Christians and proposed laws that are considered immoral.

[Dr. Shane]

Because they do not have a relilgious liberty right to be an adoptation agency.

Some Christian faiths actually believe God wants them to care for the orphans and fatherless. It is actually part of their religion to do so.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Because they do not have a relilgious liberty right to be an adoptation agency.

Some Christian faiths actually believe God wants them to care for the orphans and fatherless. It is actually part of their religion to do so.

Shane, you used the word some. Can you name ANY that don't believe in caring for the less fortunate?

[Dr. Shane]

As with renting church halls - an issue someone addressed with great clarity here recently - so with providing adoption services. If someone wishes to be in that business, they must be willing to do it in a non-discriminatory manner...

Actually the church hall issue was not addressed. We were talking about a privately-owned dance hall. This is where gay rights and religious liberty clash. To deny it is to stick one's head in the sand and ignore reality. A Muslim, Catholic or other religious person that owns a dance hall should have no obligation to rent his private property out to gay couples. A Catholic adoption agency should have no obligation to place children with gay couples.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Dr. Shane]

Can you name ANY that don't believe in caring for the less fortunate?

Obviously I haven't belonged to all religions. I have studied with a lot but by no means claim to know what all the various faiths believe. I do know that many faiths feel compelled by religious convictions to build orphanages. Those same religious beliefs compel them to not place children with same-sex parents. We may disagree with that but that is them practicing their religious faith.

[Neil D]

We were talking about a privately-owned dance hall. This is where gay rights and religious liberty clash. To deny it is to stick one's head in the sand and ignore reality. A Muslim, Catholic or other religious person that owns a dance hall should have no obligation to rent his private property out to gay couples. A Catholic adoption agency should have no obligation to place children with gay couples.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Technically speaking, the " Muslim, Catholic or other religious person " renting the hall is renting the hall, not preventing a religious ceremony from the homosexuals. The individual who privately owns a dance hall is in the business of renting...therefore, to avoid renting the dance hall to a homosexual is discrimination...

Wanna try another scenerio as this one is done?

I am not trying to be mean here, but this is about a transaction that is supposed to occur between two business partys....Religion doesn't enter into this transaction unless there is a religious ceremony or rite or such...

[GreatLakesGramma]

Actually the church hall issue was not addressed.

The church hall issue was brought up in another thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Because they do not have a relilgious liberty right to be an adoptation agency.

Some Christian faiths actually believe God wants them to care for the orphans and fatherless. It is actually part of their religion to do so.

I understand your point.

However, that is not how either the courts or the legislature has defined religious liberty.

No legislatrue ahs ever said that a chruch can enter any bisuness it choses and operate outside the boundaries of the law.

Remember when the Pacific Press became oblicated to pay women as mkuch as it paid men and when our institutions were forced to comploy wiht minimumn wage laws.

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Actually the church hall issue was not addressed.

The church hall issue was brought up in another thread.

As I recall, the issue in that thread involved a tax exemption. If one wants a tax exemption, one must comply with the requirements established by the government.

[Dr. Shane]

Technically speaking, the "Muslim, Catholic or other religious person renting the hall is renting the hall, not preventing a religious ceremony from the homosexuals. The individual who privately owns a dance hall is in the business of renting...therefore, to avoid renting the dance hall to a homosexual is discrimination...

Wanna try another scenario as this one is done?

I am not trying to be mean here, but this is about a transaction that is supposed to occur between two business partys....Religion doesn't enter into this transaction unless there is a religious ceremony or rite or such...

Of course you are thinking like me, a Seventh-day Adventist. Most Seventh-day Adventists wouldn't have a problem with it. But some would.

I didn't say it wasn't discrimination. Of course it is. Business people discriminate all the time. That is why the government created protected classes. Discriminating is not illegal unless it is done against a protected class.

Let's say the group wanted to rent the dance hall to run a weekend poker party. If the dance hall owner is a religious man he could turn them down because he doesn't want to have any part of a gambling operation. Since poker players are not a protected class of people, he is free to turn them down.

