DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court: Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, Alabama counties refuse

The United Methodist Church may split over the question of gay marriage. I really like the Methodist church, but if it comes to a point where they do something that approves of something specifically forbidden by the Bible, then I will have to leave. Church should be open to all, as we are all sinners, but there is a difference between opening the doors to all, and approving of sinful lifestyles. Unfortunately, this seems to be the mindset of some in some denominations ..... if we're only more "inclusive", then we can expand our membership. Well, of course, if we allow people to do anything they want and we approve of it, we can have members galore, but are we following t=that which Jesus taught?

The Methodists and the Lutherans have had an agreement where their clergy are recognized by each other, and that could come to an end because of the issue of openly and practicing gay clergy being allowed in the Lutheran church. (they phrase it as non-celibate gay ministers) To me, a minister should be a person who does everything he can to uphold the teachings of the Bible. being a non-celibate gay would disqualify a person in my book, just as a man who was in a sexual relationship while living with his girlfriend should. If the world, and sin, means more than Jesus Christ, then how can such a person effectively minister to the members of his church?

Gay marriage has split many churches apart. In the end, the Bible should be the final word on all church doctrine. The Catholic Church has too many things that have come from extra-Biblical sources for my liking, but they do hold to the Biblical teachings on many things others seem to be wandering away from. (gay marriage, gar clergy, divorce, premarital and extramarital sex, and so on ....) However, I disagree with so many areas of that church that they simply cannot be a serious consideration for me. (Papal infallibility, annulments of marriages, the whole issue with abuse among Priests, the teaching of purgatory, praying to Saints, confession with "tasks" that "atone" for sins, and many others)

I truly believe that the church will be damaged beyond repair within the next 30-50 years, with the legislated removal of anything that is not "inclusive" from Bibles being forced on churches, churches being forced to marry gay couples, even if it goes against their beliefs, and lawsuits against any church that teaches the Word of God as it stands, instead of bending it to match the secular desires of people today.

I honestly believe that if anything will ever tear this country apart, this kind of thing could be it. Then again, 30-50 years from now, maybe no one will care.

Jesus said, in Matthew 7: 13-14, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

This seems to become more true with each passing day. Many rush through the gates that offer acceptance of any lifestyle or life practice, and towards destruction. God gave us all free will though, to do as we please.

Where did I say anything about love being a sin? Please, show me? I love my brother, and we are both male. I am free to love anyone I want. I love all my friends and family, male and female. That is not a sin. Nice try at using another excuse society has made-up to justify homosexuality though.

Society has created a lie that goes: "God wants his followers to be happy, so, as long as I do what makes me feel good or happy, it must be alright." Wrong.

Are you a Christian? Please show me in your Bible where it says you are ok to do something as long as it make you happy.

There are plenty of examples that actually say the opposite: you will suffer if you follow the teachings of Christ. This is a tough pill to swallow for many people.

Read 1 Peter 4. Some excerpts:

"Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead."

"Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

We are not to enjoy the immoral pleasures of the flesh, but delight in following the teachings of our God.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we are all sinners, every last one of us, and we need to repent for our sins and beg God for forgiveness through the perfect life and innocent death of his Son Jesus. But, we must repent, and to do this, we must acknowledge our sins.

If I sin, and I was impenitent about my sin, and you knew about this fault that I had, it would be your Christian duty to point out my sin, just as Christ commanded in Matthew 18:15. And I probably wouldn't like you for it; people hate being told they are sinning. But we must pray that the Spirit will come into their heart and show them their sin; if they see their fault, they will probably thank you for showing them; if they continue to sin, you should no longer have religious fellowship with them, as they do not believe the same as you believe.

Ending religious fellowship with them does not mean you stop loving them, however, or treat them with anger or contempt.

That was a perfect post OrangeCrush. WELL SAID!!!

It always amazes me when people think it is supposed to be easy to be a Christian and that doing the right thing instead of the easy thing will make life easier or more pleasent.

