Proposition 8 (California)

[Stan]

FOR

www.adventists4prop8.com

AGAINST

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org/

Thoughts?

[carolaa]

Wow, we're really talking out of both sides of our mouths, aren't we?

[Woody]

I think our prophet would suggest we stay out of it.

[Liz]

This kinda goes back to my question in a different forum, about should one even vote being a Christian. Due to the fact that one is then responsible about the outcome of that vote.

If one can separate their "Christian" self from their "I am not sure what word I need here--I don't think it is secular though" self; one could vote either way.

On the one hand one could decide that marriage is *just* between a man and a woman; however, one might also decide that people are going to choose their lifestyle and keeping them from their partner during critical times of their life isn't going to win them to Christianity either.

Having said that *I* think that the *Church* should make a stand in their own doctrines or beliefs but should stay completely out of politics. I think that they can get into some murky waters if they start telling their people on how to vote.

This is my muddled two cents.

[carolaa]

I think our prophet would suggest we stay out of it.

That's fine with me. But how is this issue different than abortion, as far as getting involved with it?

[there buster]

I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise.

[Dr. Shane]

Some things are not dictated by our faith. What color should I paint my house? What kind of landscaping should I plant in my yard? Which vegetables should I grow in my garden? Many questions are not directly tied to our faith.

As Adventists we believe homosexuality is sin. That is our religious belief. We also believe certain types of music and movies are sin but we do not support laws to ban them. Thus the issue of whether or not to support gay marriage becomes an issue of civic decision and not religious decision. I do not believe banning gay marriage is in any way an act against religious liberty any more than banning prostitution is against religious liberty.

[Woody]

Quote:

As Adventists we believe homosexuality is sin. That is our religious belief. We also believe certain types of music and movies are sin but we do not support laws to ban them.

Do you guys realize how many things our prophet calls a 'sin'? We could start a huge list of things that we could have laws against.

[BobRyan]

We look at the Moral issue facing the nation and the church today as compared to very similar moral issues Ellen White faced in her day at this thread -

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499

For Example - Ellen White would call Sabbath breaking sin - but never urged legislation to promote Sabbath nor a constitutional ammendment enforcing Sabbath.

YET on the subjects of "Value of human life" and the moral issue of drug-abuse (Alcohol) she urged activism for SDAS as we see in that link.

Significant Moral issues regarding the last 6 commandments - man's-duty-to-man did not come across as optional in the early Adventist church.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise.

For an example of her urging the Church to "Activism" on moral issues (even arguing that we should be "the head and not the tail" in those activist movements regarding very specific moral issues) -

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499

in Christ,

Bob

[there buster]

Redwood, nobody's saying that every sin should be made illegal. That has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

There are two quite different issues that are relevant here.

1) There's a difference between "making a sin illegal," and specifically legalizing it. Lying, in most cases, is not illegal. But that doesn't mean we should hand out a "license to lie."

2) Some lying is illegal--fraud, for example-- not because society deems it 'immoral,' but because it is damaging to the fabric of society. There are lots of morally neutral things--playing loud music at night, for example--which may nonetheless be outlawed.

Since it's not a constitutional issue, like the free exercise of religion, it's quite possible to say that because gay marriage damages a society, it should be outlawed, without regard to whether it's moral or not.

And yes, there is a real danger to freedom of religion if gay marriage is legalized. Just ask the Canadian printer who was fined for printing a Bible text.

Hate speech laws will be increasingly used to silence dissent against a whole range of issues.

Hate crime legislation in general is dangerous, because the state moves from regulating what person does, to what a person thinks. That's tyranny.

[Woody]

Quote:

Hate crime legislation in general is dangerous, because the state moves from regulating what person does, to what a person thinks. That's tyranny.

What do you think would be a better alternative?

We could make ALL crimes Hate Crimes.

[Jeannieb43]

Having said that, *I* think that the *Church* should make a stand in their own doctrines or beliefs but should stay completely out of politics. I think that they can get into some murky waters if they start telling their people on how to vote.

My sentiments exactly.

The church is definitely treading some murky waters when it begins advocating for -- or against -- propositions on the political ballots. Let the preachers preach generic admonitions in their parish pulpits, but never get into the political arena. That could open up floodgates of reproof - from both public and private entities.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think those "Adventist" sites are officially sponsored by the church.

[Woody]

I don't think those "Adventist" sites are officially sponsored by the church.

[Jeannieb43]

I would have signed a petition AGAINST Prop. 8 (legislation to require "marriage" to be only between one man and one woman), for the simple reason that I believe we as a church should not legislate such things--at all!

For the church to take a public stand supporting a political move to hurt the gay population is, IMHO, Anti-Christian and wrong! If Prop. 8 passes, many of our own members will ab initio, become criminals.

This does not mean I'm homosexual, or anything else. It means I believe we (and the civil law) need to treat all men and women equally.

I'm ashamed of my church for publishing an article supporting Prop. 8 in the Pacific Union Recorder. Our church should take no stand on this issue, because of its sensitive nature. It should be between the worshiper and God. Period.

[there buster]

Quote:

What do you think would be a better alternative?

Any rational reading of the Constitution would make all "hate crime" legislation unconstitutional.

Most "hate crimes" are already crimes. For the rest, it's either penalizing speech or beliefs. That's totalitarian.

[Woody]

Just wanted to say thanks to the two above posts from Jeannie and ichabod. I appreciate and agree with you both. Well said folks.

[carolaa]

I'm ashamed of my church for publishing an article supporting Prop. 8 in the Pacific Union Recorder. Our church should take no stand on this issue, because of its sensitive nature. It should be between the worshiper and God. Period.

I think you're right. If they published one view, then they should also present the other view - particularly since there are many SDAs on both sides of the issue. Present both sides fairly and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise, it is propaganda, as I have stated in other threads, and not a "news" magazine.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: ichabod

I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise.

For an example of her urging the Church to "Activism" on moral issues (even arguing that we should be "the head and not the tail" in those activist movements regarding very specific moral issues) -

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499

The fact that they were willing to join with those promoting Sunday legislation -- were willing to vote for a Constitutional ammendment to support this legislation on Christian moral grounds and also were willing to vote on Sabbath to get it passed -- shows the level of "clarity" they had based on just how active SDAs were to be when it came to a firm support of moral initiatives.

And as we know on the issue of the value of human life -- they urged that the country take a stand even if it meant civil war.

so since any and ALL nations are at the Lev 18 risk should they choose to legislate FOR the abomination of killing infants or the gay agenda regarding marriage or condoning the act -- it is even more important to be "clear" about this today - than what they did in the 1800's.

in Christ,

Bob

[there buster]

Quote:

If they published one view, then they should also present the other view - particularly since there are many SDAs on both sides of the issue. Present both sides fairly and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise, it is propaganda, as I have stated in other threads, and not a "news" magazine.

Does that apply to every issue?

[carolaa]

I don't know about every issue, but I think particularly on issues where there is a vast variety of thought among members, they should absolutely present both sides.

[there buster]

Quote:

a vast variety of thought among members

So, if there is a vast variety of thought among members, the church should take no position?

[CyberGuy]

Several years ago California voters voted by wide margins that Marriage is between a man and a woman. now the courts have overruled that saying it is unconstitutional. All Prop 8 does is to put into the constitution what california voters already voted on. That marriage is between a man and a woman. That way the courts cannot make their own interpretation of the constitution.

I am voting YES on it.

[BobRyan]

FOR

www.adventists4prop8.com