Does our "religious liberties" message apply to gays?

[doug yowell]

did someone say

SEXUAL URGES!

o wait im getting a visual!

Better take a couple of Valium, PO, I'm starting to get worried about you.

[Parade Orange]

DOUG are u sending me some?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

6 years now. Surely there would be all kinds of stories if others rights have been infringed in some way.

There are all kinds of stories. The "It Is Written" telecast did a program with the director of Religious Liberty in Canada a couple of years ago. Just contact the Religious Liberty departments in these countries and they can tell you "all kinds of stories".

[teresaq]

And, by the way, why not come up with actual possiblities instead of vague cave-man, authoritarian, "cause I said so".

That was what I asked for on the other thread I started. I would have thought about those possibilities.

Guess you guys really want to lose, 'cause I'm here to tell you, only fools are going to pay any attention to most of you! And if you're banking on most of the country being that far down, well not quite yet they aren't, not quite yet.

Try some intelligent arguments for a change.

[Overaged]

DOUG are u sending me some?

PO; I hope you don't take too much valium. It would detract from your lively participation here, and I for one would miss that! Take care & have a great night!

[Overaged]

And, by the way, why not come up with actual possiblities instead of vague cave-man, authoritarian, "cause I said so".

That was what I asked for on the other thread I started. I would have thought about those possibilities.

Guess you guys really want to lose, 'cause I'm here to tell you, only fools are going to pay any attention to most of you! And if you're banking on most of the country being that far down, well not quite yet they aren't, not quite yet.

Try some intelligent arguments for a change.

Well what's so "intelligent" about the predacious divigations you just posted?

[teresaq]

Well what's so "intelligent" about the predacious divigations you just posted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

[Tom Wetmore]

My biggest concern about gay marriage is that it infringes on religious liberty of religious people that believe homosexuality is wrong. But as we near the end of time society will become more and more like Sodom so I am ready to see gay marriage become the norm. It is a sign that the end is near.

I am trying to figure out how that could possibly happen.

Let's try an example without the inflammatory topic of homosexuality.

Let's use something close. I think there is less dispute that adultery is sin. I think it fair to say the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims would agree. There was a time when the civil authorities agreed and made adultery a criminal offense. But a change in the law decriminalized it. The door was opened to all manner of adulterous behavior between consenting adults.

Let's say a group of people think otherwise and take it beyond by forming swingers clubs, wife swapping, etc. This sort of thing is glorified as normal and healthy behavior.

On the other side of town, the religious people still believe and practice the faith as before. How do the adulterers interfere with that? What restriction on people of faith resulted from the decriminalization of adultery? How do the sinners outside of the church infringe the religious rights of the sinners inside of the church?

[doug yowell]

DOUG are u sending me some?

Please check with your doctor.

[doug yowell]

But not the one that OA pictured above!!

[Dr. Shane]

I am trying to figure out how that could possibly happen.

Just watch the "It Is Written" telecast. They have covered the subject quite well.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is the transcript of the telecast. It is long.

*********************************

The Same Sex Debate

PROGRAM: 1069

SPEAKER: Shawn Boonstra

The world is changing at a rate that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. Today, what used to be wrong, seems to be right, and what used to be right seems to be wrong. It's almost as if somebody has moved all the markers, and now many people are having trouble figuring out how to play the game.

And today, one of the biggest debates raging in the Christian church has to do with the subject of same sex marriage. What should we expect next? How would God have us respond to an issue like this? And how can we stand up for what is right without being perceived as bigots and fear mongers?

Almost nothing has aggravated the Christian church lately as much as the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. Many Christians are running scared because they are confused by what appears to be an agenda designed to upset moral boundaries that have been a part of our lives for a long time.

Just a generation ago, nobody talked much about homosexuality, but today it's in the “A section” of the newspaper almost every day. Popular television programs almost always include a positive gay role model. Groundbreaking legal cases are being argued before the highest courts of the land. And Christian churches are struggling to find a place where they can both share the love of Christ and keep moral boundaries where they used to be.

Today, I have a very special guest with me on two counts. First of all, he's an accomplished lawyer who has argued some very high profile cases that deal with the issue of same-sex rights. And secondly, he also happens to be my brother.

