Witnessing to Homosexuals

65 CommentsGay community

In light of the disastrous and disappointing decision from one activist federal judge’s decision to usurp the will of the people of California by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, I’ve decided to re-post two articles below that demonstrate how to properly and politely preach the Gospel to our gay friends through one-on-one conversations and open air preaching.

Quoting one news source, “On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of four homosexuals who claimed that voter-approved Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, violated their civil rights.”

Comments (65)

  1. Garrett

    Reply

    Steve, did you forget how our government works? Class time, I guess:

    What if the people of California enacted a law that made slavery legal? Why would that be bad? Right, because the 13th Amendment forbids slavery. The court would rule that the law violates the Constitution and must be thrown out. The “will of the people” is not relevant.

    Same applies here. The judge claims that Prop 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Should he have made an error or poor interpretation, the appeals process is there is fix that. No doubt this case will land in the Supreme Court’s docket to give the final word.

    To say the judge is committing some wrong against democracy by declaring the law unconstitutional is demonstrating some terrible ignorance about the workings of our government.

  2. BathTub

    Reply

    Man what was George Bush thinking, Nominating Conservative activists! So tricksy!

  3. Nohm

    Reply

    Do people here understand what “unconstitutional” means, and why that’s important?

    Plus, I gotta admit, I *love* the term “activist judge”. In other words, “a judge who rules in a way that I don’t like.”

    Weird how all of these “activist judges” seem to be conservatives appointed by Bush.

  4. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Since 2005, homosexual “domestic partners” have been awarded ALL the legal rights and benefits of marriage. By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman. Calling a table a chair does not make it so.

    BathTub: George H. W. Bush

  5. Garrett

    Reply

    Since 1954, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has been seen as inherently discriminatory. Not to mention that society redefine concepts and social constructs all the time.

    As Shakespeare said, what’s in a name? What harm does expanding marriage do to society?

    By the way, I’m tired of dealing with bad arguments today, so be considerate and skip the following: slippery slope (there are reasoned arguments against bestiality, pedophilia and so forth that don’t exist for homosexuality), religion (we are not a theocracy, so a holy book of any kind cannot be the basis for a law as it would violate the establishment clause) and I think that covers it.

    By the way, homosexuals do NOT have all the rights to marriage via domestic partnerships. Only recently did they get hospital visitation rights. How out of touch are you, Steve? First failing at government and now horribly wrong on a current event. A shame, really.

  7. BathTub

    Reply

    “By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman.”

    Absolutely 100% false, and of course I only have to point to the bible to prove it.

  8. Quasar

    Reply

    Since 2005, homosexual “domestic partners” have been awarded ALL the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

    So, let’s suppose, hypothetically, I was to test this assertion of yours, Steve.

    Let’s suppose I was to go and spend some time on google.

    And let’s imagine I was to find a site that lists the differences between state-recognised domestic partnerships and federally recognised “marriage” in the US.

    And, just thinking out loud here, what if those differences included recognition in other states, federal tax breaks and the ability to file joint-tax returns, sick leave to care for partners, survivor benefits, family insurance, medical decisions, and a number of other things? And that’s for “civil unions” which are more comprehensive than “domestic partnerships.”

    And in this entirely hypothetical situation, would I be justified in wondering why you would choose to lie/repeat a lie about such a thing? Or further, whether your ability to be flexible with the truth extends to other subjects?

    I suppose it’s a good thing such a hypothetical situation would never actually play out, isn’t it Steve?

  11. Garrett

    Reply

    Seems like the historical definition is one man, many women.

    Give it up, Steve. The definition of marriage way more fluid than you’ve deluded yourself into thinking.

  12. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “By the historical definition used for millennia?”

    I… really don’t think you’ll like the consequences of that argument, Steve.

    Here’s a little mental exercise, Steve: try to think of as many situations as you can where a “historical definition used for a [long time]” got changed in a way that you support. I hope that, by doing so, you’ll see the problem with that response you gave to cranium.

