View Full Version : Presbyterian minister does 180 on homosexuality
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:17 AM
A recent poll shows a huge shift in American attitudes toward gay marriage, from a 32 percent approval in 2004 to 53 percent today.
I am one of those people who changed their minds.
In 1989 when I was ordained as a minister to serve a small church in North Carolina, homosexuality was an invisible issue. Gay rights were barely on the radar of mainstream churches. The idea of an openly gay pastor was beyond the pale.
I knew there were "gay churches," of course, but I did not believe one could be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. The Bible was straightforward on this issue. It all seemed incredibly obvious to me...
...
Now I am wondering why, if two gay people want to commit their lives to one another, they should ever be denied that chance. No church or pastor should be forced to perform those ceremonies, and they can choose not to recognize gay marriage for their adherents. But the constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not explicitly forbid a pastor from being a thief, a murderer, or an egotistical jerk. It is not designed to do these things. It does prohibit a gay person from becoming a pastor. All I can ask is: Why?
http://www.salon.com/life/lgbt/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/03/27/presbyterian_minister_changes_mind_about_gays
onefaith2
03-28-2011, 11:22 AM
Are you proposing more democratic liberties based on the will of the people that even defy the US' foundation of marriage? ;)
I think it should be left to the voters. Do they want their state to recognize gay marriage as legally binding or not. Lets remain a democracy, shall we?
However democracy can lead to all sorts of debachery when its people's interests are not founded in God's principles. Thats where we are headed.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:27 AM
This kind of coincides with a thought I had earlier today, namely towards subservient women in UPC/ALJC denominations. The UPC/ALJC stance towards women preachers, pastors and being leaders will change throughout the next few decades. It seems to me to be a forgone conclusion. Women are increasingly gaining an equal footing in this world, and in the aforementioned denominations. Each generation of women will become increasingly independent, simply because society as a whole will make them. Just as the Jewish religion changed, just as Paul saw that the law of Moses was a dividing factor between Gentiles and Jews. He saw that the religion needed to be more accessible to attract more converts and expand, and that is what he did.
This will happen again. It will come in the form of women being allowed to be on equal footing with men, or homosexuals being allowed to participate in church, just as any other person with a hidden or not so hidden sin can. If it doesn't, the Christian religion will not grow, which seems contrary to getting the Word out to all people.
This rambling post of the day brought to you by me., lol.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:29 AM
Are you proposing more democratic liberties based on the will of the people that even defy the US' foundation of marriage? ;)
I think it should be left to the voters. Do they want their state to recognize gay marriage as legally binding or not. Lets remain a democracy, shall we?
However democracy can lead to all sorts of debachery when its people's interests are not founded in God's principles. Thats where we are headed.
We would have never gotten rid of slavery if we followed your path. To discriminate or not to discriminate is not a voting matter. We either discriminate or we don't.
Isn't marriage a church institution? I can see doing state unions, but as soon as you bring religion in you have clashing issues.
onefaith2
03-28-2011, 11:35 AM
We would have never gotten rid of slavery if we followed your path. To discriminate or not to discriminate is not a voting matter. We either discriminate or we don't.
Really.. please explain?
*grab* a bag of popcorn
I want to see the comparison you make of slavery and homosexuality
Slavery still unfortunately exists in America, it just has a different name.
The church never preach a complete endorsement or rejection of slavery, they did however of homosexuality.
Digging4Truth
03-28-2011, 11:35 AM
We would have never gotten rid of slavery if we followed your path.
Yes we would have. Period.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Really.. please explain?
*grab* a bag of popcorn
I want to see the comparison you make of slavery and homosexuality
Slavery still unfortunately exists in America, it just has a different name.
The church never preach a complete endorsement or rejection of slavery, they did however of homosexuality.
I am not comparing slavery and homosexuality. I am saying that we should not allow votes on if we are going to discriminate or not. It was merely another example, albeit the most blunt.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:38 AM
Yes we would have. Period.
Much, much later than it was abolished. Allowing us to vote to end slavery or not would have delayed the abolition of it quite a bit.
Digging4Truth
03-28-2011, 11:46 AM
Much, much later than it was abolished. Allowing us to vote to end slavery or not would have delayed the abolition of it quite a bit.
What do you think ended slavery?
NorCal
03-28-2011, 11:46 AM
Blacks do not (nor did not) have a choice in the color of their skin. Homosexuals have a choice in the Actions that they take.
Discrimination is the act of rejecting a person based on something that they can not change. Race or Sex. Everything else is a choice.
There are 2 Views in the Homosexual world
1) It is in the DNA, thus can be Fixed (medicated)
2) It is a choice, that of Free Will (medicated, therapy, salvation)
If you choose #1, then they must admit that it is not natural and need to speed money in research to fix or suppress the issues. This is why the "leaders" of the Homosexual movement have been trying to push this. Because if it is "in the DNA" then it MIGHT be discrimination.
If you choose #2, then you must admit that you are making bad, illegal choices and thus must be punished or rehabilitated in someway. Most homosexuals believe this way currently.
As most are going with #2, then Free Will (choices) can be limited in our Constitution. All forms of Sexual Deviance has been outlawed. Polygamy, Necrophiliacs, Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, Rape, ect. Why should homosexuality not be included in that.
Should anything between consenting adults be legal? Sexual acts? Assisted Suicide? Etc?
As for the religious point of view.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.
The Law of Moses states: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
In following the thoughts on the law by Jesus: Thou shalt not THINK of laying with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
See reference on Jesus and The Law: Example - Adultery.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 11:48 AM
What do you think ended slavery?
I am stupid, when I said slavery I meant segregation. Segregation.
Re-read before you hit the post button, re-read before you hit the post button.
That obviously makes a lot more sense than the slavery comparison. My bad, lol.
Digging4Truth
03-28-2011, 11:52 AM
Isn't marriage a church institution? I can see doing state unions, but as soon as you bring religion in you have clashing issues.
This is the crux of the issue IMO.
Marriage should have been kept a religious institution. The issue revolves around the fact that our ancestors ever let government get involved in the institution marriage.
But, of course and as always, government gets involved just a little bit. License marriage in specific situations and then they eventually require it of everybody.
Drivers licenses went the same way. Taxes... government is epitome of the phrase "if you give them an inch they will take a mile".
Twisp
03-28-2011, 12:03 PM
Blacks do not (nor did not) have a choice in the color of their skin. Homosexuals have a choice in the Actions that they take.
Discrimination is the act of rejecting a person based on something that they can not change. Race or Sex. Everything else is a choice.
There are 2 Views in the Homosexual world
1) It is in the DNA, thus can be Fixed (medicated)
2) It is a choice, that of Free Will (medicated, therapy, salvation)
If you choose #1, then they must admit that it is not natural and need to speed money in research to fix or suppress the issues. This is why the "leaders" of the Homosexual movement have been trying to push this. Because if it is "in the DNA" then it MIGHT be discrimination.
If you choose #2, then you must admit that you are making bad, illegal choices and thus must be punished or rehabilitated in someway. Most homosexuals believe this way currently.
As most are going with #2, then Free Will (choices) can be limited in our Constitution. All forms of Sexual Deviance has been outlawed. Polygamy, Necrophiliacs, Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, Rape, ect. Why should homosexuality not be included in that.
Should anything between consenting adults be legal? Sexual acts? Assisted Suicide? Etc?
As for the religious point of view.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.
The Law of Moses states: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
In following the thoughts on the law by Jesus: Thou shalt not THINK of laying with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
See reference on Jesus and The Law: Example - Adultery.
