California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[AtlBraves]

Here is the link to the article on the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16marriage.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Makes me glad I don't live in California. That and the huge fault that could cause a major earthquake lol.

[Gaudete]

I see Ellen DeGeneres is getting married now. When she announced it on her show, the entire audience stood up and applauded. Very troubling, to say the least.

[teclils]

I see Ellen DeGeneres is getting married now. When she announced it on her show, the entire audience stood up and applauded. Very troubling, to say the least.

yes I am on the same page....

[Yippy]

Here is the link to the article on the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16marriage.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Makes me glad I don't live in California. That and the huge fault that could cause a major earthquake lol.
I'm just curious why you're glad you don't live in California. How do you think your life would change living in CA with the gay marriage ban overturned? I'm honestly curious.

[kiwisongbird]

They all look really happy in the photo, I guess it gives them hope that they can live a 'normal' life... kind of sad, yet joyful at the same time.

Sounds like they've had the same rights as common law marriages for a long time and that this is just a legalisation thing happening... I mainly worry about kids involved in these families, they would grow up pretty confused - but I guess when they have their rebellious stage they'll mainly end up straight?

And Yippy, I'd love to live in California! :)

[Yippy]

I mainly worry about kids involved in these families, they would grow up pretty confused - but I guess when they have their rebellious stage they'll mainly end up straight?
Kids involved in any families can grow up pretty confused. I've heard it said many times that living with gay parents doesn't automatically make you gay, just like living with straight parents doesn't automatically make you straight.

To gays it's a civil rights issue. They believe they should have the rights to a legally sanctioned marriage as well as straights.

And Yippy, I'd love to live in California! :)
:cool: (you forgot your shades)

[Aussie3rddayfan]

I have heard the gay marriage rights argued from both sides for a while now. Some for it, some against it. Nothing I have heard convinces me that allowing gay marriage is a good thing. Its just another step towards a worse society and another step away from God. :mad: :(

[Howlin' Wolf]

who cares if 2 gay people are married?!?!

Ive never understood why people are so concerned with the lives of others

[ausgirl]

You should be concerned about anyone who is going to hell - gay, straight, thief, con man, sexual predator, anyone - if you aren't, that is a very worrying thing.

[AtlBraves]

who cares if 2 gay people are married?!?!

Ive never understood why people are so concerned with the lives of others

Tulip I am really surprised. Here is why. God designed marriage to be between ONE man and One Woman. It goes against what God has designed and it really hurts our nation. Our nation should be repenting for allowing this not encouraging it. Same with abortion.

And Yippy the reason is that I would not like being part of a state that has made a law like this. I am ashamed that our nation has allowed it anywhere. I am so glad Florida isnt in the same position as California.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Tulip I am really surprised. Here is why. God designed marriage to be between ONE man and One Woman. It goes against what God has designed and it really hurts our nation. Our nation should be repenting for allowing this not encouraging it. Same with abortion.

And Yippy the reason is that I would not like being part of a state that has made a law like this. I am ashamed that our nation has allowed it anywhere. I am so glad Florida isnt in the same position as California.

This nation wasnt founded with God in mind. The founding father's were deist! This nation is about life, liberty, and freedom!

I assure you this. God is more concerned about the divorce rate in the church and the number of youth group girls getting abortions, b/c they are too scared of being ostracized, than the laws of this country. Laws which apply to non-believers.

God puts governments into power and directs their ways. If he wanted gay marriage banned, he would ban it. I dont recall Paul going to the greek authorites and telling them to overturn their laws.

[Evanescence]

Tulip is right about the founding fathers....they weren't the choir boys we think they were...

I do not support gay marriage...but I do support civil unions...

However, it is the right of the state of CA to do what it deems right...whether we think its right or not. The USA is a Republic...not a Federal democracy. Live and CA and don't like the gays being married, MOVE.

Anyone who says that gays are going to hell is playing into the hand of the devil himself. Divide and conquer. Being gay is no different than any other sin which we live with everyday....which we all do. If that's the case, then we're all doomed. Look up Timothy and Revelation which shows allt he people who are supposedly going to hell...chances are any and all of us are on the list.

I don't support gay marriage or gay parades....but I don't how to even define "gay" so how can i judge them?

My guess is there are some gays that are better people and Christians than some of the Jesus Freaks that think they're all that. The same Jesus Fraks who are condemning the gays are possibly far more wicked deep down inside, or gay in the closet themselves...

[AtlBraves]

I'm just saying I wouldnt want to live anywhere near that fault right now

[Valpo]

As a future Pastor I'm more concerned if this will turn into legal action against churches who will not recognize nor marry a gay couple. Scripture is quite clear the behavior is sinful, as it is with perverted heterosexuality,being a drunkard, (Insert any sin here). But just because we may commit similar or other sins does not justify the actions of others. Nor do we shun gays either. We reach out to them with the same Law and Gospel that we should be reaching out to all people with. No doubt homosexuality and abortion are pet sins of fundamental christianity, yet as Tulip pointed out, divorce rate is unbelievably sad.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I dont think any legal action can be taken. My grandfather turned down non-christian couples from being married in his church.As a future Pastor I'm more concerned if this will turn into legal action against churches who will not recognize nor marry a gay couple. Scripture is quite clear the behavior is sinful, as it is with perverted heterosexuality,being a drunkard, (Insert any sin here). But just because we may commit similar or other sins does not justify the actions of others. Nor do we shun gays either. We reach out to them with the same Law and Gospel that we should be reaching out to all people with. No doubt homosexuality and abortion are pet sins of fundamental christianity, yet as Tulip pointed out, divorce rate is unbelievably sad.

[Yippy]

And Yippy the reason is that I would not like being part of a state that has made a law like this. I am ashamed that our nation has allowed it anywhere. I am so glad Florida isnt in the same position as California.

First, how do you think your life would be different living in a state that has made a law like this?

And second, how is FLA a better place to live not having these laws?
Again, I'm really curious.

Honestly, I doubt CA is any worse than it was before the law. Sin is rampant everywhere. It just might be prettier in your neck of the woods.

I don't know what the faultline has to do with anything. If you think it has anything to do with God's judgement, He can find you 1,000s of miles away from any faultline.:)


I dont recall Paul going to the greek authorites and telling them to overturn their laws.

We really are not citizens here. Our first allegiance is to the Almighty and that can be in any country, state & city on this earth. There are Christians in far more heinous places bringing the gospel anyway. We are to be the salt & light no matter where we are and to all, regardless of whether they are gay and legally married or not.

WE as Christians know that God designed marriage to be between a man and woman, but why are we surprised that those who are not disciples would want the laws to reflect their values? I will vote my conscience, but I know that others are voicing theirs and they just might out vote me. The perfect "Christian" country will be the New Jersalem IMO.

[Pouye]

I dont think any legal action can be taken. My grandfather turned down non-christian couples from being married in his church.

I've also heard of pastors not marrying couples who have lived together before marriage, although this isn't Biblical, since the law of the Old Testament (for Israel, at least) was basically, if you sleep together, you are married (unless the father refuses to give his daughter in marriage):

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and sleeps with her, he must pay the customary dowry and accept her as his wife. But if her father refuses to let her marry him, the man must still pay the money for her dowry."
Exodus 22:16-

Some believe that God doesn't recognize marriages outside the "church" (whatever that is... insert your denomination ....................). I believe that God's view of marriage is revealed in Genesis. It is God who says "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh". This verse says nothing about being a believer in God or not. God also gave the command to people to be fruitful and multiply. It is one of the only commands of God that is obeyed very well throughout the world ;). Paul tells us that when a man sleeps with a prostitute that the two become one flesh -- and he goes on to quote that verse about marriage in Genesis to show what kind of "one flesh" he was talking about.

Rock

[AtlBraves]

First, how do you think your life would be different living in a state that has made a law like this?

And second, how is FLA a better place to live not having these laws?
Again, I'm really curious.

Honestly, I doubt CA is any worse than it was before the law. Sin is rampant everywhere. It just might be prettier in your neck of the woods.

I don't know what the fault line has to do with anything. If you think it has anything to do with God's judgement, He can find you 1,000s of miles away from any faultline.:)



.


I dont think overall that it would change. I just would hate the fact that my state government did something like this.

I love living in south florida. And so far so good on this issue.

I know that He can. And I was sort of implying it but hopefully that doesnt come. It would be a catastrophe if it did happen.

[Healing Oil]

who cares if 2 gay people are married?!?!

Ive never understood why people are so concerned with the lives of others

Amen amen.

Honestly, as a Christian called by Christ to make disciples...I rather spend my time befriending these people, loving them and hanging with them than trying to stop them from getting married. That in itself is a terrible witness.

[Healing Oil]

And second, how is FLA a better place to live not having these laws?
Again, I'm really curious.




.

Todd Bentley

:D Just teasing.

[Jesuslove]

Amen amen.

Honestly, as a Christian called by Christ to make disciples...I rather spend my time befriending these people, loving them and hanging with them than trying to stop them from getting married. That in itself is a terrible witness.

I agree. Live and let live. If Christ were among us today, he'd befriend the gays. God didn't place us on Earth to judge others, but to love each other.

I reside in NJ and DE. By this time next year (after the election), gay marriage will be a reality in NJ; the governor and (bi-partisan) legislature have already said so. Instead of worrying about who has the right to marry, we should be focusing on how we can strengthen families, We should be worried about schools, the economy, abortion, etc. Why should we care who is trying to get health benefits for their domestic partner.

Allowing gay marriage will not force Christian churches to embrace gays. There is a separation between church and state. That won't change. Massachusetts hasn't fallen into the ocean since allowing gay marriage.

Personally, I support ciivl unions as long as the same rights are gvien to all people. As part of a non-traditional family (single parent by choice), I am sensitive to the needs of diverse families. Often, right-wing Christian groups lump single parent families with gay families in an attempt to limit the rights of non-traditional families and I find this very offensive. Also, I know of three situations (all co-workers). where gay people are raising kids. The children from these families seem no different than children from traditional (mother/father parent) families. Gay people don't produce gay kids any more than straight people are assured of producing straight kids. Most of the (few)) gay people I know were raised in heterosexual, two-parent households.

[Gaudete]

Love the sinner; hate the sin.

[Jesuslove]

:( Love the sinner; hate the sin.

i don't consider denying someone equal rights, LOVING the sinner. As Christians, we don't like when someone trys to restrict our civil rights. Imagine not having those rights and fighting for them. Love to me is trying to bring someone to Christ, not trying to deny civil rights.

[Valpo]

I agree. Live and let live. If Christ were among us today, he'd befriend the gays. God didn't place us on Earth to judge others, but to love each other.

I reside in NJ and DE. By this time next year (after the election), gay marriage will be a reality in NJ; the governor and (bi-partisan) legislature have already said so. Instead of worrying about who has the right to marry, we should be focusing on how we can strengthen families, We should be worried about schools, the economy, abortion, etc. Why should we care who is trying to get health benefits for their domestic partner.

Allowing gay marriage will not force Christian churches to embrace gays. There is a separation between church and state. That won't change. Massachusetts hasn't fallen into the ocean since allowing gay marriage.

Personally, I support ciivl unions as long as the same rights are gvien to all people. As part of a non-traditional family (single parent by choice), I am sensitive to the needs of diverse families. Often, right-wing Christian groups lump single parent families with gay families in an attempt to limit the rights of non-traditional families and I find this very offensive. Also, I know of three situations (all co-workers). where gay people are raising kids. The children from these families seem no different than children from traditional (mother/father parent) families. Gay people don't produce gay kids any more than straight people are assured of producing straight kids. Most of the (few)) gay people I know were raised in heterosexual, two-parent households.

JL,

Good to see you again pal.

One thing (or maybe several) that I will say is homosexuality is a sin, period. Unfortunately, many Christians are very defensive against it because of I would say the in your face flamboyancy of the gay culture. Not saying the backlash is justified, because there are bigger problems that many in the church just ignore and wind up allowing as not a big deal because of homosexuality being a pet sin. Bottom line is, the people should decide. Legislating from the bench is troublesome. Suggesting from the bench is fine, but making it set in stone law before even being written in paper is a problem.

Jesus would have been around the gays, just as he was around all sinners. But I'll tell you there is no way Jesus would have said "As long as you're in love it is okay." Jesus affirmed male and female relationships. Jesus never told people their sins were okay, but clearly He handles the situation more righteously than we do today. It's a tough thing to handle, and we as Christians become awfully defensive when things like this decision in California happens. Best thing to do is let cooler heads prevail, be knee deep in prayer and politely petition the legislative system. If the people choose gay marriage, let the people choose.

No easy answer

[Evanescence]

I often said this....if it was REALLY a big deal, Jesus would have covered it in his many parables and sermons. Perhaps he, being God in flesh, knew soemthing about how the human body works/doesn't work?

If we go by what the Bible says about Gays, we should stone them. Do we?

If we go by what Levitucus says about Gays, we should beat our kids or worse when they don't behave.

Homophobia or the cloaked hatred and paranoia of gays is a MENTAL ILLNESS....and is a huge problem in our world. The same people stoning gays in India or Iran are guilty of far worse crimes.

So...now the wrath of God will be upon the USA for one of our states allowing gays to marry? Meanwhile a Baptist Megachurch minister just got busted for trying to have sex with a 13 yr old girl. But, the church will pray for him and says...."None of us are perfect....we all stumble and fall. he doesn't represent all Christians..."

And oh...by the way...pass the collection plate....

BS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[Jesuslove]

JL,

Good to see you again pal.

One thing (or maybe several) that I will say is homosexuality is a sin, period. Unfortunately, many Christians are very defensive against it because of I would say the in your face flamboyancy of the gay culture. Not saying the backlash is justified, because there are bigger problems that many in the church just ignore and wind up allowing as not a big deal because of homosexuality being a pet sin. Bottom line is, the people should decide. Legislating from the bench is troublesome. Suggesting from the bench is fine, but making it set in stone law before even being written in paper is a problem.

Jesus would have been around the gays, just as he was around all sinners. But I'll tell you there is no way Jesus would have said "As long as you're in love it is okay." Jesus affirmed male and female relationships. Jesus never told people their sins were okay, but clearly He handles the situation more righteously than we do today. It's a tough thing to handle, and we as Christians become awfully defensive when things like this decision in California happens. Best thing to do is let cooler heads prevail, be knee deep in prayer and politely petition the legislative system. If the people choose gay marriage, let the people choose.

