Gay Marriage

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

You might think me a bit extreme in my perspective...

Actually I think that you are more rational than some who discuses these issues. Does not mean that I agree with you, however.

Quite understood, Greg.

Many Blessings,

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I very much hope you did not take my comment there as an affront - it was not meant to be.

No affront taken.

I respect you, and when I disagree.

However, at times, I do agree with you. :)

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I believe the nod to the accountant is much rarer than is believed, but popular opinion to the contrary led to Obamacare being passed...where treatments WILL be decided based on the bottom lines of cost and productivity.

I Do not see it quite that way.

As you probably l know, I work in a Federal hospital. In that hospital and as an Ethics Committee member for years, I am well aware of the issues that we are called upon to consider.

I can say that I have never seen the issues considered as you have mentioned them above.

However, I have seen the following considered:

1) Patient X is at the end of life and is in the process of slowly dying. Patient X is receiving an expensive level of care. There is no clinical value in that level of care. All of the needs of patient X could be provided by a lower level of care.

NOTE: I will give you an example: Admitted to Intensive care vs. a hospital bed vs. the Nursing Home.

2) Allocation of scarce resources: E.G More people need a kidney transplant. There are not enough kidneys to fill all of the needs. We do transplants.

Ethics committees deal with issues that many people would never imagine.

[phkrause]

Well, HopefulOne, I respect that that is your opinion, but I do not agree that I am fighting against Jesus--the same Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors, the same Jesus who exhorts me to love others, the same Jesus who chose not to articulate a position on homosexuality, much less the entanglement of legal and religious marriage contracts. I do not agree that the laws of our country, or any country, are God's established order. That is partly why I agree with the article; why do we feel that clergy should be authorized by the state to enforce the legal obligation of state-sponsored marriage? As a lifelong Adventist it is a fascinating question to me and I am interested to see that there it at least some examination of this issue somewhere under the umbrella of Adventism.

You say "debate, debate, debate" as if discussion of the issue of gay marriage is not the point of this thread. I have not until this time gotten involved in such a discussion, but I'm curious as to why you are here if you do not want to discuss (or "debate") with people who have opinions different than yours. I am not disagreeing with you or anyone else just to be contrary. I am stating my opinions and asking questions in order to understand positions that I do not understand.

Jesus might have hung out with these groups, but never indorsed them. Jesus said that we should love the sinner but hate the sin!

[kailooa]

I agree, pkrause. I am not advocating here for SDAs to endorse homosexuality. I'm advocating for SDAs to support extending equal rights under the law. Quite a different proposition.

[John317]

Couldn't agree more, we will be considered a hate group, I see that already.

Yep, same here. Already are in some quarters and in some countries. It will be considered genocide to try and convert Jews to Christianity or to condemn homosexuality as sinful.

Strange how governments don't want anyone to be offended, but yet they would think nothing of offending people by throwing them in jail for preaching what they believe to be Bible truth.

[BobRyan]

Hate the sin - love the sinner - puts you in the category of a "hate group" for those whose mission is to promote the sin regardless of the sinner's best interests for eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Well, HopefulOne, I respect that that is your opinion, but I do not agree that I am fighting against Jesus--the same Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, thieves and ...

Jesus cast demons out of prostitutes rather than simply "hanging out with prostitutes".

His command was "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" that is the pre-cross commandments so - that is a lot.

His statement in Mark 7:13 was that the Commandments of God are in fact "The Word of God" and that breaking them simply because you feel like it -- does not please God.

In Matt 5 Jesus said that the one who teaches others that it is ok to break the law of God - will be considered as being at the bottom end of the scale by those who are in heaven.j

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

The idea of dividing Jesus against the Word of God - is not an idea that you will get from the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God - and the Word WAS God... and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1.

As we see in Rev 19 - He is still to this day called "The Word of God"

in Christ,

Bob

[pierrepaul]

I agree, pkrause. I am not advocating here for SDAs to endorse homosexuality. I'm advocating for SDAs to support extending equal rights under the law. Quite a different proposition.

Amen. There is much that is legal that violates our precepts. SdAs are rather silent about the law permitting adulterers to remarry. SdAs aren't troubled about pork and seafood consumption being legal. SdAs aren't troubled about Sabbath labour being legal. Of course, that's because we are a tiny minority on those points - so we're willing to stand on the principle of "liberty". Yet once an issue arises where not only we're on the same side as most christian churches, but it's also an issue which arouses the basest hatreds and prejudices, many SdAs are more than willing to try to harness the vast power of the state to marginalize those who don't share the same views and practices.

