Christ, "person of faith", what must they do? Repent. Repent of what? Of rebellion against God's Word. Which encompasses, the laws, commandments, precepts and principles, God has instituted.
I can not force anyone to make the choice I have made to follow Christ, but I can do nothing to free man, rather in his free will or not, from what God has ordained.
God's law is God's law, of course, people choose to either embrace it or reject it but you know what we can not do? Dissolve it. Hopefully you will understand what I am saying. The only thing that will separate people from God for eternity is their lack of repentence in rebelling against God, and for rejecting the offering that He provided through His Son Jesus.
So again, there is nothing no one can do, to free man from the laws of God. Man is free to reject what God has instituted and they can live in that rejection, but in the end, God's commands will be what will sentence them to their eternity. You can capitolize, put in bold letters, parenthesis, quotes' or whatever you like, but any one who rises to the defense of those who desire to oppose God is not Christian. Because a Christian is a follower and defender of the God's truth.
DJBA~"And honestly, would YOU want to live in a country that impossed Islamic Sharia law on YOU? We live in a country that allows for religious expression, and therefore one cannot subject others to our standard people have to CHOOSE IT."
Of course not and I don't think by standing in opposition to the redefinition of marriage is an imposition of my religion on anyone.
Marriage is not simply a religious institution, nor is it merely a civil institution. Instead, marriage is a natural institution, whose definition as the union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself.
Lets be honest here, this debate has not arisen because there's been a large groundswell of public support for same-sex marriage, because there isn't. Christians are accused of being close-minded or bigoted for opposing same-sex marriage, but nothing could be further from the truth at least for most of us. The only reason this debate is taking place at all is because small groups of homosexual activists have gone to court in an attempt to gain from a small band of judges what they know they could never win through the democratic process -- foul, foul, foul.
@CBW:
You wrote: "Of course not and I don't think by standing in opposition to the redefinition of marriage is an imposition of my religion on anyone."
Yes you are. Now, you do have a RIGHT to vote and support policy based on your faith or by whatever governs you BUT so does everyone else, believer and non-beleiver. Our religious tradition is not the rule of the land, simple as that. If you want to base your definition of marriage based on our faith, you have that right, but others have the right to have a different opinion in this democratic republic.
When you say you disagree because THE BIBLE tells you so, at that point, you are trying to make your RELIGIOUS opinion LAW. As such, anyone of a different faith without a similar precept of those of other faiths, will oppose you.
And further, in a debate of LAW, your opinion will be at best NOTED and the secular law will contune to be debated.
@Conservativelikenoneother:
I am going to look over your ridicules attempts to define who is a Christian and who is not based on my or any Christian’s rejections of the notion that our faith should not be the Law of this Land.
In fact you are the very reason why even though I am a Christian, I would never want any group of humans who are Christians (like YOU) to run the Laws of the Land. YOUR definition is not JESUS’ definition and you could never be in perfect line with HIS will because your prejudices always come out. YOU cannot be TRUSTED to met out God’s Law THAT is why He hasn’t called you to do so.
I believe God will establish His Kingdom in HIS time; it is attitudes like yours that do a disservice to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, assuming that is, that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God was ever your point to begin with.
You profess Christ, then I suggest you GOVERN YOURSELF BY HIS PRECEPTS, and maybe then perhaps people might see the Light that you should have, as opposed to you trying to control the actions of those who have not yet received the Gospel.
You wrote: "You can capitolize, put in bold letters, parenthesis, quotes' or whatever you like, but any one who rises to the defense of those who desire to oppose God is not Christian. Because a Christian is a follower and defender of the God's truth."
A Christian is one who DEMONSTRATES The Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD. God doesn't need you to defend HIM. It would be best that you draw others to Christ by the CHRISTLIKE NATURE you should be demonstrating, showing the fruit of the Spirit of God, not by trying to define who is a Christian based on who doesn't agree with the political way you attempt to utilize your faith as opposed to the personal way you are called to.
I rise in defense of freedom of religion for EVERYONE because I wouldn’t want anyone, even “Christians” like YOU to impose your definitions of your faith or your “religion” on me.
You have shown, you cannot be trusted.
You can CAPITALIZE, “quote”, Bold or (parenthesis) that yourself.
DJ Black Adam,
DJ Black Adam, tell me how many souls have you converted by your acceptance of same-sex marriage. How many gay men and women have said to you, because you have been so kind to understand that I have the right to make my own lifestyle choice, I will follow Christ and live my life in complete submission to Him.
Nothing that I say, nor you say, will change a person from doing what he or she chooses to do. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit can a degenerate heart be changed. The World is the LORD and everything it contains. Now is that my words or is that God's Word. I don't want anyone following me. I can not impose anything on anyone. Speaking of Jesus, here is what He has to say in Luke 9:49-50.
"Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us[a] is on our[b] side.”
Now how can someone say that they are for God and against Him at the same time. For without faith, it is impossible to please God. Faith is not only believing in God but believing also that God is who He says He is. God is the creator of all things, therefore all things are subjected to Him.
I will never go to the defense of those who choose to live against God's law, and oppose someone who is a follower of Christ, because those who are not for Him is against Him. Jesus said it not me.
I am fully aware that I can not subject anyone to follow what I believe, no where in my comments did I even suggest that point of view. But I do believe without apology, that everyone is held in contempt of God's law when they chose to do things opposed to what He has set forth.
The first thing about same-sex marriage is that it condoms homosexual sex, all sex outside of the blue print of God design is wrong and immoral. Although, I can not force anyone to believe that, it does not free them from the consequences of their choices.