    Also, what’s your opinion about what Quasar wrote? (I was going to write a similar comment, but Quasar beat me to it.)

  13. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Guys, let’s face it, I’m not going to convince you to my side anymore than you will convince me to yours. Besides that, I don’t have the time to answer every one of your questions or challenges.

    Is condoning sinful behavior by allowing the State to re-define marriage a good idea? Is homosexuality good for society as a whole? By simply looking at the design and function of our bodies, could this be considered “normal.”

    Thanks!

  14. Garrett

    Reply

    No, Steve, you have FAILED to utter a single refutation to any of us. If you didn’t have time to reply, you wouldn’t have replied at all. You’ve clearly been beaten and have to go back to being a willfully ignorant bigot. You don’t even have to answer all, just SOME. But, as we both know, you can’t. You’re not going to convince us because you can’t argue your position.

    Moving…

    1) We don’t fine homosexuality to be sinful. You do, and that’s fine. People have to tolerate stuff they don’t like. I certainly dislike religion, but I completely respect your right to worship. Just like a vegan may find meat consumption to be immoral, but would never deny people their rights to eat what they want.

    2) Homosexuality seems to be neutral for society on the whole. It makes our homosexual citizens happen, does no harm to people that want nothing to with homosexuality and is completely optional. We can argue the increased revenue from more marriages occurring and so forth, but ultimately it does no harm to society, which the standard we should be looking at.

    3) No, it certainly not normal. Does it matter? WE aren’t normal: humans are the strangest living things on the planet. I could go further and see how comfortable you are with denying other abnormal people their rights. Mentally handicapped people? Not allowed marriage? Albinos are pretty abnormal, and it’s clear our bodies are not meant to be so harmed by the sun. What rights should they lose, Steve?

    Keep it up, Steve: you’re doing a far better job displaying the poisonous nature of your faith than I ever can.

  15. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “Guys, let’s face it, I’m not going to convince you to my side anymore than you will convince me to yours. Besides that, I don’t have the time to answer every one of your questions or challenges.”

    Will you at least acknowledge that the “historical definition used for a millennia” for the word “marriage” is one man, many women? All you have to say is, “ooops, I was wrong; I should have researched this subject first.”

    Steve wrote:

    “Is condoning sinful behavior by allowing the State to re-define marriage a good idea?”

    “Sinful” is a religious concept, and thus is irrelevant when talking about our government (aka “the State” dun dun DUN).

    Since the previous definition was unconstitutional, then yes, this was a good idea.

    “Is homosexuality good for society as a whole?”

    I don’t really see it as “good” or “bad”; it’s reality. Homosexuality exists. In society. Deal with it.

    What I do know is that every argument I’ve ever seen for the claim “homosexuality is bad for society” has been so rife with logical fallacies to leave me dumbstruck.

    Seriously.

    One of the main reasons I became pro-gay-marriage is because I started reading/hearing the secular arguments against it. My reaction was, “wait, THESE are the best reasons you have against it? These arguments are so incredibly awful that maybe I should support gay marriage.”

    “By simply looking at the design and function of our bodies, could this be considered “normal.””

    Yes. What’s your opinion about sexuality in other animals, besides humans? What is it about the “design and function of our bodies” that would make it *not* normal, Steve? Did you suddenly get a biology degree when we weren’t looking? 🙂

  16. cranium

    Reply

    Steve, just to sum up the situation.

    1/ ‘By the historical definition used for millennia?’ – is just plain wrong, untrue and ill-informed.

    2/ ‘Is condoning sinful behavior by allowing the State to re-define marriage a good idea? ‘ – it is not sinful behavior.

  17. perdita

    Reply

    “By the historical definition used for millennia?”

    Steve – I’m sure this will surprise you, but marriage – what it means, who gets married, how many they can marry, how they marry, and even whether the church or state had in interest marriage – has changed over time and over cultures.