SHAWN: Kevin, it's really great to have you on the program here today.

KEVIN: Thank you, Shawn. It is nice to be here.

SHAWN: Listen, Kevin, I'm living here in the country of America where same-sex marriage has become one of the hottest subjects in the news. There's talk now about a constitutional amendment to entrench the definition of marriage as something that's between a man and a woman exclusively. And there are already some states here in this country that have condoned gay marriage.

Now, you don't live here in America. You are living up in Canada where the whole issue just seems to be running in a faster gear. You are much further down the road than we are. In your opinion, as you watch the issue of same sex marriage and gay rights, is America on the same track that Canada is on?

KEVIN: Well, as you may know, Canada has already adopted legislation making gay marriage a reality for the entire country. In terms of whether or not the United States is going to follow, I'm not sure I can answer that entirely authoritatively. But what it does seem to me, looking over the border, is that there are a lot more people in this country who are prepared to stand up and fight the issue to try and keep a traditional definition of marriage than there were in Canada.

In Canada, it was a minority of people who were interested in really making a large public debate over the issue.

SHAWN: Now Kevin, as we talk about gay marriage, one of the things that just rises to the forefront of the debate, is the whole issue of religious liberty. Is the church trying to tell the state what to do? Or is the state getting involved in the church and so on? A lot of cases seem to come from that area. You have been involved up in Canada in a number of high-profile cases that deal with same-sex relationships and legal rights. And, in particular, you were involved in what is known as the Surrey School Board case. Tell us a little bit about that case.

KEVIN: Sure, that case started in the late 90s. It was a decision by the largest school board in the province of British Columbia to not approve books with same sex couples for kindergarten and grade one classrooms. It was intended to use the books to teach five and six-year-old children about gay relationships.

SHAWN: Now what kind of books were these, like the Billy had two mommies kind of thing?

KEVIN: Those were the sorts of books that were involved.

SHAWN: OK. And these were in an elementary school library?

KEVIN: No, it didn't have to do with the library. It was to actually teach children about same sex families in the classroom.

The school district was made up of a lot of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and people of the Sikh faith, all of whom were opposed to this. The school board listened to those concerns and decided that these books weren't appropriate for five and six-year-old children in the classroom.

SHAWN: So they said, “That's it, we are pulling them?”

KEVIN: They were never approved for use.

SHAWN: Where did the storm start?

KEVIN: The storm started with the teacher who wanted to use them. He sued the school board, saying that it was discriminatory and contrary to his constitutional rights not to be able to use those books in the classroom.

SHAWN: So here is the issue then. Somebody wants to teach the issue of homosexuality in the classroom. Frankly, at those ages, what were the ages again?

KEVIN: Five and six-year-olds.

SHAWN: Five and six years old. It seems to me at that age, you are not interested in sexuality one-way or the other yet. It's just not an issue for most five and six-year-olds. You have a teacher who wants to teach it. You have concerned parents in faith-based groups saying, “We don't want that for our children.”

So the school board pulls it. How did the case play out?

KEVIN: Well, the school board's argument was, primarily, that they were entitled to think about the parents. They were entitled to say, “These parents have a right to educate their children in accordance with their own religious beliefs.”

And they said that is a legitimate concern for a school board, a public school board. And so they decided to defend their decision vigorously. And they did. It went through three levels of court, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

SHAWN: All the way to the Supreme Court. Now it goes to the Supreme Court and this is the highest court in the land, many people are watching. What happens in the end? What's the decision?

KEVIN: The Supreme Court decided that the school board was wrong in not approving the books. The Supreme Court said that the school board had an obligation to consider that there were already gay relationships in the community and that there were children that lived in those homes.

But at the same time, the Supreme Court said, “Parents do have a right to control the education of their children. They have a right to know what is going on in the classroom.”

So while, ultimately, the school board wasn't successful, there were a lot of good things in the decision. And it was a fight worth having.

SHAWN: Listen, here in the United States, I know that a lot of people watch what's going on in Canada with regard to this issue, because again, there is this feeling that America is tracking Canada on the homosexual issue.

Many people are watching. And one of the things that has made the news south of the border of Canada is Bill 250, which I understand has been passed into law. And a lot of people, I think, are absolutely uncertain about what Bill 250 was or what it said you could or couldn't do. What was Bill 250?