I don't won't you to side with me, but at least you should understand the sovereignty of the God you profess to believe in. We have an obligation to the lost to plead with them for the salvation of their souls, not for the freedom of their pleasures. The only person who will be offended by what I say, is the ones who desires to define his or her own path to salvation. I will not surrender my calling for the advancing of the lukewarm, defiled, principles of the left.
What I am saying here, is that I can never separate my self from Christ because now my life is hidden in Him. The only thing I can do is give a reason to the for the stance that I take in my life. Those stances are built on God's Word, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things.
I am full aware that non-believers live in their own world, controlled by the lust of the flesh and in bondage to their desires. I understand that in their depravity of heart they have no ability to understand spiritual things. But that does not constitute Christians just sitting back and allowing their lawlessness nature to have reign over the earth. Either they will impact the world with their lawless and godless policies are those of us who are Christians will impact the world with our Christ-centered and God-fearing policies, which way would you like to see this play out.
You can choose to let them have free reign, but I will not. And what Christ has to offer is more beneficial to them than what the world has to offer. Therefore, I will continue to fight in defense of their agenda.
@Conservativelikenoneother:
You asked: “DJ Black Adam, tell me how many souls have you converted by your acceptance of same-sex marriage.”
First off, it’s not about “acceptance of gay marriage”, that isn’t this issue. I personally don’t “accept gay marriage” nor do I have to, since I am not gay and am not trying to marry someone of my own gender.
Second, I don’t “convert” anyone; CONVERSION is the province of the HOLY GHOST. Perhaps you have heard of Him, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Most High God? I see you mention Him, how about being LED by HIM and allowing the fruit you should show to be seen?
Third, any seed that I have planted has been by my demonstration of the Gospel of the Kingdom. I know quite a few people I have know who WERE Muslims, Black Hebrew Israelites, Jehovah’s Witnesses and some cases Atheist, both gay and straight who have either gotten saved or came back into the faith by watching Christ in demonstration in my LIFE. Not the superficial change but in seeing TRUE Repentance in my LIFE.
Now tell me how many gays who were going to get married stopped what they were doing because of you beating them over the head with how much what they were doing was wrong in your eyes?
You wrote: “Now how can someone say that they are for God and against Him at the same time.”
I didn’t say I was against God nor am I, being against your political trifle isn’t being against God, even if on the surface it looks like you are lined up with God.
I say on the surface because you are one of those “pick the sin of the month” Christians. All sin is in opposition to God, I condone none of it. HOWEVER, there is a fine line between opposing sinful actions and trying to run other peoples lives.
Our job is to lead people to Christ, the Holy Ghost deals with SIN. Let me give you an example.
There was a lady who was a prostitute that I’d see very other day as I walked down Madison Ave. I and a sister from my church would talk to her from time to time, as a person, never condemning her lifestyle. She eventually visited our church. She got saved. We treated her with kindness and respect and not judgment, because there but for the grace of God….
Like I said; disservice to the Gospel. You all shout about the sin of homosexuality and MANY OF YOU are gay yourselves, or have all manner of ugly wickedness in your lives that gay people look at and wonder about this faith you profess. Therefore, I say to YOU, what the word of the Lord says:
Matthew 7.3-5: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Now WHATEVER SIN IS IN YOUR LIFE, rather YOU think it’s hidden or not, God sees it. How dare you point a finger at ANYONE when you know what lurks in your OWN HEART.
Therefore again, I say BRING YOURSELF UNDER SUBMISSION to CHRIST JESUS and let your LIGHT shine, show compassion to people while you do so.
That is the second time you questioned my faith, even in disagreement I have not done that to you, I would strongly suggest you discuss the issue as a fellow Christian or cease addressing me period.
DJ Black Adam:
In nearly every one of your pieces you seek to swat away anyone who takes a conservatory viewpoint of traditional marriage, the relationship that best approximates what the PHYSIOLOGICAL form of male and female indicate as the norm.
You attempt to put forth the disposition of "PROVE TO ME WHY same sex marriage is not a progressive movement forward".With all due respect, DJBA - I no longer GIVE A DAMN enough to PROVE TO YOU why this is.
Beyond that which is intrinsic there is a millennium's worth of proof that such a framework between man and woman is rational.
I think it is time for YOU TO DEFEND YOUR OWN POSITION. For IT is the RADICAL ONE.
[quote]Now, the question for me is how does the government justify denying that right to two consenting adults?[/quote]
The same reason why YOU can't marry your boyfriend along with your present wife along with his wife.
@CF:
"I think it is time for YOU TO DEFEND YOUR OWN POSITION. For IT is the RADICAL ONE."
Radical? That this is a matter of LAW and SOCIOLOGICAL REALITY and not a matter of religious doctrine and dogma when dealing with rights within a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC That allows FREEDOM OF RELIGION and that has a SECULAR GOVERNMENT?
Yep, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and 'nem were VERY Radical...
Like I said, I have nothing to "defend" I don't care if you are FOR or AGAINST, it is the inane arguments you are giving that have nothing to do with LAW that I find problematic.
.
DJBlack Adam,
I would like to clarify one thing, that you repeatedly state about my viewpoint. My viewpoint is not a political one, it is Christian one, I have no other viewpoint but that which is built on the Word of God, as I desire to establish a mindset that is like Christ. I will not be conformed to this world no matter what attacks come my way.
Our lights as Christians should not be for illumination alone but for transformation. I have had several gays and lesbian people to whom I have expressed the same sentiments that I have expressed here and they have been impacted in a positive way, seeing that my desire is not to harm them but to help them.
As most on the left, you did not hear anything I said, as I specifically said, that nothing I say, will change anyone, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit, so I guess what I have said to you goes in one ear and out the other.
