Gay Marriage

[M. T. Cross]

kailooa, there are many that do seem to have the opinion that separation of church and state should only apply when it directly affects their right to worship. But, and this is my observation after countless discussions about this particular issue, that they think that the actual law should follow Bible standards.

The issue of homosexuality seems to get a huge amount of coverage here at C/A. Almost to the point of obsessiveness. There seems to be the idea that the only time discrimination is wrong is when it is against christians.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

The massive moral shift taking shape around us is fast eliminating any neutral ground on this issue. Those celebrating the moral normalization of homosexuality will demand an answer from us all.

Good to see where people stand!

Appreciate Batchelor's faithfulness to Biblical truth.

G

agreed. I notice something when it comes to Christian denominations and this particular issue.

1. No denomination embraces the gay marriage / gay agenda that has not first embraced faith in evolutionism by the same people who want to promote gay marriage etc.

2. No denomination embraces evolutionism without first dropping their faith in the literal trustworthy nature of Genesis 1 and 2 and the first marriage as God states it, as well as the first Sabbath in Gen 2 as God states it - still applicable to mankind today.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, what historical associations do you see between evangelical feminism and a subsequent push for homosexuality?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: olger

The massive moral shift taking shape around us is fast eliminating any neutral ground on this issue. Those celebrating the moral normalization of homosexuality will demand an answer from us all.

Good to see where people stand!

Appreciate Batchelor's faithfulness to Biblical truth.

G

agreed. I notice something when it comes to Christian denominations and this particular issue.

1. No denomination embraces the gay marriage / gay agenda that has not first embraced faith in evolutionism by the same people who want to promote gay marriage etc.

2. No denomination embraces evolutionism without first dropping their faith in the literal trustworthy nature of Genesis 1 and 2 and the first marriage as God states it, as well as the first Sabbath in Gen 2 as God states it - still applicable to mankind today.

in Christ,

Bob

[Ted Oplinger]

kailooa, there are many that do seem to have the opinion that separation of church and state should only apply when it directly affects their right to worship. But, and this is my observation after countless discussions about this particular issue, that they think that the actual law should follow Bible standards.

The issue of homosexuality seems to get a huge amount of coverage here at C/A. Almost to the point of obsessiveness. There seems to be the idea that the only time discrimination is wrong is when it is against christians.

The issue of church and state is not merely whether the state legislates morality or not.

It is the state overstepping its province of the civil to legislate in the moral province. That means both legislating morality (that dreaded Sunday Law is example A) and legislating immorality (the gay "rights" issue is a good example here).

The matters of conscience - where it is God defining what is moral and what is not - are not the province of the state. That is left to God's province. Those choosing to side with the immoral standards of life must answer to God, not the state.

The State has province only over the civility/incivility between people, not the morality/immorality between people. The state has no more right to intrude upon a Christian's conviction of morals about homosexuality as it does to intrude into the activities in private "between consenting adults" as the argument goes. What shall happen when God takes one in the latter case, leads them to repent, and puts then into the former? Are they to return to the same kind of discrimination they faced when they were advocating their former lifestyle?

The gay marriage issue is just as bad of a conflation of church/state as any Sunday law could be, in my opinion.

Blessings,

[M. T. Cross]

Ted, I don't think that any minister should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against his moral or religious beliefs. I don't think the state can tell you that you have to like the idea of gay marriage. But it is not about legislating morals. Its about legislating rights. Two human beings of consenting age want to get married. As long as they meet any legal requirements they should have that right. If one of those legal requirements is that they have opposing genitalia, then I think that the government is promoting a moral agenda, one that is based on an Abrahamic model. Is the next step that they start banning religions that don't meet that model? Its a moral agenda based on bigotry. As for what your God chooses to do, thats between him and his followers. In my opinion if homosexuality is such a big deal, then yes he is a bigot.

[BobRyan]

The issue of church and state is not merely whether the state legislates morality or not.

It is the state overstepping its province of the civil to legislate in the moral province.