KEVIN: Bill 250 has been passed, is now part of our criminal code. It amended the hate crime provisions of our criminal code, which means that hate crime was already an offense in the criminal code. All that legislation did was add sexual orientation to the ground upon which hate crime isn't going to be permitted.

Well, two things, genocide and hate crime. There are two aspects to it.

SHAWN: Okay, now there is a lot of uncertainty still in people's minds. I know, in Canada and here, what does it mean to me as an individual, I am a Christian minister. Does this mean that from the pulpit I can't preach a sermon about sin, say, out of the book of Romans, or out of the Book of First Corinthians? It includes homosexuality in the list of sins. Is that forbidden to me?

KEVIN: No, what we are talking about is hate speech and there is no question that limits freedom of speech and limits freedom of expression. There is no question about that. The question is, when are you going to cross the line and it becomes a criminal offense? There is actually an exception in the legislation for religiously based speech.

So while there is great uncertainty around how this is actually going to impact people in society in terms of how vocal they can be in their opposition to things like homosexuality, there are going to be defenses. I don't think it's the end of the world. I don't like the legislation, but I don't think it's going to stop ministers from preaching from the pulpit either.

SHAWN: Now this is very important, because what I'm going to ask you now steps across the line from what your professional knowledge is into a personal opinion. You've been there and all you can do is give an opinion on this. Where do you figure we are headed? How far are these kinds of movements going to go in America? And, of course, this is just opinion.

KEVIN: It is really speculation. One thing that the Canadian experience has taught me is how quickly things can change. Even five years ago, the prospect of same sex marriage in Canada was a non-starter. It wasn't going to happen. But now, today, it's entrenched, we have it, and it is in every province across the country. It is affecting people on a daily basis in ways that people never even thought about. But things changed so quickly, that a people don't have the opportunity to really consider how it is going to impact people.

SHAWN: This issue is brewing down here in America, right now. So tell me, what are the issues nobody thought of?

KEVIN: For example, there may be a printer (and there was a case in Canada about a printer, so I'll use this as an example) a printer who may be asked to print same-sex wedding invitations. What is he to do? In Canada, he may very well end up in having a human rights complaint brought against him, because that is now a legitimate form of marriage.

SHAWN: You are speaking about a printer who is a Christian then, or of a faith community of some sort, who says, “In all good faith, I don't think I can print these, because it's contrary to my beliefs.” What happened in that case?

KEVIN: Well, I'm using the case as a hypothetical, but that's the sort of thing that can happen that nobody thought about. There was a case with a printer who refused to print material for a gay rights organization. And in that case he lost. But the court did say, if there were materials that he was asked to print that were contrary to the core elements of his religious beliefs, then he may not have to do the printing.

So with the hypothetical example of the printer who may be asked to print gay wedding invitations, maybe there will be an exception. But these are all of the things we still don't know. And it's going to take a few years for all of the cases to come forward and to find out where the dividing line really is.

SHAWN: I am an ordained minister. I've pastored in Canada and I've pastored in America. Let's say I'm in Canada now and a gay couple comes to me and asks me to perform their wedding. Do I have to do this?

KEVIN: Probably not. The debate is not going to be focused on pastors. The debate is going to be with respect to other people. For example, there are several marriage commissioners in Canada who are employees of the government and some of them are saying, “Hold it, we are Christians, we are Sikhs, we are Muslims, [whatever their faith may be], and we have a problem conducting a marriage between two men or two women.”

What a lot of the governments in Canada have said is, “Well, if you are not prepared to conduct these marriages, then you can no longer be a marriage commissioner.”

Those are the types of fights we will have. There will always be, I hope, some protection for pastors and leaders within the church. But it is out in the community where the major problems are going to be.

SHAWN: Now Kevin, this issue is big and it's getting bigger all the time in America. One of the things now brewing is (or one of the things being debated is) should we have an amendment to the American Constitution? Now, you practice law in Canada, but I know you are watching the issue down here.