Live for the flesh or live for the Spirit. Living for the Spirit is HARD. It's tough beyond measure. Then you gain clarity and understanding through Jesus and it gets much much easier. This is why a Church should expel unrepentant sinners so they do not lead the rest of the flock astray.

B

The Spirit will come into their heart and show them their sin. That is correct. That is how it needs to happen for true revelation.

I am tuly blessed to belong to a loving church that attempts to guide and teach, not judge and expel. Trule very, very blessed.

And I am truly blessed to belong to a loving Lutheran church that does its best to follow the true Word of God as written in the Bible, and the teachings of Christ as explained by Luther.

I can't believ Christ would ever want his church to expel someone from its walls.... Christ came to minister to the sinner (which we all are)... The only thing someone learns by Chrisitans 'kicking' people out of their church is that Christians are intolerate which is the complete opposite of Christ's love

If you don't want to believe God's holy word then your certainly not going to believe anything I say thats for sure.

What you need to understand is that heaven is for a very, very select few. They are the ones who pass the test of life by following God's law and obeying his will.

Your church is NOT a place to evangelize. It has only taken on that role once people got too lazy to go out into the community to do it like they should. The church is there to instruct and to teach and to strengthen the soul of believers who are saved by Christ. It is a place of rest. It is not a place for flagrant sinners to throw their sin in your face. If they can't repent and change for whatever reason they need to be banned until they are willing to give up the sin that is more important to them than God is.

If you want a social club then go to a social club. If you want to go to Church you had better submit your will to God and obey him or get out and stay out till you are ready.

Christ did not bring the sinners into the church. He went out to where they lived and worked. He evangelized outside the church. IN the church he was a strict teacher who did not tolerate disgraceful activities in God's house and through them all out.

There is a time and place for everything.

Well first God was pretty open about saying thwt his church was not a building so to dwell on the fact that you go to a building and to say that you can't minister to people there is the complete opposite of his teaching... You then use a story of Jesus throwing the oney changers out of the temple as a reason to not allow someone into your church? Are the people you throwing out of your church preventing you from worship? It was clear throughout the gospels thwt jesus was very much opposed to anyone who you not welcome someone into his church so by saying that there is a time and place to evangelize and that only ceertain people are allowed in the church does not align with Christ's teaching

Christ did the majority of his teaching (pretty much all of it) away from the temple and among those sinners you just kicked out... I'd much rather be out on the street with Christ than in your church with the religious zealots...

j/c

This thread pretty much summarizes why I have shunned organized religion as I have grown older. I grew up going to church every Sunday with my parents where I was taught that church was a place of love; the hatred towards groups of people by a so called loving group of people astounds me.

There are a whole lot more important things to worry about in this world than if 2 people of the same sex fall in love and want to get married. I would be willing to bet most people with the anti-gay marriage belief are also ones that want government to stay out of their lives. Why do you feel it is your right to intrude on others private lives then? I lean conservative (OK, lean A LOT) but this is one aspect of conservatism that I am totally against - who cares if gay people want to wed and how does it affect you in any way other than you don't like it?!?

j/c here, with a POV that takes us back to the original content of the thread... well, at least I think it does.


For me, this has less to do with any one person's religious beliefs in Biblical scripture than it has to do with US CIVIL POLICY.

I have no issue whatsoever with a person, church, cult, religious institution, etc that refuses to acknowledge gay unions that are called 'marriage.' Each entitiy must find its own way of dealing with such an issue... and it's not my place to cast my own personal belief structure upon ANY of them in judgement.

What concerns me is simply this: American citizens are being denied rights that are afforded to others simply because of who/what they are.


From my take, this has NEVER been about Biblical teachings. It isn't about our personal interpretations of King James, New World, or other interpretations/translations of The Gospel. It has EVERYTHING to do with our 2015's interpretation of our nation's Bill of Rights. That mantle of responsibility falls upon US... and how we deal with it as a nation.

____________________________

I cannot understand why a person's sexual orientation has any bearing on his/her status as an American citizen... and why that orientation should be just cause for other Americans to work their asses off to suppress those rights.