I was once approached by an architect to bid on a project for Planned Parenthood. When I informed my boss, he said he would not bid it because he wanted nothing to do with Planned Parenthood and their abortion centers. Another time a lawyer asked me to bid on his new law office and my boss declined because he didn't want to work for a lawyer. My boss discriminated in both of these circumstances but since neither abortionists nor lawyers are protected classes of people, he broke no law.

The concern to religious liberty is that gays will gain a protected class status which will cause a major clash between gay rights and religious liberty.

[Gerr]

To all,

I still would like to hear more about how a Christian can endorse an immoral/sinful law? How do you justify it?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry:

We live in a time when morality can be attached to just about any law and declared either moral or immoral. Moral issues can be attached to labor laws, the progressive tax code, business law,commerce, labeling and much more.

I believe in a distinction between civil law and religion in a context where we do not have a Theoracacy.

In my thinking, in the civil realm, in the United States, there are basic, fundamental civil rights. These are derived from the Constitution and/or statute and/or case law.

In my thinking, the State has defined marriage in a civil context that is independent of the Biblical context. Federal law has clarly defined marriage is a fundamental right, subject to boundaries prescribed by the State.

I believe that basic civil rights are involved wiht the issue of homosexual marriage. I believe that those rights should be addressed, either by a civil union statute of by the marriage statutes and I am willing for the individual States to make that decision.

As a clergy person, I will not marry a homosexual couple. As an advocate for civil rights for all, I will support a law that gives homosexual couples the same civil rights as are given to heterosexual couples.

[Gerr]

I think I understand what you are saying. However, what I want to know is - by what Biblical rationale can you give for supporting/endorsing a sinful/immoral law that just contributes to societal degradation and decay?

[GreatLakesGramma]

To all,

I still would like to hear more about how a Christian can endorse an immoral/sinful law? How do you justify it?

I don't. When the state of Michigan's bid to enter the gambling business was on the ballot, I voted against it. I also voted against allowing fetal stem cell research in Michigan. If gay marriage ever comes up on the ballot, I will vote against it, even though I respect everyone's right to choose for themselves whether to engage in such unions or not, because I can never endorse what God condemns.

If the Michigan legislature decides to legalize it without asking for a vote, I won't really have a problem with it, so long as the law makes provision to allow those who are against it on moral or religious grounds to refuse to take any participatory part in such unions, as in renting buildings, photographing ceremonies, or officiating weddings. When the law seeks to force religious persons to support what is against their beliefs, then it is stepping across the line.

I read an interview with the photographer in New Mexico, back when it happened. She said that while she respected the right of the couple to marry, she puts her whole self into creating the most beautiful and memorable wedding portfolio possible for each couple, and her personal convictions would inhibit her creativity such that she felt she could not give them her best. She wanted them to find a photographer who could do for them what she could not.

I would feel the same. I treat my son's partner as family and we enjoy chatting online, but when I read his facebook post about the candlelight dinner son made him for his birthday, I cringed at the thought of what that meant to them. If I were a professional photographer myself, I could probably do fine with photos of the families, wedding party, reception, and ceremony, but when it came time for shots of romantic poses, I know I could never do a decent job, because I would be uncomfortable even seeing that, let alone directing it.

[Gregory Matthews]

When I am confronted with two evils, with no choice of another option, I am willing to chose what I believe to be the lessor evil.

The Bible does not tell me directly how I should relate to the civil laws of society that may not fully reflect the will of God.

I can only tell you how I decide is specific cases. In the case of homosexual marriage, I make my decision on the following basis:

1) Not the will of God. Bible

2) God does not force people but allows them to chose. Bible

3) God is a God of fairness and equity. The civil rights of society should be available to all. Bible

4) God has placed civil authorities in power. We should obey if not in connflict with the will of God for us. Bible

On the basis of the above I support the idea of giving homosesxuals the civil rights that I as a heterosexual have in marriage.

On the basis of # 4, I am willing for:

1) The individual States to decide whether or not go give those civil rights in a civil union or in marriage.

2) I am willing for the Supreme Court (US) to ultimately define the boundaries of the civil rights that should be granted on this issue.

My personal opinion is that they should have every right granted to heterosexuals.

[Gerr]

Thanks for stating your reasons.