    Unlike 1000 years ago, marriage in the West is not a business agreement. It’s not about joining fifes and kingdoms or passing down the farm. In current western society, marriage is about joining in love. This is a very recent, and huge, huge change.

  18. perdita

    Reply

    Actually, I should say, “This is a very recent, and huge, huge re-definition.

  19. BathTub

    Reply

    Wow you crash and burn a lot but rarely as spectacular as this Steve.

    Hence I nominate another video for your page.

    What does it mean to say that Homosexuality is unnatural?

    EDIT by Steve: Video removed as silly.

  20. Nohm

    Reply

    I actually thought that the video was *not* silly; I thought it was far more eloquent than I was.

  21. BathTub

    Reply

    It was not silly, that’s an amazingly lame excuse on your part.

    Once again you have to run and flee.

    Run from your spectacular failure at any sort of rational point.

  22. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Regardless of any arguments I have, not one will convince any of you. Not one. And besides, you already know them.

    Oh, I can hear it now: “But do yoooouuuuu know them,” Nohm will reply.

    Yes.

    But again, the whole point of these posts is to show how to share our faith with our gay friends so they will not perish like the rest of the unbelievers.

    Now, about those arguments for the existence of God….

  23. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “Now, about those arguments for the existence of God”

    Oh, yes?

    Steve wrote: “….”

    Oh, no.

    PS: “Oh, I can hear it now: “But do yoooouuuuu know them,” Nohm will reply.”

    Well, it would be a valid question, but it’s not something I would ask in this situation. Regardless, I ask that particular question in regards to counter-arguments, so it wouldn’t apply in the context you have it in.

  24. Nohm

    Reply

    Oh yeah, just to quickly explain the whole “Nohm, why do you compare Christianity to Islam?” thing:

    If you take out the cultural differences, both Muslims and Christians tend to use the exact same arguments and, far more importantly, the exact same argumentation style.

    Where do you think the “Kalām” in the “Kalām cosmological argument” came from? 🙂

  25. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve, please post this comment instead of the previous one with nearly the same text. Thank you.

    Steve wrote: “Regardless of any arguments I have, not one will convince any of you.”

    I completely disagree. Many times throughout my life I’ve been convinced of a position — that I did not previously hold — due to a well-reasoned argument.

    If you have one, I’m listening.

  26. Garrett

    Reply

    Oh knock it off. You will never convince BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS. We are not the ones tucking our tail between our legs and insisting upon our opinion without backing it up.

    And hey, speaking of being wholly incapable of persuading rational people: arguments about the existence of the Christian God. Go ahead Steve, change the subject.

    Pathetic.

  27. perdita

    Reply

    “But again, the whole point of these posts is to show how to share our faith with our gay friends so they will not perish like the rest of the unbelievers.”

    That’s fine. But you’re the one that made this about Prop 8 and used a nostalgic view of marriage (that marriage hasn’t ever been re-defined) and your personal dislike for support

    “Is condoning sinful behavior by allowing the State…”

    Even if I were a believer, I don’t think I would want my government making laws on the basis of ‘sin’. Either read up on history or look across the ocean if you don’t know why.

  28. Richard Chavarria

    Reply

    I choose to be a called a fool for a life time and live in eternity with the creator God in a place called heaven.

    As I recall, Patrick Henry the orator of the revolution of our country said that this country was founded by Bible believing people. This being true should give all of us pause to see how far we have gone away from our heritage. We have turned our backs on the blood of those who sacrificed so much by signing their names to the Declaration of Independence.

    There is only one who lived a perfect life, in thought, word and deed. The man Christ Jesus. Jesus was born of the lineage of King David. The history of how God used the Jewish people is contained in the Bible. And the Bible is true. One can choose to believe the Bible or not. I choose to believe the Bible. If you have read it and choose not to believe the Bible then you are like the person who is drowning and refuses help.

    One unrepeated sin is enough for God to through you into hell forever because you refused to accept his free gift of salvation. This world is like the Titanic, it is going down. Don’t rearrange the chairs! Cry out to God…humble yourself before it’s too late.

