I don't disagree with most of what you just said. But you keep missing the intention of my comment.

The whole reason why Jesus makes the distinction in Luke 20:25, is to show them that unless they acknowledge where his authority comes from, they will only see what they want to see. AND, he shows that authority is important by acknowledging Caesar's temporal civil authority over Himself, and them.

I'm not saying God's law isn't valid, or that people don't have to follow it. I'm saying that all men have the option to CHOOSE if they will obey it. They have to acknowledge God's authority to give the law before they can accept it's authority over them.

All of God's given moral and civil laws have basis and foundation, because they came from God, but not all of man's. There are plenty of man-made civil laws that are unjust, and un-biblical.

Let me break it down.

1.You obey the civil law of the speed limit, because you recognize and acknowledge the authority of the state to punish you for violation of it. Man has the authority to create, and execute punishment for civil law.

2. Man cannot execute punishment for violation of God's moral law, unless it's a civil law as well. You cannot put a man in jail for violating the first of the 10 commandments "You shall have no other gods before me", unless you've made that a civil law as well.

3. Trying to impose God's laws onto people that don't recognize and acknowledge God's authority to give the law, is pointless, until they recognize and acknowledge God's authority. That doesn't mean that God's law isn't valid, and it doesn't mean that they will not be held accountable to the law. It just means, that MAN can't force them to obey it, unless they have created a civil law to enforce it, i.e. "You shall not murder."

4. Help people to understand God's authority to give the law, thus giving them reason to obey.

Well, to start, my comment was directed at amanuensis for his original comment; "Both are perversions and against what the Bible says", but I'll respond to your response.

Your reaction to my statement, actually proves my point. In your response; "First, the law has to have a foundation of truth. It came from God not Muhammad so the sharia analogy has no bearing on what we're talking about." you are both acknowledging the authority of God, and denying the authority of Muhammad, thereby recognizing that God's law holds weight, and Muhammad's does not. But the point is, that is YOUR world view, which may not be shared by millions of other folks. What do you say to the man that acknowledges Muhammad's authority over God's? Unless he is breaking a civil law, he doesn't have to listen to anything you say about "God's Law", and that's his choice, given to him by God. Unless he were to acknowledge that God's Law has authority over Muhammad's, shouting at him about how vile he is for breaking God's doesn't help him at all. All that being said, that does NOT release him from the penalty of breaking God's law, but YOU can't force him to accept the law's authority, only God can (and He will).

What you can force someone to accept is the authority of civil law, because regardless of their recognition of it's authority, man has the power to exact punishment for it's violation.

My point is that Christians can preach to other Christians about upholding the law of God, because they both acknowledge God's authority to make the law. But when Christians sit on their high-horse and shout out at everyone for their "perversions" and sins, it's falling on deaf ears unless people come to acknowledge who God is, and why His law has authority over them.

Maybe this is an attempt to be witty or funny, but if your position is pro-life, then suggesting that someone's mother should have aborted them to save "us all" from their beliefs is completely and totally hypocritical and frankly, disgusting regardless of what side you take. And judging by the thumbs-up response to this comment, there are a good number of you supposedly "conservative" readers that agree, which is sad.

You realize that you sound every bit as hateful and spiteful as anyone the the other side of the aisle. Wishing someone death for their belief, no matter what it is, is pretty horrible, and it doesn't help your case. In fact you sound an awful lot like the people wishing anti-abortion people death for their belief. Hating your enemy for being hateful seems a counter-productive position.

First, let me say this. You can't impose "God's Law" on people that don't agree with the authority of the law, in the same way that Islam can't impose sharia law on you, because you don't recognize the authority from which it comes. Trying to convince or shame non-believers into compliance with an authority they do not recognize is both pointless and counter productive. They have to first, understand and agree with the authority of the law giver, before they can make a decision of compliance or obedience. That doesn't free them from God's law, but you can't force them to recognize it's authority. That being said, only people professing to know God are under any obligation to listen to you. However, they do have to comply with the man-made laws set forth by the body that is governing them, that is, both state and federal governments, for those citizens of the U.S., so appealing to them on a civil/ social foundation would get you much further. While many of our man-made laws are derived from God, they are expected to be obeyed because of their value to our society, not because "the bible says so". God gave us a foundation of laws expressly because they had social and civil value. So, if you have a religious belief that is against homosexuality, then come up with an explanation of why (based on why God forbade it) that appeals to it's impact on our society, and our future, that is a little more helpful then "...[it's a] perversion against what the Bible says.", and then go help make laws that change it.

And lastly, the entire article is focused on what Rick was trying to convey about MARRIAGE law as it relates to our society, and not about SEXUALITY, except where it relates to the intentional misrepresentation by the media. Commenting about the moral/religious implications of bestiality, which is SEX, and not MARRIAGE, speaks nothing to this article and contributes nothing to the conversation, but only ads to the confusion that already exists.