Embracing So-Called "Marriage Equality": Sin

My reply to a pro-homosexual marriage comment:

He told the adulteress to go and sin no more! What makes you think he can be inconsistent about homosex? How do you say that I am wrong to tell homosexuals to repent and to sin no more, to never engage in homosex again? If I can't say that, then Jesus was wrong to tell the adulteress to go and sin no more. He wasn't wrong. Neither am I wrong in what I say to homosexuals about not engaging in homosex.

Why is homosexuality a sin? That's the important question. It is considered a sin, as adultery is considered a sin, for good reasons. The secular law is supposed to be based upon good reasons. How many good reasons do we overlook so that some, many, may engage in anarchistic behavior dragging down the whole of society?

There is absolutely nothing conservative about homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is anarchistic, which is anti-good government, anti-proper self-government -- a lack of proper self-control, harmful, damaging, shortsighted, the slippery slope.... There is nothing wrong with being bigoted against it. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against it, anymore than there is anything wrong with discriminating against adultery and a whole host of other anti-societal-health behaviors.

via Not Just Hillary Clinton: Why So Many Republicans Are Embracing Marriage Equality | The Nation.

Someone on that article on The Nation said of my statement that "...what you're saying is that you are unable to follow Jesus' example and accept (not tolerate, accept) those who are different from you."

I replied:

Jesus was bigoted and discriminated. What you appear to be doing is reading in one connotation (one context) where I am using another.

Did Jesus "tolerate" or "accept" homosexuals? It depends upon the connotations being used.

I both do and don't tolerate and/or accept homosexuals. I don't accept homosexuality as proper. At the same time, I am not ignorant about genetic and epigenetic and environmental issues.

Those who cave into adultery no doubt are more predisposed also depending upon the level of pressure or environmental factors. That doesn't make committing adultery proper. That's how it is for behavior.

I'm saying that homosexual marriage is an error.

I'm not forcing anyone any more than Jesus forced anyone. He didn't stone the woman. I'm not stoning homosexuals (though I've had homosexuals say to me that they will be glad when I'm tortured for being anti-homosexuality).

Homosexuality is not enlightened. Saying that there is nothing wrong with it is not enlightened but the opposite.

I don't want children to be mis-taught about it, to be given half-truths about it. http://www.thenation.com/blog/173405/not-just-hillary-clinton-lot-republicans-are-embracing-marriage-equality#comment-838122891


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.