Gay Marriage

[Dr. Shane]

A judge who would discriminate against gay couples where the statute allows them to marry, should resign.

That is exactly the type of religious intolerance that we have to beware of and that is where gay-rights activists want to take us. As Adventists we really need to support our religious liberty departments because gay marriage is a direct threat to our religious liberty as Gregory Matthews clearly points out here.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, you referenced a MD who should not be forced to perform an abortion. I agree. The MD is acting as a private citizen. The judge is acting as an official of the State (civil government).

I personally beleive that the time will come when some people of conscience will not be able to act as agents of the State and at that time they should resign.

A judge, who has sworn to enforce the statute must do so without bias and according to the law. We can have no less. A judge who cannot do that should resign.

It is not a violation of our religioius liberty to say what I have said. There is not law that permits such for a judge. There are laws permit a MD to refuse to provide an abortion.

Shane, do you allow for civil unions as opposed to marriage?

Shane, it is not a violation of our religioius liberty to say that a judge who can not enforce the statue as it reads, equally to all, should not be a judge. That person does not have a right to be a judge.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, you referenced a MD who should not be forced to perform an abortion. I agree. The MD is acting as a private citizen. The judge is acting as an official of the State (civil government).

OK, let's talk about the MD that is serving in the military and will not perform an abortion. Or how about the Catholic urologist serving that will not perform a vasectomy? How about the Adventist soldier that will not train on Saturday?

A judge doesn't give up his religious liberty because his employer happens to be the government. That would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Make no mistake about it, gay rights activists are not looking out for religious liberty. Quite to the contrary. They are looking to trample on top of it. Support our religious liberty departments. Subscribe to Liberty Magazine and stay informed.

[Dr. Shane]

it is not a violation of our religioius liberty to say that a judge who can not enforce the statue as it reads, equally to all, should not be a judge. That person does not have a right to be a judge.

This is the danger and this kind of thinking runs throughout the gay rights movement. They are so obsessed with what they believe to be their own rights they become blind to such evident violations of other people's rights.

A judge who is against capital punishment need only recuse himself when a case comes before him in which the defendant faces capital punishment. Of course when this happens we don't hear the gay rights activists call for him to resign, but if the same judge won't marry to gay guys because of his same religious convictions, resign is the only option. Support our religious liberty departments - they need all the support they can get.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

OK, let's talk about the MD that is serving in the military and will not perform an abortion. Or how about the Catholic urologist serving that will not perform a vasectomy? How about the Adventist soldier that will not train on Saturday?

A judge doesn't give up his religious liberty because his employer happens to be the government. That would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

1) Shane, you clearly fail to understand: The military physician is hired by the military to perform certain services. The statute allows that MD to refuse to perform an aborion or a vasectomy. The judge is not in that situation. The judge has taken an oath to provide the services of the law, equally and without bias to all. The MD can not be forced to provide an abortion. The judge rightfully can not exclude any class of people from the services that the judge has sworn to provide.

You mention a soldier who will not train on Saturday. Well, some people do not belong in the Military. In some cases, the work of the SDA Chruch (and SDA miliatary chaplain) is to get the person out of the military with an honorable discharge and no punishment.

2) You are correct that the judge does not give us his/her religious liberty. But that religious liberty does not allow the jugew to fail in his/her obligation to provide equally to all.

3) You tell us to support our religioius liberty department. I will tellyou that the SDA Religious Libertment will never take on the case of a judge who does as you suggest.

[Dr. Shane]

The statute allows that MD to refuse to perform an aborion or a vasectomy.

[Gregory Matthews]

On Shane's military esample: I have worked hard to get several soldiers out of the U.S. Army with an honorable deischarge and no punishment becaue they had convicition that meant they just did not belong.

Religious liberty laws do not require people to be employed (Retained) who can not perform the duties. That is true for civilians who work in non-militray jobs.

[Dr. Shane]

You mention a soldier who will not train on Saturday. Well, some people do not belong in the Military.

That's nice, isn't it? All kinds of religious intolerance coming out today, isn't there?

Well, I was a soldier and did not have to train on Saturdays. Lucky for me Gregory Matthews wasn't the Adventist chaplain on that base. I would have had to pack up my bags and gone home. I didn't have to work on Saturday at any time while on active duty. I didn't have any problems until I joined the Army Reserve. An invasion was delayed a day once because Desmond Doss refused to work on Saturday, and that was during a war.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

Well, I was a soldier and did not have to train on Saturdays. Lucky for me Gregory Matthews wasn't the Adventist chaplain on that base. I would have had to pack up my bags and gone home. I didn't have to work on Saturday at any time during while on active duty. I didn't have any problems until I joined the Army Reserve. An invasion was delayed a day once because Desmond Doss refused to work on Saturday, and that was during a war.

1) Doss: An assualt was delayed for an hour or so. It was not delayed for a day and the assualt took place on a Saturday.

NOTE: It was not an invasion, it was an assualt.

