Gay Marriage

[doug yowell]

Not so sleepy,John. I think I originally posted the CE article in reference to the July issue.Check there. It seems to verify what you and Shane refer to regarding how gay men view "marriage". Just wanted to get your opinion on it's accuracy and it's conclusions.P.S. Sleep is overrated.ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Overaged]

[doug yowell]

[if the church were to have a better track record re marriage/divorce, and take marriage and the seventh commandment more seriously; we wouldn't be having all the problems we are having now with this issue.

I mostly agree. The problem seems to be,in part, the confusion that most people get when this argument is brought up in defense of homosexuality.The issue is not marriage per say but rather the church's casual acceptance of fornication (shacking up) adultery, and divorce for any/no reason. After all,most people who get divorced remarry again,sometimes many times.So if marriage was in such trouble why do those supporting same sex marriage want to go down that road?? And given the track record of gay fidelity, why would anyone think that including same sex couples would be a positive for strengthening marriage?

[Dr. Shane]

I think evangelical Christians have been wrong headed in "trying to protect marriage". What they have been trying to do to protect the definition of marriage. That is not anything new. Banning polygamy and incestuous marriages is exactly the same as banning gay marriage. Such bans are simply the state defining marriage. If two gay people next door to me get "married", that will not impact my marriage at all. Nor would it affect my marriage if the guy next door had two or three wives. The issue isn't about protecting my marriage from gay people or polygamists. The issue is all about the state having the right to define what marriage is and what it isn't.

This impacts our religious liberty in that most religions believe homosexuality is sinful. Unless laws allowing for gay marriage have provisions to preserve religious liberty, there would undoubtedly be a conflict between the two.

[Overaged]

Shane; it goes way beyond just "the state defining marriage." I am not sure how you can actually believe what you just wrote.

[Dr. Shane]

where is your religion being imposed upon by someone elses actions?

>>> Clash of Rights <<<

It is undeniable.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

where is your religion being imposed upon by someone elses actions?

>>> Clash of Rights <<<

It is undeniable.

That is a good article - but like I said, it goes well beyond a simple rights issue. It is a widely organized attack on the family and marriage. A complete re-socialization is being attempted.

[Overaged]

"equal treatment" still does not threaten my religious freedom. I believe you and others are trying to redefine religious freedom. I can choose who, when and were to worship my God, I am free to believe as I choose.

where is your belief in a God being imposed on, challenged or cut off by gay marriage??

No matter how one looks at this; it cannot be denied that God's Word is being directly challenged and "revised" by the gay lobby; and the traditional family unit and marriage as ordained by God are being openly and widely "redefined," or, more truthfully, attacked by same.

This makes it a much different matter than just a rights issue. They are not after "equal treatment;" they want a lot more than that.

[Overaged]

We and others 'challenge' the word of God everyday. Ever since the fall of humans, marriage has been under attack, by heterosexuals, ie, divorce etc. Their agend is always said to be more than equal rights, but I have not seen any 'proof' of such! The figure of 3% is being upheld as the number for 'gay' people and assuming for the sake of argument the 1.5% have some undefined agenda, why is there all the hue and cry??

Christianity is afraid of 1.5 % of the population? We can't find some larger % of peoples with agendas to be afraid of? 1.5 % is going to threaten my 'religious freedom'?

I think we need a reality check here, and stop hiding behind 'religious freedom', admitt that conservative religion has a real 'hang up' when it comes to homosexualitiy over any other 'sin' outlined in the Bible. These forums are a perfect example, this subject has always recieved truckloads of postings down through the years. No other 'sin' recieves anywhere close to this much attention. The si9n with the least amount of Biblical attention gets the most talk! Amazing isn't it!

Because "people challenge the Word of God everyday" it still does not make it right.

I don't think it's Christians who are afraid of anything when accusations such as "hiding behind religious freedom" start to fly. It is amazing what is said about anyone who tries to distinguish what is right from what is wrong.

Actually, lots of other topics receive just as much posting as this one. This is one of many. What you call "the least amount of Biblical attention;" is just plain wrong. What evidence would you give to support that?

You are right. This subject is singled out, but not by Christians.

[Dr. Shane]

"equal treatment" still does not threaten my religious freedom.

[Dr. Shane]

Sex issues headline the news, are the plot of movies and television programs and found in most popular music. Christians and other segments of society, simply reflect in their conversations what the media is constantly feeding us. Those that don't want to think about sex need to turn off the TV, avoid the newspaper and internet news sites and just listen to music on their MP3 player or ipod.. It takes a conscience and deliberate effort to avoid the media that is obsessed with sex.