You are not only a lawyer, but you are also a Christian, and as you watch this thing, I'm interested in your feelings on where the church should be. Should Christians be pushing for legislation to protect what is important to us? Should we become militant

What's your view, your opinion, as both a Christian and somebody who works in the legal profession, about constitutional amendments or laws protecting marriage or Christians trying to shut down the gay lobby with legislation? What is your gut reaction to that?

KEVIN: There is no question that the Christian community needs to fight hard to protect the rights of individuals. Like some of the people I was talking about, the printer who may not want to print material or somebody who wants to just express his or her views in the public sphere without being subjected to human rights complaint.

The larger question that you are asking is, “Whose morality is ultimately going to control society?” And that's a really difficult question to answer. Should you be pushing for an amendment to your constitution to entrench traditional marriage? If your population will accept it, there are many good reasons outside of religion why you would want to protect traditional marriage, reasons having to do with the upbringing of children and other reasons.

But going to the public and saying, “God insists on traditional marriage,” I don't believe is the right way to approach the issue.

SHAWN: What is your advice for the Christian church as they relate to this issue? The gay lobby has something to say. They are in the public arena. They are engaging everybody in debate. How do we respond both to the debate and to the homosexual as an individual?

KEVIN: We have a role as Christians to make sure that people understand what God's will for us is. When this issue has hit the public sphere, the Christian community as a whole, and this is a broad generality, but the Christian community as a whole has been very good at hating the sin and not, in my opinion, as good at loving the sinner.

Maybe if the gay community saw us loving the sinner more, they would take our message a bit more seriously. We have to be careful in choosing the cases that we decide to fight, choosing those that are really important to protect the religious freedom of Christians, Muslims, and other people in society, but not choose the cases where the intention is simply to impose a biblical morality on people. And it is a difficult line to draw.

SHAWN: Somehow, you've got to draw that line, saying this is what is right and wrong. We have an obligation to say that, but we need to put an arm of compassion around them or we will never get anywhere in the public debate.

You have been involved in a lot of cases. So you are saying that we have to choose what is important and what is not. Some of the cases are important for a number of reasons. You were involved in a case that dealt with Trinity Western University up in British Columbia. This was an important case on a number of fronts. Tell us a little bit about it.

KEVIN: Trinity Western University is in the Frasier Valley, British Columbia, as you say. It's based on the Evangelical Free Church. They are the only private university in the province of British Columbia of their size. And they wanted a teacher education program, which required governmental approval. The government body, which is called the College of Teachers, decided they couldn't have approval of their program because they prohibited homosexuality. They prohibited a number of things. They prohibited consumption of alcohol, and they prohibited homosexuality on the campus.

SHAWN: Was this in something like a codebook of student behavior?

KEVIN: Yes, that is exactly what it was.

SHAWN: And there was a whole list, students shall not drink, engage in premarital sex, and more, but homosexuality?

KEVIN: Gambling, pornography, all of those sorts of things were on the list. But homosexuality was on the list, too. So the government body said, “You can't have your program because you are going to produce discriminatory teachers.”

SHAWN: So then, in the end, this means students that had been paying their tuition and taking a program in education are going to graduate and they will not be placed in the job market because the government says, “Sorry, you are a bigot, you don't believe that homosexuality is all right. You can't teach our children.”

KEVIN: In effect, that's right, they would have to go off to a public university and get deprogrammed, I suppose. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the court's credit, it said, “Look, there is absolutely no evidence that anybody who holds these religious beliefs because they attended that university is going to be unfair or homophobic.”

SHAWN: Unpack that word for me, just a little bit. We'll come back to the case. Homophobic is understood in different ways by different people. What is the term?

KEVIN: Well, as I read the dictionary, definition of “phobia” is “a fear.” So homophobia would be the fear of homosexuality. But the word gets used for any number of things. It is becoming the racism of the new century.

SHAWN: Okay, so students coming from Trinity are going to be homophobic, unfit for the classroom. It goes to the Supreme Court, and what happens?

KEVIN: The Supreme Court of Canada said to Trinity Western that there was no basis upon which the College of Teachers couldn't approve the program. There was no evidence that they wouldn't be good teachers. There was no evidence that they would have harmed students or not treated them fairly. And so, the Court ordered the College of Teachers to approve the program. So the program is now up and running.

SHAWN: So Christianity, or at least faith-based values, won that battle. In North America, are we winning the war?