No easy answer
While I disagree with legislating from the bench, sometimes it is necessary. If we left it up to the people to decide if certain groups of citizens deserve rights, surely slavery would still be around today in some states, so I don't think voting on civil rights is the answer either.

Denying individuals civil rights because their actions are considered "sin" is not right. If we denied sinners civil rights, we'd all be denied those rights. If we legislate morality or sinfulness, than we would all fall short.

Thanks for the welcome back V. It's good to be back!

[Jesuslove]

I often said this....if it was REALLY a big deal, Jesus would have covered it in his many parables and sermons. Perhaps he, being God in flesh, knew soemthing about how the human body works/doesn't work?

If we go by what the Bible says about Gays, we should stone them. Do we?

If we go by what Levitucus says about Gays, we should beat our kids or worse when they don't behave.

Homophobia or the cloaked hatred and paranoia of gays is a MENTAL ILLNESS....and is a huge problem in our world. The same people stoning gays in India or Iran are guilty of far worse crimes.

So...now the wrath of God will be upon the USA for one of our states allowing gays to marry? Meanwhile a Baptist Megachurch minister just got busted for trying to have sex with a 13 yr old girl. But, the church will pray for him and says...."None of us are perfect....we all stumble and fall. he doesn't represent all Christians..."

And oh...by the way...pas the collection plate....

BS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

Amen Ev! I agree with you. If hommosexuality was the absolute worst sin, than Jesus would have addressed it, and often. Hatred of any individual or group is just plain wrong. I love how people say, hate the sin, love the sinner. If these same people were denied their civil rights or equal treatment under the law, they would be outraged and vocal about it. Let's start by loving each other.. If we treat others as we want to be treated, the world would be a lot better place.

[Sam!]

I'm sorry, but homosexuals in Florida have the same rights as heterosexuals. A single gay man can marry almost any single woman he chooses (and who chooses him). A single lesbian woman may marry just about any single man she chooses (and who chooses her).

JL & E: Nobody here is saying homosexual sex is the "worst" sin. I don't hate gay people and I have had gay friends. I don't hate alcoholics either, and I don't think drinking is a sin. But living an alcoholic lifestyle, whether you think you can "choose" it or not, isn't right and I'm not going to condone it just because I know some Christians who are alcoholics. Get it?

Tulip, the argument that Paul didn't demand the authorities pass Christian laws doesn't necessarily hold water. Since in this country, the people have a voice in legislation, the circumstances are different. Democracy isn't a biblical mandate and it's not not the only right form of government, but it does change things, IMO.

[Valpo]

While I disagree with legislating from the bench, sometimes it is necessary. If we left it up to the people to decide if certain groups of citizens deserve rights, surely slavery would still be around today in some states, so I don't think voting on civil rights is the answer either.

Denying individuals civil rights because their actions are considered "sin" is not right. If we denied sinners civil rights, we'd all be denied those rights. If we legislate morality or sinfulness, than we would all fall short.

Thanks for the welcome back V. It's good to be back!

Had a feeling you might go to the civil rights thing. Truth is, gays and lesbians are not barred from establishments like minorities were. If they are, they would easily win a law suit. This was not the case for Blacks back before Civil Rights legislation. To make the gay issue into a civil rights one is in my opinion completely off base. There is a huge difference, Blacks were discriminated against because of their skin color, it's not a practice of there's. Gays are "discriminated" against because of their sexual practice. Sexuality does not define us, ever. I am a male who practices heterosexuality. I am not a heterosexual. That's where the difference lies.


And E, try this on for size:

6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."


Mark 10:6-9

Jesus affirms the creation account, and says male and female are how they were created and they leave their respective homes to be joined together. Unfortunately we look for every word Jesus said, and if Jesus did not specifically address something, even though he specifically addresses the other side, we allow false teaching to creep in. True Christians have their pet sins, but we don't ignore sin on account of that either. We embrace the sinner to show them the Gospel, which frees them from that sin.

[Sam!]

Oh, a few more things...
E, you can't state with any certainty that Jesus never taught about homosexuality. It's a fact that it isn't explicitly in the gospels, but 4 relatively small books could never capture the total ministry of any man, let alone the son of God! The main point of the Gospels has nothing to do with morality, so an absence of a moral teaching on homosexuality there is not surprising.

To Tulip: The fact that God ordains governments does not mean that he condones their actions. The atrocities committed against Jews by Hitler's government were done by the "ordained" government, were they not? Many righteous men and women lost their lives in concentration camps. You want to tell me that other nations should have idly watched, politely asking him to stop?

The founding fathers weren't ALL deists, nor were they all orthodox Christians. But there is no doubt that American culture was heavily influenced by Christian beliefs from its earliest days. There is no doubt that the United States has come further and further from Christianity in the last 90-100 years. I'm not willing to sit idly by and and tacitly endorse the destruction of the moral fibers of an entire nation as they further subject themselves to judgment. We will all reap what the liberals are sowing.

[Jesuslove]

Had a feeling you might go to the civil rights thing. Truth is, gays and lesbians are not barred from establishments like minorities were. If they are, they would easily win a law suit. This was not the case for Blacks back before Civil Rights legislation. To make the gay issue into a civil rights one is in my opinion completely off base. There is a huge difference, Blacks were discriminated against because of their skin color, it's not a practice of there's. Gays are "discriminated" against because of their sexual practice. Sexuality does not define us, ever. I am a male who practices heterosexuality. I am not a heterosexual. That's where the difference lies..

Gays and Lesbians are not banned, but nonetheless are discriminated against. About 2 months ago, I overheard a manager talking about not hiring someone because they were gay. Not that the manager had any proof, it was just the interviewee's affectations. So the hiring manager didn't know the sexual practices of the interviewee, but made judgements based on perceptions.

You said gays and lesbians are discriminated against based on their sexual practice. How do we know what people do behind closed doors? We may suspect what one's sexual orientation is, but how do we really know what they do in the bedroom? Heterosexuals and homosexuals practice sodomy, so I don't see that as a basis to legitimately discriminate against someone.

I disagree with your analogy about sexuality. Truth is, we all have a sexual orientation whether or not we have relations. So someone can be gay or straight and non-sexual. If Christians hate the sin but not the sinner, how can we discriminate against the sinner if they are not sexually active? And who are we as Christians to make that judgement call?

[Jesuslove]

Oh, a few more things...
E, you can't state with any certainty that Jesus never taught about homosexuality.
No more than you can't prove with certainty that Jesus didn't embrace gays.

I just want everyone to be at peace and treat others with respect.

I'm not willing to sit idly by and and tacitly endorse the destruction of the moral fibers of an entire nation as they further subject themselves to judgment. We will all reap what the liberals are sowing.

Destruction of moral fibers? Are you for real? Have you spoken out against this immoral war or this immoral administration? Seriously? We are already reaping what the conservatives have sown. Can you say $4.00 per gallon gas?

[Valpo]

No more than you can't prove with certainty that Jesus didn't embrace gays.

I just want everyone to be at peace and treat others with respect.



Destruction of moral fibers? Are you for real? Have you spoken out against this immoral war or this immoral administration? Seriously? We are already reaping what the conservatives have sown. Can you say $4.00 per gallon gas?

Try not to think of liberal/conservative in terms of american politics. I would be confident in saying Sam meant liberal as in liberal theology which says "anything goes" and erodes the fabric of society and church. Which is exactly what it does.

[Jesuslove]

Try not to think of liberal/conservative in terms of american politics. I would be confident in saying Sam meant liberal as in liberal theology which says "anything goes" and erodes the fabric of society and church. Which is exactly what it does.

Well politics is often a reflection of society. Liberal theology does not erode the fabric of society necessarily. Liberalism teaches love and tolerance and respect. Conservatism has been known to destroy a few societies. Need I mention Hitler?

[Valpo]

Well politics is often a reflection of society. Liberal theology does not erode the fabric of society necessarily. Liberalism teaches love and tolerance and respect. Conservatism has been known to destroy a few societies. Need I mention Hitler?

completely unfair example JL. We need not tread that path do we?

USSR
Vietnam
China
Cambodia
Cuba

Govt's all forms of liberalism. Again, you are looking at liberalism in terms of american politics. Sam is saying liberal theology which promotes an anything goes idea. Homosexuality is very much so a sin. It needs not to be promoted, and I very much disagree with you when you say sexuality defines us. I do not let my heterosexuality define me. I let the work of God at the cross define me.

[Jesuslove]

completely unfair example JL. We need not tread that path do we?

USSR
Vietnam
China
Cambodia
Cuba

Govt's all forms of liberalism. Again, you are looking at liberalism in terms of american politics. Sam is saying liberal theology which promotes an anything goes idea. Homosexuality is very much so a sin. It needs not to be promoted, and I very much disagree with you when you say sexuality defines us. I do not let my heterosexuality define me. I let the work of God at the cross define me.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not saying one's orientation defines us. I'm saying it's a part of who we are WHETHER OR NOT we are active. There are many people I know, including some on this board who are not active, but would say they are heterosexual. And we're all sinners.. that's not justification to deny someone rights. As I said previously, people often make assumptions about individuals based on presumed orientation. None of us really know what goes on in other's lives to be able to pass judgement.

[AtlBraves]

I disagree with your analogy about sexuality. Truth is, we all have a sexual orientation whether or not we have relations. So someone can be gay or straight and non-sexual.

I dont think thats the way God designed it. I dont think someone is born homosexual or heterosexual. The way God designed it is the way it is. Its something that I think Satan brings against people. Its like a spirit IMO

[Jesuslove]

I dont think thats the way God designed it. I dont think someone is born homosexual or heterosexual. The way God designed it is the way it is. Its something that I think Satan brings against people. Its like a spirit IMO

I disagree. I'm assuming you are a male. If so, are you natually attracted to women, or are you attracted to men and women equally, but choose women because heterosexuality is the moral choice?

[AtlBraves]

I disagree. I'm assuming you are a male. If so, are you natually attracted to women, or are you attracted to men and women equally, but choose women because heterosexuality is the moral choice?

Only attracted to women. Never been attracted to men.

Why if God designed it one way would it happen another way? God isnt going to create a human being homosexual. Doesnt it say in the bible that He forms us in our mothers womb? Well I dont think he is going to form us with something that would go against his law by having them born homosexual.

[Jesuslove]

Only attracted to women. Never been attracted to men.

Why if God designed it one way would it happen another way? God isnt going to create a human being homosexual. Doesnt it say in the bible that He forms us in our mothers womb? Well I dont think he is going to form us with something that would go against his law by having them born homosexual.

Since there was no choice involved for you when it comes to attraction, is it also not possible for a man to naturallly be attracted to a man or a woman attracted to a woman?

I believe God does form us in our mother's wombs. God creates all of us. I don't pretend to understand God. None of us can begin to undertand God or why things happen. I just treat people the way I want to be treated.

[Valpo]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not saying one's orientation defines us. I'm saying it's a part of who we are WHETHER OR NOT we are active. There are many people I know, including some on this board who are not active, but would say they are heterosexual. And we're all sinners.. that's not justification to deny someone rights. As I said previously, people often make assumptions about individuals based on presumed orientation. None of us really know what goes on in other's lives to be able to pass judgement.

I know we are all sinners, I consider myself to have a dual nature (as all Christians) sinner/saint. This is something by and large rejected on these boards, but I am well aware we all sin, or we are all sinners. What rights exactly are being denied though? The right to marry? Who gives that right to marry? We say it is God, since Jesus Christ our Lord says male and female they were created and for this reason a man leaves his house to be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh. If God ordained it that way, what actual right is being denied of gays/lesbians? I say none.

[Yippy]

Tulip, the argument that Paul didn't demand the authorities pass Christian laws doesn't necessarily hold water. Since in this country, the people have a voice in legislation, the circumstances are different. Democracy isn't a biblical mandate and it's not not the only right form of government, but it does change things, IMO.

And that's a good thing. I think we Christians in America ought to take advantage of our right to vote and voice our conscience, but I don't think we should allow our politics to identify us. We tend to evangelize as Republicans or Democrats & Americans instead of obedient followers of Christ. If we actually did love one another & wash one another's feet, so to speak, we'd change the fabric of society a lot quicker than denying gays the legal right to marry (or we'd be martyred for our faith like so many others in other countries). It's too bad American Christians spend more time outraged at sinners sinning than actually being in love with Christ and those He brings in their lives. We need the laws to protect the people, and it'd sure be nice to live in a society that supports our views, but do we really need laws in place (i.e. legal marriage defined as between a man and a woman) to validate God's laws & plan for salvation? Will they really change people's hearts for the better? Do we want to deny gays the right to a legal marriage, because then they'd really know that that's an inappropriate lifestyle? Gays aren't changing their lifestyle without the right to marriage now. Do we need to deny them the rights for Christ to be able to work in their hearts?

We need to stop thinking of gays as gay first and people second and appeal to their need for Christ, like we do everybody else. We are all in need of a Savior. Let the Holy Spirit speak to their hearts regarding what they need to change. For some reason we expect gays to be the only ones to have to change first before Christ can move in their lives and feel allowing them to marry is more evidence that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. Christians have done their fair share of demoralizing this country and I'm not so sure that we're called to establish a "Christian country."

These are just my thoughts. I know some of this is a generalization, but I'm more interested in knowing what our motivation as Christians is when it comes to being for or against this kind of legislation.

[AtlBraves]

I know we are all sinners, I consider myself to have a dual nature (as all Christians) sinner/saint. This is something by and large rejected on these boards, but I am well aware we all sin, or we are all sinners. What rights exactly are being denied though? The right to marry? Who gives that right to marry? We say it is God, since Jesus Christ our Lord says male and female they were created and for this reason a man leaves his house to be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh. If God ordained it that way, what actual right is being denied of gays/lesbians? I say none.

I agree with Valpo here. God specifically designed it one way. Thats why there was 1 man and 1 woman in the garden. I dont think that God would create someone with a homosexual mindset. Its something that Satan brings against people when they are here on earth.

[Yippy]

I The right to marry? Who gives that right to marry? We say it is God, since Jesus Christ our Lord says male and female they were created and for this reason a man leaves his house to be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh.
We do, but all Americans don't see it that way. They are asking for legislation as Americans.