The most inhumane ungodly thing any person can do is see someone heading over a cliff that can end their lives and push them over. That is what everyone who tells gays and lesbians that they should have the right to marry and be left alone by to do what they choose to do. No, we should be pleading with these people, because giving them comfort in their sin only seals them in their rebellion.
I can not change anyone, I understand that it is the work of the Holy Spirit, but if these people have no voices calling out to them to turn from their ways, as in the days of Jonah and John the Baptist, what will be their fate. I would rather have these people and mad at me for a time but then because of my words to them, open up their hearts to the Holy Spirit and change their lives, than to say nothing and see these people be damned forever.
That is cruelty and I will have nothing to do with it. My views have nothing to do with politics, it has to do with what God desires for those He has created, and although you may not understand this, I am confident that God does. When these people stand before God, they will not be able to turn to me, when it is asked of them, did anyone tell you of the right way? Gays and Lesbians want one thing, their freedom to live the way they desire. They don't want to surrender their lifestyles to follow Christ.
I will not be a part of their own spiritual suicide.
[quote]Radical? That this is a matter of LAW and SOCIOLOGICAL REALITY and not a matter of religious doctrine and dogma when dealing with rights within a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC That allows FREEDOM OF RELIGION and that has a SECULAR GOVERNMENT?[/quote]
DJ Black Adam:
Since THIS is how YOU choose to paint yourself into a corner - could you use this same argument and tell me your view on POLYGAMY?
Why should You, Your Wife, UptownSteve and His Wife BE DISALLOWED to all marry each other UNDER THE LAW in a 4 way marriage?
If you notice I said NOTHING about "Religious Doctrine". Do YOU consider "Judeo-Christian" cultural references as RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE or A CULTURAL REFERENCE?
Even the majority of American Atheists have their cultural norms based on Judeo-Christian references
I like you DJ Black Adam but you appear to have no particular inclination to stand behind the creature that you are making. I believe that it is the RESPONSIBILITY for a society to define and manage a SOCIAL ORDER lest they run astray.
You sit back with your arms folded awaiting for someone to prove to you that if Gay Marriage becomes the national norm that the sky will open up and flames will come raining down.
I DEMAND THAT YOU make reference to the thousands of years of ORDER that is backed by INTRINSIC PHYSIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of our genders and then YOU PROVE YOUR CASE based on these facts.
INDEED you are pushing a RADICAL notion.
@Conservativelikenoother
O.K., I am going to break this down to the bone gristle step – by – step:
You start with: “DJBlack Adam, I would like to clarify one thing, that you repeatedly state about my viewpoint. My viewpoint is not a political one, it is Christian one, I have no other viewpoint but that which is built on the Word of God, as I desire to establish a mindset that is like Christ. I will not be conformed to this world no matter what attacks come my way.”
O.K., lets Talk about a “CHRISTIAN” worldview. I understand that, and I am not saying you should have anything but that, what I am saying is that the only people subject to that are people who are subject to Christ.
You can say you are against gay marriage, fine, but you have to accept the fact that people who aren’t Christians don’t care about the authority of scripture; so what is the point of holding them to a standard they don’t hold. It’s like a Muslim telling you to put down your bacon cheeseburger because the “QURAN” says that you can’t eat pork, what would you say? “Sure, I’ll stop because the QURAN says so” or would you say: “I really don’t care what the QURAN says, I do not submit to its authority”?
Further to my point, if you want to talk about the issue of gay marriage in the public arena, then you would be best to talk about it from a matter of LAW, as for morality, even though you have your standard in Christ, we live in a country where people do not have to share that standard. They have to respect where you are coming from but do not have to agree. My point is why stick on this sin more than anything else? You look like you are on a witch hunt, and how is that conducive to sharing the message of Christ? Let the Holy Ghost ferret out sin, let US who are LED by the SPIRIT, lead people to CHRIST by SHOWING THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. You do know the BIBLE is very clear that we are to do that?
You go on with: “Our lights as Christians should not be for illumination alone but for transformation. I have had several gays and lesbian people to whom I have expressed the same sentiments that I have expressed here and they have been impacted in a positive way, seeing that my desire is not to harm them but to help them.”
Maybe they have, maybe that’s how you are called. I will say this as surely as the Lord lives, Christians best pay more attention to governing themselves than ANYONE ELSE, because leading comes by EXAMPLE and if you don’t set the example you set people up for failure.
You go on with: “As most on the left, you did not hear anything I said,”
Freeze that “on the left” business, I don’t think I said I was, and I am not, stop assuming and start asking, fact is, I am talking about the issue of LAW not an issue of this stupid left / right – liberal / conservative political ideology. I am saying in a secular nation of LAW, LAW is what needs be discussed, otherwise; you can keep talking about scripture and the world will keep being the world, if you truly have a problem with gay marriage, express it in a language that people can understand.
You go on with: “as I specifically said, that nothing I say, will change anyone, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit, so I guess what I have said to you goes in one ear and out the other.”
No, what you said isn’t relevant in many cases, because you have that “left / right” dialogue going, which what I said was no matter if you are LEFT or RIGHT discuss the legal and sociological aspects, because more than Christians will talk about this, learn to state your case with LEGAL and SOCIOLOGICAL precision, whatever position you take.
You go on with: “The most inhumane ungodly thing any person can do is see someone heading over a cliff that can end their lives and push them over. Again That is what everyone who tells gays and lesbians that they should have the right to marry and be left alone by to do what they choose to do. No, we should be pleading with these people, because giving them comfort in their sin only seals them in their rebellion.”
So you think pleading with someone in sin who does not share your opinion about nor submits to Christian scriptures is the way? If you think so, I disagree. I think SHOWING them CHRIST and letting the Holy Ghost deal with WHATEVER sin is in their life is the way.
