Gay Marriage

[Dr. Shane]

Same-Sex Marriage was the cover story on the May/June issue of Liberty Magazine for those that missed it. There are two articles. One argues for gay marriage and one against it. Oddly, the index page inside the magazine only references the page number for the article for gay marriage. Thus many judges, politicians and non-Adventists that just glance through our magazine will not read the article against gay marriage.

I don't have too much a problem with same-sex marriage being legal if it is legalized by a majority vote of the people and religious liberty was protected. I would not vote for it but have no problem with the people having the right to pass such a law. My biggest problem with the entire gay marriage issue is the idea that it is a civil right that should have Constitutional protection. Heterosexual marriage isn't even protected by the federal Constitution. It is regulated by the states under the Tenth Amendment.

I was very happy to see Proposition 8 pass in California. Not so much because it ban gay marriage but rather because it overturned a decision of the California Supreme Court which overturned the will of the people. There are fundamental rights that are God-given and the people should not be able to repeal. These are part of the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution. Gay marriage is not among them so I think it should be decided by the people in the voting booth.

In the first Liberty Magazine article, without realizing it, I think the author, Alan Brownstein, actually makes the case that gay marriage is less than desirable for religious liberty. He admits that by allowing gay marriage that accommodations would need to be drafted to protect religious liberty when conflicts arise. Brownstein is arguing in favor of allowing gay marriage. In discussing the case Bob Jones University v. United States, he fails to satisfactorily persuade me that the case could not be used as a precedent for punishing churches that discriminate against homosexuals.

[olger]

Paul was right. Perilous times were coming.

He was also right when he said "... God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus."

g

[Dr. Shane]

Not everything that is legal is morally right. The issue of religious liberty comes up because when homosexuals become classified as a protected class of people it then becomes illegal to discriminate against them.

Most Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin do not want to participate in that sin. Many Catholic doctors, for example, will not perform vasectomies because they believe birth control is sinful. If gays are not a protected class of people, a Christian could refuse to rent to them or provide non-emergency medical services. As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I would not encourage anyone to discriminate against gays in such a way BUT, I believe that religious liberty should allow us the right to do so if we feel so convicted.

[olger]

Marriage good.

Homo marriage bad.

g

[Woody]

Marriage good.

Homo marriage bad.

g

A Homogeneous marriage is good.

G 's use of 'homo' .... bad.

[olger]

Marriage good.

Deviant marriage bad.

[Rondo]

The issue comes down to, are you building a church, or a civil society. A civil society has to prevent anarchy. To ban the gays from gay marriage may be the attempt to "just get along". For a church, they should never be accused of discrimination if their doctrine doesn't allow for it. Start your own church of gays, or to be able to church marry them.

I was embarrassed for the SDA church to see Bonnie Dwyer of Spectrum, Alex Carpenter, Elder Geraty (LSU), David Larson, and Chuck Scriven and other LLU Religion faculty being against Prop 8, on the grounds that we as Adventists are a minority and will need help some day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0

[SivartM]

If the majority of the country wants to allow gay marriage, it should be legal. The government shouldn't pander to select religious groups. We are not a theocracy.

At the same time, people who don't want to perform homosexual marriages should be allowed not to. I really don't see what's so complicated about it.

[Woody]

Excellent points SivartM

[Dr. Shane]

If the majority of the country wants to allow gay marriage, it should be legal. The government shouldn't pander to select religious groups. We are not a theocracy.

It is an issue regulated by the states and should remain that way. It is not a federal issue and shouldn't be.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I agree with Elton John's idea:

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

[there buster]

Quote:

If the majority of the country wants to allow gay marriage, it should be legal. The government shouldn't pander to select religious groups. We are not a theocracy.

This restates the fallacy that homosexual marriage is only opposed for religious reasons. There are sound civil reasons to oppose homosexual marriage, none of which rely on 'moral' or 'religious' grounds.

[SivartM]

What are they?

[Gregory Matthews]

Marriage is about producing children. (See Gen. 1:27 & 28.)

Homosexual people will never be able to produce their own children. So they should not be allowed to marry!

As a matter of fact, no couple should be allowd to marry unless they demonstrate that they can produce children.

Furthermore, once a man and a woman reach the age where they can no longer produce children they should be required to divorce as the purpose of marriage no longer exists in their case.

The same goes for any person who has been surgically altered.

Mariage should only exist when a couple can produce children and should disolve when the can no longer take place.

You are right there are civil reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Elton John makes more sense than Gregory Matthews. The scary thing is that there are a lot of activist judges that don't think like Elton John. Instead of singing Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, us Christians may soon soon be singing goodbye religious liberty.