If God ordained it that way, what actual right is being denied of gays/lesbians? I say none.
The right to be an American who can have a legally sanctioned marriage with all its rights and privileges.

BTW, I totally agree with you that the morally correct definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. I'm just having a problem with expecting my fellow Americans to have to legally agree.

[Jesuslove]

I know we are all sinners, I consider myself to have a dual nature (as all Christians) sinner/saint. This is something by and large rejected on these boards, but I am well aware we all sin, or we are all sinners. What rights exactly are being denied though? The right to marry? Who gives that right to marry? We say it is God, since Jesus Christ our Lord says male and female they were created and for this reason a man leaves his house to be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh. If God ordained it that way, what actual right is being denied of gays/lesbians? I say none.

Here's a few examples...

I have a friend/coworker who is lesbian. Her partner is unable to work. My coworker is able to get domestic partner benefits through work, but because the two women's relationship isn't recognized legally, my coworker has to pay over $5,000 in taxes on health benefits. Married couples aren't taxed on health benefits provided by an employer as they are considered related by the Federal government.

Because gay couples aren't recognized by the Federal government and many state governments, they cannot pass on property without incurring inheritance tax that married couples would not be required to pay. When you think about it, the government should not have a say in where people choose to leave their money when they pass, and their should be no tax greater or lesser tax consequence depending on who receives your money.

My coworker who I noted above, is also a Mom. Should anything happen to her, custody would not automatically transfer to her partner, who has also raised her since childhood. No matter what the couple wants, if my coworker were to die, her daughter would go to her abusive ex-husband.

From what I understand, gay couples are sometimes denied family visitation in hospitals as partners are not recognized by governments.

Gay couples do not have pension rights to their partner's government or employment pension.

These are just a few examples I'm aware of. I'll ask my coworker on Monday. I'm sure she'll have more thoughts.

Here's a list I just found on Wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibiliti es_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States

[rossid]

First we here in Iowa had a lesbian couple get married in another state and come here for a divorce.

Now a judge had overturned a marriage law. That is under appeal.

We are out there with California and others.

Yes, to be loved as all other people, but also sinners just like all other people, and PLEASE don't say love the sinner but hate the sin. I hate that...

[Sam!]

No more than you can't prove with certainty that Jesus didn't embrace gays. I just want everyone to be at peace and treat others with respect. I didn't say that he did; I was refuting an earlier statement that "Jesus never preached against homosexuality." There is a subtle difference in saying that we have no record of such a sermon. Moreover, I think Jesus would have embraced people of a homosexual orientation and have never said otherwise. Seriously, who has the problem of stereotyping here?

I do not believe Jesus would have accepted homosexuality as a godly lifestyle, however, and there is absolutely no sound biblical teaching to refute that claim.

Destruction of moral fibers? Are you for real? Have you spoken out against this immoral war or this immoral administration? Seriously? We are already reaping what the conservatives have sown. Can you say $4.00 per gallon gas? Yes, I'm for real. Moral law comes from God. Liberal Christian theology and permissive secular morality replace God's law with their own, no matter how you slice it. If you move a body of people away from the source of morality, you whittle away at undergirding fabric.

You'll have to excuse me. I found a really great lamp earlier today and I absolutely LOVE it, and I'm running late for our wedding. We hope to adopt a beautiful nightstand, and by the time I pass away I am hoping the government will recognize my right to bequeath all of my money to her. The nightstand I mean.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Oh, a few more things...
E, you can't state with any certainty that Jesus never taught about homosexuality. It's a fact that it isn't explicitly in the gospels, but 4 relatively small books could never capture the total ministry of any man, let alone the son of God! The main point of the Gospels has nothing to do with morality, so an absence of a moral teaching on homosexuality there is not surprising.

To Tulip: The fact that God ordains governments does not mean that he condones their actions. The atrocities committed against Jews by Hitler's government were done by the "ordained" government, were they not? Many righteous men and women lost their lives in concentration camps. You want to tell me that other nations should have idly watched, politely asking him to stop?

The founding fathers weren't ALL deists, nor were they all orthodox Christians. But there is no doubt that American culture was heavily influenced by Christian beliefs from its earliest days. There is no doubt that the United States has come further and further from Christianity in the last 90-100 years. I'm not willing to sit idly by and and tacitly endorse the destruction of the moral fibers of an entire nation as they further subject themselves to judgment. We will all reap what the liberals are sowing.


maybe you should worry about your church before you worry about the government. if you want a christian utopia, it isnt happening in America. Voting to stop the atrocities of abortion, i can understand, voting to limit the rights of an american based on YOUR religious beliefs is bull jive.

[kiwisongbird]

Weren't a bunch of the founding fathers freemasons? That certainly mucked up my childhood...

[Sam!]

maybe you should worry about your church before you worry about the government. if you want a christian utopia, it isnt happening in America. Voting to stop the atrocities of abortion, i can understand, voting to limit the rights of an american based on YOUR religious beliefs is bull jive.

I see. Some sins are acceptable and others are not. Got it. I've noted that for future reference.

[Jason]

When we as a people say gay marriage is okay, we as a people are saying being gay is okay.

[SueQ]

This thread made me remember the time when Third Day was on Leno....at the end of the show Mac gave Ellen Degeneres a big hug.....

[Jason]

This thread made me remember the time when Third Day was on Leno....at the end of the show Mac gave Ellen Degeneres a big hug.....

I would too, as well as liars, thieves, murderers, etc.

[SueQ]

When we as a people say gay marriage is okay, we as a people are saying being gay is okay.

Agreed. We love each other in spite of our sin, but without supporting the sin.

[SueQ]

Weren't a bunch of the founding fathers freemasons? That certainly mucked up my childhood...

Made me go :eek: too.....but that's another thread....

[SueQ]

Voting to stop the atrocities of abortion, i can understand, voting to limit the rights of an american based on YOUR religious beliefs is bull jive.

But abortion is against my RELIGIOUS beliefs just like gay marriage is....

[SueQ]

The perfect "Christian" country will be the New Jersalem IMO.

AMEN!

[SueQ]

I'm hearing people describe not letting gays marry as denying them their rights as if we are taking away their right to vote or any other rights....Saying there shouldn't be legalized marriage is not the same as saying, well, let's just take away everything....

What about my rights as an overeater....Bible says it's a sin, but what if I happen to believe that I was born with this tendency and to live otherwise would be against my nature?...I want legislation that mandates larger seats on airplanes (with no increase in fee)...I want legislation to protect me from discrimination based on my size.....Well, both of those scenarios, and many others I could come up with, are ridiculous....Because, while I do believe there is genetic predisposition to overeating, as well as homosexuality, I also believe God does not want us to act out on it.....and I also believe that my sin is no less serious than my homosexual friends'....but then, I deserve no special legislation to address the things I believe have been kept from me because of my size...

Then again, I also believe marriage is a God given union...and because so, doesn't truly exist between 2 members of the same sex anyway...let the gov legislate what it wants...it doesn't make it so in the eyes of God...according to the Bible, not just my opinion.....

And so, yes, please pray for me as I deal with my own sinful behavior, just as I pray for the sinful behavior of my gay friends....please love me as I love them as well....remembering too that none of us can love each other as much as much as He does....

[Jesuslove]

This thread made me remember the time when Third Day was on Leno....at the end of the show Mac gave Ellen Degeneres a big hug.....

Yeah, that was big of him..

Your post suggests that Mac is a better person, and he was somehow lowering himself to reach out to her. Some might see this as offensive.

[Jesuslove]

I would too, as well as liars, thieves, murderers, etc.

got it Jase... you're a saint, and those darn homosexuals are hellbound.

Thou shall not judge....

[Jesuslove]

I'm hearing people describe not letting gays marry as denying them their rights as if we are taking away their right to vote or any other rights....Saying there shouldn't be legalized marriage is not the same as saying, well, let's just take away everything....

What about my rights as an overeater....Bible says it's a sin, but what if I happen to believe that I was born with this tendency and to live otherwise would be against my nature?...I want legislation that mandates larger seats on airplanes (with no increase in fee)...I want legislation to protect me from discrimination based on my size.....Well, both of those scenarios, and many others I could come up with, are ridiculous....Because, while I do believe there is genetic predisposition to overeating, as well as homosexuality, I also believe God does not want us to act out on it.....and I also believe that my sin is no less serious than my homosexual friends'....but then, I deserve no special legislation to address the things I believe have been kept from me because of my size...

Then again, I also believe marriage is a God given union...and because so, doesn't truly exist between 2 members of the same sex anyway...let the gov legislate what it wants...it doesn't make it so in the eyes of God...according to the Bible, not just my opinion.....

And so, yes, please pray for me as I deal with my own sinful behavior, just as I pray for the sinful behavior of my gay friends....please love me as I love them as well....remembering too that none of us can love each other as much as much as He does....

Don't worry Sue.. there are no laws against overeaters. Fat people aren't discriminated against despite their sinful behavior.

If marriage is so precious, then why does Christian society permit divorce?

[Jason]

got it Jase.


No you don't get it at all. And the name is Jason.

[Valpo]

JL

Your absolutely missing the point in the name of supporting liberal politics in America. This conversation has nothing to do with that at all. You see homosexuality through the oppressed prism of so called conservatism in american politics, and meanwhile we are talking about the sin (just like any other sin). If there was such a strong movement for rights of alcoholics, or heterosexual perverts, or whatever I'd be the same way.

[Jesuslove]

JL

Your absolutely missing the point in the name of supporting liberal politics in America. This conversation has nothing to do with that at all. You see homosexuality through the oppressed prism of so called conservatism in american politics, and meanwhile we are talking about the sin (just like any other sin). If there was such a strong movement for rights of alcoholics, or heterosexual perverts, or whatever I'd be the same way.

Yesterday, you asked me to give you a list of rights denied homosexual couples. I gave you the list, but you never responded. Should gay people have to pay more for health benefits? Be denied hospital visitations? Be charged with substantial inheritance taxes because the government doesn't recognize their relationship?

You mentioned Alcoholics. Sue mentioned overeaters. Others have mentioned divorce. These groups are considered sinners, but I don't see Christians denying these groups equal rights. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Should hypocrites be denied equal rights because they are sinners? Where does it end? I don't know why homosexuals are always singled out as the worst sinners.

[Jesuslove]

No you don't get it at all. And the name is Jason.

Sorry Jason... Thought Jase was short for Jason.

Did you know your favorite candidate, Alan Keyes, has a gay daughter?

[Jason]

Did you know your favorite candidate, Alan Keyes, has a gay daughter?

Yes.

[Jason]

Yesterday, you asked me to give you a list of rights denied homosexual couples. I gave you the list, but you never responded. Should gay people have to pay more for health benefits?

They don't pay any more than single roomies.

[Jesuslove]

They don't pay any more than single roomies.

That makes no sense. Sorry Jason. We're talking about couples.

And for the record, I think single people should not have to pay taxes on a domestic partner's health benefits.

My employer, which is quasi-government, offers domestic partner benefits. Some employees use these benefits to get healthcare for an elderly parent, or just a roommate. Why is the government in the business of defining relationships?

[Jason]

That makes no sense. Sorry Jason. We're talking about couples.


You say they're couples. I say they're roomies having immoral sex.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I see. Some sins are acceptable and others are not. Got it. I've noted that for future reference.

so when we legislate against sin, why stop at Gay marriage. divorce, adultery, drunkeness, pre-marital sex, porn, and worshipping other Gods should be illegal too.

[Jesuslove]

You say they're couples. I say they're roomies having immoral sex.

I'm not talking about couples living together. You're jumping all over the place Jason.

Bottom line, all people are created equal. Homosexuals are not criminals according to the laws of the US. All non-criminal citizens should be afforded the same rights period. If we are all created equal, we should all be afforded the same rights. That's both an American concept and a Christian concept.

[Jesuslove]

so when we legislate against sin, why stop at Gay marriage. divorce, adultery, drunkeness, pre-marital sex, porn, and worshipping other Gods should be illegal too.

Amen Tulip. You get it. You get it!

I agree with Tulip. If we are legislating against gay marriage, why are we not legislating against other forms of sin as Tulip noted above?

Maybe Jason or Valpo could answer this.

[Jason]

I'm not talking about couples living together. You're jumping all over the place Jason.


Huh? Two gay people in lust with each other seeking marriage usually live together. God does not look at them as a couple, nor approve of their lusts. Therefore, they are two roomies.

[kiwisongbird]

You say they're couples. I say they're roomies having immoral sex.

What about guys or girls who have lived together for decades? I had friends in New Zealand who had been together for 15 years - that's longer than many Christian marriages!

Jason, I usually agree with you, but this comment - don't... :)

[Jesuslove]

Huh? Two gay people in lust with each other seeking marriage usually live together. God does not look at them as a couple, nor approve of their lusts. Therefore, they are two roomies.

Maybe they are married in spirit before God. A marriage is not defined by a marriage certificate. Two mentally challenged people lving together that look at each other in lust.... are they going to hell? They don't have the mental capacity to marry, but they live together and look at each other in lust. Hellbound?

[Jason]

What about guys or girls who have lived together for decades? I had friends in New Zealand who had been together for 15 years - that's longer than many Christian marriages!


Should they get cheaper healthcare? No. Why should they?

[Jesuslove]

What about guys or girls who have lived together for decades? I had friends in New Zealand who had been together for 15 years - that's longer than many Christian marriages!

Jason, I usually agree with you, but this comment - don't... :)

According to Jason, they are lving in sin, looking at each other in lust. Hellbound.

[Jason]

Maybe they are married in spirit before God.

Impossible. God does not approve of homosexuality.

[Jesuslove]

Amen Tulip. You get it. You get it!

I agree with Tulip. If we are legislating against gay marriage, why are we not legislating against other forms of sin as Tulip noted above?

Maybe Jason or Valpo could answer this.

To follow up Jason.... you never answered.....

should we legislate morality? Should other sinners be denied rights?

[Jesuslove]

Impossible. God does not approve of homosexuality.

Sorry I forgot. From God's mouth to your ears.

[Jason]

Sorry I forgot. From God's mouth to your ears.

From God's Word to all ears.

[Jason]

To follow up Jason.... you never answered.....

should we legislate morality? Should other sinners be denied rights?

I'm not denying anyone rights. You are wanting to give people rights they don't deserve.