    My prayer is that God would give me a heart that hates what he hates and love what he loves.

  29. Garrett

    Reply

    So do you support outlawing any non-Christian beliefs? Certainly allowing atheism and satanism is far worse than allowing homosexuality (if not, at least on par!).

    Do you agree, Richard? By not following Christianity, am I turning my back on our heritage and soldiers?

  30. Mike F

    Reply

    Bathtub on August 5th you posted the following …

    “By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman.”

    Absolutely 100% false, and of course I only have to point to the bible to prove it.

    Are you implying that you can prove that marriage is not only between a man and a woman by using scripture? I am interested in how since all references I have seen to marriage seem to always between a man and a woman.

    Thanks in advance for your clarification on this.

  31. Richard Chavarria

    Reply

    Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

    Jesus laid down his life for you and me. Jesus said go and sin no more. There is no sin that God will over look and on judgment day. Homosexual sin is sin. The heritage that you and I have turned our backs on would never have allowed the marrying of men to men and women to women. Just because I love someone or thing doesn’t mean I should have the right to marry.

    Yes, lets fight and not allow this country to repeat history. Let’s go out and witness to the lost. Repent and believe the Gospel. Jesus said unless you repent you to will perish. Trust the words of the master over those of man. Jesus is the way the life and the truth, no one comes to the father but by him. There is no other name given to man by which you must be saved. God commands man everywhere to repent. Humble yourself now before it’s too late! You are not guarantee tomorrow.

  32. Garrett

    Reply

    The heritage we “turned our backs on” also permitted blacks to be slaves and didn’t even consider them to count as a whole person. Our founders were truly intelligent and had great foresight when they laid down the framework for our government, but they were still flawed men. Yet, you seem to revere them as perfect. Idolatry! How naughty, Richard!

    The rest of your post is fluff that has nothing to do with the topic. Oh, and you didn’t answer my question: would you support the outlawing of non-Christian beliefs? If you hate laws that encourage sin, clearly you should hate that part of the First Amendment!

  34. David

    Reply

    Wow.

    Keep up the good work, Steve. Some theologians have argued that God’s judgment on a nation that has rejected Him is not only the rise in homosexuality, but also the inability to think clearly. (See Romans 1:21)

    For proof, I offer the responses to this article as Exhibit 1. I commend you for not wasting your time responding to foolishness.

  35. Nohm

    Reply

    Mike wrote: “Are you implying that you can prove that marriage is not only between a man and a woman by using scripture? I am interested in how since all references I have seen to marriage seem to always between a man and a woman.”

    Then you should go read it again.

    Back then, marriage was between *a* man and *multiple* women. “Marriage” was a business contract.

    Maybe you’re going off what your pastor told you instead of what “the scriptures” (specifically, the OT) actually say.

  36. BathTub

    Reply

    Mike F, really?

    Go through the bible and work out the average number of wives the biblical patriarchs had. I guarantee if you average them out the average will be much greater than 1. And you don’t even need to include the concubines.

  37. Garrett

    Reply

    So, I guess you’re not even going to respond to ONE counterargument we’ve made?

    Just so busy, eh?

  38. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    There is not much I can say that would even come close to convincing you. Yes, my time is limited; this is the first opportunity I’ve had to even moderate these comments.

    It’s a worldview issue.

    You know my arguments already. You know the conservative viewpoints. What more can I say? Should I refer you to Focus on the Family?

    It’s a worldview problem.

    When I was a social liberal, I too, would have argued for your side (though I was not an atheist). My view then was human-centered, man-centered, this world centered. When I became a Christian, over a period of many years my viewpoints changed as I understood what God’s Word says about various issues.

    Now God’s view trumps all others.

    I know, I know… irrational, huh?

  39. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    And by the way, due to time constraints, I am usually only able to respond in blog posts to maximize my effectiveness and to reach my broadest audience. Just thought you’d like to know.