It's not just rank-and-file ordinary citizens who are doing this... it's elected officials who are in the position to make statewide and national policy- and that's what lies at the heart of My Problem with all of this.

These people are so certain of the correctness of their position, that they are willing to impose that certitude ON THE ENTIRETY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC POLICY.


That's about as ballsy as it gets, if you ask me. To take it one step further- it's the ultimate expression of ignorance-based hubris.

_________

I've been a perpetual student of The World since the day I reached the age of cognition. I've never stopped asking, questioning, inquiring, learning... and in all the 100's of thousands of millions of bytes of information I've amassed in a lifetime of inquisitive searching, the only thing I'm absolutely certain of is this:

"I still don't know enough about anything to force my ideas about Life onto others."

I guess I'd make a lousy politician. I'd need to be more sure of my convictions to actually drag other sheep into my flock... and I'd need to be more certain of my "rightness" to even consider such an undertaking. I don't trust myself enough to take on such a responsibility. Too much is at stake, you know?


Bottom line: We have a Bill of Rights that was written apart and aside from any and all religious influence for a reason: to ensure that ALL Americans have the opportunity to seek their life's fullest potential in the one place on Earth that will allow it.

For centuries, my progenitors were prohibited by "Americans" to exercise their rights because they were shipped here- not as Human Beings- but as farm machinery. They only gained "legitimacy" one generation ago- by an act of Congress that told America that they could no longer treat other American citizens like mules or horses.

And now, we're further dividing ourselves... not by race, but by something even more over-arching- the essence of what a Human Being is.

___________

I don't ever expect to see a 2015 gay pride rally washed down the streets of a city with fire hoses like we did in 1963. I don't ever expect to see a "Rainbow Parade" beset upon by police officers in riot gear with attack dogs at the lead. I prefer to think that My People bore that indignity so that others might not have to. We bore that weight in the interest that America could better herself. If others can now better their lot from those efforts, well... that's simply "America in Action" -doing what She does best.

The marchers at Selma were Patriots on the same level as WW II vets, in that regard. One group defended American principles offshore. The other group upheld American principles within our geographical boundaries. Both were necessary to make this country what it now is- an ever-improving version of itself.

After all, "America" has been an ongoing 'social experiment' from its start, hasn't she? And experimentation always involves failures before successes, right?

If "Gays are the new Blacks," so be it. I don't mind being part of an American Sub-class that pushed our nation to better itself. After all... isn't putting one's own needs behind the good of the nation the very definition of the word: "Patriot?"

Denying other American citizens the inalienable rights that others enjoy is WRONG, under any guise, religious or otherwise. We can frame our bigotry against them in any way that allows us to sleep peacefully at night, but we will always be wrong when we lay our head down upon our pillows.

If you, as an American citizen, believe otherwise...

You.
Are.
Wrong.

And history will bear witness to the same. It already has, and it will again. Mark my words:


If even one of us isn't free.... America isn't truly free. Not any of us. Not all of us.


.02,
Clem

Actually, they are not being denied a right everyone else had. Any eligible male, gay or straight, can marry any eligible female in this country, and visa versa. Gay people do not want to exercise that right, because they do not love someone of the opposite gender. They still, absolutely, do have that right though.

The fact that some people want something does not make it a right. Some people have an inborn desire to want to have sex with children. That does not mean that they have a legal right to do so, or that they should be allowed to marry a child. They already have the right to marry an eligible person, eligible in age, according to the law.

Every law we have in this country is a limit in one way or another. Marriage has specific limits. One man cannot marry more than one woman. One woman cannot marry more than one man. It does not matter how much any of those people involved may love one another. A mother may not marry her son, and a father may not marry his daughter. They are not being denied the so called right to marriage, (and it is technically a privilege, and not a right) because their arrangement is not one that fits the traditional and/or legal definition of that privilege. They would need a new definition for marriage to make their desires reality.

A gay person is not being denied any right, they simply do not want an arrangement that falls within the rules that go along with marriage as it is/was, because they love someone of the same gender, and that is not what marriage is. They want to change the law, so that a new definition, one that has never existed, can be added, and so that their new arrangement can be called marriage.