There is no problem at all with the state legislating morality. There is no Bible text at all that claims that if the government of man declares that murder is wrong -- based on the statements in Genesis 8 and 9 - that this would be evil.

Take a look at the two houses of congress at the federal level. Between them a stairwell with a mural depicting the signing of the constitution - where a large Bible is open to Matthew 5 in the foreground.

When the Blair amendment is being debated and A.T. Jones goes to argue his case - he does so based on Romans 13. They are having a Bible study in debate! In that debate both A.T Jones and Senator Blair agree that it is ok to declare the Mormon practice of Polygamy to be against the law of the state - even though it is held as a religious belief by Mormons.

There has never been a "sin" or a problem for Christians - legislating morality (man's duty to man) based on the Bible in all of time. And there is not one today either.

Where we have the problem is in legislating worship (man's duty to God).

Some things belong to Caesar - and some to God.

in Christ,

Bob

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted, I don't think that any minister should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against his moral or religious beliefs. I don't think the state can tell you that you have to like the idea of gay marriage. But it is not about legislating morals. Its about legislating rights. Two human beings of consenting age want to get married. As long as they meet any legal requirements they should have that right. If one of those legal requirements is that they have opposing genitalia, then I think that the government is promoting a moral agenda, one that is based on an Abrahamic model. Is the next step that they start banning religions that don't meet that model? Its a moral agenda based on bigotry. As for what your God chooses to do, thats between him and his followers. In my opinion if homosexuality is such a big deal, then yes he is a bigot.

MT,

I would rethink that position. Once a thing has been declared "rights" in our politics, any infringement has been declared illegal.

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

There are already cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for a homosexual couple; the opposition is based in bakers' morality code.

Here is one in Oregon fighting a $50,000 fine for refusing service on the basis of their morals:

Oregon baker refuses gay couple's business

Oregon has anti-discrimination laws in place regarding sexual orientation; these are being used in direct opposition to the freedom of religious expression.

If bakers cannot refuse service based on their convictions of what is and is not moral, it is only a matter of time before ministers are included.

As for the point of opposing homosexuality being a moral-based bigotry....the shoe fits on the other foot, as the heterophobic frenzy seen today is nothing more than a bigotry based on the lack of morals.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

The issue of church and state is not merely whether the state legislates morality or not.

It is the state overstepping its province of the civil to legislate in the moral province.

There is no problem at all with the state legislating morality. There is no Bible text at all that claims that if the government of man declares that murder is wrong -- based on the statements in Genesis 8 and 9 - that this would be evil.

Take a look at the two houses of congress at the federal level. Between them a stairwell with a mural depicting the signing of the constitution - where a large Bible is open to Matthew 5 in the foreground.

When the Blair amendment is being debated and A.T. Jones goes to argue his case - he does so based on Romans 13. They are having a Bible study in debate! In that debate both A.T Jones and Senator Blair agree that it is ok to declare the Mormon practice of Polygamy to be against the law of the state - even though it is held as a religious belief by Mormons.

There has never been a "sin" or a problem for Christians - legislating morality (man's duty to man) based on the Bible in all of time. And there is not one today either.

Where we have the problem is in legislating worship (man's duty to God).

Some things belong to Caesar - and some to God.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, you might want to go to the thread Sky is working on in the theology townhall on just this subject, and review what A.T. Jones' arguments were regarding the moral and civil provinces. The murder point was specifically brought up.

What the state prosecutes with respect to murder and theft is the incivility of people toward one another, not the immorality of the action. There is a huge distinction Mr. Jones makes regarding the two aspects.

You are making precisely the case Senator Blair was arguing against Mr. Jones.

A.T. Jones argued much more from the Founding Father's understandings of the provinces of government than he did from Romans 13.

Our government and our citizenry today would never recognize as valid the governmental constraints Mr. Jones argues from in his opposition to the Blair amendment.

Blessings,

[M. T. Cross]

MT,

I would rethink that position. Once a thing has been declared "rights" in our politics, any infringement has been declared illegal.

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

There are already cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for a homosexual couple; the opposition is based in bakers' morality code.