[Dr. Shane]

Still waiting to find out why people find the desires of 1.5% of the population so threatening!

Well, Catholics running adoption organizations find that 1.5% (or 3%) quite threatening to their operations.

[Dr. Shane]

No insinuation made.

I know that our religious liberty department had an issue with the Catholic adoption agency being ordered to place children with same-sex couples. I don't know more than that.

What if there was government money involved? Does government money mean the government can dictate church doctrine?

Do you believe the government should be able to tell us which doctrines we can and cannot teach at our universities because our students receive pell grants, student loans and GI Bill?

[Dr. Shane]

No, I asked for 'your' not a catholic!!!!! I am asking questions pertaining to you, personally!

This issue is not about me, personally. I have no problem with gay people. I have gay members of my family and quite a few gay friends. This isn't about me. This is about religious liberty. The Catholic has as much right to religious liberty as we do. We should care as much about Catholics, evangelical Christians and Muslim's religious liberty as we do about our own.

[Overaged]

Quote:

What you call "the least amount of Biblical attention;" is just plain wrong

Oh, come on....you want to get into sin prioritizing? When is the last time people read their

bibles? Sex issues have been raging on and on for years on this forum. It is one of the biggest topics with conservative Christianity...of course maybe its because they are fighting some underlying problems!! It seems christians are always worried the most about the sin that afflicts them the most! One need to only look at the fallen 'pastors' over the years, all denominations.

Still waiting to find out why people find the desires of 1.5% of the population so threatening!

I did not priorize anything here; you did. I simply questioned yours. "Fallen Pastors" are another good example of our fallen world, and how the attack on God's ideals for marriage and family are being attacked.

Since this topic was in reference to so called "gay marriage;" this is what I was sticking to. I have tried to explain - not how much threat the gay agenda has against Christians; but rather the fact that they are the ones attacking the family and marriage, as originally ordained by God. All of your specious arguments about percentages, and other people who do other "wrong" things, none of it figures into the equation. I am stating that they are wrong to call what they are doing "marriage."

Despite a bit of disagreement I have had with Shane in this topic; I feel he has what is likely the most healthy attitude of anyone; he practices what the Bible preaches, and loves them the best he can anyways. There's no reason any of us can't do that, while still disagreeing with them.

I am actually not sure what you are arguing about here to be honest.

[Dr. Shane]

When an institution accepts monies from the government, strings are attached.

Do you believe the government should be able to tell us which doctrines we can and cannot teach at our universities because our students receive pell grants, student loans and GI Bill?

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, the government does not tell us what we can teach because some students recieve government grants and loans.

NOTE: My comments reflect U.S. law.

The government does tell us how buildings (classroooms labs and dormatories) may be used when government money is used for their construction.

The government tells hospitals what thy can and cannot do when governmnt money is used for thier construction.

In some cases the government tells student who take government money what course work they can take.

Such is not a violaiton of religious rights. No one has to take money from the government.

[Dr. Shane]

The government does not tell us what doctrines we can or cannot teach because of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment - not because the money is being funneled in through students. If a college is going to be eligible to receive federal money through student aid, there are a numerous requirements the school must meet. None of those requirement violate religious liberty.

The same should be true with a religious adoption agency. The agency may receive government aid and that aid may come with strings attached... BUT those strings should never violate the free-exercise or establishment clauses in the First Amendment. If and when it does, then we have a violation of religious liberty.

[Dr. Rich]

I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God—and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?

[Gordon1]

I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God—and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?

An excellent point D.R.

What really constitutes marriage? What makes it legal?

Did Adam and Eve need a J.P., or Isaac & Rebekah?

Do these words have a strange sound coming from an Adventist minister:

"By the power invested in me by the province of Ontario, I now pronounce you man & wife."

Sounds like a union of church & state. Should Christians look to the state in this holy union typifying the redemption by Christ of His people? It's true that this would be viewed as 'common-law marriage' in some jurisdictions, and so may offer less security for the wife or children. But is state-licensed marriage according to God's plan?

[Overaged]

I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God—and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?

Ha ha! Dr Rich; I have to agree with you on this one.

People just use this "union of church and state" to take their spouses to the cleaners when it is divorce time. We didn't use a wedding ring for the same reason. We viewed our vows before Jesus in His Church as the surety and foundation of our marriage. What God says; and not what the state says is the building block for our marriage.