If someone can naturally be born a heterosexual, than it would make complete sense that someone can be born a homosexual. I do believe it is genetic.
NorCal
03-28-2011, 12:04 PM
This is the crux of the issue IMO.
Marriage should have been kept a religious institution. The issue revolves around the fact that our ancestors ever let government get involved in the institution marriage.
But, of course and as always, government gets involved just a little bit. License marriage in specific situations and then they eventually require it of everybody.
Drivers licenses went the same way. Taxes... government is epitome of the phrase "if you give them an inch they will take a mile".
Although the problem comes down to the "Endowed by our CREATOR" we receive these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). The Constitution was based on rights given to us, to be protected by us, modeled after the laws of their (the founders) religion. The only thing that they put in the Constitution, was that the Government could not Establish a state sponsored religion, IE Separation of Church and State (although that is a made up, improper translation of the desired thought)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This does not prohibit the Government from basing their laws off of a religious foundation.
Digging4Truth
03-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Although the problem comes down to the "Endowed by our CREATOR" we receive these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). The Constitution was based on rights given to us, to be protected by us, modeled after the laws of their (the founders) religion.
Could you explain a little further the point you are making in this post? I understand what you have written but I'd like to know how you are applying that to the post that I had made.
The question posed as to why his church should prohibit gay marriage he answers himself earlier when he says that the Bible is clear that it is wrong. Nuff said.
NorCal
03-28-2011, 12:32 PM
If someone can naturally be born a heterosexual, than it would make complete sense that someone can be born a homosexual. I do believe it is genetic.
So then you believe that a pedophile should be allowed to continue in his ways, because that is claimed to be genetic also. Should he be given special consideration? Protected from Discrimination? Allowed to work among children?
What about a serial rapist? murder?
If someone is born a homosexual, then by the law of natural selection, that genetic defect would die out. It has been, and always will be a spiritual thing.
onefaith2
03-28-2011, 12:33 PM
So then you believe that a pedophile should be allowed to continue in his ways, because that is claimed to be genetic also. Should he be given special consideration? Protected from Discrimination? Allowed to work among children?
What about a serial rapist? murder?
once the pin falls off the desk, its a long way down
Twisp
03-28-2011, 12:45 PM
So then you believe that a pedophile should be allowed to continue in his ways, because that is claimed to be genetic also. Should he be given special consideration? Protected from Discrimination? Allowed to work among children?
What about a serial rapist? murder?
Of course I do not. I do not believe that any person should be allowed to continue breaking the law.
I don't see how that even factors into the discussion.
NorCal
03-28-2011, 12:57 PM
Of course I do not. I do not believe that any person should be allowed to continue breaking the law.
I don't see how that even factors into the discussion.
The point is, you believe that it is a Genetic "Defect", thus should all genetic defects be allowed to proceed in there acts?
Even mental disabled people are limited in what they can and can not do. Marry, Drive, Vote.
My point is, that once you start down the road of allowing homosexuality to be recognized by the state, where do you stop? Allow Polygamy again? Consensual sex between under aged children? Incest?
Living in California, especially Norther California, I have a chance to interact with quite a few of homosexuals, and most are not of the belief that it is a genetic defect. They believe it is a Life Style Choice.
If you believe that, then you should allow Polygamy, Incest, Under aged Sex, Prostitution, etc. Where do you draw the line?
Twisp
03-28-2011, 01:06 PM
The point is, you believe that it is a Genetic "Defect", thus should all genetic defects be allowed to proceed in there acts?
Even mental disabled people are limited in what they can and can not do. Marry, Drive, Vote.
I never said it was a genetic defect. I said that I believed it was genetic.
They should be allowed to proceed into whatever legal acts their mental faculties allow them to, the same as any of us.
On The Wheel
03-28-2011, 02:16 PM
I never said it was a genetic defect. I said that I believed it was genetic.
They should be allowed to proceed into whatever legal acts their mental faculties allow them to, the same as any of us.
I suppose I'll point out the elephant in the room, philosophically speaking. Sin is a genetic defect. Should we continue in sin because that's what we want to do? We are born is sin and shapen in iniquity.
I would love to see your logic applied to child rearing. Allow the children to undertake whatever activities they are genetically predisposed to do. Lie, steal, cheat, fight and more.
A little scary.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 02:31 PM
I suppose I'll point out the elephant in the room, philosophically speaking. Sin is a genetic defect. Should we continue in sin because that's what we want to do? We are born is sin and shapen in iniquity.
I would love to see your logic applied to child rearing. Allow the children to undertake whatever activities they are genetically predisposed to do. Lie, steal, cheat, fight and more.
A little scary.
lol, that would be the elephant in the room.
Following your logic, should we legislate morality, or what a certain group of individuals think is right? Using your examples, lying, cheating and fighting are not illegal except in certain cases. Why should homosexuality be legislated differently?
Further, you could argue that lying, cheating and fighting can harm other individuals, which is why there are laws against those actions in some cases. Homosexual marriages harm no one. Before you say that homosexuality itself harms the children of these marriages, the same could be said for a multitude of actions performed within the confines of heterosexual marriages.
Socialite
03-28-2011, 02:45 PM
Isn't marriage a church institution? I can see doing state unions, but as soon as you bring religion in you have clashing issues.
Is it?
Socialite
03-28-2011, 02:48 PM
The Berkeley Symposium held a great debate on this subject, and I think both sides did a fabulous job.
We mixed together the religious and secular functions of a legally-recognized marriage and therein lies much of the problem.
Should the government have ever been involved in recognizing marriages? Some would argue that our tax system is what makes that necessary, as does custody situations, health benefits, etc... All of these hinge on one problem (that is too large to turn around), an over-extended government.
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 07:52 PM
The Slippery slope fallacy in action.
Gay's aren't forbidden to commit to one another.
BTW men aren't discriminate against by not being allowed into a woman's bathroom either.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
pelathais
03-28-2011, 08:29 PM
We would have never gotten rid of slavery if we followed your path. To discriminate or not to discriminate is not a voting matter. We either discriminate or we don't.
The "votes" for or against slavery on a Federal level would have been rather lopsided in favor of emancipation back in the 1860's. However, slavery wasn't a Federal issue (until the Dred Scott case) and each state worked out its own will on the matter. The total votes, however, if the matter could have been submitted to a national vote would have been overwhelmingly opposed to slavery.
The North simply had more people, but the same number of states as the South. If we could have "followed" the "democratic election" path we might have avoided a bloody Civil War.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 08:35 PM
The "votes" for or against slavery on a Federal level would have been rather lopsided in favor of emancipation back in the 1860's. However, slavery wasn't a Federal issue (until the Dred Scott case) and each state worked out its own will on the matter. The total votes, however, if the matter could have been submitted to a national vote would have been overwhelmingly opposed to slavery.
The North simply had more people, but the same number of states as the South. If we could have "followed" the "democratic election" path we might have avoided a bloody Civil War.
Yeah, read a couple of posts up. I meant segregation instead of slavery. Segregation being more recent would be the better analogy. My fingers got ahead of my brain, lol.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 08:36 PM
The Slippery slope fallacy in action.
Gay's aren't forbidden to commit to one another.
BTW men aren't discriminate against by not being allowed into a woman's bathroom either.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
So why should homosexuals be discriminated against in regards to marriage?
BeenThinkin
03-28-2011, 08:38 PM
Yeah, read a couple of posts up. I meant segregation instead of slavery. Segregation being more recent would be the better analogy. My fingers got ahead of my brain, lol.