This attempt is within their rights, and it is the right of those who are opposed on Biblical grounds to oppose it. However, it is not discrimination to stand opposed to gay marriage, just because gay people do not like the legal options available to them in marriage. They are not being denied a right, nor a privilege, they simply do not want to utilize the legal option available to them, because that is not who they are.

We don't always get what we want just because we want it, and we aren't always discriminated against if we don't. We are only discriminated against if we are absolutely denied a right that someone else has. That is not the case with marriage. Any eligible and legal man can marry any eligible and legal woman. Gay people do not want that privilege though. They want something different, because what marriage is does not fit who they are. While I can understand why they would feel that way, they still have the same access to marriage that anyone else does. If they want something different, then they want something new, and not marriage, because what they want is not marriage. If it was, they would already have it.

Posted by: YTownBrownsFan
Some people have an inborn desire to want to have sex with children. That does not mean that they have a legal right to do so, or that they should be allowed to marry a child. They already have the right to marry an eligible person, eligible in age, according to the law.

A child is not legally able to give consent, but an adult is.

Every law we have in this country is a limit in one way or another. Marriage has specific limits. One man cannot marry more than one woman. One woman cannot marry more than one man. It does not matter how much any of those people involved may love one another. A mother may not marry her son, and a father may not marry his daughter. They are not being denied the so called right to marriage, (and it is technically a privilege, and not a right) because their arrangement is not one that fits the traditional and/or legal definition of that privilege. They would need a new definition for marriage to make their desires reality.

On the other hand gay marriage does not risk any of the problems risked with the above marriages. It's just 2 people.

A gay person is not being denied any right, they simply do not want an arrangement that falls within the rules that go along with marriage as it is/was,

They are being denied the benefits that accompany a marriage. Those who oppose want to limit their legal rights.

...because they love someone of the same gender, and that is not what marriage is. They want to change the law, so that a new definition, one that has never existed, can be added, and so that their new arrangement can be called marriage.

Marriage has different definitions. Are we going to ban corporations from marriage? They're citizens too.

This attempt is within their rights, and it is the right of those who are opposed on Biblical grounds to oppose it. However, it is not discrimination to stand opposed to gay marriage, just because gay people do not like the legal options available to them in marriage. They are not being denied a right, nor a privilege, they simply do not want to utilize the legal option available to them, because that is not who they are.

Blacks were not satisfied with the legal "separate but equal" limitation either. Expecting gays to marry the opposite gender is similar to forcing blacks to accept that they were equally and legally provided for.

Right now in many places gays don't even have separate but equal.

We don't always get what we want just because we want it, and we aren't always discriminated against if we don't. We are only discriminated against if we are absolutely denied a right that someone else has.

In many states gays are absolutely denied the same rights that other states have legally endorsed.

The SCOTUS will provide the final decision.

That is not the case with marriage. Any eligible and legal man can marry any eligible and legal woman. Gay people do not want that privilege though. They want something different, because what marriage is does not fit who they are. While I can understand why they would feel that way, they still have the same access to marriage that anyone else does. If they want something different, then they want something new, and not marriage, because what they want is not marriage. If it was, they would already have it.

What you're saying is if they want to completely deny their feelings and ambitions they can engage in a loveless marriage and qualify for the same right to receive the benefits that marriage provides.

Clem, EXCELLENT post!

Have you ever written a book? If so, what's it called? If not, you should. I think just about all of us always enjoy what you write. I wouldn't care about the topic, though a book about your perspectives throughout your life would be awesome.

Ytown...

Some of my contention whether its this subject or others is this notion that we have Rights vs. privileges. The term privilege invokes the idea that your ability to do so requires permission from some other entity, a person or in this case gov't. This concept of the gov't bestowing privileges on people actually runs counter to the concepts of what the Constitution was based upon. During its drafting there was a group called the Federalists. They were opposed to enumerating our Rights in the Bill of Rights. It wasn't that they didn't think we had any Rights, it was that they were afraid that if they created a specific list within that document, that anything and everything else that was not mentioned would fall under the purview of the gov't, and that the gov't would decide when, where, and if it would bestow them upon the citizens. Sounds an awful lot like 'privilege' doesn't it?