We already legislate morality.

Murder? Illegal.
Theft? Illegal.
Perjury? Illegal.

[Jesuslove]

I'm not denying anyone rights. You are wanting to give people rights they don't deserve.

We already legislate morality.

Murder? Illegal.
Theft? Illegal.
Perjury? Illegal.

Murder, theft and perjury are crimes. Being homosexual is not a crime. As Tulip said, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God? Why do you want to single out homosexuality?

[Jason]

And may I quote the official position of this messageboard:


Scripture is quite clear that (1) sexual immorality (including homosexuality) is sin, and (2) Christianity is about us being transformed into Christ's image, with a result being that we are free from bondage to sin. There is nothing to be gained from arguments about these points; the Bible explicitly and definitively states the truth regarding the matter, and it would be denying the power of the gospel to say that people cannot be changed by God, or cannot be free from sin.

[Jesuslove]

And may I quote the official position of this messageboard:

But you still didn't answer my question Jason. You don't usually avoid answering questions, but you aren't answering me.

As Tulip said, since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?

[Jason]

Murder, theft and perjury are crimes.

They're crimes because individual state legislatures put them on the law books as crimes, just as many put sodomy.

[Jason]

But you still didn't answer my question Jason. You don't usually avoid answering questions, but you aren't answering me.



I type 15 wpm because I type with a mouth in my stick due to disability. So I didn't get there yet.

[Jesuslove]

They're crimes because individual state legislatures put them on the law books as crimes, just as many put sodomy.

Sodomy, hetero or homo, isn't illegal in any state Jason, You still didn't anser my question.....

Since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?

[Jason]

Sodomy, hetero or homo, isn't illegal in any state

It was.

Since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?

Let me ask you first, should you be allowed to marry and have sex with your sister? With an animal?

[Jesuslove]

It was.



Let me ask you first, should you be allowed to marry and have sex with your sister? With an animal?

Yes, but it's not now. And I would venture to say that over 80% of adult Americans have practiced sodomy at one time or another. Are they all hellbound?


You are outrageous Jason. How can you compare a married relationship to relations with an Animal. That seems a bit far fetched doesn't it? After all, an animal cannot consent the same as an adult can consent.

why won't you answer my question? once again......

Since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?

[Jason]

Yes, but it's not now. And I would venture to say that over 80% of adult Americans have practiced sodomy at one time or another. Are they all hellbound?p

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas still have laws against homosexual conduct.

You are outrageous Jason. How can you compare a married relationship to relations with an Animal. That seems a bit far fetched doesn't it? After all, an animal cannot consent the same as an adult can consent.

But your sister can consent. So, should you be allowed to marry her and have sex with her?


Since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?

No, nor should we give alcoholics, divorced people, porn addicts more rights than they deserve.

Gay people already have the same rights as me (a single heterosexual) and you (a single whatever you are).

[Jesuslove]

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas still have laws against homosexual conduct.



But your sister can consent. So, should you be allowed to marry her and have sex with her?



No, nor should we give alcoholics, divorced people, porn addicts more rights than they deserve.

Gay people already have the same rights as me (a single heterosexual) and you (a single whatever you are).

Do you think divorced should be banned since Jesus spoke very explicitly against divorce? Should those divorced be banned from re-marrying?

Look, I don't think marrying your sister is the same as marrying a spouse. That's a stretch. A sister is a blood relation. I'm surprised you agree with marrying ones sister.

OK, TX, and KS do not have laws on the books against homosexuality. They had sodomy laws. Sodomy laws (both gay and straight) are not vaild in this country.

You say we shouldn't give divorced people more rights than they deserve. What DO they deserve, since you have a direct line?

I personally think there should be limitations on those who don't give back to society. Other than seniors, adults capable of working, who choose not to, should not have a say in our political process. IMO.


So Jason, once again,
Do you think divorced should be banned since Jesus spoke very explicitly against divorce? Should those divorced be banned from re-marrying?

[Jason]

Look, I don't think marrying your sister is the same as marrying a spouse. That's a stretch. A sister is a blood relation. I'm surprised you agree with marrying ones sister.

I don't. I was trying to show that both homosexuality and incest are against God's Word.

OK, TX, and KS do not have laws on the books against homosexuality. They had sodomy laws. Sodomy laws (both gay and straight) are not vaild in this country.

Sodomy laws were struck down by a 2003 Supreme Court decision. However, OK, TX, and KS have anti-homosexual conduct laws.

You say we shouldn't give divorced people more rights than they deserve. What DO they deserve, since you have a direct line?

The rights given to them by God.

I personally think there should be limitations on those who don't give back to society. Other than seniors, adults capable of working, who choose not to, should not have a say in our political process. IMO.

As you stated, your opinion.

So Jason, once again,
Do you think divorced should be banned since Jesus spoke very explicitly against divorce? Should those divorced be banned from re-marrying?

I'm exercising my right not to answer.

[Jesuslove]

I'm exercising my right not to answer.

This forum is about debating issues. I find it amazing that when cornered, you refuse to answer.

Then again, sometimes I politely bow out and refuse to answer when I know I'm wrong. I understand.

[Jason]

you know not all divorced people are divorced because they want to be divorced...you need to think befor you post and not pass judgment on something you apparently know nothing about...

also until you understand alcoholism and those addicted to porn you should say nothing about the subject...

Did you read this entire thread? Because you're obviously not understanding my position.

Divorced people, alcoholics, and porn addicts deserve the same rights as me. They shouldn't be given more rights than me.

[cheewiee]

This forum is about debating issues. I find it amazing that when cornered, you refuse to answer.

Then again, sometimes I politely bow out and refuse to answer when I know I'm wrong. I understand.

The church played a very heavy role in the 50's and 60's fighting against the no fault divorce laws that abound in our culture. I certainly believe that we should get rid of the no fault divorce...

[teclils]

Did you read this entire thread? Because you're obviously not understanding my position.

Divorced people, alcoholics, and porn addicts deserve the same rights as me. They shouldn't be given more rights than me.

yes I am sorry I tried to delete my post after I did...

so I offer a HUMBLE SORRY to you...

[Jason]

yes I am sorry I tried to delete my post after I did...

so I offer a HUMBLE SORRY to you...

No problem.

[Yippy]

And may I quote the official position of this messageboard:



Scripture is quite clear that (1) sexual immorality (including homosexuality) is sin, and (2) Christianity is about us being transformed into Christ's image, with a result being that we are free from bondage to sin. There is nothing to be gained from arguments about these points; the Bible explicitly and definitively states the truth regarding the matter, and it would be denying the power of the gospel to say that people cannot be changed by God, or cannot be free from sin.


No one is questioning whether homosexuality is a sin or not and nobody has said that people cannot be changed by God. The point of this thread is not to debate whether or not homosexuality is sin. Let's leave that out of this thread. The point, I see, is whether or not we should support laws allowing gays to be legally married.

From what I'm reading, some of us believe we should only have laws that support biblical prinicples. Some believe that not all Americans are Christians and that as Americans, gays ought to have the same rights & privileges as straights when it comes to a legal marriage. I think some are missing the point that just because something is "legal" in America, doesn't mean it's morally upright. Allowing people to enjoy the benefits afforded others who have committed to one person for life is not automatically saying homosexuality is okay.

There are many married heterosexuals who don't believe in God, don't believe He has sanctioned their marriage & don't want His blessing, yet it's okay for them to be married legally. Why are we supporting them & not supporting gays? Heterosexuals, Christians included, have done a fine job at ripping apart the fabric of society and making a mockery of marriage. Like Steve asked, why are gays singled out? Being gay is legal in this country. If homosexuality wasn't legal, it'd be a different story.

Does anyone have a reason why we should not support gay marriage other than homosexuality is a sin?


Since we want to legislate against gay marriage, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God?
I think this is a very good question.

[Yippy]

Did you read this entire thread? Because you're obviously not understanding my position.

Divorced people, alcoholics, and porn addicts deserve the same rights as me. They shouldn't be given more rights than me.
You can marry. Divorced people, alcoholics, and porn addicts can marry IF they're heterosexual. Gays aren't asking for more rights. They are asking for the same rights.

If there was such a strong movement for rights of alcoholics, or heterosexual perverts, or whatever I'd be the same way.
Alcoholics & heterosexual perverts can marry & enjoy the privileges of being married.

Am I missing something? Isn't that what this thread is about?

[Jason]

No one is questioning whether homosexuality is a sin or not and nobody has said that people cannot be changed by God.

You obviously haven't read Jesusloves' posts then.

[allyoop]

Does anyone have a reason why we should not support gay marriage other than homosexuality is a sin?


I agree with much of what you say in your post, however I do not know if I would say we should "support" it. I don't want to get to much into semantics, but support and sin in the same sentence...I don't know...

[cheewiee]

Does anyone have a reason why we should not support gay marriage other than homosexuality is a sin?

Because it further erodes what God ordained as the fundamental unit for civilization, the family. But honestly lots of things that erode that, like no fault divorce (which I also believe should not be allowed).

Secular history shows that as a civilization moves from the "traditional" family unit, it begins to falter, and ultimately leads to collapse.

[Jason]

You can marry. Divorced people, alcoholics, and porn addicts can marry IF they're heterosexual. Gays aren't asking for more rights. They are asking for the same rights.

I can't marry immorally. I can't marry my sister or my aunt.

[Yippy]

You obviously haven't read Jesusloves' posts then.

He's been saying it's not a crime. In the US, it's not a crime. Gays are not arrested for being gay.

I agree with much of what you say in your post, however I do not know if I would say we should "support" it. I don't want to get to much into semantics, but support and sin in the same sentence...I don't know...
I meant support the gay marriage ban.

I've read very good argument for not supporting the gay marriage ban, but I haven't read it here. I'm finding the argument for legalized gay marriage far more convincing. Gays in the US are American citizens. They should be treated as such, IMO.

[Jason]

Impossible. God does not approve of homosexuality.

Sorry I forgot. From God's mouth to your ears.

He's been saying it's not a crime.

He's been saying more than that.

[Yippy]

Because it further erodes what God ordained as the fundamental unit for civilization, the family. But honestly lots of things that erode that, like no fault divorce (which I also believe should not be allowed).

Secular history shows that as a civilization moves from the "traditional" family unit, it begins to falter, and ultimately leads to collapse.

I totally agree. And I find this as one of the strongest arguments for protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man & a woman. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I just don't think that a God-ordained marriage & a legal marriage are the same things. There are God's laws & America's laws. Some confuse the two, IMO. I'm not totally convinced that we as Christians are called to change civilization or evangelize through laws & politicking. I'm not saying that's bad, I just believe we're called to live our lives as followers of Christ, act justly, love mercy & walk humbly with our God. I think if we did that, we could easily change the course of our country or at least bring conviction. I dont think Christians throughout history have done a great job at that. We certainly weaken our argument for God-ordained marriage when we divorce as easily as non-Christians and say all marriage between a man & woman is God -ordained, especially when God is rarely invited into most marriages.


I can't marry immorally. I can't marry my sister or my aunt.

We're talking US government & laws. Right now, it's not illegal to be gay, so why cannot gays be allowed to legally marry?

[Jason]

We're talking US government & laws. Right now, it's not illegal to be gay, so why cannot gays be allowed to legally marry?

It's not illegal to lust after my aunt either, but I'm not legally allowed to marry her.

[cheewiee]

It's not illegal to lust after my aunt either, but I'm not legally allowed to marry her.

Going further, it isn't illegal for you to have sex with your aunt, but you are not legally allowed to marry her.

And on that note, It isn't illegal for me to have sex with more than one woman, but it is illegal for me to be married to more than one woman.

[Yippy]

It's not illegal to lust after my aunt either, but I'm not legally allowed to marry her.
Because you're blood-related? And if gays were legally allowed to marry, they wouldn't be allowed to marry their aunt (or uncle) either?

I see where you're going with this, Jason, but IMO that battle was lost when American society recognized homosexual relationships as valid & lawful. I think you're going to have to change that law before you can uphold the ban against gay marriage.

I'll admit I don't have the greatest grasp on Us politics & don't really stand on one side of the issue or the other. I'm trying to understand. And saying homosexuality is immoral, doesn't cut it for me when it comes to the gay marriage ban. Lots of "sins" are lawful. Why single a few out?

[Jason]

Because you're blood-related? And if gays were legally allowed to marry, they wouldn't be allowed to marry their aunt (or uncle) either?

I see where you're going with this, Jason, but IMO that battle was lost when American society recognized homosexual relationships as valid & lawful. I think you're going to have to change that law before you can uphold the ban against gay marriage.


I wish we could change that law, because we're on a slippery slope. Allow gay marriage and what's next? Will I get to marry my aunt next? My dog?

[SueQ]

Yeah, that was big of him..

Your post suggests that Mac is a better person, and he was somehow lowering himself to reach out to her. Some might see this as offensive.

Perhaps to those who are easily offended...that was never my implication...some may infer it erroneously due to their own sensitivities....

[SueQ]

Don't worry Sue.. there are no laws against overeaters. Fat people aren't discriminated against despite their sinful behavior.



YES we are, JL......people who aren't don't see it....just as people don't see the discrimination against gays, blacks, Hispanics....if they aren't part of the group being discriminated against....Slavery may be over....but discrimination is not....despite civil rights legislation....my friend and I can go into the same store and she will be watched more closely than I would be.....

[SueQ]

Maybe they are married in spirit before God. A marriage is not defined by a marriage certificate. Two mentally challenged people lving together that look at each other in lust.... are they going to hell? They don't have the mental capacity to marry, but they live together and look at each other in lust. Hellbound?

Whoops! Didn't God describe marriage as between a woman and a man...why would He consider a same sex couple as married in the spirit...isn't he part of that...why would be part of something He condemns?

While some mentally challenged people don't have the capacity to understand marriage...some do.....be careful throwing them all in the same category...might even be called discriminatory....

[Debbie]

Yeah, that was big of him..

Your post suggests that Mac is a better person, and he was somehow lowering himself to reach out to her. Some might see this as offensive.

I felt her post was suggesting Mac showing Jesus' love regardless. Let's not try and think or speculate or even bring Mac into this conversation.

In past discussions, we all have made many of the same statements that I have read in this thread. Each of us should be aware of the position that the administrative staff supports. I can repost it if anyone is interested in seeing it.