Technically; Christians don't need the state to get married. I count as proof the fact that we have been married for 21 years.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God&#151;and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?

An excellent point D.R.

What really constitutes marriage? What makes it legal?

Did Adam and Eve need a J.P., or Isaac & Rebekah?

Do these words have a strange sound coming from an Adventist minister:

"By the power invested in me by the province of Ontario, I now pronounce you man & wife."

Sounds like a union of church & state. Should Christians look to the state in this holy union typifying the redemption by Christ of His people? It's true that this would be viewed as 'common-law marriage' in some jurisdictions, and so may offer less security for the wife or children. But is state-licensed marriage according to God's plan?

So if my 12 year old niece and I decide to "marry" the state should stay out? Or if we just say we're married in order to justify our sexual relationship the state should butt out? In a society where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is the most foundational pronciple of our society not accountable to the people?

[Overaged]

quote=Gordon1]quote=Dr. Rich]I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God&#151;and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?/quote]

An excellent point D.R.

What really constitutes marriage? What makes it legal?

Did Adam and Eve need a J.P., or Isaac & Rebekah?

Do these words have a strange sound coming from an Adventist minister:

"By the power invested in me by the province of Ontario, I now pronounce you man & wife."

Sounds like a union of church & state. Should Christians look to the state in this holy union typifying the redemption by Christ of His people? It's true that this would be viewed as 'common-law marriage' in some jurisdictions, and so may offer less security for the wife or children. But is state-licensed marriage according to God's plan?

/quote]So if my 12 year old niece and I decide to "marry" the state should stay out? Or if we just say we're married in order to justify our sexual relationship the state should butt out? In a society where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is the most foundational pronciple of our society not accountable to the people?

"Accountable to the people;" except when God's Word is attacked and challenged by same. The first thing to note about your comment here is that if anyone did this with their 12 year old neice; it would not be "marriage;" regardless of what the state said.

[Dr. Rich]

Wow, thanks for the great replies on this issue. Years ago I investigated this issue and discovered that the first time a license was issued was for a marriage between a white and black slave and while the white was free, the slave was considered chattle and therefore had to have 'permission' from the state for this marriage. After that it was a 'snowball rolling downhill'. But it was not until after the 14th amendment, (making all of us slaves by the way) was passed, that licensing requirements were born into every new [E]state of the old republic in an effort to control the family (as thought to be a good thing). A few years later, a new church entity was told that they had to be supervised by the state and therefore had to become a corporation.

Yep, we all have been ever so slowely cooking away like one would cook a frog. But as was suggested above, a common-law marriage is acceptable as long as one has some type of proof of their contract or what is known as a marriage covenant. My own son had a non-licensed wedding and it worked out fine until they got a licensed later, and ya, then they got divorced.

So Overaged, I am sure God has blessed your marriage because Satan was not involved in it! Thank you for your comment!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

quote=Gordon1]quote=Dr. Rich]I have always wondered why anyone would need a license to become married? Is not this sacred vow between the pair and God? Who is it that usurped God&#151;and why? Why is a license necessary to be bound by a marriage vow before God? Didn't Jesus say that what is man's is his and what is God's is Gods?/quote]

An excellent point D.R.

What really constitutes marriage? What makes it legal?

Did Adam and Eve need a J.P., or Isaac & Rebekah?

Do these words have a strange sound coming from an Adventist minister:

"By the power invested in me by the province of Ontario, I now pronounce you man & wife."

Sounds like a union of church & state. Should Christians look to the state in this holy union typifying the redemption by Christ of His people? It's true that this would be viewed as 'common-law marriage' in some jurisdictions, and so may offer less security for the wife or children. But is state-licensed marriage according to God's plan?

/quote]So if my 12 year old niece and I decide to "marry" the state should stay out? Or if we just say we're married in order to justify our sexual relationship the state should butt out? In a society where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is the most foundational pronciple of our society not accountable to the people?

"Accountable to the people;" except when God's Word is attacked and challenged by same. The first thing to note about your comment here is that if anyone did this with their 12 year old neice; it would not be "marriage;" regardless of what the state said.

In many cultures such "marriages" are legally recognized. So are multiple wives. Many Muslim "marriages" involve very young women(girls)who become subject to all the legal restrictions of their cultures. Who will prevent these kinds of abuses if everyone is left to their own definition of what is a "real" marriage.