[John317]

SdAs are rather silent about the law permitting adulterers to remarry. SdAs aren't troubled about pork and seafood consumption being legal.

Don't you see a big difference between allowing people the right to eat what they choose and allowing people to marry members of their own sex?

As SDA Christians, we don't want the government to enforce church doctrine, but we do have a right as citizens to influence the government's decision whether to make it legal for men to marry men and women to marry women. The law that males should marry females is not a concept that is based only on the Bible. Throughout human history, this has been the norm in every society known to man-- until the last decade. So it has nothing directly to do with the church's teachings.

That's quite different from the eating of pork and seafood.

Originally Posted By: pierrepaul

SdAs aren't troubled about Sabbath labour being legal.

SDAs oppose both Sunday legislation AND Sabbath legislation because those are dependent on the teachings of the church.

We believe people should be free to make the decision to work or not to work on the Sabbath. We want them to be able to make that decision freely. That's because we believe God wants worship to be given to Him on account of people's choices and not because it is compelled.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: kailooa

I agree, pkrause. I am not advocating here for SDAs to endorse homosexuality. I'm advocating for SDAs to support extending equal rights under the law. Quite a different proposition.

Amen. ....once an issue arises where not only we're on the same side as most christian churches, but it's also an issue which arouses the basest hatreds and prejudices, many SdAs are more than willing to try to harness the vast power of the state to marginalize those who don't share the same views and practices.

Gay people are not "marginalized" if they can't marry a member of their own sex. Getting married is not an absolute right-- it is a privilege that a society extends to its members on conditon that they meet certain requirements. It has been this way since the beginning of human history.

I favor our society's providing for gays to have civil unions so that they are able to have all the legal privileges that married couples have, but I do not believe that it is morally right to call their unions a "marriage."

I don't believe it's to the benefit of society and the family for the unions of men with men and women with women to be placed on the same level as marriages between males and females.

However, if a government should decide to allow gays to marry, I would not protest the decision politically, because I believe the government has a legitimate right to make such decisions. Yet as a Christian under obligation to God-- who created marriage-- I would continue to protest homosexual practices because God's word plainly condemns such practices and teaches that those who practice them will not see the kingdom of God {1 Cor. 6: 9-11; 1 Tim 1: 8-11; Lev. 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 26-27; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2: 7-10}.

This view is not by any means motivated by base hatred or prejudice against gay people. It is based, rather, on my agape/love for my fellow gays and on my convictions of what the Bible teaches.

I believe that in our society gay people should be treated with the same respect, dignity, and love that heterosexuals are treated with. Christ's law of love requires that we treat others as we want to be treated. I've seen up close and personal the ugliness of what happens when this rule is not applied to gay people.

True love for gays means showing them that the power of the gospel is able to deliver us from all sins, including those sins that we may have been born with. This is REALLY great news that Jesus wants all gay people to know by personal experience with Him.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/165910/12.html

[John317]

Originally Posted By: kailooa

Well, HopefulOne, I respect that that is your opinion, but I do not agree that I am fighting against Jesus--the same Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, thieves and ...

Jesus cast demons out of prostitutes rather than simply "hanging out with prostitutes".

His command was "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" that is the pre-cross commandments so - that is a lot.

Excellent point, Bob. This somehow often gets lost in all the "feel-good" and "politicaly correct" philosophy.

Too many forget that Jesus commanded the woman caught in adultery to "go, and no longer keep on practicing sin."

How many people who "hang out" with prostitutes, thieves, and homosexuals, encourage them to no longer practice sin?

Today, on the contrary, some churches and even some SDAs are telling homosexuals that those practices are not even a sin. From the biblical viewpoint, how does neglecting to tell gays the truth about their spiritual condition show that we love them?

Doesn't it, rather, prove that we don't truly love them as God loves them?

Quote:

Ezekiel 3:18-19:

[18] If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. [19] But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

Christ's commission to His disciples applies to all of Christ's followers:

Quote:

Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority [power] in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

[BobRyan]

There is much that is legal that violates our precepts. SdAs are rather silent about the law permitting adulterers to remarry. SdAs aren't troubled about pork and seafood consumption being legal. SdAs aren't troubled about Sabbath labour being legal. Of course, that's because we are a tiny minority on those points - so we're willing to stand on the principle of "liberty". Yet once an issue arises where not only we're on the same side as most christian churches, but it's also an issue which arouses the basest hatreds and prejudices

That appears to miss the point entirely.