My challenge to each of you is to dig a little deeper into this discussion. Take is to a new level, make what you say matter and be heard.

[SueQ]

Murder, theft and perjury are crimes. Being homosexual is not a crime. As Tulip said, should be criminalize divorce, alcoholism, obesity, pre-marital sex, porn, worshipping God's other than our God? Why do you want to single out homosexuality?

How are we criminalizing homosexuality, by not granting the same privileges as married people?

[SueQ]

I felt her post was suggesting Mac showing Jesus' love regardless.

...exactly as I had intended it....thank you, Debbie...

[kiwisongbird]

I think one of the biggest problems is that many people think that American is a Christian country and therefore will forever continue on to have Christian laws, it's not a Christian country and therefore won't...

Some of the foundation will thankfully always stay there, but over time it will change, unless there is a huge move on God on the people of America... I don't think it's going to change by having Christians getting publically upset over things on a regular basis - God tells us to humble ourselves and pray, which I'm sure many of you are...

Love you all,
Sharon LJ :)
xx

[Jesuslove]

Because you're blood-related? And if gays were legally allowed to marry, they wouldn't be allowed to marry their aunt (or uncle) either?

I see where you're going with this, Jason, but IMO that battle was lost when American society recognized homosexual relationships as valid & lawful. I think you're going to have to change that law before you can uphold the ban against gay marriage.

I'll admit I don't have the greatest grasp on Us politics & don't really stand on one side of the issue or the other. I'm trying to understand. And saying homosexuality is immoral, doesn't cut it for me when it comes to the gay marriage ban. Lots of "sins" are lawful. Why single a few out?

Can't you see? There is homophobic people out there. Jason won't go so far to say the same about divorcees or other sinners should be given less rights. Funny, he's like many US pastors. He can condemn gays cause that's safe. But condemning other sinners, that's not politically correct.

Jason has yet to answer my question. Jason wants us to debate, but when I or someone else disagrees with him, he throws a low punch like comparing marital relationships or gay relationships to relationships between humans and animals. That's very disrespectful IMO.

For the record, I think homosexuals are sinners. I think heterosexuals are sinners. We are all sinners. We all fall short. Yet God created us and loves us.

As taxpaying Americans, I think gay people and all people (excluding those participating in criminal behavior) should be entitled to the exact same rights and responsibilities. There is a separation of Church and state in America, and it was intended to protect individuals' civil liberties. Our forefathers wrote these rights into the Constitution so that minority groups weren't treated differently than the majority.

Giving everybody equal rights, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not, is not only an American principle, it's a Christian principle.

[Jesuslove]

Whoops! Didn't God describe marriage as between a woman and a man...why would He consider a same sex couple as married in the spirit...isn't he part of that...why would be part of something He condemns?


Well first of all, the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as individuals are not committing crimes, they should be entitled to those same rights. The Bible and the Constitution are two different documents.

[VerbumReale]

This nation wasnt founded with God in mind. The founding father's were deist! This nation is about life, liberty, and freedom!

I assure you this. God is more concerned about the divorce rate in the church and the number of youth group girls getting abortions, b/c they are too scared of being ostracized, than the laws of this country. Laws which apply to non-believers.

God puts governments into power and directs their ways. If he wanted gay marriage banned, he would ban it. I dont recall Paul going to the greek authorites and telling them to overturn their laws.


So why do you defend gay-marriage then?? After all the ones trying to do that are the ones trying to overturn laws are they not?

And of course the divorce rate is atrocius in this country and the church has dropped the ball in how she has addressed divorce but does that mean that we just throw our arms up in the air in the face of something else that is clearly in violation of scripture. That would be further perpetuating the damage that has been done to marriage.

It's not about trying to interfere in people's private lives, it's about ackowledging what God intended for marriage. I agree with you to the extent that seeking to change or in this case prevent change of legislation (It will need to be brought to the people will it not?) isn't necessarily the church's responsibility, but neither should the church just ignore new legislation, or at least the bahavior the legislation endorses, when it is clearly in violation of scripture. That would imply that scripture is at the whim of the state.

And finally, the founding fathers. I get just as sick of people saying that all the founding fathers were deists as I do of people saying that they were all Christians. The reality is they were most likely a mixed bag. Certainly there is strong evidence to support the suggestion that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists but there is equally strong evidence to support that Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Jay among others were Christians.

[cheewiee]

Well first of all, the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as individuals are not committing crimes, they should be entitled to those same rights. The Bible and the Constitution are two different documents.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Which Article, or Amendment?

[Jesuslove]

I felt her post was suggesting Mac showing Jesus' love regardless. Let's not try and think or speculate or even bring Mac into this conversation.

In past discussions, we all have made many of the same statements that I have read in this thread. Each of us should be aware of the position that the administrative staff supports. I can repost it if anyone is interested in seeing it.

My challenge to each of you is to dig a little deeper into this discussion. Take is to a new level, make what you say matter and be heard.

Debbie,
We know the rules. We are having a spirited debate in general. The debate is not about whether homosexuality is a sin. We've already determined that. It's not about sex, though Jason continually trys to draw a parallel between relationships between consenting adults and relations wtih animals. The thread is about whether or not we as a society should allow gays to marry... you know.. allow all tax paying, non-criminal citizens the same rights.

I appreciate you leaving this discussion up, as it is fair game for a topic of discussion. Just keep the discussion above board and not stoop to omparisons of human/animal relationships.

[Jesuslove]

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Which Article, or Amendment?
Cheewiee,
You are right.. I misspoke. Those words came from the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, they were the intention of our founding fathers.

Again, I apologize.

[in hiding]

i think this whole thing could be avoided by requiring everyone to have a civil union contract for insurance, wills, legal purposes etc... and making "marriage" a religious endeavor. God did define marriage b/t man and woman...he didn't define civil contracts and commitment as such. If a marriage is performed by a minister then it's in addition to the civil union contract that is needed to gain insurance benefits and such.

[VerbumReale]

As a future Pastor I'm more concerned if this will turn into legal action against churches who will not recognize nor marry a gay couple. Scripture is quite clear the behavior is sinful, as it is with perverted heterosexuality,being a drunkard, (Insert any sin here). But just because we may commit similar or other sins does not justify the actions of others. Nor do we shun gays either. We reach out to them with the same Law and Gospel that we should be reaching out to all people with. No doubt homosexuality and abortion are pet sins of fundamental christianity, yet as Tulip pointed out, divorce rate is unbelievably sad.

Amen. I agree, we see this the same way sort of. As a current pastor in a denomination that has flirted with the idea of ordination of non-celibate gays and blessing of same-sex unions, and which will more than likely go ahead and do it some day, this is my concern sort of. Honestly I really don't think there is any precendent for such a thing. When a couple comes to me seeking marriage with marriage license in hand I am under no obligation to marry them. The church's role and the state's role are really kept separate. The church is really pretty open in whatever rationale they can use when it comes to denying someone marriage. I mean there is always the Justice of the peace

But in an increasingly secular society where people look at church through the lens of culture, the more gay-marriage is assimilated into secular culture, then the more people in the church will start to see it as acceptable and will start to wonder why their church doesn't do it, and those within the church who hold to scripture in regards to marriage will start to be seen as narrow-minded fundamentalists. This is pretty much already the case in my denomination.

Having said that, even in the most liberal denominations (UCC, TEC, UMC, ELCA etc) if a pastor feels morally convicted not to perform a marriage, for whatever reason, that decision is generally respected and held up by the denominational leadership, if there is an appeal to said leadership.

[Sam!]

Jesuslove,

I'm not going to speak for Jason, but I will say nothing in his post suggests to me condemnation of gays. Once again, I will tell you that at present, a gay man has the exact same rights as I do. He and I (well, hypothetically, since I'm already married) can marry one woman. At a time. I love my best male friend, too. When we were in college, we were roommates for a year, before he went off and got married. As straight men, we were not allowed to marry each other, as convenient as it might have been for tax and benefit reasons. Same rights. You want to create some kind of domestic partnership, that's fine. You want to grant domestic partnerships most or all of the same rights as marriage, that's fine. If the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, and only permit gay and straight couples to have one domestic partnership, that's fine. But don't call two gay men who love each other a marriage. It's not.

[Sam!]

I also wonder what's going to happen when a church hires a single man to do something for the church, like say be the sexton. And then he comes out of the closet and "marries" (or enters a civil union with) his gay partner. And the church refuses to offer the partner the spousal health benefit options. I have no problem with the church retaining the services of the man - he's not in a position to teach or be in authority and isn't subject to the same standards as other positions might be - but should a church be allowed to make the decision about benefits like that?

[Sam!]

Amen. I agree, we see this the same way sort of. As a current pastor in a denomination that has flirted with the idea of ordination of non-celibate gays and blessing of same-sex unions, and which will more than likely go ahead and do it some day, this is my concern sort of. Honestly I really don't think there is any precendent for such a thing. When a couple comes to me seeking marriage with marriage license in hand I am under no obligation to marry them. The church's role and the state's role are really kept separate. The church is really pretty open in whatever rationale they can use when it comes to denying someone marriage. I mean there is always the Justice of the peace

But in an increasingly secular society where people look at church through the lens of culture, the more gay-marriage is assimilated into secular culture, then the more people in the church will start to see it as acceptable and will start to wonder why their church doesn't do it, and those within the church who hold to scripture in regards to marriage will start to be seen as narrow-minded fundamentalists. This is pretty much already the case in my denomination.

Having said that, even in the most liberal denominations (UCC, TEC, UMC, ELCA etc) if a pastor feels morally convicted not to perform a marriage, for whatever reason, that decision is generally respected and held up by the denominational leadership, if there is an appeal to said leadership.
We'll see. TEC now has a canon law on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A presbyter could, theoretically, face charges for not marrying two "otherwise qualified" gay or lesbian people.

[Sam!]

Amen. I agree, we see this the same way sort of. As a current pastor in a denomination that has flirted with the idea of ordination of non-celibate gays and blessing of same-sex unions, and which will more than likely go ahead and do it some day, this is my concern sort of. Honestly I really don't think there is any precendent for such a thing. When a couple comes to me seeking marriage with marriage license in hand I am under no obligation to marry them. The church's role and the state's role are really kept separate. The church is really pretty open in whatever rationale they can use when it comes to denying someone marriage. I mean there is always the Justice of the peace

But in an increasingly secular society where people look at church through the lens of culture, the more gay-marriage is assimilated into secular culture, then the more people in the church will start to see it as acceptable and will start to wonder why their church doesn't do it, and those within the church who hold to scripture in regards to marriage will start to be seen as narrow-minded fundamentalists. This is pretty much already the case in my denomination.

Having said that, even in the most liberal denominations (UCC, TEC, UMC, ELCA etc) if a pastor feels morally convicted not to perform a marriage, for whatever reason, that decision is generally respected and held up by the denominational leadership, if there is an appeal to said leadership.
This is the problem we face when we put into leadership people who are good leaders, or charismatic, or good administrators, or even "pretty good" teachers but who lack sound biblical convictions and sound theology. Suddenly, the ones in power are the ones able to browbeat congregations into thinking conservatism is narrow-minded, and holding to the biblical word is "outdated" or a sign of poor education. :(

[Jesuslove]

i think this whole thing could be avoided by requiring everyone to have a civil union contract for insurance, wills, legal purposes etc... and making "marriage" a religious endeavor. God did define marriage b/t man and woman...he didn't define civil contracts and commitment as such. If a marriage is performed by a minister then it's in addition to the civil union contract that is needed to gain insurance benefits and such.

I agree. I think that would solve the whole issue.

[Jesuslove]

Having said that, even in the most liberal denominations (UCC, TEC, UMC, ELCA etc) if a pastor feels morally convicted not to perform a marriage, for whatever reason, that decision is generally respected and held up by the denominational leadership, if there is an appeal to said leadership.

I agree with no. If gay marriage or civil unions were legal, no church would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Canada has gay marriage. Churches aren't required to marry whoever comes to them. Many churches turn down heterosexual adults who want to marry because they don't meet certain benchmarks. I believe Churches should have the right to deny anyone a religious marriage ceremony.

[Jesuslove]

I also wonder what's going to happen when a church hires a single man to do something for the church, like say be the sexton. And then he comes out of the closet and "marries" (or enters a civil union with) his gay partner. And the church refuses to offer the partner the spousal health benefit options. I have no problem with the church retaining the services of the man - he's not in a position to teach or be in authority and isn't subject to the same standards as other positions might be - but should a church be allowed to make the decision about benefits like that?

In NJ, gay couples can have a civil union. Under the NJ laws, churches are exempt from having to offer domestic partner benefits to anyone.

[kiwisongbird]

i think this whole thing could be avoided by requiring everyone to have a civil union contract for insurance, wills, legal purposes etc... and making "marriage" a religious endeavor. God did define marriage b/t man and woman...he didn't define civil contracts and commitment as such. If a marriage is performed by a minister then it's in addition to the civil union contract that is needed to gain insurance benefits and such.

This is a wonderful idea, I think maybe that's why it's call a civil union in New Zealand, people can choose, either is accepted... but they've had common law relationships for a long time - but it didn't include gay relationships.

[Debbie]

Debbie,
We know the rules. We are having a spirited debate in general. The debate is not about whether homosexuality is a sin. We've already determined that. The thread is about whether or not we as a society should allow gays to marry... you know.. allow all tax paying, non-criminal citizens the same rights.

I appreciate you leaving this discussion up, as it is fair game for a topic of discussion.

JL, I appreciate your response. You may know the rules, not everyone here does.

[mercyGurl]

Jesuslove,

I'm not going to speak for Jason, but I will say nothing in his post suggests to me condemnation of gays. Once again, I will tell you that at present, a gay man has the exact same rights as I do. He and I (well, hypothetically, since I'm already married) can marry one woman. At a time. I love my best male friend, too. When we were in college, we were roommates for a year, before he went off and got married. As straight men, we were not allowed to marry each other, as convenient as it might have been for tax and benefit reasons. Same rights. You want to create some kind of domestic partnership, that's fine. You want to grant domestic partnerships most or all of the same rights as marriage, that's fine. If the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, and only permit gay and straight couples to have one domestic partnership, that's fine. But don't call two gay men who love each other a marriage. It's not.
I completely agree with this post. Good points, Sam.