I've seen that happen to you before! JUST KIDDING! Come on and smile olo (oops that should be lol) ....:heeheehee
Been Thinkin
pelathais
03-28-2011, 08:42 PM
The Berkeley Symposium held a great debate on this subject, and I think both sides did a fabulous job.
We mixed together the religious and secular functions of a legally-recognized marriage and therein lies much of the problem.
Should the government have ever been involved in recognizing marriages? Some would argue that our tax system is what makes that necessary, as does custody situations, health benefits, etc... All of these hinge on one problem (that is too large to turn around), an over-extended government.
In the history of the world, governments got involved in recognizing or delegitimizing marriages because of the impact upon hereditary monarchies. Consanguinity, for example, was a great benefit if one wanted to build an empire and keep it together. Two first cousins combining the inheritance from their mutual grandfather would represent a "double dip" and greatly enrich the new household.
But, such marriages were problematic - and not just for genetic reasons. Seeing a large land holding broken up in feudal times represented a great opportunity for the lesser cousins in the family. It is within this labyrinthine maze of social customs and mores that any discussion of "governmental involvement" in marriage laws and customs must be found, IMHO.
I have just one question for "gays" who want to be married: "What are you, Nuts?"
Twisp
03-28-2011, 09:00 PM
I've seen that happen to you before! JUST KIDDING! Come on and smile olo (oops that should be lol) ....:heeheehee
Been Thinkin
lol, I guess if I leave myself open like that, I should expect it. lol.
BeenThinkin
03-28-2011, 09:14 PM
lol, I guess if I leave myself open like that, I should expect it. lol.
Thanks for being a good sport! :thumbsup
Been Thinkin
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 09:30 PM
So why should homosexuals be discriminated against in regards to marriage?
That's not discrimination. Women bathrooms are for women, not men. That is not discrimination either. It's what a woman's bathroom is defined as
Twisp
03-28-2011, 09:37 PM
That's not discrimination. Women bathrooms are for women, not men. That is not discrimination either. It's what a woman's bathroom is defined as
Yes it is. You are keeping two people from marrying based solely on their sexual orientation.
Why should they not be able to marry like the rest of us? What reasons can you give?
Socialite
03-28-2011, 09:39 PM
That's not discrimination. Women bathrooms are for women, not men. That is not discrimination either. It's what a woman's bathroom is defined as
I don't find that to be even a remotely comparable example, Prax.
Gender-specified bathrooms have much to do with protection and privacy -- the same isn't said for forcing the government to recognize a particular form of marriage. There, of course, are stronger arguments (polygamy, etc).
Ron Paul, representing an idealistic Libertarian perspective:
"They can do whatever they want, call it whatever they want... just don't oppose it... I think it's a religious function, not a state function..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M (2 minute mark)
Paul always leaves the door open for State govt... so he doesn't oppose govt regulation, just where it's coming from sometimes (it seems).
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Yes it is. You are keeping two people from marrying based solely on their sexual orientation.
Why should they not be able to marry like the rest of us? What reasons can you give?
Is it discrimination for a man not to be allowed to use the women's restroom?
BTW they can marry like the rest of us. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 09:43 PM
I don't find that to be even a remotely comparable example, Prax.
Gender-specified bathrooms have much to do with protection and privacy -- the same isn't said for forcing the government to recognize a particular form of marriage. There, of course, are stronger arguments (polygamy, etc).
Ron Paul, representing an idealistic Libertarian perspective:
"They can do whatever they want, call it whatever they want... just don't oppose it... I think it's a religious function, not a state function..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M (2 minute mark)
Paul always leaves the door open for State govt... so he doesn't oppose govt regulation, just where it's coming from sometimes (it seems).
Is it discrimination or not?
The point is by definition women's bathrooms are for women. It's not a matter of discrimination. Marriage is a contract between a man and woman
Twisp
03-28-2011, 09:44 PM
Is it discrimination for a man not to be allowed to use the women's restroom?
BTW they can marry like the rest of us. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is
There may come a time when society deems it is discrimination to bar a woman from a men's restroom, and vice versa. That time has not come however, so it has little bearing on this discussion.
They cannot marry like we can. I was able to marry whoever I was attracted to. A gay man is not allowed to marry who he is attracted to.
Why do you think he should not be able to? What reasons do you have to bar him from doing that?
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 09:50 PM
There may come a time when society deems it is discrimination to bar a woman from a men's restroom, and vice versa. That time has not come however, so it has little bearing on this discussion.
They cannot marry like we can. I was able to marry whoever I was attracted to. A gay man is not allowed to marry who he is attracted to.
Why do you think he should not be able to? What reasons do you have to bar him from doing that?
"society" voted NO on gay marriages in my state.
It does have bearing on the discussion as far as what is discrimination and why.
They can marry like "we" can. If they want to be legally married to someone of the opposite sex, just like us, they can.
BTW I've been saying why. Same reason men don't use women's bathrooms..It's not discrimination. It's a definition. Marriages are what men and women do with each other.
It involves a bride and groom. Not a groom and a groom.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 09:57 PM
"society" voted NO on gay marriages in my state.
It does have bearing on the discussion as far as what is discrimination and why.
They can marry like "we" can. If they want to be legally married to someone of the opposite sex, just like us, they can.
BTW I've been saying why. Same reason men don't use women's bathrooms..It's not discrimination. It's a definition. Marriages are what men and women do with each other.
It involves a bride and groom. Not a groom and a groom.
As Socialite said, bathroom segregation is more about privacy and protection issues. If you allowed women and men to "facilitate" together, there would be numerous safety and security issues for women, and some for men, albeit to a lessor extent. There are no safety issues involved with letting homosexuals marry whomever they want and are attracted to.
As it stands, they cannot marry like we can.
Again, since you apparently ignored it, a homosexual individual cannot marry who he is attracted to. You and I can. They are kept from marrying the person they are attracted to because of their sexual orientation. That is discrimination.
Again, I ask, why should a gay individual not be allowed to marry a person that they are attracted to?
Twisp
03-28-2011, 10:09 PM
As for that, Prax, if your bathroom analogy was a scary vision into our future, then all we need to do is look at countries that have had legalized gay marriage for a number of years and see if they have devolved into a hedonistic mass of unisex bathrooms yet.
I don't think that has been an issue, lol.
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 10:18 PM
As Socialite said, bathroom segregation is more about privacy and protection issues. If you allowed women and men to "facilitate" together, there would be numerous safety and security issues for women, and some for men, albeit to a lessor extent. There are no safety issues involved with letting homosexuals marry whomever they want and are attracted to.
As it stands, they cannot marry like we can.
Again, since you apparently ignored it, a homosexual individual cannot marry who he is attracted to. You and I can. They are kept from marrying the person they are attracted to because of their sexual orientation. That is discrimination.
Again, I ask, why should a gay individual not be allowed to marry a person that they are attracted to?
Is it discrimination or is it a matter of definition? Women's bathrooms are for women. Which is it?
I answer again, Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Gays can have civil unions
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 10:19 PM
As for that, Prax, if your bathroom analogy was a scary vision into our future, then all we need to do is look at countries that have had legalized gay marriage for a number of years and see if they have devolved into a hedonistic mass of unisex bathrooms yet.
I don't think that has been an issue, lol.