Here is one in Oregon fighting a $50,000 fine for refusing service on the basis of their morals:

Oregon baker refuses gay couple's business

Oregon has anti-discrimination laws in place regarding sexual orientation; these are being used in direct opposition to the freedom of religious expression.

If bakers cannot refuse service based on their convictions of what is and is not moral, it is only a matter of time before ministers are included.

As for the point of opposing homosexuality being a moral-based bigotry....the shoe fits on the other foot, as the heterophobic frenzy seen today is nothing more than a bigotry based on the lack of morals.

Blessings,

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

The issue of church and state is not merely whether the state legislates morality or not.

It is the state overstepping its province of the civil to legislate in the moral province.

There is no problem at all with the state legislating morality. There is no Bible text at all that claims that if the government of man declares that murder is wrong -- based on the statements in Genesis 8 and 9 - that this would be evil.

Take a look at the two houses of congress at the federal level. Between them a stairwell with a mural depicting the signing of the constitution - where a large Bible is open to Matthew 5 in the foreground.

When the Blair amendment is being debated and A.T. Jones goes to argue his case - he does so based on Romans 13. They are having a Bible study in debate! In that debate both A.T Jones and Senator Blair agree that it is ok to declare the Mormon practice of Polygamy to be against the law of the state - even though it is held as a religious belief by Mormons.

There has never been a "sin" or a problem for Christians - legislating morality (man's duty to man) based on the Bible in all of time. And there is not one today either.

Where we have the problem is in legislating worship (man's duty to God).

Some things belong to Caesar - and some to God.

[Ted Oplinger]

Bob, the point I am refering to came a little later in the dialogue - Sky's post #608162, where this is contained:

Quote:

It is every man's right in this country, or anywhere else, to worship an idol if he chooses. That idol embodies his conviction of what God is. He can worship only according to his convictions. It matters not what form his idol may have, he has the right to worship it anywhere in all the world, therefore in the United States. But suppose that in the worship of that god he attempts to take the life of one of his fellow-men, and offer it as a human sacrifice. The civil government exists for the protection of life, liberty, property, etc., and it must punish that man for his attempt upon the life of his fellow-man. The civil law protects man's life from such exercise of any one's religion, but in punishing the offender, the State does not consider the question of his religion at all. It would punish him just the same if he made no pretensions to worship or to religion.

It punishes him for his incivility, for his attempt at murder, not for his irreligion. I repeat, the question of religion is not considered by the State; the sole question is, Did he threaten the life of his fellow-man? Civil government must protect its citizens. This is strictly within Caesar's jurisdiction; it comes within the line of duties which the Scripture shows to pertain to our neighbor, and with it Caesar has to do.

Therefore it is true that the State can never of right legislate in regard to any man's religious faith, or in relation to anything in the first four commandments of the decalogue.

But if in the exercise of his religious convictions under the first four commandments, a man invades the rights of his neighbor, as to life, family, property, or character, then the civil government says that it is unlawful. Why? Because it is irreligious or immoral?--Not at all; but because it is uncivil, and for that reason only. It never can be proper for the State to ask any question as to whether any man is religious or not, or whether his actions are religious or not. The sole question must ever be, Is the action civil or uncivil.

It is this particular exchange where we see A.T. Jones restricting government's province to that of civility only, rather than the province of morality.

Murder, theft, perjury, etc., are all immoral, but government's laws against them are not based upon morality, but in the protection of other people's rights to life, liberty, and property to maintain an orderly society - the civility issue.

In post #608555, Sky posted Mr. Jones making this point -

Quote:

Every step forward in religion and in enlightenment has of necessity been taken in the face of all the opposition which these States and empires could bring to bear. But the principles of American institutions are neither pagan nor papal. The principles of the American Constitution which forbids legislation on the subject of religion, are Christian principles. And it is strictly in order for Supreme Courts in making decisions in behalf of what they boast of as the Christian religion, to base their decision upon something else than the course of the pagan governments of antiquity, and the papal institutions of modern Europe.

Mr. Jones did indeed do his homework when comparing the Founding Father's principles of religious freedom to that which we find in the Scriptures.

