Comments on: Preserving the Biblical Definition of Marriage – Proposition 102 http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:29:24 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jay http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/comment-page-1/#comment-1294 Jay Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:46:08 +0000 http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/#comment-1294 It would appear to me that someone named Rita that was "formerly know as Robert" may have another reason for not voting for prop 102. It would appear to me that someone named Rita that was “formerly know as Robert” may have another reason for not voting for prop 102.

]]> By: Tom Tatterfield http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/comment-page-1/#comment-1212 Tom Tatterfield Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:40:48 +0000 http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/#comment-1212 Thank you Ericka, I cannot believe that anyone would ever contest the nature of this proposition. The enforcement that is sought after here is so blatant. tell me, would this ever be on the ballot if there were no homosexuals? OFCOURSE NOT. It is on the ballot for that reason alone. If our vote in the U.S.A. (opposed to our action in the Kingdom of God) was the declaration of our beliefs as Christ followers wouldn't we have more to alter than 'who can legally be bound by law'? Wouldn't we be eager for a legal system that seemed more like socialism (equaling wealth and not keeping the rich rich)? Wouldn't we vote to not engage in war anymore and become a pacifistic nation as new Israel is commanded to be? Thank you Ericka,

I cannot believe that anyone would ever contest the nature of this proposition. The enforcement that is sought after here is so blatant. tell me, would this ever be on the ballot if there were no homosexuals? OFCOURSE NOT. It is on the ballot for that reason alone.

If our vote in the U.S.A. (opposed to our action in the Kingdom of God) was the declaration of our beliefs as Christ followers wouldn’t we have more to alter than ‘who can legally be bound by law’? Wouldn’t we be eager for a legal system that seemed more like socialism (equaling wealth and not keeping the rich rich)? Wouldn’t we vote to
not engage in war anymore and become a pacifistic nation as new Israel is commanded to be?

]]> By: Ericka Balli http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Ericka Balli Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:11:19 +0000 http://pccwired.org/enews/2008/10/08/preserving-the-biblical-definition-of-marriage-proposition-102/#comment-1208 I agree with Tom T. (#6 post). I just think that amending our State's constitution is not in line with "loving people to Jesus". When has forcing our Christian world view on people ever really advanced the Kingdom? Isn't that why so many non-Christians are opposed to hearing the gospel? We should be trying to reach people's hearts for Christ, not imposing our will by force. If same-sex or bigamous marriages were declared legal in AZ, it would not affect my marriage, but it sure would open up the mission field! I agree with Tom T. (#6 post). I just think that amending our State’s constitution is not in line with “loving people to Jesus”. When has forcing our Christian world view on people ever really advanced the Kingdom? Isn’t that why so many non-Christians are opposed to hearing the gospel? We should be trying to reach people’s hearts for Christ, not imposing our will by force.

If same-sex or bigamous marriages were declared legal in AZ, it would not affect my marriage, but it sure would open up the mission field!

]]>