[teresaq]

Marriage is about producing children. (See Gen. 1:27 & 28.)

Homosexual people will never be able to produce their own children. So they should not be allowed to marry!

As a matter of fact, no couple should be allowd to marry unless they demonstrate that they can produce children.

Furthermore, once a man and a woman reach the age where they can no longer produce children they should be required to divorce as the purpose of marriage no longer exists in their case.

The same goes for any person who has been surgically altered.

Mariage should only exist when a couple can produce children and should disolve when the can no longer take place.

You are right there are civil reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

that was good!! i quite enjoyed the humor!! lol

[doug yowell]

Marriage is about producing children. (See Gen. 1:27 & 28.)

Homosexual people will never be able to produce their own children. So they should not be allowed to marry!

As a matter of fact, no couple should be allowd to marry unless they demonstrate that they can produce children.

Furthermore, once a man and a woman reach the age where they can no longer produce children they should be required to divorce as the purpose of marriage no longer exists in their case.

The same goes for any person who has been surgically altered.

Mariage should only exist when a couple can produce children and should disolve when the can no longer take place.

You are right there are civil reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

So you see that reproduction is the ONLY reason for allowing marriage? Or is it that you see that reproduction finds NO need for marriage?One aspect in the discussion that never gets consideration is that marriage is the one universal institution that is purposely designed to give society's approval to the sexual union. The attempt to grant the marriage status to homosexual couples is an attempt to moralize the sexual act between same sex couples.Society's ultimate blessing on their sexual preference.A blessing which is not even confirmed on heterosexual couples shacking up.

[Nan]

Marriage is about producing children. (See Gen. 1:27 & 28.)

Homosexual people will never be able to produce their own children. So they should not be allowed to marry!

As a matter of fact, no couple should be allowd to marry unless they demonstrate that they can produce children.

Furthermore, once a man and a woman reach the age where they can no longer produce children they should be required to divorce as the purpose of marriage no longer exists in their case.

The same goes for any person who has been surgically altered.

Mariage should only exist when a couple can produce children and should disolve when the can no longer take place.

You are right there are civil reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Just wondering how the couples prove they can have children before they are married, assuming no sex before marriage is the ideal!!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Nan said:

Quote:

Just wondering how the couples prove they can have children before they are married, assuming no sex before marriage is the ideal!!!

[Dr. Shane]

marriage is the one universal institution that is purposely designed to give society's approval to the sexual union. The attempt to grant the marriage status to homosexual couples is an attempt to moralize the sexual act between same sex couples.

That is a very good observation however I tend to think what the gay movement really wants is marriage so that immigration law will allow them to flood the country with more gays. The average gay marriage is about two years long in areas where gay marriage has been made legal. (The average heterosexual marriage is 20+ years) If recognized by the federal government, a gay person could bring in his or her gay lover from another country, stay married 2 years, get divorced and bring in another and so on. Every two or three years gay people could bring in new lovers. This is a real concern because in the gay lifestyle, new lovers is what it is all about. It is quite common that two gay men who are married to each other continue to have sex with new lovers. Their marriage is more about companionship than sex.

[jsm]

"From the beginning of creation God made them MALE and FEMALE. For this reason A MAN shall leave his father and mother and be joined to HIS WIFE." Mark 10:6-7.

[doug yowell]

[

What a shallow way to look at a beautiful relationship created by God. God gave Eve to Adam as his companion first and then He told them to be fruitful and multiply. During the seasons of marriage priorities change. Love deepens and greater unity occurs over time. Isn't Jesus' relationship with the church compared to marriage? When do we get dumped because we have become old and outlive our one purpose?

mrsd, I think Greg was being uhhm.... help me out here,GM.......

[SivartM]

Facetious?

[doug yowell]

[ I tend to think what the gay movement really wants is marriage so that immigration law will allow them to flood the country with more gays. The average gay marriage is about two years long in areas where gay marriage has been made legal. (The average heterosexual marriage is 20+ years) If recognized by the federal government, a gay person could bring in his or her gay lover from another country, stay married 2 years, get divorced and bring in another and so on. Every two or three years gay people could bring in new lovers. This is a real concern because in the gay lifestyle, new lovers is what it is all about. It is quite common that two gay men who are married to each other continue to have sex with new lovers. Their marriage is more about companionship than sex.

Interesting. There's a piece from the most recent Christian Examiner issue regarding gay marriage. I wonder what John thinks of this,true or false? www.christianexaminer.com

[Overaged]

That is a very good observation however I tend to think what the gay movement really wants is marriage so that immigration law will allow them to flood the country with more gays.

Nice conspiracy theory! What next?