Others didn't think their fears were founded, but they did come up with a compromise and included the 9th Amendment:

---The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So in reality, we as citizens have many more Rights than we realize.

When it comes to gay marriage:

First off, so long as there is a legal basis and is currently ruled Constitutional, judges and magistrates do not get to refuse to perform those services based on their own religious beliefs. When it comes to the enforcement of laws, those with that responsibility do NOT get to pick and choose when and where they won't enforce it based on those beliefs. They certainly can refuse to, but they should have no expectation of retaining their job/position.

-----------------------------------------

My question is: Why does the gov't have to have anything to do with "marriage"? What is the compelling interest the gov't has when it comes to two people who choose to intimately co-habitate? I think some of the problem is that the term marriage is both a legal and a religious term. I think if you get rid of the legal term "marriage" than you'd see less opposition to same sex unions. I think the polls for around 10yrs have shown that a large majority of people are against gay "marriage", but nearly as many in the same poll are ok with same sex civil unions.

IMO if someone wants their relationship legally recognized, then they can apply for a civil union, regardless of the gender make up. If you go this route, so what if 3 or 4 people want to be part of the same 'civil union'? Does it REALLY matter? Civil union/marriage is basically contract law anyways isn't it? Ytown and I don't have to get married if I want to give him Power of Attorney over me or my Estate.

As for "benefits"... when it comes to taxes if we simplified the damn thing it wouldn't matter if you filed jointly with your wife, same sex spouse, or roommate.

As for insurance... where I work, if the employee is the only person on the plan, they don't pay any (or a very small amount) in monthly premiums. You have the option of adding 1 spouse and up to 2 children, but would have to pay an additional (around $200/mo). So long as you agree to pay the established cost, does it really matter what sex the spouse is?

For those who are opposed to gov't employees having benefits that cover same sex partners... so what? 1) you pay your taxes because you HAVE to, its not charity. Your tax dollars are not going to help pay for or support a lifestyle you find objectional. That's as ridiculous a claim as saying you refuse to pay a highway toll because a gay person may drive on it on their way to date and you feel that it would mean you are condoning and supporting it.

I'm not a religious person, but I'm not anti-religion either. I do believe that many of the principles are founded on Christian ideals of how we as a free society should treat each other (things like the Golden Rule). I think there is plenty to support that, BUT there is virtually nothing to support this belief that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Quoting Scripture is fine for religious discussion, but it has no real relevance in a discussion about the application of LAW because the application of law as set forth by our Constitution and Founding Fathers was not about establishing and dictating morality. People certainly have the right to preach, proselytize, or witness to me in hopes of converting me, but they have no right to use the rule of law to coerce or force me to live by their subjective beliefs.

I really do believe that LESS gov't on this topic is correct, more effective, and least harmful resolution to this.

I'll pass the soapbox.. who's next??

I am taking this opportunity to come out of the closet. It is time.

There now, got my favorite shirt picked out and put on so I think I will type something.

Peace y'all.

Thanks, DD2847. No books, to date. I only recently started considering it. Maybe once I retire. Memoirs, perhaps... some pretty weird (nd sometimes wonderful) things have happened to me over the years. Nice to know I'd be able to sell at least one copy.


BTW: I just finished reading your most recent post. Bravo! YOU should consider writing, too. Just sayin'.....

J/C...

Since "the truth" seems to be the big topic of this thread.... I have 2 questions for anybody who would care to answer.....

There are 2 brothers, one is gay, he is a social activist for gay and human rights, he acts in off Broadway plays and smokes weed, he dies of AIDS... other brother wears a cross around his neck, has a baby and a GF at home, and he jumps on a IED in Afghanistan saving the lives of 3 of his buddies... they arrive at the gates to Heaven at the same time..