I personally have no problem abiding the court's approval of something sinful/immoral. That is then beyond my control. I just can't, in conscience, vote for something I know to be evil.

[doug yowell]

When I am confronted with two evils, with no choice of another option, I am willing to chose what I believe to be the lessor evil.

The Bible does not tell me directly how I should relate to the civil laws of society that may not fully reflect the will of God.

I can only tell you how I decide is specific cases. In the case of homosexual marriage, I make my decision on the following basis:

1) Not the will of God. Bible

2) God does not force people but allows them to chose. Bible

3) God is a God of fairness and equity. The civil rights of society should be available to all. Bible

4) God has placed civil authorities in power. We should obey if not in connflict with the will of God for us. Bible

On the basis of the above I support the idea of giving homosesxuals the civil rights that I as a heterosexual have in marriage.

On the basis of # 4, I am willing for:

1) The individual States to decide whether or not go give those civil rights in a civil union or in marriage.

2) I am willing for the Supreme Court (US) to ultimately define the boundaries of the civil rights that should be granted on this issue.

My personal opinion is that they should have every right granted to heterosexuals.

Again, rationalizing this way puts the Constitution above the Bible. It separates the religion of Christianity from "real life".Since every state in the union,including California,when put to a popular vote, has systematically rejected the redefining of marriage,how can the Christian agree with the legal imposition of same sex marriage unless they believe that God would be OK with it? Calling it a civil right begs the moral question. Our founders were clear that they believed that all civil rights were derived from nature and nature's God,not the Constitution itself.Arguing that same sex marriage is a civil right violates not only God's stated opinion but also the intentions of the creators of the Constitution. Knowing that God "gives up" those who reject His natural order of societal stability and voting to exercise that "right" anyway either assumes that no evil will befall those who practice such things or simply doesn't give a rip!Can a Christian risk playing this bluff?

[doug yowell]

When I am confronted with two evils, with no choice of another option, I am willing to chose what I believe to be the lessor evil.

The Bible does not tell me directly how I should relate to the civil laws of society that may not fully reflect the will of God.

I can only tell you how I decide is specific cases. In the case of homosexual marriage, I make my decision on the following basis:

1) Not the will of God. Bible

2) God does not force people but allows them to chose. Bible

3) God is a God of fairness and equity. The civil rights of society should be available to all. Bible

4) God has placed civil authorities in power. We should obey if not in connflict with the will of God for us. Bible

On the basis of the above I support the idea of giving homosesxuals the civil rights that I as a heterosexual have in marriage.

On the basis of # 4, I am willing for:

1) The individual States to decide whether or not go give those civil rights in a civil union or in marriage.

2) I am willing for the Supreme Court (US) to ultimately define the boundaries of the civil rights that should be granted on this issue.

My personal opinion is that they should have every right granted to heterosexuals.

And again, what are the two evils in conflict here? Same sex governmental promotion, and....

[doug yowell]

The Bible does not tell me directly how I should relate to the civil laws of society that may not fully reflect the will of God.

"We should obey God rather than man?""Have no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness,but rather expose them?""Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people?""He who justifies the wicked,and he who condemns the just,are both alike an abomination to the Lord?""A prudent man forsees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished?"

[phkrause]

I think this is an important question that many in our church never stop to seriously consider.Until the abortion rulings few Christians ever thought it commendable to support politically the legalization of what God had prohibited in the Bible.In defense of abortion on demand the idea of "freedom of choice" suddenly became a principle which trumped all.Or as constitutional attorney Bruce Cameron once commented,"We have exchanged the Bible for the Constitution."This attitude of "Am I my brother's keeper?" is most often reflected in the response, I'm personally against...but I support a person's right to ..." thus helping to promote exactly what God has forbidden. This view of sinful human behaviour as primarily innocuous to society openly reflects the person's view of the arbitrary nature of God's law,since "it doesn't hurt anyone..."So the "Christian"now adds their voice of support to evil while retaining their innocence of corporate responsibility."...who,knowing the righteous judgment of God,that those who practice such things are deserving of death..approve those who practice them." Eph.5:5-13 also speaks clearly to this question.Christians have the duty to oppose what they know to be wrong. They have no excuse for promoting what they know to be wrong.