[middletree]

I thought we were not to talk about homosexuality anymore. (Confession: I haven't read any of this thread, other than the very last post before this one)

[VerbumReale]

Can't you see? There is homophobic people out there. Jason won't go so far to say the same about divorcees or other sinners should be given less rights. Funny, he's like many US pastors. He can condemn gays cause that's safe. But condemning other sinners, that's not politically correct. .

We're not talking about divorcees we're talking about homosexuality. Suggesting that simply because he doesn't talk about divorcees here is evidence that he doesn't hold them to the same standard is presumptuous at best, downright in violation of bearing false witness at worse.

Jason has yet to answer my question. Jason wants us to debate, but when I or someone else disagrees with him, he throws a low punch like comparing marital relationships or gay relationships to relationships between humans and animals. That's very disrespectful IMO..

No he's not being disresespectful he is making a point. If we allow marriage to be re-defined for one group then have we not opened to door to other groups such as polygamists.

For the record, I think homosexuals are sinners. I think heterosexuals are sinners. We are all sinners. We all fall short. Yet God created us and loves us...

And with that statement you are doing something that those who are pushing for homosexual marriage are not doing when it comes to homosexuality; acknowledging your behavior as sinful. You say your a sinner, great. Are you asking anyone to bless and affirm your sin??

As taxpaying Americans, I think gay people and all people (excluding those participating in criminal behavior) should be entitled to the exact same rights and responsibilities. There is a separation of Church and state in America, and it was intended to protect individuals' civil liberties. Our forefathers wrote these rights into the Constitution so that minority groups weren't treated differently than the majority.

Giving everybody equal rights, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not, is not only an American principle, it's a Christian principle.

And how are gay people's rights being denied??? They can get married. In another post you said that it has been conceded that homosexual relationships are sinful. Do you agree with that?? If so then I can only assume that you must be in favor of marriage as it has been defined by God in scripture. By saying that two men or two women should be allowed to marry each other then are you not condoning a definition of marriage that is different from how it is defined in scripture??

And you might see this as homophobic, and based on how you reacted to Jason, I am guessing you do. But for whatever it's worth I agree with Sam, let them have a domestic partnership or cvill-union with all the rights and priveleges that would come with marriage. So I am not talking about denying anyone their rights and I don't think anyone else is. But if we believe the Bible to be God's Word then when we say that two men should be allowed to marry each other and two women should be allowed to marry each other, then are we not implicitly condoning a re-defining of marriage?

Do you condone a re-defining of marriage, as opposed to how marriage is defined in scripture? If so then be honest enough to admit it.

[Yippy]

I guess I'll just go on talking to myself...;)

If the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, and only permit gay and straight couples to have one domestic partnership, that's fine. But don't call two gay men who love each other a marriage. It's not.
Not according to our beliefs, but do we really have the right to impose our definition of marriage on all those who don't believe? Is the word "marriage" owned by the church? If the government did get out of the marriage business & only permit domestic partnerships, how would the use of the word marriage be used from that point on? Would we really gain the monopoly on the word? I guess I don't understand the difference between marriage and a domestic partnership, since most marriages don't involve God anyway and both are a legal committment to another person.

I'm just confuzzled.:)

Just today, my husband got a petiiton calling for a Federal Marriage Protection sent to him and forwarded it to me. I'm all for it, but was disappointed that there was no good reasoning for it other than "it is only common sense that marriage is between a man and a woman."

I found this to be far more interesting:
from grassfire.org: The recent ruling that legalizes homosexual marriage in California should sound the alarm for citizens across the nation to support a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Following the California Supreme Court ruling—that ignored the majority of California residents who supported a marriage protection amendment, the White House issued a statement condemning the actions of the High Court:

“It’s unfortunate when activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage
by court order – without regard for the will of the people. Today’s decision by
the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.”

Given such attacks on the state level, it is clear that no state marriage amendment or law is secure, and only a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will effectively defend marriage from the onslaught of these tyrannical courts!

[Yippy]

I thought we were not to talk about homosexuality anymore. (Confession: I haven't read any of this thread, other than the very last post before this one)

Read the thread...it'll explain.:) James, you of all people, not reading the thread before posting???;)

[VerbumReale]

I guess I'll just go on talking to myself...;)


Not according to our beliefs, but do we really have the right to impose our definition of marriage on all those who don't believe? Is the word "marriage" owned by the church? If the government did get out of the marriage business & only permit domestic partnerships, how would the use of the word marriage be used from that point on? Would we really gain the monopoly on the word? I guess I don't understand the difference between marriage and a domestic partnership, since most marriages don't involve God anyway and both are a legal committment to another person.

I'm just confuzzled.:)

Just today, my husband got a petiiton calling for a Federal Marriage Protection sent to him and forwarded it to me. I'm all for it, but was disappointed that there was no good reasoning for it other than "it is only common sense that marriage is between a man and a woman."

I found this to be far more interesting:

In a sense yes we do "own" the word marriage in that the concept of marriage has it's very origins in Genesis.

Genesis 2:24 ESV
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

These are the words of God. Notice He doesn't say a Hebrew man, a believing man, a faithful man, He says "A man..." He sets this standard for all people, believers or not.

Now I realize that we can't expect un-believers to take a standard set in the Bible seriously when they don't even believe in the Bible, but neither should we just throw our arms up and say "OK you just have a deifferent view of marriage than we do." Neither am I saying that we all need to support legislation for amendments that will oppose re-defining marriage. It's simply a matter of recognizing how scripture defines marriage and refusing to condone any other standard. If a vote like this comes up in my state I will individually vote whatever way would uphold the traditional view. But I won't tell people how to vote on it from the pulpit. I may remind them from the pulpit how God defines marriage, but I won't tell them how to vote on it.

And yes there are many examples of polygamy in the Old Testament, and those are just as much in violation of this standard as gay-marriage. Maybe that is why Jesus affirms and upholds this standard of marriage in Matthew and Mark.

In essence what I am saying is the state can try to re-define marriage all they want, they can allow people of the same-sex to get married and in the eyes of the state they will be married. But that doesn't make it marriage in the eyes of God, and so as far as I am concerned that shouldn't make it marriage in the eyes of the church in any way shape or form.

Too many people in the church have bought into the myth that this is social issue for the church. It's not a social issue for us, it's a scriptural issue. I have no ax to grind with homosexuals. But I refuse to recognize the blessing of a same-sex marriage as a real marriage since scripture doesn't define it as such. And that for me is the real issue; scriptural authority. I am opposed to gay marriage and the blessing of same-sex unions, but it's merely symptomatic of a much bigger issue; the denigration of scriptural authority in the church.

[Sam!]

I guess I'll just go on talking to myself...;)


Not according to our beliefs, but do we really have the right to impose our definition of marriage on all those who don't believe? Is the word "marriage" owned by the church? If the government did get out of the marriage business & only permit domestic partnerships, how would the use of the word marriage be used from that point on? Would we really gain the monopoly on the word? I guess I don't understand the difference between marriage and a domestic partnership, since most marriages don't involve God anyway and both are a legal committment to another person.
Well of course the question is, "on which moral issues do we get to legislate?"

Yip, when a man and a woman marry one another and God is not a part of their home, their marriage is till a shadow or empty form of what God intended. It's a flawed implementation of what He designed. Forgive me for using the word, because I think it sounds harsher and more judgmental than I intend, but the so-called 'marriage' of homosexuals is a perversion of God's design.

[Yippy]

Thanks Steve (is it Steve, Kyle's dad? I don't trust my memory these days) & Sam. I agree with you both. I just think Christians in America have done such a botched up job being the "salt & light" that we've pretty much lost our influence. So, saying "the Bible says" when our lives rarely match up with the rest of what the Bible says and reducing our arguments to bumper sticker cliches doesn't seem to cut it to me. We're so quick to point out what are abominations to God and so slow to actually be Christ-like. I wonder how many Christians debating these issues around the country actually extend grace & mercy to gays (without even thinking "hate the sin, love the sinner"). It seems Christians get all bristly when it comes to anything homosexual related. And I guess I can see why gay Americans would want to be legally married. They want their relationships validated & protected like anyone else. I think we've done a lousy job letting them & society know that God's design is only for our good because He is love. Thankfully, God isn't limited to our reflection of Him (or lack of). But I think we do get lost in cliches & don't take the time to formulate well-thought out arguments.

So, what do you all think of the CA Supreme Court ignoring the majority of CA residents supporting a marriage protection amendment?

[Debbie]

For tonight let's give this topic a rest. We can regroup our thoughts in the morning. I will reopen the thread by noon est.

GODnite!

[Debbie]

Thread is open....

You are free to continue this discussion. Thank you everyone for sticking to the topic!

[Jesuslove]

We're not talking about divorcees we're talking about homosexuality. Suggesting that simply because he doesn't talk about divorcees here is evidence that he doesn't hold them to the same standard is presumptuous at best, downright in violation of bearing false witness at worse.

J
No we are not talking about homosexuality. We're talking about marriage and who has the right to marry.

As for Jason, he can speak for himself. On the Quran post, you put words in my mouth then later apologized when called on it. If you want to debate that's fine, but it seems as if you want to attack me. That's the way it feels. I'll debate anything, but speak for yourself, not others. And for you to say I bear false witness... you just apologized to me on the Quran thread for bearing false witness against me. Let's stick to the facts and debate. Peace.



No he's not being disresespectful he is making a point. If we allow marriage to be re-defined for one group then have we not opened to door to other groups such as polygamists.
Says who? Per the dictionary, marriage is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage,"



And with that statement you are doing something that those who are pushing for homosexual marriage are not doing when it comes to homosexuality; acknowledging your behavior as sinful. You say your a sinner, great. Are you asking anyone to bless and affirm your sin??

My point is if we are going to ban gay marriage, why not ban other sins, like pornography, alcoholism, divorce, etc. etc. etc. Why single out one sin over the others and legislate against it. WE are all sinners.


And how are gay people's rights being denied??? They can get married. In another post you said that it has been conceded that homosexual relationships are sinful. Do you agree with that?? If so then I can only assume that you must be in favor of marriage as it has been defined by God in scripture. By saying that two men or two women should be allowed to marry each other then are you not condoning a definition of marriage that is different from how it is defined in scripture??

If you read back through the post, I gave examples. I agree that homosexual relations are sinful. Being homosexual or possessing homosexual thoughts or inclinations in an of itself is not sinful. Most churches would agree. It's actions, not thoughts that are sinful. That being said, sin isn't sufficient enough basis to deny citizens their civil rights. If we're going to legislate sin, why not legislate all sin. Why pick and choose which sins to legislate. To me, the Christian that wants to legislate against gay marriage, but believes in divorce is a hypocrite.

You mention marriage is scripture is between a Man and a Woman. We do not live in a theocracy. The Declaration of Independence guarantees and protects the rights of the minority against the rights of the majority. It guarantees that we are all afforded the same rights.



And you might see this as homophobic, and based on how you reacted to Jason, I am guessing you do. But for whatever it's worth I agree with Sam, let them have a domestic partnership or cvill-union with all the rights and priveleges that would come with marriage. So I am not talking about denying anyone their rights and I don't think anyone else is. But if we believe the Bible to be God's Word then when we say that two men should be allowed to marry each other and two women should be allowed to marry each other, then are we not implicitly condoning a re-defining of marriage?

Do you condone a re-defining of marriage, as opposed to how marriage is defined in scripture? If so then be honest enough to admit it.

I have mixed feelings. I don't disagree with the concept of civil unions or domestic partnerships IF they convey the same rights. Civil Unions were granted in NJ last February. The NJ legislature, at the direction of the NJ Supreme Court, said that civil unions had to convey the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Since then, there have been over 500 complaints of couples being treated unequally. Some aren't offered reciprocal health benefits from their employer for example. So unless civil unions contain the same rights and responsibilities of religious marriage, then I say no.

I'll reiterate... it's plain and simple.... every citizen deserves the same rights period, as long as they are within the law.

[VerbumReale]

Says who? Per the dictionary, marriage is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage,"

And per God's Word it is one man and one woman. Are we bound to God's Word or a dictionary?

And actually the thoughts are just as sinful as the actions, I believe Jesus said something about that. But obviously we can't legislate thoughts, but we can legislate actions.

But that's not necessarily what I am talking about either. For me what this is about is can the church call something marriage that scripure does not define as marriage?? I don't think we can. I am not saying that we all need vote in favor of amendments to limit the definition of marriage. If there is such a vote in your state, then vote your conscience.

It's not about denying anyone their rights. It's about people in the church simply ackowledging how marriage is defined in the Bible, which by the way is where it was defined long before any dictionary had a defintion for it. It's about Christians saying that the state can allow for "gay-marriages" all they want but they cannot force us to recognize those as marriages.

And if you are in the camp that doesn't have a problem with gay-marriages, even if only on a civil level, then at least have the honesty to admit that you are condoning a definition of marriage inconsistent with the Bible.

[Jesuslove]

And per God's Word it is one man and one woman. Are we bound to God's Word or a dictionary?

As Americans of various denominations, we are bound by the Constitution.

It's not about denying anyone their rights. It's about people in the church simply ackowledging how marriage is defined in the Bible, which by the way is where it was defined long before any dictionary had a defintion for it.

If it's not about denying citizens rights, than what are you afraid of? The Bible isn't our Constitution.

It's about Christians saying that the state can allow for "gay-marriages" all they want but they cannot force us to recognize those as marriages.

Christians can say what they want. We are not a Theocracy. There is a separation between church and state. It's about individual's rights. And not all Christians agree with you on the issue of gay marriage.


And if you are in the camp that doesn't have a problem with gay-marriages, even if only on a civil level, then at least have the honesty to admit that you are condoning a definition of marriage inconsistent with the Bible.
Yes I admit. I believe in equality for all people. My definition of a marriage or civil union is the union of two non-related beings of sound mind who are above the age of consent. That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian.

[VerbumReale]

As Americans of various denominations, we are bound by the Constitution..

And so the question is do you see yourself first as an American or a servant of God. When the constitution provides a definition of marriage different from the Bible then which one are you bound to?






Christians can say what they want. We are not a Theocracy. There is a separation between church and state. It's about individual's rights. And not all Christians agree with you on the issue of gay marriage...