1. Who does God love more?
2. Which one has a better chance of getting into Heaven?

1. He loves them both the same.

2. I have no idea because I am not God and that is not my decision to make.

1. He loves them both.
2. They both get into heaven.

God created both of them, and both of them made a sacrifice to better the greater group. The gay guy was trying to obtain equal footing for the LBGT community, since they are the new blacks when it comes to civil rights.

The soldier sacrificed himself by jumping on an IED(quick side note, even if he jumps on the IED, everybody is still dead, but i get your point) so that the other soldiers can live.

Here's the problem with your question.

you gave the gay guy more morally questionable issues such as smoking weed and death from aids, while the soldier got a pretty straight forward death and life. not exactly fair.

on top of that, it doesn't matter if the gay guy died of AIDs. more straight people die of Aids than homosexuals. and Weed(you KNOW i was gonna comment) is a God given plant.

Which one was saved?

Soldier has a baby and a GF (not a wife).. I gave them both "sins"..

And it was not meant to be "fair".. that was kind of the intent of the question and Pit got both right.. answer to the first one is that He loves them both the same. answer to the second is that we don't know. As a Bible believing Christian, only God knows what is on their heart, only God knows the parts of their lives I didn't discuss, only God has their whole lives in his vision... could be one or the other, could be both, could be neither... we don't know.

So........ What about the weed part?

God loved them both.

Whether they got into heaven or not has nothing to do with the information you gave. Did they accept Jesus as forgiveness of their sins? Did they repent and change their ways? Are they at least trying to change? I mean just saying you believe in God and then doing whatever you want is not the actions of someone who has found salvation through Jesus.

If they did get saved then they go to heaven and if they didn't they won't. An active gay is living in open rebellion against God though so I doubt they would make it to heaven.

The soldier is also living in sin and is no better. Why is he not married? Doesn't want to or can't afford to? If it's a money issue they are pretty much considered a common law marriage by living together and having children together.

There just isn't enough information to give a real response. In either case I leave that up to God and Jesus to decide.

But in the mean time while they're hear on earth you'll remind them they're heading for hell.
So let God judge them when they die but you are to judge them while they live.
Right?

Thanks, occasionally I get on a roll

This is off topic for a moment, but since you mention weird and wonderful things... Last year I took part in a Leadership course for my department. As with any group training there is always a "get to know everyone" exercise. It's usually stand up, state your name, where you're from, and what's your favorite hobby. This was different and I've never encountered it before:

Each person stood and gave their name. Then they had to state 4 facts about themselves. 3 are true, 1 is a lie. The group would then vote and try to guess which one was the lie. I don't think I've ever met a more interesting group of people in my life.

Actually, I think I'll start another thread with this exercise and see what posters come up with..

J/C

Now to talk about where I stand in the legality of gay marriage..

A man and 2 women can all consent and love each other...can they get married?

A brother and sister can both consent and love each other...can they get married?

There goes your little slideshow right out the window.

In the future, artificial intelligence will have the ability to reason, love, and consent...can they get married?

Are the rights of all these people being infringed upon? It has never been a right in this country that any two people who love each other and are able to consent can get married.

Then, against the above argument you have what I will call an intentionally vague counterpoint like:



What do you mean by "problems?" If a man marries his sister, what problem is there that a gay marriage does not have?

Clem, I love hearing what you type. It's always good to listen to a person that can think independently about a subject and eloquently present their opinion. But being free to marry whomever you want as long as you love them and both parties consent has never been a right in this country, and it probably never will be, as shown by the examples above, unless you want polygamy and brother-sister marriages to be an unalienable right as well.

That isn't to say gay marriage should be illegal. It just must go through the proper channels. It isn't the government's responsibility to condone religion or uphold morals. A government exists to serve the people. That means making laws based on the views of the majority, but protecting the rights of those in the minority.

But like I said, gay marriage isn't a right, unless polygamy and direct-family marriages are also rights.

Now, what this means: if the majority of the people in a state (this definitely falls under the jurisdiction of the state) vote to legalize gay marriage, it should be legal. In response to the original post, those officials who do not follow this law should be punished. Law is law, even if the elected officials don't agree with it. The SCOTUS shouldn't even have to get involved. It's plain as day.

