Woody Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So. What do you feel about the ban in California on Homosexual Marriage? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Like I posted before, marriage between a man and a woman isn't any more "religious" than saying that "not stealing" is a religious thing. Sure the Bible happens to teach that it is wrong to steal, and that marriage is between a man and a woman but funny how it becomes a religious thing if it has to do with "orientation". Marriage between a man and a woman is simply a definition that happens to agree with "the Bible" but it is still just a definition. This does not get rid of "benefits" for "gay unions", however it does keep churches from ever being "forced" into providing a "marraige ceremony". I think that churches should have this "right" to "refuse marriage" to gays, while still loving the gays and welcoming them to attend church. But that is my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 5, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 5, 2008 Hehe - had to love the Daily Show. "The Mormons have long defined marriage as between a man and... um, wait..." Proposition 8 was a step backward, but it's a generational thing... we can wait. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I was very happy to hear Californians decide to amend their state Constitution. We amended ours in Texas a few years back. That is the only way that judges can be held accountable by the people. This issue was bigger than just gay marriage. The people had passed a ban on gay marriage before but the Supreme Court of California overruled the people by declaring the people's ban to be unconstitutional. So now the people have amended their Constitution to make the ban part of it. Why should judges make such decisions? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 ...This does not get rid of "benefits" for "gay unions", however it does keep churches from ever being "forced" into providing a "marraige ceremony". I think that churches should have this "right" to "refuse marriage" to gays, while still loving the gays and welcoming them to attend church... I generally agree with you. Given the way government operates, it would probably make it illegal to discriminate. That is the main objection I would have to passage of a law permitting gay marriage. I am most definitely in favor of loving gays and welcoming them to attend church. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hehe - had to love the Daily Show. "The Mormons have long defined marriage as between a man and... um, wait..." Proposition 8 was a step backward, but it's a generational thing... we can wait. Well I don't think it is a step backwards to keep marriage as it has always been traditioonally defined without hating gays or comitting crimes against them. We can uphold marriage without being biggotted. These gays in CA can have "unions" and get "benefits" and be "recognized" and they don't need to be "married". I am glad Prop 8 seems to have passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 A step backwards will be when the gay lifestyle is accepted as normal like it was in ancient cultures of the past. One would hope that we have progressed past that. What next? Sacrificing live children to the sun? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 That's unworthy of you. A loving relationship between two people of the same sex has occurred at all times in human history - the only difference has been the degree of persecution. It's hardly a step forward to increase persecution. Whether we agree with their choices or not, leaving people alone to make their own decisions is a fundamental part of freedom and respect. As said in the other forum: Christians can start worrying about the gay threat to marriage once they make some slight move toward fixing the straight threat to marriage. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 First: tolerating gays by allowing them to have civil unions is not persecution. Second: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and all others do not have to wait until the divorce and teenage pregnancy problem have been solved before they can worry about other issues that threaten marriage. That would not make any sense. Marriage needs to be strengthen against all things that threaten it. The threats cannot be taken on one at a time. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 See the thread on this topic in Town Hall Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 And refusing to allow gay people the same rights as everyone else in society is persecution. (And please don't come back with that nonsense about 'they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex - both insulting and a recipe for pain.) Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 They do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just as everyone else have the right to have civil unions with whomever they choose. How is that a recipe for pain? Or is a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex a recipe for pain? Well, if they don't get treated for their homosexuality I would agree that a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex is a recipe for pain. However John317 is an example of a person dealing with their homosexuality who has married someone of the opposite sex. I wouldn't say john317's marriage is a recipe for pain. The next question is to say, where is it that marriage is a right? Is baptism a right too? Is circumcision a right? Is participating in holy communion a right? I understand basic human rights: religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, private property rights, copyright protections, right to a speedy and fair trial, right to vote, freedom of racial prejudice as well as educational and economic rights. However my understanding in the history of marriage and society is that marriage is of a religious origin which society has adapted in such a way as to benefit them. Society is under no obligation to redefine marriage to allow for homosexuality, incest or polygamy. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricket Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 However my understanding in the history of marriage and society is that marriage is of a religious origin which society has adapted in such a way as to benefit them. Society is under no obligation to redefine marriage to allow for homosexuality, incest or polygamy. Then NO marriage should be recognized by the state or federal governments. It should be a private religious matter. And if we'd take all the marriage laws out of the political realm, EVERYONE could be happy. Your religion could define what marriage means to you, and other peoples' relgion can define what marriage means to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Government is founded upon Christian principles. It is the majority that rules. I suppose you could have that in a Muslim country. They have Muslim rules there. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricket Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Christianity needs to get out of the government then. We, the people, need to recognize this and take our Christian beliefs with us--back into our homes and churches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Christianity needs to get out of the government then. We, the people, need to recognize this and take our Christian beliefs with us--back into our homes and churches. It is tradition and family values that even other countries recognize. If we make that a "christian value" then we also can't prosecute anyone for murder, for stealing, for lying to a grand jury etc. I for one am grateful to live in a moral society that recognizes that stealing, murder, and such are wrong. The Bible just happens to agree with that. I am also a supporter of Prop 8 and I believe I would be no matter what my personal beliefs were, even if I were an athiest. They can have "unions" but it isn't "marriage" in the traditional sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 ...Well, if they don't get treated for their homosexuality I would agree that a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex is a recipe for pain. However John317 is an example of a person dealing with their homosexuality who has married someone of the opposite sex. I wouldn't say john317's marriage is a recipe for pain. This is true. I'm constantly praying that Christ will be with me and helping me be what I should be in my relationship. I always need his grace to change my thinking and feelings and He's been doing it. I'm aware of my need of Him every moment. I wouldn't even attempt this if I didn't know He's with me. But I can imagine if a gay person were to marry without Christ being in the center of the marriage, it could very well be a real recipe for pain. A gay person should think very long and deep before marrying someone of the opposite sex, and they should be honest with the future spouse and tell them the situation. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 God is a God of miracles. He can change their orientation, or help them cope with it and still not act on their "gayness". If heterosexual people can live "celebate lives" if they choose to never marry, then people who are gay can do the same. Sure it takes some real effort, and some help from God but it is possible. I have known of such cases of being "gay" but not "giving in to it" and people who have been "gay" and are now "straight" and very happy...some 20 years later...are still happy. We serve an awesome God! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricket Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Originally Posted By: cricket Christianity needs to get out of the government then. We, the people, need to recognize this and take our Christian beliefs with us--back into our homes and churches. It is tradition and family values that even other countries recognize. If we make that a "christian value" then we also can't prosecute anyone for murder, for stealing, for lying to a grand jury etc. I for one am grateful to live in a moral society that recognizes that stealing, murder, and such are wrong. The Bible just happens to agree with that. I am also a supporter of Prop 8 and I believe I would be no matter what my personal beliefs were, even if I were an athiest. They can have "unions" but it isn't "marriage" in the traditional sense. Why can't Christians have "marriage" in the church and "civil unions" outside of the church? You know...let the church perform a marriage and the courts issue a contract of civil union? I don't see what the big deal is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Originally Posted By: Taylor It is tradition and family values that even other countries recognize. If we make that a "christian value" then we also can't prosecute anyone for murder, for stealing, for lying to a grand jury etc. I for one am grateful to live in a moral society that recognizes that stealing, murder, and such are wrong. The Bible just happens to agree with that. I am also a supporter of Prop 8 and I believe I would be no matter what my personal beliefs were, even if I were an athiest. They can have "unions" but it isn't "marriage" in the traditional sense. [/quote'] Why can't Christians have "marriage" in the church and "civil unions" outside of the church? You know...let the church perform a marriage and the courts issue a contract of civil union? I don't see what the big deal is. This is how it always should have been. Let the institute of marriage be handled by the churches, and domestic partnerships handled byu the government. I doubt most gay people don't care what the churches think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 ... Let the institute of marriage be handled by the churches, and domestic partnerships handled byu the government. I doubt most gay people don't care what the churches think. I assume you mean that most gays don't care. Let me know if I misunderstand you. I know a lot of gays who wish the churches allowed them to marry. You might be amazed at how many gay people grew up in Catholic and protestant (including SDA) homes and they still do respect their churches. They do "care" what those churches think, but they feel it's unrealistic for the churches to expect them to change or to stop being who they are. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 God is a God of miracles. He can change their orientation, or help them cope with it and still not act on their "gayness". If heterosexual people can live "celebate lives" if they choose to never marry, then people who are gay can do the same. Sure it takes some real effort, and some help from God but it is possible. I have known of such cases of being "gay" but not "giving in to it" and people who have been "gay" and are now "straight" and very happy...some 20 years later...are still happy. We serve an awesome God! I agree that God is a still a God of miracles. He can do anything, and He does change people just the way you say. It's important for people to surrender to God completely and determine to be faithful to Him no matter what God chooses to do. Just as God doesn't usually perform a miracle to take away the other sinful desires people have, so He most often allows gay people to experience struggle against homosexual desires and does not remove them. He is with us IN our temptations and IN the middle of our struggles. He provides grace and power to deal with it them, which builds character. I believe that is the reason he usually does not simply remove the temptations and desires, because it is through using God's grace to resist and overcome that we learn about the necessity of trusting and relying completely on Him. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Okay ... What is going on. On Fox ... they are showing thousands of gays out protesting Prop 8. They are trying to say it is not constitutional. Where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right to all citizens? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted November 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 6, 2008 They are saying that the majority do not have the right to pass laws suppressing the rights of a minority. That's what it boils down to. What they don't see is that a society and culture has a right to define marriage. Some day our society will probably decide marriage is between any two people of whatever sex who commit themselves to love and cherish each other; but for now, in California, it is only between a man and a woman. I can see both sides' viewpoints. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamant Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 The case is clear. The scripture does not say " man and man " . Further there are so many obvious passages . It is included along with other things as abomanations . ( Abomanable , detestable ) It is quite clear . It is defined by scripture . Doug Batchelor did a fairly good explanation about it on amazingfacts . It is precisely the ' legal ' aspect , when a law is asserted in opposition - for example calling it anything else such as ' partnership ' is quite different , explicitly calling it ' marriage ' is the point . That has been defined , and other liasons are simply other liasons , or whatever they might be called . Marriage is specific. By the way ; " Political Correctness " did not fall of a tree , from whence much of the ideology derives , PC was manufactured - and by typing ' origin political correctness' one can find who did it , when , and where , and why ! The purpose is not to raise any to equal status. No . When ' significant other ' might apply to the person who visits an elderly isolated person once a month , for example , and that definition is written down by a social worker , for example , then " significant other " has almost no status . Thus, the true purpose is outright attack , on the institution of marriage - to raise none , but to reduce all to insignificant relationships . Do you see ? A total onslaught on the foundations of civilisation and the basics of Christianity , as well as other faiths . Quote {GC 606.2}= CONSPIRACY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.