2) I have successfully worked to get many soldiers off on Saturday. But, there are people who simply should not be in the military due to their convictions. A member of a rifle platoon who will not fire the rifle does not have a right to remain in the Army. Same for an artillaryman who will not fire the cannon.

3) I once had to deal with a SDA LPN who refused to work in a military hospital on Saturday, and in addition had several other conscientious convicitons that limited what she would do in the hospital. I got her an honorable discharge instead of a criminal conviction.

[Gregory Matthews]

The name of DEsmond Doss has been mentioned here. So, I will provide some addiitonalinformation:

The day was May 5, 1945, a Saturday when the assualt occured that eventually earned Doss the Medal of Honor. While the following does not clearly give the date, here is his citaion.

Quote:

The President of the United States

in the name of The Congress

takes pleasure in presenting the

Medal of Honor

to

DOSS, DESMOND T.

Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April-21 May 1945. Entered service at: Lynchburg, Va. Birth: Lynchburg, Va. G.O. No.: 97, 1 November 1945.

Citation: He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back.

Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them 1 by 1 to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands. On 2 May, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in rescuing a wounded man 200 yards forward of the lines on the same escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower of grenades to within 8 yards of enemy forces in a cave's mouth, where he dressed his comrades' wounds before making 4 separate trips under fire to evacuate them to safety. On 5 May, he unhesitatingly braved enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled to him where he had fallen 25 feet from the enemy position, rendered aid, and carried him 100 yards to safety while continually exposed to enemy fire.

On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade. Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers' return, he was again struck, this time suffering a compound fracture of 1 arm. With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid station.

Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I had a chance to meet Desmond Doss and his wife about 30 years ago. He was visiting some friends who lived around the block from my family. We got to visit for most of the afternoon, until they had to leave to catch a plane. Wonderful, warm, and humble personality. I liked him a lot.. good memories.

[doug yowell]

]

Doug, would you allow for civil unions with equal right to that of marriage?

NOTE: A historical view of the defination of a "week" does not find its origin in a Christian view. The week is clearly pre-Christian in origin.

And marriage is not???

[Dr. Shane]

I think what Doug is saying is that a marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is no more a "Christian" definition of marriage than the seven-day week is a "Christian" definition of a week. Both definitions (that of marriage and a week) have been defined by various societies throughout history.

I am not trying to promote Doug's point, I am just trying to clarify it. Doug can correct me if I got that wrong.

The general concept of gay marriage doesn't give me heart burn. I wouldn't want it to be used as a vehicle to bring in immigrants from other countries and I have great concerns about its impact on religious liberty. But I am really not concerned if two gay people want to play house and call themselves a married couple.

[doug yowell]

Doug, would you allow for civil unions with equal right to that of marriage?

As a private citizen I have no constitutional right to impose my moral views on society. As a private citizen I do have the Constitutional right to vote my moral views in the democratic process. It is the society that has been given the right to determine it's own morality.I have no hesitations in voting against any attempt to moralize homosexuality or legally redefine marriage.I have no hesitations in legally prohibiting legal equality status to couples shacking up either. Framing the argument to prohibit the moral influence of (primarily)Christians in the legal establishment of a moral question in nothing less than an attempt to intimidate and ostracize the opposition and establish morality by minority dictum.

[John317]

... 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.

I believe people ought to have the right to refuse to rent to a gay couple, but then I also believe blacks should have the right to refuse to rent to whites and that whites should have the right to refuse to rent to blacks or anyone else. I know I'm in a minority here.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, let me say that I was once denied the right to rent an apartment in New Orleans because of my color. And in San Diego I rented 4 or 5 different places with a homosexual lover.

Like you, though, I wouldn't enourage anyone to discriminate against gays at all, but I do believe people should have a right to do it if they feel it's right to do. Yet at the same time, gays definitely need to be protected against crimes committed against them. Gays and trans are often attacked or even killed simply because they are gay. They have a right to be treated well and respected in society the same as anyone else.

I think the time will come when it will be considered a crime to teach the Bible truth about God's condemnation of the practice of homosexuality. It will no doubt be viewed as "hate speech." But we will have to tell the truth no matter what the consequences. The real "hate speech" would be to neglect to tell people the truth.

[John317]

If the majority of the country wants to allow gay marriage, it should be legal.

It will be when that point is reached.

[John317]

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.

Is this being proposed somewhat after the fashion of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

It must be.

[doug yowell]

I think what Doug is saying is that a marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is no more a "Christian" definition of marriage than the seven-day week is a "Christian" definition of a week. Both definitions (that of marriage and a week) have been defined by various societies throughout history.

I am not trying to promote Doug's point, I am just trying to clarify it. Doug can correct me if I got that wrong.

The general concept of gay marriage doesn't give me heart burn. I wouldn't want it to be used as a vehicle to bring in immigrants from other countries and I have great concerns about its impact on religious liberty. But I am really not concerned if two gay people want to play house and call themselves a married couple.