Edit: It definitely could be added to the Bill of Rights as an Amendment someday, defining what marriage or civil union or whatever you want to call it legally entails. As of yet, that has not happened (though, I expect it will happen someday), so, it falls to the jurisdiction of the state (just like it is today).

There should be no discrimination against homosexuals by any business, whether in hiring or refusal of service. The only exception to this should be if a private business is asked to serve in religious service/activity/etc. So, if a catering service is asked to cater for a gay marriage reception (a religious activity), they should be able to decline.

It's really not that hard to see that this is how things should happen, according to the laws in our great country.

Yeah, you seem to be confusing evangelism with the practice of true, Christian fellowship.

A Christian should never stop evangelizing to anyone. You do not evangelize in a condemning or judging manner, but use the Law to show them their sins and need for a Savior, then you use the Gospel to show them the good news of redemption and salvation. Law then Gospel, Martin Luther was a big proponent of this method. If the Spirit works faith into their heart, rejoice! If not, give them space, and come back at a later time when they are hopefully more receptive. That is all you can do.

Christian fellowship is a different manner. Would you invite a follower of Islam right away to join you in Holy Communion if they do not believe in Jesus? That would make no sense. No, first you must instruct him, then, hopefully reaching common ground in your faith of Jesus, allow him to join you. If you cannot find a unity of faith with them, they should not participate in the Means of Grace with you. So it should be with everyone; if you do not have a common faith with someone else, you should not practice Christian Fellowship with them.

That doesn't mean you stop loving or evangelizing to them.

The problem with religion today is that too many churches and Christians want to use their own faulty human world views and opinions to say who God is instead of reading the Bible. They think that God wants all his believers to be happy while they are on earth, and that he wouldn't do this or do that, when the exact opposite is written in His Word. Confirmation bias at its best. The cut out all the parts of the Bible that they do not agree with.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19



You have yet to make a semi-coherent argument yet that has been based on anything written in the Bible, and instead have tried to put words in my mouth that I have not said. I have never said a Christian should judge another, and I never said a homosexual could never love in a healthy, Christian manner. Yet you still try to say I do.

If you wish for me to respond to you anymore, please answer this question (yes or no) and give a brief explanation if you desire: If Jesus came down from heaven, today, and gave you a command, would you follow it?

Comparing gay marriage to polygamists and consanguineous marriages is like comparing apples to bicycles. Your percentages won't be any higher than it is for the STRAIGHT people that currently participate in such things. If you can't see that, I'm sorry for your intelligence level.

If Christ were to come down and give me a command, yes I'd follow it.
What I'm not going to do is drive people from my life. Which is what I see many evangelical fundamentalist do. They become so single minded that it becomes difficult for them to talk about much else. Often driving people from their lives. Being told repeatedly that you're going to hell does little to foster further relationships. Again watching my father drive my sister from his life has been difficult for me. He cut off his nose to spite his face. He lost a chance at her soul, and also time with her and her children while he's here on earth. But he'll show her how much he loves her... It's insanity and I've seen it play out in other evangelical families.
My hope is if Christ came down to give me a command it wouldn't be a command to deny someone else their right to happiness by using the free will God gave them. You said a homosexual is allowed to love in a healthy, Christian manner... Do you not see that for a homosexual loving in a supposed "healthy, Christian manner" goes against everything they are? Does God really want us to be unloved while doing our time here on earth? I refuse to believe that.
I once read a loving man believes in a loving God. A vengeful man believes in a vengeful God.
I believe in Christ. I'm a born again believer. My friends know. I've told them. If they have questions they know to ask. In the mean time I love them. I reflect God's love. People are drawn to light and avoid darkness. So you go on denying people the free will God granted them and the laws to protect them. I'm sure people are lining up to hear how you got so judgemental...er...enlightened.

I'm trying to figure out why those on this board expect some to follow religious laws even though some gays, and even straight people don't practice said religion.

isn't that exactly what muslims force their people to do in the middle east?

is that what we are now?

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-The President of the United States

I can't stop shaking my head.

What we believe in and practice in religion, (Christian or non-Christian) any religion or subset (Protestant, Catholic, Baptist (as well as the non-Christian variations)) thereof is a completely separate issue from what is passed as a government enacted law.

One of the fundamental principals of this country is the right to practice whatever religion to whatever extent that is personally held. The underlying reason is a belief that religious issues are so diverse that it is impossible to reconcile and led to persecution of those who held a minority belief. (See puritans, Quakers, shakers etc.)

I have no idea why a religious belief is conflicted with a government enacted law. You may disagree with the law based upon a religious standard. It is your right, change the law, which is of course subject to judicial review. If you disagree with the judicial review, change the constitution. We have done that before, and sometimes we have even changed it back.

Second, I have no idea why people try to attempt to pass judgement on any issue that involves taking the position or trying to respond as if they were God. I don't know what God will say about me when that time comes. I hope he believes that I led a good life. I can and will probably have to answer for things that I have done in my past that I regret. I don't really need or want anyone other than God making that judgement.

So as of now we have a law that allows marriage between two consenting individuals of sound mental capacity. There are two caveats 1) the individuals are of appropriate age and 2) are not directly related.

I don't know if the caveats will change, and I see some rationale for them.

If anything this conversation has demonstrated that because of the many personal beliefs held by individuals and religious groups it is impractical to use religion as a basis for the establishment of a government law.

Why do you feel that way? You justify marrying two women or two men because they supposedly love each other. That is your excuse to justify abandoning the fundamental common knowledge that marriage is between a woman and a man.

Yet if a man loves two women and they love him back that is wrong to you. Therefore you arguing what society accepts is what is ok and love doesn't matter.

So what you really mean is that love is an ok reason but only, so long as, it fits your idea of what is acceptable to marriage.

The truth is that love as a condition for marriage is a fairly recent idea. Many parts of the world still don't use love or any emotion for that matter as a basis for a marriage contract.

A man is fully capable of loving many women at the same time, the same as a woman can love many men at the same time. Men can love each other, as much as, they want to. Women can too. What they CANT do is have sex outside of marriage which is clearly defined as a man and a woman for the sake of procreation. That is the standard that has been in place for thousands upon thousands of years by christians and non christians. There are exceptions here and there but it is the OVERWHELMING majority of history.

Don't confuse marriage with love or love with sex.

I love my best friend more than just about anyone but we are not going to have sex. Are you saying that I don't love him because we don't have sex? That is a disgusting mindset.

Stop living for the Flesh and instead live for the Spirit.

Posted by:OrangeCrush J/C
It really doesn't seem that you were J/C.

Now to talk about where I stand in the legality of gay marriage..

A man and 2 women can all consent and love each other...can they get married?

I guess if enough of them petition the court then the court would need to decide as they are now doing with gay marriage. If the court decides there's no constitutional right to deny polygamy, would you argue?

A brother and sister can both consent and love each other...can they get married?

They have in the past. Now most people realize the danger of in-breeding. Also, siblings already have legal rights that have been denied to gays. Gays wanting rights is not just a whim to piss off society. Being gay used to be a punishable crime. Should we still punish them?

In the future, artificial intelligence will have the ability to reason, love, and consent...can they get married?

An interesting question that I assume you posted thoughtfully.

Then, against the above argument you have what I will call an intentionally vague counterpoint like:


What do you mean by "problems?" If a man marries his sister, what problem is there that a gay marriage does not have?

I believe I answered the same question above.

There goes your little slideshow right out the window.

Please don't bother jumping out of the window to catch it. It's really not that important. I apologize for what seemed to be a "little slide show". I thought I was was responding appropriately to another poster's points.

I have so little problem creating vague counterpoints that it takes no intention on my part.

I also didn't mess up the colors purposely. Except this last one. I did that one intentionally.

Exactly brother. That's what & where we are now. We've become segregated by the worlds religions and races. Until we all realize we all come from the same biological genetic makeup, (I call the "Human Race"), we'll continue to encounter bigotry, racism, and holy wars in the name of said religions.