You are obfuscating the point. I never said that if we legalize "gay marriages (an oxymoron) it would lead to unisex bathrooms
Twisp
03-28-2011, 10:21 PM
You are obfuscating the point. I never said that if we legalize "gay marriages (an oxymoron) it would lead to unisex bathrooms
No, you never said that. But you do bring it up nearly every time this conversation comes up, so it does seem like you equate one to the other.
Twisp
03-28-2011, 10:30 PM
Is it discrimination or is it a matter of definition? Women's bathrooms are for women. Which is it?
I answer again, Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Gays can have civil unions
Separate bathrooms are in place for protection and privacy. It is a wholly different situation and can't really be compared to gay marriage.
Just because something is commonly defined one way, that does not mean it is okay to discriminate.
I still would like to hear why you do not think homosexuals should be able to marry who they are attracted to, besides it being contrary with your definition of marriage.
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 11:10 PM
No, you never said that. But you do bring it up nearly every time this conversation comes up, so it does seem like you equate one to the other.
How can I have never said that yet brought it up every time this conversatoin comes up? You are contradicting yourself;
The simple fact is I never EVER brought up the bathroom thing to say that 'if we allow gay marriages the next step would be unisex bathrooms"...and you can't quote me making that argument.
You totally never ever got the point despite repeating it.
The point WAS that we don't consider men not using women's bathrooms "discrimination"..that's absurd. It's an absurdity because definitionally women's bathrooms are for women and marrages are for men to women unions.
It's about definition and what constitutes discrimination not "well if you allow this then that will be the result'. I never said that once
Praxeas
03-28-2011, 11:13 PM
Separate bathrooms are in place for protection and privacy. It is a wholly different situation and can't really be compared to gay marriage.
Just because something is commonly defined one way, that does not mean it is okay to discriminate.
I still would like to hear why you do not think homosexuals should be able to marry who they are attracted to, besides it being contrary with your definition of marriage.
And by definition a woman's bathroom is for WOMEN. Well by the same token a marriage is the union of a man and woman.
It's not a comparison. It's an analogy to help you understand the point of Definitions and what constitutes discrimination.
It's NOT discrimination. Gays can have civil unions. Weddings. Marriages. They are for male to female unions
sandie
03-29-2011, 08:20 AM
All this twisting and turning and explanations and feelings and "fill in the blank", when all along God settled the issue once and for all.
That should be the beginning and the end of the discussion.
God never does "a 180 degree" on His Word.
Homosexuality is an abomination in His Sight, His Holy, Just, and forever pronounced Word says so. No amount of verbal, emotional, legal or otherwise gyrations will change that supreme fact.
onefaith2
03-29-2011, 08:35 AM
As for that, Prax, if your bathroom analogy was a scary vision into our future, then all we need to do is look at countries that have had legalized gay marriage for a number of years and see if they have devolved into a hedonistic mass of unisex bathrooms yet.
I don't think that has been an issue, lol.
He has been telling you the whole time why he thinks it should not be allowed.
Marriage = man and woman That is how our government has defined it.
They therefore have to create something else to define woman to woman or man to man.
It cannot be called marriage because marriage is defined as man to woman.
Chateau d'If
03-29-2011, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure the government should recognize any kind of marriage.
Truthseeker
03-29-2011, 10:01 AM
"unions" is just open foor to marriage. Ban it permanantly.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:02 AM
So if I conclude bathroom separation is discriminatory, I can prove discrimination is okay and acceptable.
Not the best of logic IMO -- and again, these are apples and oranges examples.
Is marriage foremost secular or religious? If religious, then those institutions and fellowships of faith determine what marriage is. If secular, what then determines it? The problem here, and not to use a lazy argument, but is in how the federal government limits and contains the definition of marriage. I suppose the plurality of partners (polygamy) is different than 2 individuals, but there's at least a decisive moral element even to that decision that lies on some basic, fundamental idea about what marriage is.
This is a governmental mess unfortunately. It's not when same-sex marriage is accepted on a federal level, it's when.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:04 AM
He has been telling you the whole time why he thinks it should not be allowed.
Marriage = man and woman That is how our government has defined it.
They therefore have to create something else to define woman to woman or man to man.
It cannot be called marriage because marriage is defined as man to woman.
Is it properly defined by government?
Is that their role?
If government defined it, then why wouldn't that be amended just as easy as they defined it?
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:09 AM
In the history of the world, governments got involved in recognizing or delegitimizing marriages because of the impact upon hereditary monarchies. Consanguinity, for example, was a great benefit if one wanted to build an empire and keep it together. Two first cousins combining the inheritance from their mutual grandfather would represent a "double dip" and greatly enrich the new household.
But, such marriages were problematic - and not just for genetic reasons. Seeing a large land holding broken up in feudal times represented a great opportunity for the lesser cousins in the family. It is within this labyrinthine maze of social customs and mores that any discussion of "governmental involvement" in marriage laws and customs must be found, IMHO.
I have just one question for "gays" who want to be married: "What are you, Nuts?"
Good points. At some point governmentally, socially, marriage was shared in culture --- but quite often it was threaded together with faith... or as you referred to it, a "labyrinthine."
We all know why homosexuals want to marry -- well, we have strong speculation:
1) Feel more accepted by society
2) Wanting something they don't have, shared state-recognized commitments
3) Health benefits/Tax shelter, recognized as family
I'm not even sure how many would marry after the initial flood. Who knows. What I do know is that the majority of Americans currently don't view that as traditional, normal or ideal. Most Americans only fear what implications this will have on them, and how this redefining of marriage would impact their own lives.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:10 AM
Is it discrimination or not?
The point is by definition women's bathrooms are for women. It's not a matter of discrimination. Marriage is a contract between a man and woman
I get your point, I just don't think it's an accurate parallel.
We know what the marriage contract currently represents, the controversy is over changing that policy.
LUKE2447
03-29-2011, 10:15 AM
1) It should not be a issue at all.
2) You can't stop marriage or being togethor now anyway? Why would the state be involved in Licensing marriage in the first place? It is not the States right anyway.
3) concerning benefits... that is all contractual. Get the government out of licensing in the first place. It is STUPID! Then the insurance companies can do what they want and you pay for coverage to whomever.
4) giving other people rights to your life is a contractual right. to say another person cannot have contractual rights to your life upon YOUR agreement. Sorry unless mental diseasecan be shown nothing should void the contract and others should respect it such as hosptils, courts, etc... on legal issus of privacy and care etc..
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:38 AM
1) It should not be a issue at all.
That's your opinion. Fact is, it is.
2) You can't stop marriage or being togethor now anyway? Why would the state be involved in Licensing marriage in the first place? It is not the States right anyway. But it's the Fed Government's? Many Repubs were supporting a Fed Amendment.
3) concerning benefits... that is all contractual. Get the government out of licensing in the first place. It is STUPID! Then the insurance companies can do what they want and you pay for coverage to whomever.
Wow... I actually agree with you. :jaw
NorCal
03-29-2011, 10:39 AM
I get your point, I just don't think it's an accurate parallel.
We know what the marriage contract currently represents, the controversy is over changing that policy.
Discrimination in its original meaning is fine. Making a distinctions between 2 objects. Comparing the 2 and stating the differences.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
the power of making fine distinctions
However, our society has made it into a bad work. More like Prejudice.
IMHO, I do not believe that government should not be in the business of handing out Marriage License. However, as long as government is involved in it, I can not vote for it out of good conscience towards God. Once you condone Sin then you have lost your way.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 10:50 AM
Discrimination in its original meaning is fine. Making a distinctions between 2 objects. Comparing the 2 and stating the differences.
However, our society has made it into a bad work. More like Prejudice.