He refers to several sections of the Constitution, a treaty ratified in 1796, and 2 paragraphs in the last chapter of Bancroft's "History of the Constitution of the United States".

A.T. Jones' presentation before Senator Blair was a bit more than simply opening the Bible to Romans 13, in my opinion.

Blessings,

[BobRyan]

Bob, the point I am refering to came a little later in the dialogue - Sky's post #608162, where this is contained:

[BobRyan]

Mr. Jones did indeed do his homework when comparing the Founding Father's principles of religious freedom to that which we find in the Scriptures.

He refers to several sections of the Constitution, a treaty ratified in 1796, and 2 paragraphs in the last chapter of Bancroft's "History of the Constitution of the United States".

A.T. Jones' presentation before Senator Blair was a bit more than simply opening the Bible to Romans 13, in my opinion.

Blessings,

No doubt but this is not an "either or" situation. It is "both and" as the data points out.

Thus it is impossible to make the case from Jone's own statements that he was against legislating morality from the Bible based on the last 6 commandments - when his own words affirm such a thing.

It is also impossible to argue that Governement should not take the Bible as its rule - when Jones is trying to argue from the Bible (in Matt 22 and in Romans 13) that the government does not have the right to legislate in the areas of the first 4 commandments - as if the government should be paying attention to the binding nature of Romans 13 and Matt 22 on government authority and limits.

This is a huge area where I see our own RL department missing key details. At least in times past.

If Jones were following late 20th century trends in our RL department - he would never have mentioned the Bible except to distance himself from it as a standard rule or basis for law.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

There are already cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for a homosexual couple; the opposition is based in bakers' morality code.

Here is one in Oregon fighting a $50,000 fine for refusing service on the basis of their morals:

Oregon baker refuses gay couple's business

Oregon has anti-discrimination laws in place regarding sexual orientation; these are being used in direct opposition to the freedom of religious expression.

If bakers cannot refuse service based on their convictions of what is and is not moral, it is only a matter of time before ministers are included.

Blessings,

But those anti discrimination laws give a specific exemption that does not require a minister to perform a gay marriage nor require a church to permit/sanction it.

The difference here is that the business of baking cakes is not inherently a religious activity.

Not so long ago, businesses would deny service to people not meeting the business owners racial or ethnic preferences. Often that was justified on claimed Biblical reasons. For example, a married racially mixed couple would be denied rental of an apartment based on a sincerely held belief in the interpretation of the Biblical admonition against being unequally yoked.

How would this recent situation in Oregon be different?

[kailooa]

"Supporting gay marriage is quite a large step away from validating all forms of non heterosexual expression."

AGREE.

[BobRyan]

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

There are already cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for a homosexual couple; the opposition is based in bakers' morality code.

Here is one in Oregon fighting a $50,000 fine for refusing service on the basis of their morals:

Oregon baker refuses gay couple's business

Oregon has anti-discrimination laws in place regarding sexual orientation; these are being used in direct opposition to the freedom of religious expression.

If bakers cannot refuse service based on their convictions of what is and is not moral, it is only a matter of time before ministers are included.

Blessings,

[M. T. Cross]

Wow Bob, I love how you can take the issue from being about two people in love to prostitution and Child pornography.

Have you ever met a prostitute? Actually spent time getting to know them? Finding out why they are were they are? Cleaning out cuts and bruises after some sick pig beat the [censored] out of them? Unless you have I really don't think you are qualified to judge their situation in any way shape or form,let alone compare them to two people that simply want to share a life of love and commitment together.

Child pornography is another form of rape. It is not about sex, its not about sexual preference or orientation, its about power and abuse.

[BobRyan]

Wow Bob, I love how you can take the issue from being about two people in love to prostitution and Child pornography.

I did not mean to link the idea of a man and woman being in love - with the sexual sins such as prostitution and child pornography. Sorry if I left that impression.

I was trying to link homosexuality as a sexual sin condemned by God in Lev 18, and 1Cor 6 with other sexual sins that are also condemned by God - that Tom's reference "Baker" might not want to be party to.