  40. Garrett

    Reply

    That’s fine, Steve, but the reason I prefer this blog to say, Ray’s is that the smaller number of comments (though you’re catching up, aren’t you?) allow for a better dialogue with the blogger.

    Your uh…”siblings in Christ” aren’t much to talk with. Look at David here: “my book sez ur dum so ur dum.” Thanks for wasting our time, Dave!

    Oh, and I doubt there’s been a significant increase in homosexuality in the United States. We simply have more people actually coming out of the closet these days. Fifty years ago, you stayed in the closet since homosexuality was considered a mental illness and practically synonymous with pedophilia for the average person. So you stayed DEEP in the closet, or had your life made miserable.

  41. BathTub

    Reply

    It’s not even a matter of counter-arguments, you’ve just said stuff that was flat out wrong.

  42. Mike F

    Reply

    Nohm and Bathtub, I agree with you that there are several passages that speak of a man having several wives (although they were always female). I thought you had a reference that spoke about a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. So I guess the question remains, do you have any references in scripture that a man can marry a man?

    So we do not get off track here, the discussion about a man having multiple wives is for a different thread, so I will not reply in this thread to that topic.

  43. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “There is not much I can say that would even come close to convincing you.”

    And, in response, I’ll post again what I wrote before:

    “I completely disagree. Many times throughout my life I’ve been convinced of a position — that I did not previously hold — due to a well-reasoned argument.

    If you have one, I’m listening.”

    It’s far too easy to say, “Oh, you wouldn’t agree with me” when you don’t even *try*.

  44. Nohm

    Reply

    Mike F!!

    Watch out!!

    Moving the goalposts so quickly like that might hurt somebody!

  45. BathTub

    Reply

    Steven’s claim was that “By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman.”

    My response was that was false, and I only needed to point to the patriarchs of the bible to prove it. Never once did I say it was about Men marrying Men, or Women marrying Women, just that Steve’s statement was untrue. Which of course it is, demonstrated most spectacularly by King Solomon. But it seems a pretty good portion of the old men of the bible looooved lots of ladies including Jacob, Saul, David of the top of my head.

  46. Garrett

    Reply

    Mike F: do you have any arguments against gay rights that do not stem from the Bible? Or should we just become a theocracy and fully submit our legislative process to the whims of the Bible? I think the framers didn’t really want religion dominating the political process.

  47. Joey

    Reply

    Steve said, “You know my arguments already. You know the conservative viewpoints. What more can I say? Should I refer you to Focus on the Family?”

    Steve, did you really just admit that all you do is spout conservative talking points?

    Some of us actually look at all the facts from all sides of an issue before we form an opinion. For instance, when I take an objective look at this thread, Bathtub and Garrett have brought up fact after fact that supports their opinion that same sex marriage should be legal in the US. On the other hand, you Steve, have lied at least twice to try to justify your opinion that gay people should be treated as inferior. It is very clear that Bathtub and Garrett have put a lot of thought into forming their opinions, while you are a bigot who is just looking for any excuse to justify your homophobic beliefs even if it means lying.

    Maybe you should try using your own brain instead of letting Focus on the Family think for you.

  48. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Joey, how have I lied? And twice?

    Focus and other social conservatives take the same positions as I do as a Biblical Christian.

    It’s too easy to call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a bigot.

    I care deeply for the homosexual community who are taken captive by their lusts. It’s my desire that they turn to the Savior who can set them free from their sin, just like He set me free from my sexual immorality, which I was born into, of which I had a gene that predisposed me to my lusts.

  49. BathTub

    Reply

    So you are still pretending that “By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman.” Even though your own bible proves that statement to be false?

    I absolutely accept that biblically marriage was ‘between men and women’, but it certainly appeared to be more like “A Man and as many women as he wanted or could afford”. I mean it cost Jacob 14 years labour for his 2 wives, I doubt he wanted too many more after that. 😉

  50. Joey

    Reply

    You told at least two lies.