Affirmative on the clarification.With one alteration;ALL societies have defined marriage as male/female. Without exception!! What should be of concern,Shane,is when the government demands recognition and support of a sexual preference from those who find that sexual practice morally and spiritually repulsive.Nebuchadnezzar's golden image had punitive consequences that accompanied it's establishment.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The gay right activists are going door-to-door in my county with petitions to allow gay marriage. I asked my mom if she would sign it. She said no, and she told me to say no. But she also said she would tell them that she doesn't sign *any* petitions. She is afraid that those who are asked to sign, but refuse, will be targeted for harassment and/or property damage. I think she has a point.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Shane

[ 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

John, did you read this article?Anybody else?

[Overaged]

The gay right activists are going door-to-door in my county with petitions to allow gay marriage. I asked my mom if she would sign it. She said no, and she told me to say no. But she also said she would tell them that she doesn't sign *any* petitions. She is afraid that those who are asked to sign, but refuse, will be targeted for harassment and/or property damage. I think she has a point.

This is a sad state of affairs. I will pray for calm and safety in your area regarding this.

As I read all the responses here since I commented around 24 hours ago; I am kinda regretting even saying anything. It seems that as soon as one says any kind of disapproval of gay lifestyle/practices, no matter how civil they are about it; all the pros and cons demons come out of the woodwork and the great fight is on once more. And you once more find yourself dodging bullets (verbal, usually), from even fellow Church members.

These people going door to door are the same ones confusing this issue by making it a rights issue; which it is not. It has nothing to do with "rights" because when you look at what is actually happening, the gay lobby is attempting a re-socialization on a world-scale. And of course; this will trample and is trampling on everyone's rights, not just Adventists, or Christians in general.

Lets wake up and realize that the whole "rights" hue & cry is just a smoke screen. It is one of several "tools" to get what they are really after. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE? DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR WIFE IS? DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR HUSBAND IS? Don't laugh at me or dismiss me as some conspiracy dunce. It's happening in all of our churches. It's not just something I cooked up.

When is the church going to fight back - NEVER MIND ALL THE RIGHTS BALONEY - but when is the church going to fight back and get serious about marriage; about God-designed marriage, and the seventh commandment??? There are many days when I have just cried in the dark seeing the despicable acts of "Christians" in their unfaithfulness to their marriage vows and to the seventh commandment. What a ridicuous example we set; and what a wide-open door we leave!!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

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.

Is this being proposed somewhat after the fashion of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

It must be.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift appears to suggest in his essay that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. By doing this he mocks the authority of the British officials.

[John317]

The gay right activists are going door-to-door in my county with petitions to allow gay marriage. I asked my mom if she would sign it. She said no, and she told me to say no. But she also said she would tell them that she doesn't sign *any* petitions. She is afraid that those who are asked to sign, but refuse, will be targeted for harassment and/or property damage. I think she has a point.

I have heard that some people were targeted this way after Prop. 8 failed to be passed. I never signed a petition against gay marriage. I voted against it myself due to my conscience, but there was a time during the early 70s when I wanted to marry another a man. So I understand completely where they're coming from. I do empathize with them, but I also know that God hates the practice of homosexuality. He loves gay people but He doesn't love the sins, just like He loves straight people but He hates the sins they commit. Unfortunately that message gets confused in a lot of people's thinking, so some people think they're doing God a favor by either hurting or killing gays. WRONG.

But yes, I'm sorry to say that I agree with you about your mom possibly being right. I hope that doesn't happen, but it could.

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Is this being proposed somewhat after the fashion of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

From Wikipedia:

"A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift appears to suggest in his essay that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. By doing this he mocks the authority of the British officials."

So-- were your statements made satirically? Or are you serious?

I could well imagine a good and very entertaining piece being written from the point of view that people who can't have babies must divorce, but I have a hard time believing you really think this would be the proper way for a civilized people to behave. On the other hand...

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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

John, did you read this article?Anybody else?

I'll have to check out this article again, tomorrow. I looked at it now but didn't see anything about gay marriages. I haven't slept in a good while, so it could be that I'm just really sleepy.

I don't know about the relationship between gay marriage and immigration, but I do know that it is very common for gay men who are married to each other to have an "open" arrangement by which they are free to "play around" as long as it is somewheat discreet. Sometimes it is not discreet at all, though. Gay marriage-- at least for gay men-- is usually quite different in that way from heterosexual marriage. I've known many gay couples, both male and female, and the males are like... well, to be honest and to put it bluntly, like dogs.

The sister of my sister's best friend is a gay woman who taught at Loma Linda University until the school decided not to hire her any more following her marriage to another female. We've known her since she was a teenager, and she has been married for over 20 years now. They adopted a little girl, who is now about 15. The masculine partner is a social worker. Anyway, I just cannot imagine those two "playing around" like their male counterparts almost certainly would. I'm not saying that there are no males who aren't loyal and faithful to each other, but if there are, I never met any. (I take that back-- I did know one male couple from the gay church who I never saw playing around with anyone, but then I didn't know them for very long.) Usually they are loyal to each other for a time, but then after a few years, or less, they find it necessary to make some changes. Neither partner takes it too seriously as long as they know the other isn't serious.