I am not condoning a theocracy. And I am all for gay people being allowed to have their own union equivalent to marriage with all the same rights and priveleges. I am not trying to deny anyone rights. I realize that not all Christians agree with me on gay-marriage. But it's not about agreeing with me it's about agreeing with scripture. Scripture clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman. And it's not referring just to belivers. Now as I pointed out in another post, of course we can't expect non-believers to honor that and so if the state wants to adopt "gay-marriage" then fine.

My point is if Christians are going to confess to believe in what the Bible says about marriage then under no circumstances can they say that they agree with the Bible about marriage and call same-sex unions marriage, even if the state does. Now if Christians are going to call same-sex unions marriage that's fine too. And I am not saying that such an opinion would cause them to cease being a Christian. But it would mean that they recognize a definition of marriage that the Bible doesn't recognize. If you're OK with that fine. But admit that to be the case.

Again I am not talking about a theocracy. I am just saying that the state can call same-sex unions marriage all they want, but I won't recognize them as such and any Christian who claims to agree with how the Bible defines marriage shouldn't either. I am not trying to deny them rights. If gay-marriage is adopted all over the country, fine, gay people will have the right to get married. Just as I will have the right to not recognize their union as marriage.


Catholics don't recognize marriages done outside of the RC church as marriage, which means they don't recognize mine as marriage. That doesn't bother me and nor do I consider that seeking a theocracy.

[Jesuslove]

And so the question is do you see yourself first as an American or a servant of God. When the constitution provides a definition of marriage different from the Bible then which one are you bound to?

I happen to be a servant of God AND a law abiding American. I am Constitutionally bound by man-made laws. I will answer to God about his laws in the afterlife.


Catholics don't recognize marriages done outside of the RC church as marriage, which means they don't recognize mine as marriage. That doesn't bother me and nor do I consider that seeking a theocracy.

This is simply not true. The Catholic church does recognize marriages within other faiths. So let me get this straight... you're suggesting that if you get married to a woman (as a man) in a Methodist church, you can later marry another woman in the Catholic church since the church doesn't recognize the first (non-Catholic) marriage?

[Valpo]

if the US Constitution was amended to ban Christianity or the practice of any and all religions, would you still be a "law abiding American citizen?"

[VerbumReale]

This is simply not true. The Catholic church does recognize marriages within other faiths. So let me get this straight... you're suggesting that if you get married to a woman (as a man) in a Methodist church, you can later marry another woman in the Catholic church since the church doesn't recognize the first (non-Catholic) marriage?

What I am saying is if my wife and I converted to Catholocism we would have to have our marrige blessed by a Catholic priest before it was considered valid in the eyes of the RC church. The Catholic church doed consider protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the state but not in the eyes of God. And I am not saying that state sanctioned "gay-marriages" would not be vaild in the eyes of the state, of course they would, but that would not be valid in the eyes of God, and as far as I am concerned that makes them in reality at best psuedo-marriages.

[Jesuslove]

What I am saying is if my wife and I converted to Catholocism we would have to have our marrige blessed by a Catholic priest before it was considered valid in the eyes of the RC church. The Catholic church doed consider protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the state but not in the eyes of God. And I am not saying that state sanctioned "gay-marriages" would not be vaild in the eyes of the state, of course they would, but that would not be valid in the eyes of God, and as far as I am concerned that makes them in reality at best psuedo-marriages.

Again, I disagree. I am Catholic. I assure you, your marriage would be recognized if you came to my church. I have never heard anyone in the church suggest that protestant marriages aren't valid, ever!

[Howlin' Wolf]

And per God's Word it is one man and one woman. Are we bound to God's Word or a dictionary?

God's word is not the constitution and thereby doesnt define the laws of this country. If it did, then we wouldnt be able to let women, who are menstruating, into the house.

the gay couple across the street has ZERO bearing on my faith, whatsoever!

[VerbumReale]

God's word is not the constitution and thereby doesnt define the laws of this country. If it did, then we wouldnt be able to let women, who are menstruating, into the house.

the gay couple across the street has ZERO bearing on my faith, whatsoever!


I am not talking about the laws of the land. I am not condoning a theocracy here. I never said the Bible defines the law of the land. What I am saying is not that difficult.

What I am saying is simple. The Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman. As of right now in most cases in the US, so does the state, but from every indication that is changing.

Let's say it changed in a state that I was living in right now. Let's say there was a gay couple that lived across the street from me and they went out and got married. Fine. I agree with you, their life has no bearing on my faith. In their eyes they would be married. And in the state's eyes they would be married. I don't deny that and in no way would I try to deny them the right to call their union a marriage.

But neither the gay couple across the street nor the state can force me to consider any gay union as a marriage. And I have no delusion that the gay couple across the street would care one way or the other.

You are right. God's Word does not define the laws of the land and I never suggested it does or even should. But it works the other way around also. The laws of the land do not define God's Word. This is all I am saying. Let the state grant whatever kind of marriage they want with all the rights and priveleges. And in the eyes of the state those will be marriages. But that will do nothing to change how God's Word defines marriage, this is all I am saying. The gay couple across the street can get married and call it marriage and enjoy all the rights and the priveleges they want. And I am not going to try and trample on that. But neither will I call it marriage.

[VerbumReale]

Again, I disagree. I am Catholic. I assure you, your marriage would be recognized if you came to my church. I have never heard anyone in the church suggest that protestant marriages aren't valid, ever!

You can't seem to separate legal from sacred. Yes of course they would recognize our marriage valid in a legal sense but it would not be conisdered a sacred union in the eyes of God and so it would not be considered a God ordained marriage.

I know this because a priest told me. I did my internship in a town that was 75% Catholic so a lot of the members at the church that I served were married to Catholics. I developed a pretty good relationship with the Catholic priest while I was there. We had lunch one day and we were talking about the various Protestant-Catholic marriages. He told me that when these couples would worship at the Catholic church, neither one of them were allowed to commune. And I asked why. I said I could understand why you might not commune the Protestant but why not the Catholic? And he said because they don't consider them married. And I said why because they married a Protestant? He said no because the wedding was not in a Catholic church and so it wasn't a marriage that was recognized by the Catholic church.

[Jesuslove]

You can't seem to separate legal from sacred. Yes of course they would recognize our marriage valid in a legal sense but it would not be conisdered a sacred union in the eyes of God and so it would not be considered a God ordained marriage.

I know this because a priest told me. I did my internship in a town that was 75% Catholic so a lot of the members at the church that I served were married to Catholics. I developed a pretty good relationship with the Catholic priest while I was there. We had lunch one day and we were talking about the various Protestant-Catholic marriages. He told me that when these couples would worship at the Catholic church, neither one of them were allowed to commune. And I asked why. I said I could understand why you might not commune the Protestant but why not the Catholic? And he said because they don't consider them married. And I said why because they married a Protestant? He said no because the wedding was not in a Catholic church and so it wasn't a marriage that was recognized by the Catholic church.

Once again, I disagree. True, prodestants aren't supposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church. However, that's not to say a marriage isn't recognized. I've attended a wedding between a Catholic and a Jew, and the church married them. The church would surely recognize the marriage of one or more prodestants.

[Jesuslove]

if the US Constitution was amended to ban Christianity or the practice of any and all religions, would you still be a "law abiding American citizen?"

I'm not sure how this ties into the marriage debate.

[VerbumReale]

Once again, I disagree. True, prodestants aren't supposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church. However, that's not to say a marriage isn't recognized. I've attended a wedding between a Catholic and a Jew, and the church married them. The church would surely recognize the marriage of one or more prodestants.


Did this marriage take place in an RC church? If so then it must have been a pretty liberal priest. Was the Jew expected to convert?? I am not doubting what your telling me, but I am not pulling what I am saying out of my hat either. This is all stuff that I heard directly from the mouth of a priest who I had a close collegial relationship with for a year. Maybe there are varying views on this among priests. But honestly none of what this priest told me surprised me based on what Rome itself has said about Protestants in the past. Just recently Pope Benedict said that Protestant churches were not part of the true Christian church. I can only assume that what the Pope says is reflected throughout Catholocism. So if the RC church doesn't consider Protestants to be part of the true Christian church then why would they consider Protestant marriages to be Christian marriages? Based on the Pope's comments this wedding that you went to was one that was done either in direct opposition to the views of the Pope or was beind recognized only on a civil level by the Roman Catholic church. I knew these couples well and spoke with them and they told me themselves that neither one of them (the Catholic or the Protsetant) were being allowed to commune. This priest was known for being old-school, but I don't think he would have made anything up.

[Jesuslove]

Did this marriage take place in an RC church? If so then it must have been a pretty liberal priest. Was the Jew expected to convert?? I am not doubting what your telling me, but I am not pulling what I am saying out of my hat either. This is all stuff that I heard directly from the mouth of a priest who I had a close collegial relationship with for a year. Maybe there are varying views on this among priests. But honestly none of what this priest told me surprised me based on what Rome itself has said about Protestants in the past. Just recently Pope Benedict said that Protestant churches were not part of the true Christian church. I can only assume that what the Pope says is reflected throughout Catholocism. So if the RC church doesn't consider Protestants to be part of the true Christian church then why would they consider Protestant marriages to be Christian marriages? Based on the Pope's comments this wedding that you went to was one that was done either in direct opposition to the views of the Pope or was beind recognized only on a civil level by the Roman Catholic church. I knew these couples well and spoke with them and they told me themselves that neither one of them (the Catholic or the Protsetant) were being allowed to commune. This priest was known for being old-school, but I don't think he would have made anything up.

It did take place in a Catholic church. I knew the (Jewish) bride; she was a coworker. I don't know the political leanings of the church in which she was married. My coworker was not expected to convert, but was asked to raise any children borne by the marriage, as Catholics.

You said, that the Catholic Church considers themselves the only true Christian church. That's old school Catholocism. There are many prodestants that don't consider Catholics Christian. I don't know any Catholics that feel superior to Prodestants. I know my parish priest would NEVER suggest or believe that. In fact, my parish has inter-faith services periodically with the local prodestant churches.

[Valpo]

It did take place in a Catholic church. I knew the (Jewish) bride; she was a coworker. I don't know the political leanings of the church in which she was married. My coworker was not expected to convert, but was asked to raise any children borne by the marriage, as Catholics.

You said, that the Catholic Church considers themselves the only true Christian church. That's old school Catholocism. There are many prodestants that don't consider Catholics Christian. I don't know any Catholics that feel superior to Prodestants. I know my parish priest would NEVER suggest or believe that. In fact, my parish has inter-faith services periodically with the local prodestant churches.

Well, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, your priest is wrong and should lose his license to be a priest. He has violated his ordination vows of the Roman Catholic Church. Just because your priest/church is more opening and welcoming to Protestants does not mean that's how the Vatican sees it. And regardless of being in America, the Vatican is still the law. It's super that your priest is more ecumenical than most, but he is certainly not the norm, nor is your church. If the Bishop knew what was going on there, your priest would be in serious trouble.

[VerbumReale]

It did take place in a Catholic church. I knew the (Jewish) bride; she was a coworker. I don't know the political leanings of the church in which she was married. My coworker was not expected to convert, but was asked to raise any children borne by the marriage, as Catholics.

You said, that the Catholic Church considers themselves the only true Christian church. That's old school Catholocism. There are many prodestants that don't consider Catholics Christian. I don't know any Catholics that feel superior to Prodestants. I know my parish priest would NEVER suggest or believe that. In fact, my parish has inter-faith services periodically with the local prodestant churches.

Then I'd have to say from my expereince this wedding must have been done in a pretty liberal church. Understand I am not necessarily talking about their political leanings but rather their doctrinal leanings.

And really how old-school can the idea of the RC church being the only true Christian church be if the current Pope made such remarks less than a year ago and was praised for doing so? If it's old-school then it appears it's making a comeback.

[VerbumReale]

Well, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, your priest is wrong and should lose his license to be a priest. He has violated his ordination vows of the Roman Catholic Church. Just because your priest/church is more opening and welcoming to Protestants does not mean that's how the Vatican sees it. And regardless of being in America, the Vatican is still the law. It's super that your priest is more ecumenical than most, but he is certainly not the norm, nor is your church. If the Bishop knew what was going on there, your priest would be in serious trouble.


Not if the bishop is just as liberal as the priest. Not disagreeing with you in principle of course. It's just that from my experience in my church-body I can tell you that orthodoxy of a bishop is never something that can be assumed, in fact I have become inherently suspicious of bishops in my own church-body.

[Yippy]

But neither the gay couple across the street nor the state can force me to consider any gay union as a marriage. And I have no delusion that the gay couple across the street would care one way or the other.



I don't see that as being a part of the law legalizing gay marriage. Do you think that once gays are legally able to obtain a marriage license that YOU will by law have to consider their marriages as God-ordained?

Isn't the question, "Should we support gays having the same rights as straights in this country? (Should they, as American citizens, be able to marry in the eyes of the law?") I never read it as "Should we have to accept gay marriages as God-ordained?"

[Valpo]

Not if the bishop is just as liberal as the priest. Not disagreeing with you in principle of course. It's just that from my experience in my church-body I can tell you that orthodoxy of a bishop is never something that can be assumed, in fact I have become inherently suspicious of bishops in my own church-body.

Well, in the ELCA yeah. But generally if there's one thing the Roman authorities do well it is keep to the same teachings. I would be shocked if a Roman Bishop, even in this country, was doctrinally/theologically liberal. There are also Cardinals in the area, and JL lives in NJ, which is obviously close to NYC and Cardinal Egan is quite the staunch conservative Catholic.

[Sam!]

As I've already stated, they already DO have the same rights as persons of heterosexual practices and attraction.

[Jesuslove]

Well, in the ELCA yeah. But generally if there's one thing the Roman authorities do well it is keep to the same teachings. I would be shocked if a Roman Bishop, even in this country, was doctrinally/theologically liberal. There are also Cardinals in the area, and JL lives in NJ, which is obviously close to NYC and Cardinal Egan is quite the staunch conservative Catholic.
Frankly, most all the current Cardinals are conservative, BUT there are many priests who are liberal. I belong to a multi-lingual, multi-cultural parish. My parish, which is predominately Hispanic is merging wtih a predominately African American parish.

[Jesuslove]

Then I'd have to say from my expereince this wedding must have been done in a pretty liberal church. Understand I am not necessarily talking about their political leanings but rather their doctrinal leanings.