    Lie #1: “Since 2005, homosexual “domestic partners” have been awarded ALL the legal rights and benefits of marriage.”

    Until just recently gay couples didn’t have the same hospital visitation rights as straight couples. Obama was the one who passed the law that gave homosexuals visitation rights so it’s safe to say that they didn’t have that right in 2005. Same sex couples also don’t have the same social security survivor rights as straight couples. So you blatantly lied when you said that homosexual couples have the same rights as straight married couples.

    Lie #2: “By definition, marriage is only and has always been between a man and a woman.”

    It’s already been pointed out in this thread that marriage was traditionally between a man and many different women. Love based marriages between one man and one woman are a very new phenomena. I realize that you may not be intentionally lying, you may just not know what you’re talking about, but I’ve heard you say that a man who lusts after another woman is committing adultery, so whether you’re lying intentionally or not, you’re still a liar.

    And yes, bigot is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but a bigot as defined by Webster is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

    As I said before, I look at both sides before making up my opinion on an issue. I am a registered Independent, and I read from both conservative and liberal websites when forming my opinion. Gay Marriage is an issue where the people who support it present their argument based on facts in an intelligent way, and the people who oppose it lie and fear monger in a desperate attempt to convince themselves that they’re not all bigots.

    We live in a constitutional democracy. That means our Constitution trumps any law passed by the people or the government. The Constitution is very clear that you cannot offer something to one group of people and exclude another. The Constitution is also very clear that religion is to be kept out of government. So far the only reasons you’ve given in support of Prop 8 have been religious ones. You are clinging to your prejudices because you want everyone to conform to your idea of normalcy.

    If you have intelligent fact based reasons as to why Same Sex Marriage should be kept illegal I would love to hear it. Don’t use the excuse that my mind is already made up, because I pride myself on always keeping an open mind, but I’m certainly not going to be convinced by lying.

  51. Mike F

    Reply

    Garrett, I never said gays should not have rights. This is a discussion about same sex marriage. My argument is based on history. The Bible is a historical document and is one of several sources that fails to mention a marriage between members of the same sex Historically the term marriage has been used to define a union between a man and a woman (or as Bathtub points out a man and several women). I just feel we should not change that definition.

  52. Garrett

    Reply

    Marriage is defined as a basic civil right by the Loving v. Virginia case. So yes, you are saying gays should not have rights.

    You’re making an appeal to tradition. So, we have historical documents saying they had marriage as between a man and a woman. So? That doesn’t give a good reason for reinterpreting marriage as a commitment between multiple, consenting adults (I notice you guys aren’t pushing for legality of polygamy).

    You feel we shouldn’t change the definition? Why? Because that’s what we’ve always been doing? How on earth would anything ever get accomplished if THAT was considered a good reason?

  53. Garrett

    Reply

    Note guys, that when Steve is cured of his “sexual immorality” he can still marry a woman and retain his sexual identity.

  54. Garrett

    Reply

    Is that it? Are you guys done?

    If this is the best you can muster, I suspect you take their advice and “get used to it.”

  55. Mike F

    Reply

    Garrett, I am still checking this discussion. To me it looks like it may have run out of steam.

  56. Garrett

    Reply

    Mike F, I made a direct reply to you nearly a WEEK ago.

    Either you missed the post directly above you or you’re the one out of steam.

  57. Mike F

    Reply

    Garrett, I looked back and I think I responded to all your comments directed at me. The last one you asked if I had arguments that were not based on the Bible and I replied that there were no accounts on there being same sex marriages in history. this concept appears to be new.

    Historically there have been societies that embraced homosexual lifestyles, but when it came to marriage it was between a man and a woman (example the Roman Empire).

  58. Garrett

    Reply

    Mike, the SECOND post on this page has a response to that. Here I will repost it:

    “Marriage is defined as a basic civil right by the Loving v. Virginia case. So yes, you are saying gays should not have rights.