1. Lev 18 speaks of those abominations for which God will wipe out even a pagan nation such as those before Israel.

2. Hint: Those things that God calls "abominations" in Lev 18 are truly not pleasing to SDAs.

3. Pork eating, Sabbath breaking, are not listed in Lev 18 as abominations for which God will terminate a pagan or Christian nation.

Your idea is of the form "just add the suffix -hater or the suffix -phobia to any sin of choice and that makes the sin a civil right not to be ill-spoken of by Christians" and is misguided. (Not to mention that it is a form of reasoning not well accepted outside of certain counties in CA)

in Christ,

Bob

[pierrepaul]

I favor our society's providing for gays to have civil unions so that they are able to have all the legal privileges that married couples have, but I do not believe that it is morally right to call their unions a "marriage."

Legislatures only have power to create legal rights and obligations through binding legislation. They do not have power or jurisdiction over the English language. If a legal institution is created which in every relevant way is identical to marriage, but is called "Swarmishhobelsteinkava", it's the same thing as calling it "marriage". What the ordinary English word "marriage" means will be a matter for lexicographers, and individual English speakers are free to follow or reject the judgements of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Just as Sunday is not Sabbath, it is not up to Parliament, Congress or the State to forbid Sunday observers from referring to the First Day as the "Sabbath". Etymologically "homophobia" means "fear of the same", yet in common usage it means "hatred of or opposition to homosexuals". It is not up to the legislature to decree that people cease to use the word "homophobia" erroneously and to require them to coin a new word. The development and evolution of the English language is one thing which escapes governmental regulation. Thus it is not up to Congress or the State to forbid to individuals the use of certain words in describing human relationships.

You and I of course are free not to acknowledge such new meanings in our own private and public speech.

[BobRyan]

The question is whether it is ok for the state to legislate in favor of the morals listed in the last 6 commandments. (As A.T Jones and Ellen White point out). And the answer for them was "yes" just as it is today for many SDAs.

Thus the state can and did outlaw polygamy and the state can and did outlaw homosexual activity.

It is now in a kind of half-way state trying to legalize what it once outlawed but only having done it half way -- probably due to the remnant of the restraining spirit of God that is quickly leaving.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I favor our society's providing for gays to have civil unions so that they are able to have all the legal privileges that married couples have, but I do not believe that it is morally right to call their unions a "marriage."

Legislatures only have power to create legal rights and obligations through binding legislation. They do not have power or jurisdiction over the English language. If a legal institution is created which in every relevant way is identical to marriage, but is called "Swarmishhobelsteinkava", it's the same thing as calling it "marriage".

To a believer in the Bible, "marriage" is sacred. But there can be nothing sacred about the union of a male with a male or of female with a female. Only God can make something sacred, or holy. To call the sexual union of two

homosexuals "marriage" is to drag the very notion of marriage into the dirt.

It could be compared to saying that monkeys were made in the image of God. For Christians who accept the Bible as the standard of truth, only God has the right to define "the image of God" and to tell us who was made in that image. Similarly, as followers of Christ, we must look to the Bible-- not to society-- to find out what constitutes marriage.

"Civil union" is definitely not the same as "marriage." A civil union provides for partners in the relationship to have visitation rights in the hospital, and it also allows for the legal rights of one partner in case of either "separation" or "death."

I don't have a civil union with my wife; she and I have a full-fledged marriage. God Himself said we are "one flesh." He never said this about two males or two females. In fact, God gave commands that clearly prohibit homosexual relations and practices.

Let's remember that like the Sabbath, marriage comes to us as one of the original gifts from God in the Garden of Eden. Satan has aleady managed to make that blessing into a curse in many instances. Satan's plan is to attack God and humankind by attacking and degrading marriage, just as for the same reason Satan attacks and degrades the Sabbath.

So I see a big difference-- not just a legal difference or one based on mere words-- between the concept of "civil union" and "marriage," but if the state decides against such a view, that is its prerogative, of course.

Although a government's decision is legal before earthly courts and earthly institutions, yet if it violates God's commandments, we must choose to obey God as Ruler and to disobey human laws. When we do that, we have to be willing to accept the consequences, which can be anything from a fine to prison and even death.

Christ said, "Do not fear those who can kill the body; but fear Him who is able to kill both body and soul in hell."