You go on with: “I can not change anyone, I understand that it is the work of the Holy Spirit, but if these people have no voices calling out to them to turn from their ways, as in the days of Jonah and John the Baptist, what will be their fate”
Really, I see JOHN saying: Repent of “SIN” not cherry picking the popular and visible sins. I never said don’t say repent, I said don’t think that saying: “The Bible says this or that” or protesting people while holding a KJV in one hand is the way. Some people do need to be rebuked sharply, but in many cases the “rebuke” crowd needs to learn MERCY, COMPASION and LOVE and DEMONSTRATE that BEFORE they start “rebuking”.
“My views have nothing to do with politics…”
Balderdash, you brought up left and right, obviously you are under some silly perception that the right has some sort of insight on the Gospel of the Kingdom of God because they “oppose gay marriage” of course while they get caught in whorehouses and sucking off guys in hotel rooms while they get high on meth. Sorry, God hates hypocrisy more than outright rebellion.
In either case, neither the LEFT or the RIGHT are of GOD both are political systems of MAN and both fall equally short, albeit for different (and in some cases the SAME) reasons.,
You end with “I will not be a part of their own spiritual suicide:”
Who says you have to be, but get real, they have heard what’s what long before they met you. Save yourself the guilt trip. The thing YOU would be best to do, is DEMONSTARTE the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM while you are LED by the SPIRIT. Simple as that, very simple, LIGHT dispels the dark and draws people. You can disagree with me if you will, and we’ll just have to disagree.
@CF:
You wrote: "DJ Black Adam: Since THIS is how YOU choose to paint yourself into a corner - could you use this same argument and tell me your view on POLYGAMY?"
No corner for me, save the cookie cutter arguments for the left wing blogs you visit. The subject of POLYGAMY and POLYMORY would and eventually WILL required legal and sociological debate, not: "Because the Bible says not to". Like I told your other "conservative" friend: It’s like a Muslim telling you to put down your bacon cheeseburger because the “QURAN” says that you can’t eat pork, what would you say? “Sure, I’ll stop because the QURAN says so” or would you say: “I really don’t care what the QURAN says, I do not submit to its authority”?
Now, if that Muslim discussed the health risk of pork, how it affects cholesterol, etc., THAT might actually cause you to pay attention.
You write: “If you notice I said NOTHING about "Religious Doctrine". Do YOU consider "Judeo-Christian" cultural references as RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE or A CULTURAL REFERENCE?”
If you mean “Judeo-Christian” as in “western society”, I guess you can go with cultural, a culture supposedly based on Judeo Christian theological concepts and morality. Spare me the histrionics on that, this country was founded on precepts similar to the Roman Empire, you want to start having statues to Venus and Ares as well, public baths? I’m sorry, I do not fall for such a silly presupposition as the so-called Moral authority of Western Culture, the Magna Carta and subsequent English and later American law dealt with marriage as a property rights issue, not a sacred bond.
You wrote: “You sit back with your arms folded awaiting for someone to prove to you that if Gay Marriage becomes the national norm that the sky will open up and flames will come raining down.”
Well, if you can’t prove it, or at least make an argument predicated on something besides your supposed “Judeo-Christian standard” what ever that means to you, then you obviously haven’t thought about the issue seriously, logically, legally, sociologically or intelligently.
DJ Black Adam,
You still never heard a word I said. I am not really concerned with people hearing me or changing or whatever you may think I am after here. You also assume that I am cherry picking sin, wrong again. I believe as the Scripture tells us that all sin is sin. If there were single people advocating the right to have sex whereever they like I would be against them too. However the issue right now is gays and lesbians veyying for the right to marry and abortion. I don't cherry pick, but I can not oppose a sin that is not currently in public square.
You are seeing this from a totally different perspective than I. You are saying these people don't understand Scriptural precedent and they are in the world so leave them alone. What I am saying to you is this. If there were two totally different systems of government for people in the world and for those of us who are Christians, I would not be going over to their world to try and make them live under God's principles. That is not how it is. God created on world and both the believers and the non-believers are living in it. What you are saying is this. The have reign over the entirty of this world. No, Christians have just as much right to desire morality than they have to not.
America is still a country where the majority of people believe in the principles of the Bible. You make the same assumptions as those who want to railroad their agenda into our lives. I don't know how you are coming to your conclusions. For instance, you say, that I would not like it if a Muslim would tell me I could not have a cheeseburger. Well a Muslim could not tell me that, because I am not in the Middle East, I am in America. This is my country and in my country I can have as many cheeseburgers as I desire.
In America, we have what is called a republic, where our representatives are voted in by the people, the people will vote in their politicians based on certain values. It's how it works in this country. If a majority of people vote the same values, then guess what the majority rules.
God rules over the government. He is the one who establishes those in office for His own purpose. I believe that President Obama is in office because God allowed him to be in office. As long as I have the right to vote, I will vote my God-inspired values, based on the rights that God has already given us.
Your arguments about gays and lesbians not being under the same laws of Christians is unnecessary for I already know that unbelievers are not governed by the Kingdom of God. But Christians are allowed to vote and influence government, I can not do anything else but vote what is lawful according to God and not man. You most probably will not get what I am saying, but I just felt I should attempt once more to explain myself. Thanks CBW for giving us the opportunity to discuss this topic. Have a great week everyone.
DJ Black Adam:
I will show you the flaws in your argument so that you can come off of them.
[quote]The subject of POLYGAMY and POLYMORY would and eventually WILL required legal and sociological debate, not: "Because the Bible says not to".
[/quote]
You are saying "DEBATE".
I am asking YOU for JUSTIFICATION of your position.