Sorry if I was unclear.

And if you know some child pornographer or some prostitute that has had a difficult time in life - it was not my intent to say that Tom's Baker would not want to help in some humanitarian way. I was specifically speaking "in context" of a wedding - which is usually a celebration and not an activity involved with treating wounds after a beating. Thus all the comparisons where to celebration style events.

Sorry if that part was also unclear.

in short - details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

How would this recent situation in Oregon be different?

So we already have the Bible perspective that groups adultery, prostitution and homosexuality as similar cases. That made the answer to the question above - pretty easy.

Let's try more examples that are not so close to the homosexual case of sexual sin as defined by God Himself.

Suppose an SDA baker is asked to bake a cake by a Baptist group that has the sign of the Ten Commandments - abolished?

That has the words "Sunday is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God"?

That has the words "the immortal soul of man"??

That has the words "no prophets of God after John"??

Used to celebrate some teaching event held for something they call "Sunday Training".

Would the SDA baker be required by law to violate his conscience any more in those cases than in the one that Tom is referencing above?

in Christ,

Bob

[HopefulOne]

We all know whats coming.Let us all make

sure we are ready for the consequenses!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

Sorry, Ted, I disagree with you on this one. NOTE: As we are speaking about the law, I write in a U.S. context.

A clergyperson, doing a wedding, is performing a sacramental (religious) function.

Under the 1st Amendment, the State cannot intrude on the sacramental (religious) functions of clergy.

The only possible way, and even this could be argued, would if a clergy person were to set up shop on Main Street and advertise that he/she was in the wedding business. Doing so would potentially take the issue out of the religious aspects ant into the business arena.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

There are already cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for a homosexual couple; the opposition is based in bakers' morality code.

When a person decided to go into business, that person can not discriminate on the basis of personal morality:

1) One who owns 100 apartments cannot refuse to rent apartments to Philistines simply because that owner believes that the Bible condemns them.

2) A baker cannot refuse to sell a loaf of bread to someone who has not fathered a child on the basis that the Bible orders people to be fruitful and multiply.

3) A physician who treats HIV infected people cannot refuse to treat those HIV infected people who got it from a partner to whom they were not married.

To speak more directly to your question: That baker can refuse to bake all wedding cakes. No legal requirement to do so. Once that baker makes and sells wedding cakes, that baker must sell to all.

[Stan]

1- I personally find the whole gay experience repugnant.

2- I have never met a hetrosexual male wish he was gay.

3- I have met gays who wished they were hetrosexual.

4- Have met too many converted gays, who returned after leaving their wives and families broken and in shambles.

ABOUT, according to the CDC, 1% of the population is gay. Much lower than what the gays say.

Here is my point, that I tried to make earlier.

Why place the focus on the 1% when the marriages of the other 99% seems to be collapsing?

just some random thoughts.

[Stan]

PS John317's testimony is more powerful than all the hate mongering that comes from Christianity. Thank you my friend.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

So then lets say some prostitutes get together and want to have a grand prostitute celebration and ask the Baker to bake a cake for them celebrating that event - and he does not want to be party to such an event?

This story has been so publicized in the conservative religious world that many reading here probably know about it.

A well-known evangelist was in a seedy late-night café getting a cup of coffee, after he had just disembarked from a very long flight, and was in transit to his hotel.

A group of prostitutes walked in and began to talk about their night. One mentioned that another one was having a birthday the next day. That woman responded that it would be nothing special as no one had ever given her a birthday party.

After the prostitutes left, the evangelist asked the owner of the café of they regularly came in after their nightly duties were finished. The answer was "yes." The evangelist then asked if the owner would be willing to throw a party for the woman, if the evangelist paid for it.

The next evening the party was held, with the evangelist present. At one point the evangelist was asked who he was and what he did. He responded and the next question was: What kind of a church would throw a party for a bunch of prostitutes?

The answer was: A church that follows the teachings of Christ who told it to love.

The response to that answer was: I would like to know more about that kind of a church.