You bring up a very good point doug, thanks, even though your responding to gerry I appreciate your reply.

[doug yowell]

I can only tell you how I decide is specific cases. In the case of homosexual marriage, I make my decision on the following basis:

2) God does not force people but allows them to chose. Bible

3) God is a God of fairness and equity. The civil rights of society should be available to all. Bible

If God does not force people, why were there:laws forbidding homosexuality in both the OT and NT? A judgment to come,The 10 Commandments,Sodom and Gomorrah,Israel to captivity, Annanias and Saphira,ect...ect... All of these people had the freedom to choose.How does forbidding the equalization of sexual perversion with God's created order translate into supporting choice? If God is a God of fairness and equity will He allow the wicked to receive the same reward as the righteous? Will He encourage no restrictions on human behaviour? Is it fair to call evil good and good evil? Is the Christian's conscience free to encourage evil based on these eternal principles?

[Dr. Shane]

Arguing that same sex marriage is a civil right violates not only God's stated opinion but also the intentions of the creators of the Constitution.

The gay-rights movement wants being gay behavior to be a civil right. That is asking a lot more than most people actually realize. Consider other sinful behaviors that are legal: gambling (in some states), alcoholism, prostitution (in some states). Are any of those civil rights? No.

Our anti-discrimination laws forbid discrimination based on sex (male or female), religion, age or race. One cannot change their sex. One cannot change their age. One cannot change their race. One can change their religion but that must be left to each person's own convictions (and one often cannot change their convictions). One can stop having sex (either gay or straight). Do we want to elevate sexual behavior to the same level as a person's religion? If the Supreme Court over-rules the will of the people. This will become a national debate. Representatives and Senators on both state and federal levels will run on either supporting or opposing a Constitutional Amendment. The question is "Does sexual behavior deserve the same protection as religious conviction?"

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Again, rationalizing this way puts the Constitution above the Bible. It separates the religion of Christianity from "real life".Since every state in the union,including California,when put to a popular vote, has systematically rejected the redefining of marriage,how can the Christian agree with the legal imposition of same sex marriage unless they believe that God would be OK with it? Calling it a civil right begs the moral question. Our founders were clear that they believed that all civil rights were derived from nature and nature's God,not the Constitution itself.Arguing that same sex marriage is a civil right violates not only God's stated opinion but also the intentions of the creators of the Constitution. Knowing that God "gives up" those who reject His natural order of societal stability and voting to exercise that "right" anyway either assumes that no evil will befall those who practice such things or simply doesn't give a rip!Can a Christian risk playing this bluff?

The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a fundamental right SUBJECT TO BOUNDARIES. At this point in time, it has NOT stated that homosexuals have the right to marry. I have stated this a number of times.

I have NOT directly stated that homosexuals should have the right to marry. I have stated that there are civil rights associated with marriage that are denied homosexuals and that they should be given those rights. I have then gone on to state the it is up to the individual State legislatures to decide whether or not to give them those civil rights by giving them the right to form civil unions or by giving them the right to marry.

Should they be granted the right to marry, I would refuse as a clergyperson to marry them, which is a civil right that I maintain.

In no way am I placing the U.S. Constitution over the Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

To all,

I still would like to hear more about how a Christian can endorse an immoral/sinful law? How do you justify it?

Personally I believe that the story of Samuel and Saul has something to say about this. Read the 8th chapter of 1st Samuel and note verses 6 - 9.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

To all,

I still would like to hear more about how a Christian can endorse an immoral/sinful law? How do you justify it?

Personally I believe that the story of Samuel and Saul has something to say about this. Read the 8th chapter of 1st Samuel and note verses 6 - 9.

There are some important and major differences between begging to be like everyone else and demanding to be like no one else, don't you think? How does the fact that Samuel was against the change and you are for it figure in to your rationale? Or the fact that the Bible states that when God gives up a people they turn to homosexual behaviour?Aren't those significant differences?Or that Samuel received direct instruction from God to allow(not promote) their decision?Or....?

[Neil D]

Quote:

Or the fact that the Bible states that when God gives up a people they turn to homosexual behaviour?

Refresh my memory...where is this again?