KEVIN: Well, I don't know, only time is going to tell if we will. It depends, in part. What is the war?

SHAWN: And I hate to use the term war, because I don't find myself at odds with the homosexual community. As a rule, it's just this disagreement. War is probably a stronger term, although it seems to be escalating into a war.

I think of other cases that you know of, the Owens case, tell us a little bit about that one.

KEVIN: Owens was a pastor in the province of Saskatchewan who had a…

SHAWN: Now, we are getting into the field of religion.

KEVIN: Yes, he was a pastor who had a bumper sticker and was selling bumper stickers. He put an ad in the paper. The bumper sticker had four scriptural references including, Leviticus and Romans, all dealing with homosexuality. And then he had an equal sign and then two stick male figures holding hands with a circle and a slash through it, the universal prohibition sign.

And he was brought before the human rights tribunal for discriminatory speech, or discriminatory expression, and he lost. That case is still going up through the courts and we will find out what happens.

The case is frightening because it asks the question, can scriptural references themselves be discriminatory?

SHAWN: Kevin, I know there are many Christians who would disagree with just putting Leviticus and Romans on a bumper sticker. A lot of Christians wouldn’t because they don't believe the Word of God, but because in their own feelings, their own opinion, and that's not the best way to open the door to discussion. I think we need to share the truth because the Bible condemns the lifestyle, but God is trying to redeem everybody from a sinful lifestyle, no matter what the issue is for them. Not many of us are putting bumper stickers condemning alcoholics on our bumpers, and so on. I'm not sure it's the right way to relate.

KEVIN: I'd like to comment on that. I absolutely agree. You may disagree with Pastor Owens methods. And that becomes a religious issue. What's the best way to reach people? You reach them with love, the love of Jesus Christ. The legal question is, “Should he be allowed to do what he did?” And I think he should.

SHAWN: Right, I guess that's it. It's not whether this is the preferred method or the best way, it is. “Do we have the right to say what we believe?”

KEVIN: And to express it how we want to express it.

SHAWN: Let's move to the classroom. We started with Surrey's School Board. And again, all of these same cases are starting to show up in the United States now, now that the debate is raging here. That's why I want to talk about it. Surrey School Board was one. It's in the classroom; it was frightening for parents. But not just for parents, teachers have hit trouble, too. Tell me a little bit about Chris Kempling.

KEVIN: Now , Chris Kempling is a teacher in the small, northern town of Quenel. He is a very educated man. He has a Ph.D. and he is a school counselor and a high school teacher. And he was writing to his local paper about issues like Bill 250 and other issues around homosexuality and expressing a biblically-based opinion about the morality of homosexuality.

He was disciplined by his professional body for conduct unbecoming a professional. The matter has gone before two levels of court in British Columbia and it's now likely headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. So the question is, “Can somebody in his position, as a professional, express these views and not be disciplined for them?”

And it's frightening for people like me who have a profession and who are worried about how they express themselves with respect to their religious faith on these issues.

SHAWN: Now that's very understandable. For a lot of parents today, the thing that makes them afraid the most is that they have their own values, but their kids are in the schools. You have two young children. I have two young children. A lot of schools are teaching things we don't agree with so let me ask you now, not as a lawyer, but as a father. What should Christians be doing to put a hedge around their kids?

KEVIN: Yeah, my wife and I struggle with this. It's a very difficult thing to do because we are called to be in the world, not to be of the world but to be in it. Which means that we have to be able to relate to the society around us. And the natural inclination is to protect your children. Cloister them away so they don't have to deal with these issues.

But after dealing with the Surrey School Board case, I learned that I can't keep my children from dealing with these issues. So now I talk to them. They say that the best way to determine a counterfeit is to be familiar with the real thing. So I teach my children. What does God intend for a family? What does the Holy Bible say about marriage relationships? And if my children understand that and they understand it well, I don't have to teach them at this age. My children are quite young; I don't have to teach them at this age about homosexuality. But when they see something that's contrary to God's model, I'm hoping that they will understand.

SHAWN: I think that is important. Not every parent across North America has the luxury of putting their children in a private Christian school. Not everybody lives close to one. Not everybody has that situation.

When we were kids, nobody had to sit down and explain that to us, not quite yet. It is just become so public.