And really how old-school can the idea of the RC church being the only true Christian church be if the current Pope made such remarks less than a year ago and was praised for doing so? If it's old-school then it appears it's making a comeback.

The Pope is conservative theologically and politically, as are most of the current crop of Cardinals. However, many priests are liberal. Unlike 50 years ago, most Catholics don't take the Pope's word as Gospel. Most Catholics in America are free thinkers and don't ascribe to one political party or another; at least that's been my personal experience.

[VerbumReale]

I don't see that as being a part of the law legalizing gay marriage. Do you think that once gays are legally able to obtain a marriage license that YOU will by law have to consider their marriages as God-ordained?


No of course not. My point is that if a Christian were to call such a union a marriage then they are calling something a marriage that the Bible does not. If they are ok with that, fine, but they should have the honesty to admit that they are calling something marriage that the Bible doesn't.

Again this is not about trying to withold anyone's rights. I am fine with the gay couple across the street forming a state-sanctioned union. I would prefer that the state not call such a union a marriage, but if they do fine, but I won't.

JL, unless I am misinterpreting him seems to want it both ways. He seems to want to say that he holds to how the Bible defines marriage and yet he wants to be able to call state-sanctioned same-sex unions marriage. And in doing that he doesn't want to admit that he would be calling something marriage that the Bible doesn't.

Inclusiveness is great, but too often Christians can't come tp terms with the fact that sometimes inclusiveness is at odds with faithfulness.

[VerbumReale]

The Pope is conservative theologically and politically, as are most of the current crop of Cardinals. However, many priests are liberal. Unlike 50 years ago, most Catholics don't take the Pope's word as Gospel. Most Catholics in America are free thinkers and don't ascribe to one political party or another; at least that's been my personal experience.


Maybe they don't take the Pope's word as Gospel but certainly they have great reverence and respect for the Pope and what he says. I remember when he was here last month, people were going crazy. Most Catholics that I have met do not fit the image that you are conveying, maybe it's regional differences I don't know. And the priests that I have met would never preside over a marriage between a Jew and a Catholic without having the Jew convert.

But regardless even if every priest in the country disregarded what the Pope said, would they not in essence be defying the Catholic Church. The Pope's word may not be Gospel in the RC, but it is law in a sense, is it not??

[VerbumReale]

Well, in the ELCA yeah. But generally if there's one thing the Roman authorities do well it is keep to the same teachings. I would be shocked if a Roman Bishop, even in this country, was doctrinally/theologically liberal. There are also Cardinals in the area, and JL lives in NJ, which is obviously close to NYC and Cardinal Egan is quite the staunch conservative Catholic.

Fair enough

[Jesuslove]

JL, unless I am misinterpreting him seems to want it both ways. He seems to want to say that he holds to how the Bible defines marriage and yet he wants to be able to call state-sanctioned same-sex unions marriage. And in doing that he doesn't want to admit that he would be calling something marriage that the Bible doesn't.



I don't want it both ways. I just think that we should treat all American citizens with the same level of respect and rights. If civil unions offer the same exact benefits as marriages, then I support civil unions.

[Jesuslove]

Maybe they don't take the Pope's word as Gospel but certainly they have great reverence and respect for the Pope and what he says. I remember when he was here last month, people were going crazy. Most Catholics that I have met do not fit the image that you are conveying, maybe it's regional differences I don't know. And the priests that I have met would never preside over a marriage between a Jew and a Catholic without having the Jew convert.

But regardless even if every priest in the country disregarded what the Pope said, would they not in essence be defying the Catholic Church. The Pope's word may not be Gospel in the RC, but it is law in a sense, is it not??

Catholics generally do like the Pope.... this Pope isn't near as charasmatic as JP II. Americans are often at odds with the Vatican over their positions on social issues and their treatment of women in the church. American Catholics are also very disturbed by the level of abuse by priests. Catholics are attending mass in smaller numbers. My Diocese (Camden NJ) recently announced the closure of 55 churches of the 126 presently in the Diocese because of reduced donations, reduced attendances, and a shortage of priests.

You asked if the Pope's word was law.. not really. For example, we are discouraged as Catholics to support a pro-choice candidate, but many people do. I would venture to say that in my inner-city parish in NJ, the vast majority will vote for Obama, who is pro-choice.

[Sam!]

Catholics generally do like the Pope.... this Pope isn't near as charasmatic as JP II. Americans are often at odds with the Vatican over their positions on social issues and their treatment of women in the church. American Catholics are also very disturbed by the level of abuse by priests. Catholics are attending mass in smaller numbers. My Diocese (Camden NJ) recently announced the closure of 55 churches of the 126 presently in the Diocese because of reduced donations, reduced attendances, and a shortage of priests.

You asked if the Pope's word was law.. not really. For example, we are discouraged as Catholics to support a pro-choice candidate, but many people do. I would venture to say that in my inner-city parish in NJ, the vast majority will vote for Obama, who is pro-choice.
A Catholic publication in SW Fla (by a parish or the diocese of venice, i think) threatened that voting for a pro-choice candidate could threaten the eternal well-being of your soul. I'm not kidding.

[VerbumReale]

Catholics generally do like the Pope.... this Pope isn't near as charasmatic as JP II. Americans are often at odds with the Vatican over their positions on social issues and their treatment of women in the church. American Catholics are also very disturbed by the level of abuse by priests. Catholics are attending mass in smaller numbers. My Diocese (Camden NJ) recently announced the closure of 55 churches of the 126 presently in the Diocese because of reduced donations, reduced attendances, and a shortage of priests.

You asked if the Pope's word was law.. not really. For example, we are discouraged as Catholics to support a pro-choice candidate, but many people do. I would venture to say that in my inner-city parish in NJ, the vast majority will vote for Obama, who is pro-choice.


OK maybe the Pope's word isn't law when it comes to voting for pro-choice candidates. Although I have heard of instances that would dispute that such as Catholic pro-choice politicians being denied the Eucharist and Sam's post certainly seems to suggest a different scenario in Florida. But certainly when Pope Benedict speaks on whether or not Protestants are part of the true Christian church then that is considered an authoratative statement that would be reflected all through the Catholic church right, or at least it would be expected to be the case/

[Valpo]

Either way, whether the priests are liberal or not. They are in violation of their ordination vows. So my point still stands. Roman Doctrine is clear.

[Yippy]

No of course not. My point is that if a Christian were to call such a union a marriage then they are calling something a marriage that the Bible does not. If they are ok with that, fine, but they should have the honesty to admit that they are calling something marriage that the Bible doesn't.

IMO, this issue is not about what Christians are calling it. It's what Americans are calling it. If Americans want to call it marriage & gays want to call themselves married, that doesn't change God's Word on it. It doesn't change my belief in what it means. Now, we as Christians can offer our opinion as to what it means, and can even vote & petition, but I don't think we should get up in arms, because a segment of society wants to use "our word" and I'm not so sure it's our place to say they can't use it.

You're okay with gays having all the rights & privileges of marriage via a civil union, but you're not okay with them calling it a marriage. What does it matter what they call it? What changes? I'm really not understanding. I'd be happy with civil unions across the board, leaving marriage to the church, but I can't honestly see that working out in real life. Do you really think the majority of Americans, especially those who don't believe in Christ the Lord, will hand over the word "marriage" and settle for "civil union"?

Inclusiveness is great, but too often Christians can't come tp terms with the fact that sometimes inclusiveness is at odds with faithfulness.
I'm not understanding who's being unfaithful and why in this debate. Am I at odds with faithfulness because I might think that American gays in a domestic partnership ought to have the same privileges as American straights as defined by our government?

Thanks for the discussion.:)

[VerbumReale]

IMO, this issue is not about what Christians are calling it. It's what Americans are calling it. If Americans want to call it marriage & gays want to call themselves married, that doesn't change God's Word on it. It doesn't change my belief in what it means. Now, we as Christians can offer our opinion as to what it means, and can even vote & petition, but I don't think we should get up in arms, because a segment of society wants to use "our word" and I'm not so sure it's our place to say they can't use it.


You're okay with gays having all the rights & privileges of marriage via a civil union, but you're not okay with them calling it a marriage. What does it matter what they call it? What changes? I'm really not understanding. I'd be happy with civil unions across the board, leaving marriage to the church, but I can't honestly see that working out in real life. Do you really think the majority of Americans, especially those who don't believe in Christ the Lord, will hand over the word "marriage" and settle for "civil union"?

That is exactly my point. I think we are pretty much on the same page. Of course I would rather they be called civil unions, but if that doesn't happen and eventually we have state sanctioned "gay marriages" all over the country (Which I believe will happen) then so be it. I am not going to get up in arms over it or petition over it or write my congressmen. You are right this is a civil issue and so it is about what Americans are calling it as opposed to what Christians are calling it and it's not really our place to say they can't use it. Neither is it anyone's place to say that I have to recognize same-sex unions as marriages. If gay-marriage becomes a reality all over the US then I will of course acknowledge them as marriages in the civil sense. But no matter what the state calls it, that will not change what God's Word says and so I will not call it a marriage in the eyes of God, which ultimately as far as I am concerned is the defintion that takes precedence.


II'm not understanding who's being unfaithful and why in this debate. Am I at odds with faithfulness because I might think that American gays in a domestic partnership ought to have the same privileges as American straights as defined by our government?

Thanks for the discussion.:)


No thats not what I am saying at all. I think gay couples should have the opportunity to form state-sanctioned domestic partnerships with all the same rights and priveleges that straight married couples have also. I would prefer that such unions not be referred to as marriages but if they are then I am not going to get up in arms.

What I was talking about when I referred to not recognizing when inclusiveness is at odds with faithfulness was those in the church who want to say that same-sex unions are blessed by God. There is such a movement in my church-body even though scripture is clear about it being one man and one woman. In my opinion these are people who are showing more interest in being inclusive and politically correct than they are in being faithful to God's Word.

[Yippy]

No thats not what I am saying at all. I think gay couples should have the opportunity to form state-sanctioned domestic partnerships with all the same rights and priveleges that straight married couples have also. I would prefer that such unions not be referred to as marriages but if they are then I am not going to get up in arms.

What I was talking about when I referred to not recognizing when inclusiveness is at odds with faithfulness was those in the church who want to say that same-sex unions are blessed by God. There is such a movement in my church-body even though scripture is clear about it being one man and one woman. In my opinion these are people who are showing more interest in being inclusive and politically correct than they are in being faithful to God's Word.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining. I must've missed something earlier. (By the way, I wasn't implying that you were going to get up in arms:) )

[Sam!]

IMO, this issue is not about what Christians are calling it. It's what Americans are calling it. If Americans want to call it marriage & gays want to call themselves married, that doesn't change God's Word on it. I don't think Americans DO want to call it marriage. Should that be our decision?

[Jesuslove]

I don't think Americans DO want to call it marriage. Should that be our decision?

As someone else posted... does it really make a difference what it is called? Gays may call it marriage whether it is or not. As long as it conveys the same rights, then I think it will be fair.

[VerbumReale]

As someone else posted... does it really make a difference what it is called? Gays may call it marriage whether it is or not. As long as it conveys the same rights, then I think it will be fair.

For a lot of people it does come down to what we call it. I think we have gotten to where most Americans are OK with civil unions that would allow the same rights and priveleges as marriage. But I have met many people for whom that isn't enough. They want state sanctioned same-sex unions to be called marriages. And I have pretty much gotten to where certainly I would prefer that such unions not be called marriage but can live with it if they are and wouldn't get too upset if that happens. My concern is that many of these people I have met are people in the church which tells me they want to see it not only on a civil level but in the church also. And that does concern me big time, and it may lead to me leaving my current church-body if they go in that direction.

[mat1583]

I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage in the first place. Civil Unions for the purpose of straightening out legal issues, yes. Marriages? No. Marriages are a spiritual matter that should be handled only by a church - not something that requires a license by the government.


-washboard

[Jesuslove]

I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage in the first place. Civil Unions for the purpose of straightening out legal issues, yes. Marriages? No. Marriages are a spiritual matter that should be handled only by a church - not something that requires a license by the government.


-washboard

I agree with you, however I would take it one step further. The government (and churches) should not define "family". Family isn't always, husband, wife and children. There are all kinds of families today. As people here know, I'm a single parent of an adopted son. He's my family. If it weren't for adoption, this child would have never had a chance in life. There are many non-traditional types who adopt, whether single people, gay people, relatives, etc. In many states, there are so many unwanted kids, the state will let all kinds of non-traditonal types adopt. For example, some children are adopted by two single siblings (i.e., two sisters) or a parent and a child (i.e. Mom and daughter). As long as these kids are receiving the proper care, nurturing, education, etc., who is to say what defines a family. As a single person, I become very angry when I hear about states like Arkansas which have tried to ban singles from adopting. With over 100,000 adoptable children in America, why would any Christian organization or government attempt to disqualify, qualified people who are ready, willing and able to adopt.

[Yippy]

Several posts discussing whether or not homosexuality is a sin were deleted. This is not the topic of this thread. We have had that discussion many times, and it is for now, off limits. The board position on that topic is stated in a stickied thread.

Please keep the topic on gay marriage, civil unions & our government or your posts will be removed. If you have any questions, please PM the forum administrator.

[Yippy]

My concern is that many of these people I have met are people in the church which tells me they want to see it not only on a civil level but in the church also. And that does concern me big time, and it may lead to me leaving my current church-body if they go in that direction.

That's a whole other topic of conversation. How the government (which represents & protects all kinds of people & faiths) defines marriage is one thing; how the church (which is made up of all kinds of people & denominations - sad, but true) defines it is another.

[Jesuslove]

Maybe they don't take the Pope's word as Gospel but certainly they have great reverence and respect for the Pope and what he says. I remember when he was here last month, people were going crazy. Most Catholics that I have met do not fit the image that you are conveying, maybe it's regional differences I don't know. And the priests that I have met would never preside over a marriage between a Jew and a Catholic without having the Jew convert.

But regardless even if every priest in the country disregarded what the Pope said, would they not in essence be defying the Catholic Church. The Pope's word may not be Gospel in the RC, but it is law in a sense, is it not??

At Mass tonight, my pastor said that last week, he married a Sudanese Muslim man and a Dominican Catholic woman. The service was concelebrated with an Imam. The Sudanese man was not made to convert.