    You’re making an appeal to tradition. So, we have historical documents saying they had marriage as between a man and a woman. So? That doesn’t give a good reason for reinterpreting marriage as a commitment between multiple, consenting adults (I notice you guys aren’t pushing for legality of polygamy).

    You feel we shouldn’t change the definition? Why? Because that’s what we’ve always been doing? How on earth would anything ever get accomplished if THAT was considered a good reason?”

    Already addressed your appeal to tradition. Gimme something new, Mike.

  59. Mike F

    Reply

    Garrett, Tradition, along with history and Biblical references make me feel we do not need to change the definition that appears to have been in place for over 2000 years.

    when I have met a same sex couple (and I have) I do not dispute their comment they are married, but in my mind I do not see their relationship fitting the definition. I see a loving commitment, but that is all.

    If same sex marriage becomes legal I will recognize the legality of the relationship, but it still will not change the definition in my mind.

    There is a professor from back east (Tony Campolo) that made the comment that the government should get out of the marriage business. That instead of issuing marriage licenses they should issue domestic partnership agreements. Then marriage could be a function of the church and not the state. This sort of makes sense to me and may be a reasonable solution to the problem.

  60. Garrett

    Reply

    Why do we not need to change it? You seem to intend on being exclusionary for the sake of being exclusionary.

    While I don’t have a real issue with the government ceasing its recognition of marriage in lieu of “domestic partnership” or “civil unions,” it seems like needless semantics. And no matter what, people will call it marriage anyways. Probably because “domestic partnership” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue the way “marriage” does.

  61. johnny hopkins

    Reply

    you people are freaking idiots. you call yourself christians, yet here you are judging all of these people? since when did [G]od give you the right for that. i came upon this site by accident while looking for inspirational videos, and quickly became disgusted after watching several of them. i myself am a christian, but i have humility and class about it. the bible is not historical document, its a book written as a guideline of how man should carry himself in this twisted backwards world. [G]od is not here to scare us all into line, or to make sure that every man follows “the path” he wants us to make mistakes, and hopefully through those mistakes we find who we are.

    i know that by making these statements i am no better than you evangelist a——-, but it really pisses me off to watch “christian” people act like you are better than your brothers and sisters o this planet. it is not your job to tell the athiest professor that he is wrong. maybe that works for him. he seems to be a genuinely good guy. and hes living a life the way our [G]od would be proud of. it sickens me that some of the best christians arent even christian, and you people are definately not any of them.

  62. vintango

    Reply

    I think everyone else missed this in the video. Did anyone else see how dismissive and judgemental Ray was of the transvestite’s decision to simply dress like a woman? As far as I know the bible doesn’t condemn crossdressing, but Ray easily juxtiposes what God wants with what society wants, tossing in that, respect what God AND man wants, where did that come from?

  63. David Stokes

    Reply

    Ray did a great job witnessing to the cross-dresser! Awesome ministry!
    There is a new DVD out called GO- STAND-SPEAK it’s very powerful it’s a teaching on street preaching. There’s some clips on my web-site.
    Bulldogministries.com

  65. louis

    Reply

    my friends, I am asking you the most. Inportant Question of your entire life. your answer will determine were you will spend your eterniy! The question is: are you save? The question is not if your a member of a church, but are are you saved? It is Not if you are leading a good LIFE, But Are You Saved? It is not if you are working on it Or hoping to be, but are you saved? To be saved, you frist must admit that you are a sinner. “As it is writted, there is none righteous, NO, NOT, ONE, “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of god;” My Dear Friends; secondly, WE ALL! Need to realize that someone LOVED’ YOU AND ME AND DIED FOR YOU AND me; jesus christ died on the a cross to pay for ours sins and to give you and i an opportunity to go to heaven. “but god commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, chris died for us,” when chris jesus died on the cross, his blood paid the penalty for you and my sins. ” in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” Acts 16:31, belive on the lord jesus christ, and yuo will be saved”. bro: luis

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *