There are some things we must leave to God to handle.
There are some things we can take an active and direct role in.
In our country (USA), we have a voting system. A sort of middle ground, if you will. We cannot (nor should we try to) force people to change. But there are other means to make some kind of influence. We have all sorts of laws, many which are senseible and good. We have a law that says you must stop at a red light...obviously, this law isn't always obeyed. However, it is still an important law to uphold. The benefit is that if we uphold the law, then those who disobey can be legally charged with fault and inspire would-be law breakers to not break the law and there by protect the lives of others. Other, more sensible people will recognize the law as a safety for their safety and the safety of others. Dissolving the law just because there are people who disobey the law would be cause for disaster as there are people who are just waiting for a "freebie" to get away with as much as they can with as little consequence as possible.

Now, if we can impart a law through a vote that bans legalizing gay marriage, then while it will not change lifestyles of gays, it will keep them from reaping the benefits that are not rightly theirs (and yes, I am upholding that marriage, by definition is made up of a man and woman). On a tanget matter, if we allow gay marriage then we will have to redefine what marriage is. While we're at it, we should also redefine what a citizen is, because we have many illegal citizens enjoying benefits of a country they are not legally a part of. In short, the implications of allowing gay marriage legally will be like opening the door to problems few people who support gay marriage even acknoledges.

I do not advocate forceful banning. But I do believe we should take legally and morally appropriate steps to keep gay marriage from becoming acceptable and commonplace.

I think you're reading entirely too much into the story.  Daniel was essentially a slave taken into captivity, and he lived in a monarchy, not a democracy.   He had no say in government.  There were no elected officials, no votes.  The King was the final and only opinion that mattered.

That said, I don't think banning gay marriage is a worthwhile endeavor for Christians.  Even if they succeed in banning it, there are no less homosexuals and there's no less sin.  No hearts are changed because of it. Our time and effort is much better spent preaching the gospel, which can change hearts. I'm not sure why we expect non-Christians to act like Christians.  I'm much more concerned with Christians who advocate homosexuality in the church than I am with homosexuals who do not claim Christ.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - You don't want gays to stop living their life, you just want them not to have any of the benefits you're allowed? Um, what? Marriage has already been redefined, whether you'd like to admit that or not. There are civil benefits to marriage that everyone should be able to enjoy or benefit from. This is what the homosexuals want. Equal treatment by their government. We already know we're never getting it from the Christians, and really couldn't care less. The government doesn't care if you believe in god, so why is god dictating who the government is allowed to marry?

I'm definitely not seeing the connection between a traffic light and treating people equally.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - so i assume you believe that marriage should be a purely religious institution, with no government involvement or benefits whatsoever.  otherwise, i don't see how you can logically define it by the standards of a religion.  there are plenty of non-Christians who are married in non-Christian ceremonies. 

personally, i think the government should do away with marriage altogether.  let everyone have the basic rights guaranteed by a civil union.  if you want to call it a marriage, you have to get that in writing from a religious authority of your choosing.  but as far as benefits go, there should be no difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple. 

what i don't understand is this: Christians spout on and on about how sacred marriage is.  why isn't divorce illegal?  or remarriage?  the only things that destroy marriage are things which actually end one.  i'd like to see some proof that two men or two women tying the not has ever directly caused a man and woman to divorce. 

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - your post disgust me. 

@TheWriteWay@xanga - Actually, no, marriage has not been redefined. But what constitutes marriage is in the process of being diluted and perverted. It's actually the other way around, those who want to legalize gay marriage refuse to accept that their choice of life is wrong and that their attempts to gain acceptance is not about legal rights, but about right and wrong. And even if gay marriage is legalized, it does not make it right on a moral issues (there are lots of laws that are legal by the standards of the state/nation but they are still morally wrong...hence the past issues of slavery).

I also do wish homosexuals would stop living a gay lifestyle. But my argument was concerning the governmental level. A government, obviously cannot deal directly with morality, certainly not ours. Morality is a personal choice. But a government can exercize dealing out certain consequences for violating particular laws which are based on moral issues. A government can also deem which situations call for the giving of certain benefits. It cannot change people's hearts about morality, but it can set up laws which protect and punish people in regards laws that (hopefully) align with moral issues.

As for God and the government. I'm well aware that the government doesn't much care about God. But God does care. His laws are absolute. History shows that those who violate His laws are punished/disciplined, regardless of whether or not the government agreed. God cares about what happens to us - He does NOT wish to see us in pain which is WHY He set up the laws in the first place. Because if we strayed from His original design and plan, He knew we'd get hurt. He doesn't want that. The laws state that if we cross the boundary, there will be a dire consequence. (That's where my example about the traffic light law came in.) The question is: will we obey simply to say "I'm obeying the law so I don't get in trouble" or will we say "I'm obeying because I want what's best for me"? If it's the latter, then we are closer to understanding God's purposes for our lives.

But the government, made up of people, of course, want to rule and do things their way, no matter what the consequences. Proverbs talks frequently about rebelious people scheming and twisting the truth in order to have things their way at the expense of others. Now while I recognize that the gay community does not specifically aim to hurt anyone, they do not realize that by seeking to legalize gay marriage, they are inciting repercussions that will spread far more disasterous results than anyone is aware of.

One thing should be made clear: Civil marriage is not an official marriage. The government may recognize it as a "union", but that doesn't make it a real marriage. As you might have guessed, I'm not refering to mere government matters here. These are things that extend further than that. Because, again, the government cannot regulate morality, itself. Morality is a matter coming directly from God. EVERYTHING that we cite as right or wrong is based on a foundation that came before us. Even our Constitution points this out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." The truth about a pereson's value was established long before the United States came to be. As a nation, we are citing a truth that was already established. But there are those who seek to redefine what that foundation is, and that is cause for trouble. What should be done is to redefine our own laws so that they align with God's standard. Otherwise, on what do we base our laws? How do we define what is right and wrong? If the government cannot define morality - but rather only make laws that (hopefully) align with wha is right and just - then it can only cause harm to make laws that would go contrary to a foundational standard that it supposely bases its laws on.

THAT is why gay marriage will never be justified, even if the goverment allows benefits for gay couples. And there will be greater problems as a result if that comes about.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - What I feel should be done is that the government uphold the true and right definition of what marriage really is, rather than to adjust it to fit the whims of people who refuse to acknowledge that their ways will cause harm in big and small ways... There was a standard set LONG before any government was formed, and yet there are people who are trying to redefine that standard. If you take the foundation (standard) out from under the house that sits on it, you're going to have a very unhappy house.

I see things this way as well, to a certain extent. And I can't tell people around here I feel so, down in this small town in the South... *shifty glance*

I see why Christians want to uphold God's plan for marriage. I just don't quite agree it's our place to legislate it on everybody. But then, throughout time, traditional marriage has been the only way to go. So, there you go... but I'm still not quite convinced.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - No, I would not like to see that. For a marriage between a man and a woman is still within the context of God's design, even if God is not recognized in the ceremony.
As for a "religion that not everyone follows," that is a beside the point. It's either follow God or you're following something else. It doesn't matter what that something else is. People want to break it down into a multitude of choices. That's a misleading thought. It's either God or not God. Period. That's how God sees it. Because God is the only real God. And God punishes those who don't follow Him. Simple as that.
Let's say I decided, as a child, to follow some other parent instead of my own. If my psuedo parent says I can have candy when my real parent says I cannot, should I be punished? Of course, I should! Because I only have one true parent (or parents if you consider I have a mom and dad). So in the same way, there is only one true God, and whether we follow Him or not, His rules still stand. Governments can either choose to amend their laws accordingly or not...but there will be consequences for going against Him. Not because He is cruel, but because He doesn't want us thinking we can just do whatever we want as we please.

@Duhiana@xanga - This isn't about rights. This is about morality. I do not think less of anyone who is gay, but I will not accept their choice to live homosexually as "okay". Because it is a perversion of what God designed. God did not design people to be gay...so that "self expression" you reference is a joke...to be blunt.

@NaitoOfNarnia@xanga - You might as well give up. I agree with your points from a personal standpoint. I am not going to ever acknowledge that gay marriage is OK, either. But the law needs to be equal, period. Our Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantees that. Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, but I don't want the government mixed up in our other Sacraments, so I want it out of this one too. I actually agree with @too_pretty_to_die@xanga -  on this. From a strictly legal recognition standpoint (taxes, property, and such) everyone should have a civil union certificate issued by the government. Beyond that, marriage is for the Church.

The reason I say you should give up is that @TheWriteWay@xanga - has already inferred that you are a racist. Unfortunately, many gay marriage advocates here go right to personal attacks pretty quickly.

Yay for this post! But this is always a tough issue, for me and community-wise.

@DistantStarlight@xanga - I know what you mean about this town of ours...