IMHO, I do not believe that government should not be in the business of handing out Marriage License. However, as long as government is involved in it, I can not vote for it out of good conscience towards God. Once you condone Sin then you have lost your way.
I've learned to have mutually exclusive political and faith views. I don't expect dead people (unbelievers) to live or to desire to live as people of the Light. But there is some basic morality we contend for, and this is where the debate it.
Discrimination, when it comes to excluding and denying rights of individuals, is most certainly a bad word. It's at least worthy of discussion. Discriminating good employees from great employees is one way to use the word, but in the context of Constitutional Law, Individual Rights/Freedoms, etc... it's another.
onefaith2
03-29-2011, 10:53 AM
Is it properly defined by government?
Is that their role?
If government defined it, then why wouldn't that be amended just as easy as they defined it?
It can be amended. We have a process in this country to do so. Democracy still has denied it in most states.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 01:49 PM
He has been telling you the whole time why he thinks it should not be allowed.
Marriage = man and woman That is how our government has defined it.
They therefore have to create something else to define woman to woman or man to man.
It cannot be called marriage because marriage is defined as man to woman.
Exactly...I knew Iwas speaking english. Not only our government but our society has for years, centuries.
It's a fundamental issue. A fundamental definition. Just as "women" defined refers to a gender other than male, marriage has been defined as a contractual union between a man and a woman.
Gays are trying to change that. This isn't about equal rights or a social injustice. Gays are not the oppressed minority they claim to be. They hold the same jobs, have the same rights to vote or assemble. They even have gay churches. This is about forcing their agenda on the American psyche
I remember here in Ca during the first round of this issue a gay activist, after winning a verdict in court, lamented how this showed Californians were in their corner....how deceived can you be? Californians voted against their agenda. It was a liberal judge that annulled the will of the people. She erroneously thought the action of one judge against the will of the people amounted to the will of the people being for the gay agenda
This isn't about social justice. It's about forcing the gay agenda down the throats of the American people
It's about forcing the hearts and minds of Americans to accept gayness as "ok"..it's not enough to tolerate gays in our society the gay activists (note that, not all gays) want to change the fabric of the American psyche and that includes the church.
They are a small vocal minority and from what I have read not all gays are "gay activists" so that makes them an even smaller minority. Yet they have powerful allies in Hollywood. Who else can make cigarette smoking glamorous'? Or cheating on a spouse acceptable and entertaining? Yet they are also attempting to do the same with the idea of homosexual sex. It starts with a gay kiss in the movies and eventually it lead to rough awkward sex between two iconic men. Iconic I say because the movie chose to use two cowboys, what most would thing of as rough "manly men" type characters. Who would have thought of years ago a John Wayne type character having gay sex in the movies?
I'm all for gay rights and toleration in our society. Attempts to portray them as an oppressed minority because they can change society and governmental norms and definitions on the word marriage is seriously jaded IMHO. Not only do the have the same civil rights as all Americans, they are a protected minority through hate crime laws.
But that is not enough, here is my slippery slope for you information. It won't stop at marriage. It will continue to freedom of speech. Preachers will be legally forbidden to say it's wrong. They want to government to tell YOU that "marriage" is not between a man and a woman but a man and a man too or a woman and a woman. They have and will be even more teaching that to your kids in schools in an attempt again to control the hearts and minds of the American citizen contrary to biblical teachings.
I'll tell you why it's a slippery slope. Because, as I said before, this is not about an oppressed minority not having rights. It's about a gay agenda to change the hearts and minds of America..The institution of Marriage is merely a step in that direction
Socialite
03-29-2011, 01:50 PM
It can be amended. We have a process in this country to do so. Democracy still has denied it in most states.
You do understand I wasn't literally asking if the Constitution can be amended? Of course I understand that :)
Also, constitutional amendments aren't always via Democracy, popular vote, etc.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 01:51 PM
I'll tell you why it's a slippery slope. Because, as I said before, this is not about an oppressed minority not having rights. It's about a gay agenda to change the hearts and minds of America..The institution of Marriage is merely a step in that direction
Do you think you or your kids will be tempted to change their minds about the biblical error of homosexuality as a result of gays marrying?
onefaith2
03-29-2011, 01:52 PM
You do understand I wasn't literally asking if the Constitution can be amended? Of course I understand that :)
Also, constitutional amendments aren't always via Democracy, popular vote, etc.
Yes a lot of it goes forth by representation. Do you think it should be left to popular vote always? Or do you believe the everyday man or woman should let the politicians represent them?
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 01:53 PM
So if I conclude bathroom separation is discriminatory, I can prove discrimination is okay and acceptable.
Not the best of logic IMO -- and again, these are apples and oranges examples.
Is marriage foremost secular or religious? If religious, then those institutions and fellowships of faith determine what marriage is. If secular, what then determines it? The problem here, and not to use a lazy argument, but is in how the federal government limits and contains the definition of marriage. I suppose the plurality of partners (polygamy) is different than 2 individuals, but there's at least a decisive moral element even to that decision that lies on some basic, fundamental idea about what marriage is.
This is a governmental mess unfortunately. It's not when same-sex marriage is accepted on a federal level, it's when.
Actually Im pretty sure you won't conclude it's discriminatory. That's the point you continue to miss.
It's NOT discrimination. It's a fact of definition and social norms.
Our society is against gay marriage. The gay activists are attempting to change that rather than allow it to evolve on it's own and clearly many are succumbing to it
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 01:53 PM
Do you think you or your kids will be tempted to change their minds about the biblical error of homosexuality as a result of gays marrying?
Excuse me but did you just call what the bible says on homosexuality an error?
Socialite
03-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Excuse me but did you just call what the bible says on homosexuality an error?
No. Give me the benefit of the doubt...
I'm referring to homosexual being errant, deviant, sinful, etc...
LUKE2447
03-29-2011, 01:56 PM
That's your opinion. Fact is, it is.
Only becaue of a poor political/judicial reality.
But it's the Fed Government's? Many Repubs were supporting a Fed Amendment.
so most repubs are libs anyway.
Wow... I actually agree with you. :jaw
well because people think that because you make a law so someone is not legally married means you stopped something is stupid. They still cosder themselve married whether the government recognizes it either way. To make it a NON issue get rid of the sanity that government can actully license marriage anyway. It then becomes a non issue.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 01:58 PM
Actually Im pretty sure you won't conclude it's discriminatory. That's the point you continue to miss.
It's NOT discrimination. It's a fact of definition and social norms.
Our society is against gay marriage. The gay activists are attempting to change that rather than allow it to evolve on it's own and clearly many are succumbing to it
I'm not missing your point at all. Just because I don't agree with your argumentation on that point, doesn't mean I'm missing your point. Good grief.
The way homosexual activists are pushing their agenda is no different that abolitionists in England, Civil Rights in the US, Women's Suffrage, etc... they've all taken the same path. Mass hysteria and controversy, continual beating the drum for their cause, persistent legislation despite rejections and losses, and then eventually they win (if the movement has any traction at all). This one is inevitable. And like the others, none of them "evolved on their own."
Fact is, 10 years ago no one, Dem or Repub, would consider civil unions. Now, just about everyone agrees with civil unions. We've all succumbed to it for sure.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 02:03 PM
No. Give me the benefit of the doubt...
I'm referring to homosexual being errant, deviant, sinful, etc...
Ok, good. Yes I think it is possible! The church is in a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Less and less Americans are claiming to be Christians or attend church.
They are being spoon fed anti-God ideals through schools and the media. Yes I absolutely do believe it's possible. The church in America has become fat and lazy and now even complicit in the direction our society has taken
Socialite
03-29-2011, 02:08 PM
Ok, good. Yes I think it is possible! The church is in a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Less and less Americans are claiming to be Christians or attend church.
They are being spoon fed anti-God ideals through schools and the media. Yes I absolutely do believe it's possible. The church in America has become fat and lazy and now even complicit in the direction our society has taken
Is the correct response moralism or to spread the Gospel with even more urgency and depend on the Holy Spirit?
If everyone goes back to believing homosexuality is icky, are we more or less saved as a people? More righteous or less righteous? More lost or less lost? It's a tricky matter....
We are rapidly, and sadly, becoming the spiritual descendants of Sodom. If you look at the sins of which they were convicted, homosexuality is just the very last in the line. It started when they had plenty and became idle and rich that they began to fall. From there they did not do anything to give aid and comfort to others, and then they went into perversion. Thus is it today with America. We are rich, comfortable, and lazy. We have found ourselves other gods, and now we are achieving the final stage of our inevitable downfall.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 02:13 PM
The way homosexual activists are pushing their agenda is no different that abolitionists in England, Civil Rights in the US, Women's Suffrage, etc... they've all taken the same path. Mass hysteria and controversy, continual beating the drum for their cause, persistent legislation despite rejections and losses, and then eventually they win (if the movement has any traction at all). This one is inevitable. And like the others, none of them "evolved on their own."
Fact is, 10 years ago no one, Dem or Repub, would consider civil unions. Now, just about everyone agrees with civil unions. We've all succumbed to it for sure.
black people were forced into slavery. They were owned as property by others. They had NO rights whatsoever. The slave owner could rape their women, beat the mess out of them and sell their kids off to someone else. They never had good food like the owners. They lived in grimy cabins. They worked long laborious hours and if the attempted to escape that they would be severely punished.
There is NO comparison between that and the gay agenda to force society to change the word marriage to mean something other than what it does.
Again we don't change the meaning of the words "man" and "woman" to make bathrooms unisex, because it's a matter of definition not civil rights.
Gays can already have civil unions. They can already find gay churches and have religious ceremonies. It's not necessary to force America to change the word Marriage to include something it hasn't.
This is about forcing the government to recognize them as a married couple. It's NOT about a civil right because they can already have civil unions.
Let me give an example. Here in California it's legal to have civil unions for gays. That means the state of California officially recognizes the civil union giving them all the same rights as heterosexual couples who get married EXCEPT it was not called a marriage.
So gays are not satisfied with having all the same RIGHTS. They want to be able to change the word Marriage to mean something it does not. Why? If it's about rights, they already have all the same rights according to the law.
Think about it
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 02:15 PM
Is the correct response moralism or to spread the Gospel with even more urgency and depend on the Holy Spirit?
If everyone goes back to believing homosexuality is icky, are we more or less saved as a people? More righteous or less righteous? More lost or less lost? It's a tricky matter....
The correct response is for the church in large to wake up. Spread the gospel, repudiate sin and worldliness and take care of what God has gifted us with.
That, I believe, is a nation where Christianity has been able to flourish AND propagate around the world through sending missionaries and or monetary support.
State sponsored attacks on the church should not be supported BY the church
Socialite
03-29-2011, 02:21 PM
The correct response is for the church in large to wake up. Spread the gospel, repudiate sin and worldliness and take care of what God has gifted us with.
That, I believe, is a nation where Christianity has been able to flourish AND propagate around the world through sending missionaries and or monetary support.
State sponsored attacks on the church should not be supported BY the church
Prax, aren't most churches already opposing homosexuality?
Is it important that we impose this level of morality on unbelieving people?
Who has attacked the church? They are defending and contending for their liberties they have as American citizens. That has little to do with the Gospel (nothing to do with it).
Socialite, I would recommend a trip through the prophets, specifically Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and some of the others. I would also recommend that it be in the NKJV for it spells out some of the sins a bit clearer than the KJV.
They show that God hated all sexual immorality and because it was not opposed by kings, priests, prophets, nor the majority of the people God destroyed the nation. Study the acts that surrounded the worship of pagan gods and you will see every abomination that we permit today. This is part of the reason that when the world is before the final Judge, there will be no mercy found for them.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 02:33 PM
Prax, aren't most churches already opposing homosexuality?
Is it important that we impose this level of morality on unbelieving people?
Who has attacked the church? They are defending and contending for their liberties they have as American citizens. That has little to do with the Gospel (nothing to do with it).
I don't know. Im seeing more and more come out accepting of gay marriages..isn't that what we are talking about? Supporting gay marriages?
If you read my earlier posts you'll get my statement about "attacking churches"
And my earlier post addresses the notion that they are merely contending for their liberties,which it is not
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:00 PM
Socialite, I would recommend a trip through the prophets, specifically Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and some of the others. I would also recommend that it be in the NKJV for it spells out some of the sins a bit clearer than the KJV.
They show that God hated all sexual immorality and because it was not opposed by kings, priests, prophets, nor the majority of the people God destroyed the nation. Study the acts that surrounded the worship of pagan gods and you will see every abomination that we permit today. This is part of the reason that when the world is before the final Judge, there will be no mercy found for them.
The prophets were spiritual leaders for who? The People of Israel. God's people. I am not advocating ignoring or not preaching against sin as the people of God. This is not an issue of what my faith means to me either. This is an issue of federal government.
God hates sin. We know that. He hates the sin of people trying to live their lives apart from his generosity.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:03 PM
I don't know. Im seeing more and more come out accepting of gay marriages..isn't that what we are talking about? Supporting gay marriages?
If you read my earlier posts you'll get my statement about "attacking churches"
And my earlier post addresses the notion that they are merely contending for their liberties,which it is not
They most certainly are contending for their liberties, no matter other motivations, which include a desire to have their lifestyle accepted and no longer considered deviant (in a sociological way).
I would say the super majority of Evangelical, Protestant and even RCC churches, at probably a 90% margin, still disagrees with same-sex marriage. That 10%, which is probably a liberal number, is for the Unitarian, Universalist and peripheral groups (like Gay Pentecostals, Episcopalian segments, etc). In fact, if you want a Christian to get red in the face, bring up homosexuality or Obama and you will succeed every time.
In other words, any "slumbering" the Church has on this issue, isn't really significant at all. Fortunately, not all of them are throwing Prop 8 parties (Californians) and buying mega phones to protest as congregations at the court houses, but most still hold biblical views on homosexuality -- and I've seen nothing to suggest that will change.
The prophets would not so much as mount any form of a campaign against sin. They were to tell the king, the priests, and the people the will and mind of God, but they refused to take any stand against immorality, either in their message, nor in direct confrontation to the king and priests, who were the government of that day.
This is why it is so important for everyone to be involved as much as is possible against it and not give place to the devil. When we concede that they have every right to trample over everything that is in Scripture as sacred and do not stand and fight for it, we are then following the same steps that the Israelites did, and we shall reap for ourselves the same judgment.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:10 PM
The prophets would not so much as mount any form of a campaign against sin. They were to tell the king, the priests, and the people the will and mind of God, but they refused to take any stand against immorality, either in their message, nor in direct confrontation to the king and priests, who were the government of that day.
This is why it is so important for everyone to be involved as much as is possible against it and not give place to the devil. When we concede that they have every right to trample over everything that is in Scripture as sacred and do not stand and fight for it, we are then following the same steps that the Israelites did, and we shall reap for ourselves the same judgment.
Again, you're confusing who the prophet's primary audience was and who it concerned.
Our goal is not to go around telling unbelieving people to act like believing people.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 03:19 PM
They most certainly are contending for their liberties, no matter other motivations, which include a desire to have their lifestyle accepted and no longer considered deviant (in a sociological way).
I would say the super majority of Evangelical, Protestant and even RCC churches, at probably a 90% margin, still disagrees with same-sex marriage. That 10%, which is probably a liberal number, is for the Unitarian, Universalist and peripheral groups (like Gay Pentecostals, Episcopalian segments, etc). In fact, if you want a Christian to get red in the face, bring up homosexuality or Obama and you will succeed every time.
In other words, any "slumbering" the Church has on this issue, isn't really significant at all. Fortunately, not all of them are throwing Prop 8 parties (Californians) and buying mega phones to protest as congregations at the court houses, but most still hold biblical views on homosexuality -- and I've seen nothing to suggest that will change.
As I already pointed out, the topic is marriage not liberties (plural).
They can have all the same liberties as everyone else. In a civil union the have all the same rights as heterosexuals in a marriage.
Redefining or hijacking a word is not a liberty. Homosexuals are not an oppressed minority because the can't change the definition of a word any more than men are oppressed because they can't change the word women to include men.
Homosexuals have all the rights as heterosexuals. They can have civil unions and get the same rights as married couples (married defined as a man and a woman).
The government does not officially need to change the definition of "marriage" in order for gays to have the same rights as married couples. The get them in civil unions
No, but we are called to stand and oppose sin in all of its forms. Further, the Israelites were a single nation, but they were not all believers in the Lord the God of their fathers. They were as unbelieving as the other people in the lands on their borders. However, because they had the Word of God available to them left them without excuse. This also included the prophets and those who knew the truth and did nothing to oppose the implementation of all immorality on the whole society. Had they performed according to their calling, they would not have been destroyed.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:23 PM
As I already pointed out, the topic is marriage not liberties (plural).
They can have all the same liberties as everyone else. In a civil union the have all the same rights as heterosexuals in a marriage.
Redefining or hijacking a word is not a liberty. Homosexuals are not an oppressed minority because the can't change the definition of a word any more than men are oppressed because they can't change the word women to include men.
Homosexuals have all the rights as heterosexuals. They can have civil unions and get the same rights as married couples (married defined as a man and a woman).
The government does not officially need to change the definition of "marriage" in order for gays to have the same rights as married couples. The get them in civil unions
Not even a decade ago it would be unthinkable for Republican or Democrat to agree to that. In the terms of legal status, the word can be defined, redefined or clarified (there really is not such definition legally). When we say marriage, we are probably mostly thinking of the religious nature of a marriage.
The reality is, there is no standard definition of marriage that says "one man, one woman" -- is there?
Perhaps, legally, we should call all marriages civil unions, and let the churches continue to have marriage ceremonies?? I actually like that idea. Keeps the Govt out of that issue.
Timmy
03-29-2011, 03:25 PM
No, but we are called to stand and oppose sin in all of its forms. Further, the Israelites were a single nation, but they were not all believers in the Lord the God of their fathers. They were as unbelieving as the other people in the lands on their borders. However, because they had the Word of God available to them left them without excuse. This also included the prophets and those who knew the truth and did nothing to oppose the implementation of all immorality on the whole society. Had they performed according to their calling, they would not have been destroyed.
Would you be in favor of a making it illegal to be a non-Christian?
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 03:26 PM
Would you be in favor of making it illegal to believe or say gay marriage is wrong?
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:27 PM
No, but we are called to stand and oppose sin in all of its forms. Further, the Israelites were a single nation, but they were not all believers in the Lord the God of their fathers. They were as unbelieving as the other people in the lands on their borders. However, because they had the Word of God available to them left them without excuse. This also included the prophets and those who knew the truth and did nothing to oppose the implementation of all immorality on the whole society. Had they performed according to their calling, they would not have been destroyed.
Ummmm.... sure. I mean, my calling is to honor God, not trump moralism and be the Sin Crusader.
Everything you said about the prophets --- the rebukes, correction and messages from the prophets were to the people of God. We should still take heed to the words of God, build each other up in the faith and build cultures that are foreign to worldiness.
But we aren't expecting unbelieving people to live like believing people.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:28 PM
Would you be in favor of making it illegal to believe or say gay marriage is wrong?
Illegal to say it's wrong? Like a church not supporting the lifestyle, and calling it deviant? Not in favor. I want to see LESS government interference here, not more.
And we should be careful with any legislation that implicates churches as such.
I understand that you are wrestling with something that to a point I still struggle with. Where is the line to be drawn? Where do you plant your flag and say thus far and no further? Where do you say this is the hill to die on?
The reason that we oppose it here, and not let it go further, is because unlike other sins and lifestyles this is like mold which as long as it is not checked will steadily creep into other areas of the life. In the 60s and 70s they requested that we treat them with human dignity and not get abusive; this was granted. In the 80s, they asked for recognition. They received it. In the 90s, They wanted acceptance, and it was so. Now they want nothing less than the full approval of society for a lifestyle that is sadly no better than bestiality. It was once considered to be so shameful that it stayed in secret place and if known was not discussed.
My mother has a tape from the late 70s or early 80s, the preacher on the tape stated that the day would come when individuals of the same gender would be marrying in this country. The saddest part is that do to the entire 'Christian' churches not taking a stand when it would count, we have waited until the time was upon us to prevent the flood.
The homosexual agenda does not end with marriage for themselves. The most radical of their groups have stated that they want to do away with any form of traditional moral behavior. This is why gay groups such as NAMBLA exist. They have no problem with plurality of marriage partners, adults with children, or even human with animal. They do not reproduce, but rather they recruit. They may deny this, but I have noticed a proliferation of pro-homosexual novels, characters, movies, and television programming in the last 10 years. These occur at all age, maturity, and reading levels. They deny the recruitment drive, but the fact is that young people today are more open to experimenting with various abominations than they were in times past.
I am sorry about the lengthy post, but that is why I am convinced that we must take our stand here for traditional Biblical morality. This is a hill on which I am more than willing to die.
Socialite
03-29-2011, 03:53 PM
I understand that you are wrestling with something that to a point I still struggle with. Where is the line to be drawn? Where do you plant your flag and say thus far and no further? Where do you say this is the hill to die on?
The reason that we oppose it here, and not let it go further, is because unlike other sins and lifestyles this is like mold which as long as it is not checked will steadily creep into other areas of the life. In the 60s and 70s they requested that we treat them with human dignity and not get abusive; this was granted. In the 80s, they asked for recognition. They received it. In the 90s, They wanted acceptance, and it was so. Now they want nothing less than the full approval of society for a lifestyle that is sadly no better than bestiality. It was once considered to be so shameful that it stayed in secret place and if known was not discussed.
My mother has a tape from the late 70s or early 80s, the preacher on the tape stated that the day would come when individuals of the same gender would be marrying in this country. The saddest part is that do to the entire 'Christian' churches not taking a stand when it would count, we have waited until the time was upon us to prevent the flood.
The homosexual agenda does not end with marriage for themselves. The most radical of their groups have stated that they want to do away with any form of traditional moral behavior. This is why gay groups such as NAMBLA exist. They have no problem with plurality of marriage partners, adults with children, or even human with animal. They do not reproduce, but rather they recruit. They may deny this, but I have noticed a proliferation of pro-homosexual novels, characters, movies, and television programming in the last 10 years. These occur at all age, maturity, and reading levels. They deny the recruitment drive, but the fact is that young people today are more open to experimenting with various abominations than they were in times past.