Kevin, I just really want to thank you for being on the show today. There is no way we can talk about this subject in 28 minutes and 30 seconds. But I know that God is blessing you in your field as you meet these issues, not behind a pulpit, but in the courtrooms where things are happening right now. And thank you for inviting Christians to engage in this, to think about it, and to be serious about it. I'm really glad you were on the show today.

KEVIN: And thank you for having me, it's been a pleasure.

SHAWN:
You know, the world is certainly is a different place than it used to be, and that's probably just one more sign that we are getting very close to the return of Christ. It is easy to get really worried about the way our world is headed, and it's a little frightening sometimes to see moral boundaries that we used to rely on being pushed far off their foundations. But in the end, we know that God is still in control, and that He is coming back soon.

You know, the prophet Ezekiel had a lot of trouble understanding the way the world was headed back in his day, but one afternoon, as he stood by the river, he looked up and saw a vision of God's throne high above all the confusion, and he took heart that God still has something to say about this tired old world we live in. The whole world could fall apart, but God is still going to build His kingdom.
My question for you today is this: Is your hope being built on legislation and government action, or are you building your moral foundation on something that is guaranteed, the kingdom of God?

Why don't we pray together?

PRAYER:

Father in heaven, thank you. You've called us to be light and salt in this world. It's very hard at times to figure out where we should stand and what we should say. So give us wisdom as Christians to be compassionate, loving, and yet at the same time to stand firm for what we know is true. Lord, bless parents in particular today as they wrestle with what to tell their children, how to guide them in a world that is becoming confused. And above all, give us clarity of thought, keep our eyes upon Jesus Christ and remind us at every moment that those we might disagree with are also God's children that Jesus has died for their sins as well as ours. Bless us, we ask, in Jesus' name, Amen.

SCRIPTURES USED:

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

—1 Corinthians 10:13

[phkrause]

Just watch the "It Is Written" telecast. They have covered the subject quite well.

Do you happen to recall the name of that program?

[Parade Orange]

knowing how shawn boostra is on camera i can hear his calm voice in this interview i can appreciate it

i understand what they are exactly doing

i like shawn to show the flip side of the coin as well

[CoAspen]

Re read my post.....

I questioned the idea of marriage being part of the 'gospel'.

Still waiting for your proof!

It is not up to me to do that for you!

Stringing texts from here and there about marriage does not make it a 'gospel'.

If it is part of the 'gospel', than why do many with that belief also claim there is no

marriage in heaven?

I was raised an SDA, have yet heard anyone, except for now, claim marriage as part of the gospel.

Wait a minute, what 'gospel' are you even referring too??

[teresaq]

Thanks Shane for posting that. Funny how we can read the same thing and get something different from it. I didn't see it as all that drastic. Maybe because I am more logic-based, maybe because I am more for the underdog, whoever it might be...I don't know.

The main thing I got from reading that transcript was that this issue as others before them will force us to one of 3(?) options. Either we can deal with our feelings and learn. We can become stronger entrenched in our ditch. Or become apathetic.

One thing I have no sympathy for are people in non-religious jobs. A pharmacist refuses to sell a morning-after pill, for example, because of his/her religious beliefs. Excuse me! That is your job. If it is part of your job and you don't like it, look for another line of work.

My neighbor was cleaning a same-sex couple's house. I needed work. I went with her a couple of times til they let her go. They had children. It brought up feelings. I guess in the long run my feelings about same-sex couples are not as important to me as they are.

Maybe that is the bottom line. Are the rules more important to us than people? That doesn't have anything to do with breaking the rules ourselves. If someone believes abortion is wrong - don't have one. If someone believes same-sex marriage is wrong - don't marry someone of your sex. If someone believes the morning after pill is wrong - don't take it.

People live together without benefit of marriage all the time now. People commit adultery all the time - probably always did. People do all kinds of things we believe to be wrong. Gays have been living together for some time now. They have been having kids for some now. So what's the dif?

[Parade Orange]

the illustration of GODS LOVE FOR HUMANITY so much so that GOD doesnt want us to be thought of as

coins lost

nor sheep

nor slaves

nor sons and daughters

but HIS SPOUSE

WE ARE HIS BRIDE!

thats the GOSPEL!