Polygamy HAS BEEN "Debated" in this nation. You ever heard of the Mormons and what they had to do in order to allow the territory known as Utah into a state?
[quote]
Like I told your other "conservative" friend: It’s like a Muslim telling you to put down your bacon cheeseburger because the “QURAN” says that you can’t eat pork, what would you say?[/quote]
AGAIN - My argument as not BIBLICAL. (Don't you think I am 'reading you'?) I spoke about
* The Physiological Evidence of the heterosexual norm
* The need for a society to have RULES that are settled upon so that forward movement can be made
* I noted the Judeo-Christian basis of our culture.
YOU take this reference to "Judeo-Christian" and make it a RELIGIOUS REFERENCE. This is the central flaw in your argument.
In following this logic you become an adjunct member of the ACLU - proactively going after any societal construct that even hints at have a RELIGIOUS founding because you seek to PURGE THESE FROM GOVERNMENT.
* Christmas as a federal holiday
* Sunday as a day of rest. (Let me get my mail on SUNDAY!!!)
* Remove that OFFENSIVE "In God We Trust" from the currency. Replace it with the more universally accepted phrase "B'tch Betta Have My Money"
DJ Black Adam - you are an ABSTRACT THEORIST who apparently takes no ownership in MANAGING and being the CONSERVATOR of the culture around you. While other people's around the world are in a constant state of chaos and terror due to their absence of a sound cultural reference - you find YOUR OWN that has brought us to this point to be contemptible.
At a time when Black people in particular need DIRECTED FOCUS as a means of bringing forth DIRECTED OUTCOMES you and so many other Black Progressive-Fundamentalists error on the side of libertine dogma.
I don't think that you are WRONG (or evil). I think that your views must be ROLLED OVER for the sake of us keeping a societal construct that can endure the ages.
One thing that we BOTH can agree upon: the CULTURAL BABY that you and other Progressive-Fundamentalists birth will be an unclaimed bastard child as the resulting negative consequences and chaos that is created from your ABSTRACT THEORIES render the people as such.
You will then call upon GOVERNMENT to contribute to the people to prevent them from doing harm to themselves.
I see CULTURE as this agent of temperance that you see the GOVERNMENT operating in the space.
The seeds of the tearing apart of this nation will be when the CONSERVATORS OF CULTURE seek to move away from the iron grip of YOUR IDEA of government which is oppressive to them.
Whereas the PROGRESSIVE is an EXPANSIONIST, seeking to control ALL so that they will be under his reign......these CONSERVATORS wills simply seek to YIELD THE BULK OF THE LAND TO YOU and ask that you keep your talons off them where they live so that THEY CAN LIVE FREE in the lifestyle of their own CHOOSING.
(See - didn't mention "God" or "Fire and Brimstone" once.
This is because I UNDERSTAND you DJ Black Adam.)
@CF:
“I will show you the flaws in your argument so that you can come off of them.
Oh virtuous Conservative Feed Back…I knew him…CF, adversus solem ne loquitor.
I wrote: “The subject of POLYGAMY and POLYMORY would and eventually WILL required legal and sociological debate, not: "Because the Bible says not to"
You reply: “ You are saying "DEBATE". I am asking YOU for JUSTIFICATION of your position.”
What position, that polygamy and polymory will eventual be argued (yep AGAIN) to be legally recognized unions if homosexual unions become accepted? That is a matter of just basic logic and prediction on pattern, not debate.
You wrote: “Polygamy HAS BEEN "Debated" in this nation. You ever heard of the Mormons and what they had to do in order to allow the territory known as Utah into a state?”
Unlike you it seems, I don’t think that the fact that the issue had been debated in the past means it won’t come up again. It is the way of things you know.
You assert: “YOU take this reference to "Judeo-Christian" and make it a RELIGIOUS REFERENCE. This is the central flaw in your argument.”
At base of so-called “Judeo- Christian culture, is the Judea- Christian religious tradition and precepts, or should be, so I really don’t see your point.
Let me explain it to you a bit more, since you seem not to grasp this concept. Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo_Christian
“Judeo–Christian (sometimes written as Judaeo–Christian) is a term used broadly to describe a body of concepts and values thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity. This tradition is considered, along with classical Greco-Roman civilization, a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and morality.
In particular, the term refers to a moral tradition based on shared religious scriptures, referred to as the Tanakh in Judaism and the Old Testament by Christians, including particularly the Ten Commandments. It implies a continuation of values represented by this religious heritage in the modern Western World”
Notice we are talking about LAW as in reference to the Tanakh in particular the first 10 mitzvahs of the TORAH.
Does that clear that up for you? Hope so.
Its not about culture it is about how we handle matters of LAW. The basise of The Magna Carta was predicated on church canon which was predicated on the Greek Law and the Judeo-Christian legal ethic from the TANAKH.
However, with the Magna Carta and latter English Common Law and later US Law (in that succession) is a secular system which dealt with marriage not as a religious institution but a sociological construct dealing with property rights and survivorship and family legalities.
MY ONLY POINT, is that the silly arguments you made, don’t make good legal arguments. That being said, go and study that “Judeo-Christian” thing and the TANAKH its is partially predicated upon so you can understand the RELIGIOUS undertones. As usual, Eventus stultorum magister.
DJBA,
It appears that what you are saying is that secular law, which is man's law trumps God's law which is universal. If not, you would not be continuing to pursue your dispositions of the generic purpose of the laws man has created. Why is it okay in your progressive world to say that those of the Judeo-Christian faith should have no say over those who are secular, but those who are secular can have full reign over those who are Christian.
That disturbs me, that you who profess to be a Christian, promote secular law as necessary to rule over believers, but spiritual laws is unneccesary to rule over non-believers. Can you explain that please?