I am sorry about the lengthy post, but that is why I am convinced that we must take our stand here for traditional Biblical morality. This is a hill on which I am more than willing to die.
WOW. Die on?
Yeah, our children need to be discipled better. I know growing up I fell into much sexual immorality (not homosexuality, but sin nonetheless). Our children need to be discipled into a relationship with Jesus, which ultimately, despite our best efforts, we rely solely on the Spirit.
As far as the examples of multiple partners, marriage to animals, etc... I'm not aware of that even being remotely considered by mainstream homosexual marriage advocates.
Timmy
03-29-2011, 04:05 PM
Would you be in favor of making it illegal to believe or say gay marriage is wrong?
No.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 04:07 PM
No.
Why? Please form your answer double space, paragraph form of no less than 10000 words
Timmy
03-29-2011, 04:07 PM
Why? Please form your answer double space, paragraph form of no less than 10000 words
:smack
Timmy
03-29-2011, 04:08 PM
:smack
(And as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Hmm. I guess I owe you 9000. :lol)
Azzan
03-29-2011, 05:54 PM
...
Gays can already have civil unions.
...
Not in every state. Take Alabama, Mississippi and Texas for example.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 06:13 PM
Not in every state. Take Alabama, Mississippi and Texas for example.
True, but they do in Ca and this proves one does not have to redefine Marriage in order for gays to have the same rights as couples
Azzan
03-29-2011, 06:30 PM
True, but they do in Ca and this proves one does not have to redefine Marriage in order for gays to have the same rights as couples
If I'm not mistaken, I think the bolded is wrong. Civil unions don't provide same sex couples the same federal tax benefits that married couples receive.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 06:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I think the bolded is wrong. Civil unions don't provide same sex couples the same federal tax benifits that married couples receive.
That would be a federal issue.
Personally I don't see why a married couple should get a tax discount to begin with. Initially it was incentive to marry and produce children. But today people don't always get married to have a family and we don't necessarily need people to have more children
But the point remains we can opt for civil unions and not marriages. Even if Ca allowed gay marriages the Feds would not recognize it would they? There is no real reason then,. say in California, to legalize gay marriages when they already have all the rights they can get with civil unions
NorCal
03-29-2011, 06:42 PM
That would be a federal issue.
Personally I don't see why a married couple should get a tax discount to begin with. Initially it was incentive to marry and produce children. But today people don't always get married to have a family and we don't necessarily need people to have more children
But the point remains we can opt for civil unions and not marriages. Even if Ca allowed gay marriages the Feds would not recognize it would they? There is no real reason then,. say in California, to legalize gay marriages when they already have all the rights they can get with civil unions
Sadly, such as Cali goes, so does the rest of the Country. As a California that has taken a stance on issues like this, it is a tough battle. And to see that the Supreme Court will be hearing the Prop 8 this year, we may have a Federal Resolve soon.
It is truly sad that we even have to consider that such a thing is now in existence. The fact of the matter is that government should only take out in taxes a reasonable percentage and leave us alone.
10% is good enough for God to happy, then the federal and state governments should only take 5% each and then leave me to spend the rest of my money as I see fit. If we cut all taxes in such a way, we would boost the economy and become the strongest nation in the world.
Azzan
03-29-2011, 06:42 PM
That would be a federal issue.
Personally I don't see why a married couple should get a tax discount to begin with. Initially it was incentive to marry and produce children. But today people don't always get married to have a family and we don't necessarily need people to have more children
But the point remains we can opt for civil unions and not marriages. Even if Ca allowed gay marriages the Feds would not recognize it would they? There is no real reason then,. say in California, to legalize gay marriages when they already have all the rights they can get with civil unions
I would agree with you if every state provided civil unions. But they do not.
BTW, I am neutral on this subject.
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 06:56 PM
I would agree with you if every state provided civil unions. But they do not.
BTW, I am neutral on this subject.
Again the point should be then, why not petition the states to provide civil unions instead of marriages?
Azzan
03-29-2011, 07:29 PM
Again the point should be then, why not petition the states to provide civil unions instead of marriages?
If all state civil unions provided equal rights eqivalent to marriage, maybe. You still have the Federal issue.
Questions I would have:
Is there a problem if the couple relocates to another state for say, employment purposes? Is their union valid in that state? Can a state nullify another state's union?
Praxeas
03-29-2011, 07:36 PM
If all state civil unions provided equal rights eqivalent to marriage, maybe. You still have the Federal issue.
Questions I would have:
Is there a problem if the couple relocates to another state for say, employment purposes? Is their union valid in that state? Can a state nullify another state's union?
Still the point remains they aren't crying out for civil union and equal rights. They want to change the state (and eventually the federal) definition of Marriage to include same sex marriages, not civil unions.
If they were to go state by state and then to the federal level appealing for these kinds of civil unions, they might get less static.
And again I am not so sure married couples should get a tax discount simply for being married
I would, however, agree to a tax discount for couples where one person does not work (works as a home maker) and or is disabled, considering them sort of a financial dependent
Timmy
03-30-2011, 07:43 AM
Would you be in favor of a making it illegal to be a non-Christian?
Bump for Jay or anyone else who would like to answer. :D
Orthodoxy
03-30-2011, 10:21 AM
I would like to marry three women and two men.
No.......Make that five women, three men, a hermit crab, and a coffee table.
And don't you DARE discriminate against me.
Socialite
03-30-2011, 10:28 AM
I would like to marry three women and two men.
No.......Make that five women, three men, a hermit crab, and a coffee table.
And don't you DARE discriminate against me.
I've thought of that Pandora's box too. And it's another reason why I don't like the government involvement in marriage -- if fundamentalist Mormons want to have multiple wives... why not? I know that sounds extreme, but it's just something I've thought of in terms of legality.
I can also foresee a legal argument that denying marriage to someone on the basis of gender, as opposed to plurality, numerical additions to the partnership is a contrasting difference -- and, in fact, there is Supreme Court precedent for rulings concerning polygamy, polygyny and polyandry.
Orthodoxy
03-30-2011, 10:42 AM
I can also foresee a legal argument that denying marriage to someone on the basis of gender, as opposed to plurality, numerical additions to the partnership is a contrasting difference -- and, in fact, there is Supreme Court precedent for rulings concerning polygamy, polygyny and polyandry.
Or what about a chimpanzee?
Since, according to evolutionists, we're "advanced primates" it's basically like marrying another human. Right? :icecream
Socialite
03-30-2011, 10:44 AM
Or what about a chimpanzee?
Since, according to evolutionists, we're "advanced primates" it's basically like marrying another human. Right? :icecream
I think we can easily all agree that the Constitution protects humans... specifically naturalized US citizens.
In the meantime, if a man decides he wants to have sexual relations with his farm animals, that's his liberty -- (and hopefully he has friends or family that get him help!)
Truthseeker
03-30-2011, 10:56 AM
I would like to interview the founding fathers regarding constitution as far as modern issues not around back then.
Socialite
03-30-2011, 11:16 AM
I would like to interview the founding fathers regarding constitution as far as modern issues not around back then.
Me too! :thumbsup
Then again, we are all Americans. Our Framers and Founding Father's foresaw a nation in the context of their time. This is why stare decisis has some flaws, though I preserve a more conservative approach to Constitutional Law.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.