HE OUR HUSBANDMAN

PROTECTOR

PROVIDER

LOVER

christians legislating

running in fear

discounting and denying gays their rights as humans

sticking up for own rights

isnt the GOSPEL

We are called to serve people who offends us

We are called to love as God loves us

We are called to give to those that dont give back

cause we have been LOVED BY THE FATHER!

What GOD has done for us we are called to do so that they can see our works and GLORIFY God in heaven and catch a glimpse of such love that they too will join our ranks and go and serve others for the KINGDOM

can i get an AMEN!

[Parade Orange]

Thanks Shane for posting that. Funny how we can read the same thing and get something different from it. I didn't see it as all that drastic. Maybe because I am more logic-based, maybe because I am more for the underdog, whoever it might be...I don't know.

The main thing I got from reading that transcript was that this issue as others before them will force us to one of 3(?) options. Either we can deal with our feelings and learn. We can become stronger entrenched in our ditch. Or become apathetic.

One thing I have no sympathy for are people in non-religious jobs. A pharmacist refuses to sell a morning-after pill, for example, because of his/her religious beliefs. Excuse me! That is your job. If it is part of your job and you don't like it, look for another line of work.

My neighbor was cleaning a same-sex couple's house. I needed work. I went with her a couple of times til they let her go. They had children. It brought up feelings. I guess in the long run my feelings about same-sex couples are not as important to me as they are.

Maybe that is the bottom line. Are the rules more important to us than people? That doesn't have anything to do with breaking the rules ourselves. If someone believes abortion is wrong - don't have one. If someone believes same-sex marriage is wrong - don't marry someone of your sex. If someone believes the morning after pill is wrong - don't take it.

People live together without benefit of marriage all the time now. People commit adultery all the time - probably always did. People do all kinds of things we believe to be wrong. Gays have been living together for some time now. They have been having kids for some now. So what's the dif?

amen in GODS KINGDOM

grace isnt a footnote

[Dr. Shane]

A pharmacist refuses to sell a morning-after pill, for example, because of his/her religious beliefs. Excuse me! That is your job.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

A pharmacist refuses to sell a morning-after pill, for example, because of his/her religious beliefs. Excuse me! That is your job.

Nope. Where I live there are a lot of Catholic pharmacists that will not even sell birth control pills. To force them to do so would infringe on their religious liberty. Don't make me work on Sabbath and I won't make you sell birth control. Works for me.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

That is your job. If it is part of your job and you don't like it, look for another line of work.

Come on now! That is like telling Wal-Mart that since they sell batteries they have to sell alternators too. That is just silly. If a person believes it a sin to sell something, they don't need to sell it.

You do realize I am not talking about privately owned pharmacies, or do you. While I realize I didn't make that explicitly clear, I didn't realize I had to since there isn't really all that much that is privately owned any more.

[teresaq]

I kinda get that you would change the world to suit you instead of learning how to live in it the way it is. Do you think that might be true?

I wonder how the Christians dealt with these issues back in Roman days and slavery.

[CoAspen]

Interesting how some feel it is okay for a person to not do their job, as they were hired, as long as it agrees with their own belief. Is their any doubt that Christians would suspend liberty and freedom of choice?

You are correct!!! They could and should lose their jobs for not giving a prescription as ordered by a Dr. It is not their choice to dictate to the patient. Find another job!!!

[CoAspen]

Tom, tom.....Come now! Adultery a 'sign' of the end! A hetero issue since the beginning of time. If it were a sign, well, the world should have long ended. Now issues haveing to do with Homosexuals, that's another thing. This is a recent happening, a definite sign.

[Dr. Shane]

In a government-owned pharmacy, of course the pharmacist has to fill prescriptions for birth control and such things. For the pharmacist to refuse to do so on religious grounds would be like me (a Seventh-day Adventist) to get a job at a bar and refuse to serve alcoholic drinks.

However most pharmacies I am familiar with are privately owned. The government does not have authority to tell a privately-owned pharmacy that they must sell birth control. A state cannot force a store to sell lottery tickets. To do such would violate the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

[teresaq]

You have no chain store type pharmacies in Texas, Shane?

Pharmacies in Texas