@Conservativelikenoother
You wrote: "It appears that what you are saying is that secular law, which is man's law trumps God's law which is universal"
Nope, I am not saying that at all, as far as I am concerned GOD's LAW is the LAW I hold myself to. My Father, El Shaddai Elohim Adonai Shekinu, through His son, our Salvation, JESUS, Yeshuayh HaMoshiach Adonai Shekinu.
What I WAS saying is that one has to CHOOSE that standard, God isn't forcing anyone to bow, yet. As of this moment we live in a world where God is allowing for people to CHOOSE His will as we PRAY His will.
I am further saying that since GOD Is not forcing people into His way as revealed to US the saints, WE cannot FORCE it either, sure we can try to influence things, but once we start talking to people outside of our fellowship of faith, we have to accept that they are not compelled to bow down because we have chosen to.
You go one with: "That disturbs me, that you who profess to be a Christian,"
O.K. I'm going to let that one pass...
You continue with: "... promote secular law as necessary to rule over believers, but spiritual laws is unneccesary to rule over non-believers. Can you explain that please?"
We have to deal with secular law, we live in a secular World. We interact with people who are Jews, Muslims, Atheist, Buddhist, etc., we live in a society with them, that is reality. If we come to the table debating what the Bible says, or what the Quran says, or what the Veda's say or what Buddha says, we will get nowhere fast.
We are ruled by God's law first and foremost, I would not fault a CHRISTIAN who held JESUS standard above secular law, as I would do so myself, BUT, it is silly and non-productive to think I can demand someone accept the authority I choose when they have not chosen that authority.
I hope that clears it up for you, maybe it's just I'm a "professing" Christians, so what do I know....
In summary, DJ Black Adam - you have no intention in JUSTIFYING YOUR positions on this matter. YOU ONLY are interested in forcing others to JUSTIFY theirs.
Your primary goal is to remove all confinements of religiosity from which people have received their guidance of this all important CONSTRUCT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR and ASSEMBLY in regards to this issue, REMOVING IT FROM the debate and make this entirely about THE LAW.
Ironically, your bias has you unable to note that EVEN OUR LAWS are derived from the real world understanding that the people who made them BROUGHT WITH THEM....JUST AS the "Judeo-Christian ethic" was forged from the thousands of years human beings lived ABSENT any foundational rules.
Thus far DESPITE the fact that you complained that other people fall back on "Jesus" to form the basis of their arguments - YOU have inserted "Jesus" into my argument more than I have.
When I point to the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CULTURE - you try to dismiss this as religious dogma and thus you discard it. IF this was called "Egyptian-Irish" Tradition would these RULES THAT GOVERN HUMAN BEHAVIOR be any less contemptible to you?
NOT EVEN my reference to the INTRINSIC information obtainable from the HUMAN GENDER FORM is enough for you to shift to your dependence upon the Federal Court nominee who's OPINION on the issue will be the final ruling - the HUMAN FORM BE DAMNED!!
I figure that none of your THEORIES will go unchallenged (in your mind) until you experience material harm that impacts your own position after having walked down the pathway paved with your intentions)
uptownsteve said...
You prove my point.
You have a problem with gay marriage because it offends your religious sensibilities.
Mormons will tell you that marriage could be one husband and numerous wives.
May 11, 2009 11:07 AM
I have wondered why one man cant have multiple wives or a woman cant have multiple husbands. And what about brothers and sisters marrying, or any of the other things that are disallowed in the form of marriage. What about letting anyone marry whomever or whatever they want. What is the problem with that?
Do any of you have a job?? If so, doesn't your job have an internet usage policy? Keep breaching the policy and you will not have a job. To you Christians, stop stealing time from your employer. Your company has hired you to perform a certain job function. I don't think it is blogging and posting comments on CBW's blog.
Have any of you heard of the word brevity?? Your comments should not be as long or longer than the post that you are commenting on.
Do any of you have a life?? I know your wife, husband, concubine or children miss interacting with you. Get a life. Give the computer a break for awhile.
Attorneymom~LOL...why don't you tell how you really feel....
@AM:
“Have any of you heard of the word brevity?? Your comments should not be as long or longer than the post that you are commenting on.”
Oh come now Attorney Mom, if it weren’t for the distraction of debating people while at my job, I’d be less productive and probably would have went postal on a few people. CBW’s blog saves lives in the work place. Plus I’m making up for missing your and blkseagpoats blogtalkradio program.
@CF
“In summary, DJ Black Adam - you have no intention in JUSTIFYING YOUR positions on this matter.
Nothing to justify, I made a statement of fact, rather you are aware of or accepting of such actuality is not my concern.
[quote]Nothing to justify, I made a statement of fact, rather you are aware of or accepting of such actuality is not my concern.[/quote]
DJ Black Adam:
Could you ENUMERATE all of the other ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION that is going on RIGHT NOW which will one day come and hit us with a lawsuit?
Who would have thought that for thousands of years the culture that this society has agreed upon chose to ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATE by looking at a penis and a vagina and then make note of the distinction between the human reproduction system and the human digestive system and making INFERENCES from this.Commentator Ben Stein is becoming more brilliant with each passing day - he suggested that it is a WASTE OF TIME to bother with debating on the subject ABSOLUTES IN THE AREA OF CULTURE AND MORALITY when the person believes that humans were not created by INTELLIGENT DESIGN into a specific FUNCTIONAL FORM but instead were morphed from a series of evolutionary accidents over millions of years into our present form.Fear not DJ Black Adam and Steve - one day the male homosexual's anus will begin to lubricate itself in preparation for receiving its COMPLEMENT and thus reduce the lacerations that such penetration yields today and the female's reproductive and mammary glands will cease to function once EVOLUTION trues up their physiological form with their sexual preference. Maxipads for Lesbians once they achieve their EVOLVED STATE!!!
Let us all concentrated and then become ASEXUAL BEINGS over time!!! Then the point will be MOOT!!
(Note: for some of you this above statement will be seen as OFFENSIVE. In truth it cuts to the chase about what we are dealing with.
One side pushes for the WILL OF MAN and makes use of LEGALISMS to justify their claims. Any "religiosity" is a threat because the notion of "Because GOD made us in this form" stifles their attempts at promoting MAN's WILL as the final arbiter. We can only guess what he'll fight for next since everything is NEGOTIABLE.
The side that I stand on has the AUDACITY to make reference to:
* The Human Physiological form to make inferences about our natural order as human beings and mammals.
* A THOUSANDS YEAR HISTORY by which societies have ORDERED themselves in this manner which is under debate, thus avoiding chaos and building up great civilizations (who's legal framework they ironically leverage to DECONSTRUCT this one fundamental construct).
* The fact that this DEBATE is but a SUBSECTION of the broader, more FUNDAMENTAL debate regarding how the LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS about the FUNCTION of TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE has done material harm to our society and the crafting of our people within. In the unconscious period that we are devolving toward - same sex marriage is now being considered because TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE has been allowed to lose its honor and sanctity.
(See DJ Black Adam - No "Jesus References" still)
What is a civil right? A limit on the government. Something you can do or not do AND no crime will be allowed against you. For example, you have the right to speak freely, but there can be plenty of negative (and legal) consequences for that speech. Govt prefers compulsion and prohibition-- behaviors are mandated or outlawed. Freedom means you can do it if you want to or not do it.
The Bill of Rights are civil rights, limits on govt. Where's marriage? In the 10th Amendment...rights not in this list are reserved to the states or to the people. A civil right is like blight or porn- it's whatever you say it is, in the eye of the beholder. Declare it to be self-evident, and you won't have to argue or discuss it.
The real fear is that legalizing gay marriage will turn everybody gay. That's silly. If we legalize heterosexual marriage, everybody will become straight. If we allow one man to marry one woman, how do we prevent polygamy and bestiality? When we turn the same anti-gay marriage arguments against traditional marriage, we see the monstrous stereotypes soem people have.
What about civil unions? What's wrong with gays having their own family when they grow up and move away from home? How come straights can change their legal next-of-kin through marriage, but nobody else can? Is it because gays are the only minority who need protection from their traditional family?
What's up with that? How does extending equal rights to everyone threaten those who have equal rights already?
So I guess Attornymom you are posting from your home computer right? If not, that would make you a hypocrit for getting on someone else case for doing the same thing you are doing? Even if you are working from home, you are still expected to be "working from home". I am always amazed at how people like to call others hypocrits but have not looked in the window of their on hypocrisies. Gay marriage is not a civil right it's a special right. There are gay men and there are gay women. They are still either a man or a woman. Each already have the right to marry, now they want a new right or special right to marry outside that which has already been established.
Liberals are too funny.
@ DJ Black Adam: I rather that you loose a job rather than catch a case. LOL. It is much easier to find another job than get out of jail. LOL. Don't worry about missing the show. Check out the archives
@conservativelikenoother: I actually type this comment on my home computer. Thank you very much. Did I strike a nerve with you??
I agree 100% with your statement about marriage. You win the Sidebar quote of the day. I have to post it on my blog.
Sidebar: @conservativelikenoother, I am a Coporate Attorney. I can't work from home according to my supervisor. I have to go to the plantation 5 days a week. LOL
@conservativelikenoother, you won the Sidebar Quote of the Day award on Character Corner.
http://charactercorner.blogspot.com/2009/05/sidebar.html
Okay so as we all know the US Supreme Court is where the laws are made solid and there is no over turning them unless the issue is brought back up and they change their minds. The fact of the matter is that the US Supreme Court HAS and still states that Marriage is a "basic civil right". Not only that but the U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ..."
"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."-- CA Supreme Court, In Re Marriage Cases, 2008
... I guess I'll believe the people in the black robes on this one.
No you cannot sue your boyfriend because he did not marry you, but if he DENIED the RIGHT for you to get married by in a sense saying "Unless you fit my views of how you should be you will never get married." then Yes possibly you could. There is no law saying you must marry, but there is saying that you can. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals did no "redefine" marriage, Prop 22, Prop 8 and other such props did by CHANGING it to "between a man and a woman". I'm sorry but i think you have gotten your information incorrectly. The law was fine as is for homosexuals, but once heterosexuals realized that then THEY chose to change it.
"I think they should have all of the legal/financial benefits that marriage offers even. But if that's the case then heterosexual unmarried couples should also have those benefits."
Unmarried heterosexual couples do have the RIGHT to marry though, they choose not to, homosexuals on the other hand do not. You cannot claim it as anything remotely religious because of the fact that Atheists are allowed to marry and they have no religious affiliations, and because of the states involvement. As for homosexuals having the same "legal/financial benefits" this unfortunately is impossible, (Because of the rage of prices I'm going to use my state as an example) Heterosexual couples can pay a 55$ fee for their marriage while civil unions (in which do not cover homosexual relationships completely the way a heterosexual marriage does) Not only cost thousands of dollars in legal fees but are only available in a hand full of states.
" A marriage arrangement involves a husband and a wife." Okay first of all while the WORD marriage can be coined by Christians/Catholics (or whatever branch you wish to name that stems from them) the actual action is not, in fact its Pagan (just like the cross is a pagan symbol, look it up). Paganism is the OLDEST religion that is still alive today and they performed "Handfastings" which was where two people stood in frount of a priestess and they declared their vows and were then had a ribbon tied to their arms connecting them (Sound kind of familiar?).
