The Bible says homosexuality should be illegal

[gsschoenfeld]

No one calls for a return to the "rule of law" more plainly than Ron Paul. What Ron Paul seeks to do is hold elected officials and the laws they make accountable to the Constitution.

[LightshipChaplain]

AMEN.

[olddeer9999]

Didn't God say that we need to kill people that work on the Sabbath what about that law

[tmm41301]

Bad news; the unrighteous don't inherit God's Kingdom. The unrighteous (1 Cor. 6:9-10) are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers & swindlers. So if you're one of those, you don't go into God's Kingdom. But the good news is in verse 11. These people can be washed, sanctified & justified. They have been & continue to be.

[tmm41301]

Justification for isolating a sin like this when there are so many sins which are equally heinous to God is that this sin has taken on unique properties in our culture. It has been declassified as a sin & turned into a civil rights group. It is a political issue & not a moral one. The fact that it is being advocated not only in the public sector in schools & in government, has taken this sin & given it an identity all its own. Because of its prominence in our culture, it needs to be addressed.

[dwjw1]

The title given to this post is incorrectly stated - the Bible and this post specifically says "homosexual behavior" - not homosexuality - is what is proper to be made unlawful. If someone thinks he or she is gay, as far as the government is concerned, there should not be sanctions for that fact - none of our business. But things like sodomy, etc, especially as it applies to health issues, for example, are clearly within the realm of good civil law to protect others from the consequences.

[unitenowordie]

I am a christian! However, we can not make people do our will by passing laws. All we end up with is making people into criminals. God gave mankind self will. He did not give me the power to take it back. We must have laws that protect us from being victimized. Yes. But if someone is gay, and they have sex with someone who is gay; how does that make me or you a victim? This seems to be a non-issue. Are we going to outlaw masturbation? Really? Let's move on too a real issue, please!

[gentlehuman2003]

What he is refering to with 1619 is when we were the colonies. He needs to be more careful about that.

[dwjw1]

@gentlehuman2003: Yup, we were colonies, but he said "our history as a nation" which easily could be affected by the period from 1619 when these slave traders brought people here. Regardless, that period of time is part of our history as a nation whether we were in fact a nation or not. Under this kind of reasoning, the portion of time under the Articles of Confederation were not part of our history as a nation, neither was the Revolutionary War, etc. He has covered it before.

[BrendanIsCool]

URRRFFFFF HURRRRRRRRRR SO RETARDED IT HURTS DURRRRRRRRRR

[TingalpaAlpaca]

LOL. Leviticus 11:11 says eating shellfish is an abomination. When was the last time you heard of a religious campaign to make shellfish eating illegal? So how come knobs like this gentleman here pick and choose some bible verses to apply and leave other verses to ignore? It's all about personal bigotry.

[dwjw1]

@TingalpaAlpaca: The rules against using many types of food was probably in place to protect the people from illnesses that were the scourge of that day. Later in Acts, God says to Peter that he should not call unclean what He had made clean - although not directed at food as much as at Gentiles, the point is that God was making these things clean. We still have to be very careful about eating things raw because they can carry things that will kill us. It is not bigotry to read from the Bible.

[dwjw1]

@KC5821: Try listening - he said "since the beginning of our history as a nation ..." and refers to 1619, claiming that enslavement was non-Christian then, and had Christian rules been put in place at the time, slavery would not have been the problem it became. The Christians wrote into our Constitution a way to stop it (by counting slaves as 2/3) and to outlaw it (amendment process) when the Republicans (Whigs) finally got the nation to realize what the Democrats were doing as slave holders.

[KC5821]

Not what I got out of it he said beginning of our history as a nation we were not a nation 1619 . BTW our founders were not all Christians and it was 3/5 for slaves and it was for representation purposes .

.

[KC5821]

@dwjw1 It was the 3/5's plan not 2/3's and it was for representation purposes so blow me !

[dwjw1]

@KC5821: You are kidding, right 0.6 vs 0.67 and you waste time correcting - besides that supports my point. The blacks at the time recognized that this was in their favor because territories with slaves had more difficulties to become states. This is nitpicking to say we weren't a nation - the time period from 1619 was part of our history as a nation as he said. And even if some weren't Christians, most were. Just more rewriting of history by those who don't want it to be true.