"But there are hundreds of people who have left homosexuality."
Just as so there are hundreds that have left heterosexuality, are you saying that heterosexuality is a behavior? I'm not talking about teens but full grown men and women 30+. And while there have been some people that have been "degayed" the fact of the matter is that even the church says that they cannot change a persons desires rather only their action on the desire, and while yes a couple hundred may reject their sexual urges because of societal and family pressures and instead lead a life of celibacy, or in a closet. The church attempts this with THOUSANDS of homosexuals.
"Further evidence that "sexual orientation" is not immutable. You can most certainly "mute" it"
Actually that idea is proved otherwise by not only me but the church, the action can be muted, but the actual desire and anything relating to that has nothing to do with action cannot. (c)Sexual orientation is not dependant on the act but the urge. This is agreed upon by Christians, Atheists, scientists, therapists, and others.
"I believe in a thing called Natural Law."
Actually homosexuality has been recorded in 450 species of the the 1,500 watched and observed. "Natural" meaning "in accordance with nature" actually proves you wrong, again.
BUT WAIT...before you say that you are for civil unions or something equally as second-class. As a black woman, let me ask you if separate but equal has a good track record in this country...?? If civil unions are so GREAT, why didn't YOU have one instead of getting a real marriage? You know, because they are the same...(if you didn't know, I'm being sarcastic here).
AND WAIT AGAIN...before you say that a gay man can marry a woman, therefore his rights are not denied because sexual orientation can be changed...why didn't you marry a woman? Why didn't you change your sexual orientation? Because maybe you wouldn't have been single so long if you had of opened up your pool of suitors to the same-sex. You could have had a nice civil union ceremony...and not "dyyyyying" to be rid of being single! Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Well, so does your assertion that gay people can be straight if they wanted to.
2. This (gay marriage) is really JUST about the radical left wing agenda to cleanse our society of religious dogma and what they consider to be antiquated traditions like marriage.
REALLY????? I think that straight people have done a fine job all alone in destroying "traditions like marriage". I mean 50% of the population gets a divorce...and thats among people in the church!
What always strikes me as funny is that we don't stop celebrity sham marriages, you know those that last 72 hours or less, we don't have a protest against shows like "the Bachelor" and some even force girls into marriage just so they don't have a baby out of wedlock. But all of those things are OK...so long as it's one man and one woman?
Gay people have nothing to do with the deterioration of straight marriage...let's stop trying to use gay marriage as a scapegoat and stop being too scared to focus on the real issues. Rest assured, those who were miserable in their marriage before gay marriage, will be miserable after. Don't worry.
How I forget that when things affect people, how quickly they change. After all the Bible (which is without a doubt where your basis of opinion) forbids divorce but yet doesn't stop preachers from marrying folks on their 2nd or 3rd mate! But you know, if it applies to you there's a work around, if it doesn't and applies to someone else, let's throw the book at them!
3. So, I believe that rather than redefining marriage, gay people should just live with it. Just like the 70% of black women who want to be married but AREN'T.
Wanting to be married and having no mate and wanting to be married with a partner and can not because you are gay are not the same thing.
I really thought you were joking about this because, this is such an outlandish statement, I didn't think you were serious.
According to you, gay people should just live with injustice...because it makes you feel better? hahaha. sorry, no dice!
We need to evolve into a society where people don't feel the need to put someone else down in order for them to be right. That we don't need this adversarial relationship. Black vs. white, gay vs. straight.
Arguments like yours are at best laughable, thanks for the comic relief. And at worse, a sad reflection on how far we have not come in love, tolerance and respect for all people.
4. If marriage is a civil rights, then the liberals have a new set of victims -- single people who want to be married but are not, right? Yes, I am aware that this is ridiculous just as ridiculous as gay people saying that marriage is a civil right.
How does one follow the other? These two statements are not even connected so it only follows that your conclusion is flawed.
"If marriage is a civil right THEN liberals have a new set of victims" HUH?? REALLY? WHERE IS THAT PROVED? It's not, you can't prove that (heck, no one can!), therefore its INVALID. Your conclusion does not stand.
CBW--- You are so misinformed it's scary...and to think you vote!
I don't think you mean't any harm or are a bad person, I think you are totally clueless when it comes to this topic. I hope you've changed your view since the writing of this post.
Thanks to Dr great oshogum that i melt on this site. i am Ama Oaikhena from California . i was an HIV/AIDS victim. i had this sickness for over five years i do visit hospital always before the virus grow from HIV to AIDS. I was just at the point of death with shame after i have lose every thing in life even my marriage and my unborn child until my close relative direct me to this site to look for Dr great oshogum for healing and cleaning. when i read the testimony people say of his good works i quickly is cell phone number to get in touch with him immediately because i sold all my computer and valuable things to get drugs and pay bills. It so amazing to see my self back to my feet with every thing i have lost. i am very happy because Dr oshogum did not only cure my sickness but he restructure my life by bringing back
my man and every thing i lost to the course of this sickness(HIV/AIDS). i do not really no where to start from in appreciating you Dr oshogum and the author of this site. please my people out there do not play with you problem, go out and seeks for the help of great oshogum he heal me without future problem or hidden charges. now i am free from HIV/Aids and MY wife, my joy and happiness are back. please with out a second choice go contact great Dr oshogum for the betterment of your life.
CONTACT HIM VIA EMAIL
oshogumspelltemple@live.com
you can also can him with +2348189075265
oshogumspelltemple@live.com
you can also can him with +2348189075265
posted by Ama Oaikhena
Post a Comment