Banning Gay Marriage

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

If the state or federal Government bans it due to what the Bible says on the issue that is horribly wrong. Seperation of Church and State are vital IMO.

Separation of Church and state does not require that we allow slavery, or homosexuality, or bestiality, or abortion. In fact Separation of Church and state would even allow us to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment against the sale of alcohol.

in Christ,

Bob

I will get back to this when I wrap my head around you lumping homosexuality with bestiality, slavery and abortion.

It likely will be a while.

[Lysimachus]

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

If this passage is not a clear Biblical prohibition against Homosexual practices, then I don't know what is. In order to wiggle and justify yourself around this, you have to hop, skip, dance between the raindrops, play peekaboo and ring around the rosy.

The arguments put forth that this passage only applies to pagan temple worship services, is, well, a downright perfidious application of these verses. While the context is reaching to an immediate application, the Holy Spirit meant this passage also for the last days. Today we do not have temple worship services and pagan festivities rampant throughout our world. But the message being given still applies. That which is unseemly is contrary to nature.

What people do to Romans 1 to try and justify hommosexual practices is similar to what Christians do with with those texts on the Sabbath to prove that Sabbath keeping is not required. They twist it and manipulate, and say we are taking it out of context. But what about the implied immediate context?

An example of an "immediate context" is Acts 17:30, which states:

• Acts 17:30 - "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent."

Most will understand this text to mean that those who were ignorant of things were excusable, but now that the knowledge has come to this generation, everyone must repent.

However, the skeptic will say "but the context says that this is only referring to pagan worship to an unknown god according to verse 23".

This is foolish reasoning. This is a mistreatment of the broader application of the scriptures. The immediate application most certainly as broader application, or we would never be able to commit scriptural verses to memory, for we would have to memorize only the entire chapter, if not the whole book! If we apply these kinds of warped rules on all the scriptures, we might as well say the entire Bible was written for their admonition and not ours.

It's time to wake up!

[Igakusei]

I was sort of screwing around earlier. To answer your earlier question more succinctly, I do not accept the bible as a reliable or inspired moral guide. So even if you could prove that it condemns homosexuality, my response would be: "so what?"

[Lysimachus]

I was sort of screwing around earlier. To answer your earlier question more succinctly, I do not accept the bible as a reliable or inspired moral guide. So even if you could prove that it condemns homosexuality, my response would be: "so what?"

I am confused. So you are not an Adventist or a Christian?

[John317]

What is so immoral about homosexuality?

I asked myself this question for years because I didn't understand why it would be wrong for me to do what I found to be so beautiful and good.

The only answer is that it's immoral because it's contrary to God's plan.

People have a choice whether to accept or reject the Bible as God's revelation. If we accept the Bible, and ask God for help in obeying His will, He will do it. This includes gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc.

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

1 Cor. 6:9-11

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[John317]

So even if you could prove that it condemns homosexuality, my response would be: "so what?"

Exactly. So you've made your choice. I've made mine. Let every man and woman make up his/her own mind.

[Dr. Shane]

Another liberal on this forum bringing up gay marriage. Why are the liberal members here so obsessed with homosexuality?

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

So even if you could prove that it condemns homosexuality, my response would be: "so what?"

Exactly. So you've made your choice. I've made mine. Let every man and woman make up his/her own mind.

Do you support the right of gay couples to marry?

[Igakusei]

Another liberal on this forum bringing up gay marriage. Why are the liberal members here so obsessed with homosexuality?

Why are conservative Christians so obsessed with what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? We only keep bringing it up because other people keep introducing legislation that turns gay people into second-class citizens.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

What is so immoral about homosexuality?

I asked myself this question for years because I didn't understand why it would be wrong for me to do what I found to be so beautiful and good.

The only answer is that it's immoral because it's contrary to God's plan.

At least you can admit that you didn't find any answers not rooted in religion. In my experience most people can't do that, so they come up with all sorts of lame post hoc explanations for how it potentially harms the practitioners in various ways.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I was sort of screwing around earlier. To answer your earlier question more succinctly, I do not accept the bible as a reliable or inspired moral guide. So even if you could prove that it condemns homosexuality, my response would be: "so what?"

I am confused. So you are not an Adventist or a Christian?

I suppose I could still consider myself culturally SDA since most of my family and friends are SDA or Christian and I generally act like them and occasionally attend church with them, but theologically I'm an atheist. If there is a God, my experience is completely inconsistent with the possibility it being any of the obviously anthropogenic gods that humans have dreamed up over the past several millenia.

And politically I support gay marriage, pro-choice (within specific limits), environmentalism (utilitarian, and within reason), some degree of social welfare, etc. But I tend to be significantly quieter and less opinionated on many of those and other political issues because I don't feel well-read enough on many of them to confidently defend my positions.

I prefer "often in doubt but occasionally right" to "often wrong but never in doubt."

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

If the state or federal Government bans it due to what the Bible says on the issue that is horribly wrong. Seperation of Church and State are vital IMO.

Separation of Church and state does not require that we allow slavery, or homosexuality, or bestiality, or abortion. In fact Separation of Church and state would even allow us to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment against the sale of alcohol.

[Dr. Shane]

We only keep bringing it up because other people keep introducing legislation that turns gay people into second-class citizens.

I don't buy that. I think the liberals are trying to force their viewpoint on Christians that disagree with them so they keep bringing it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over. There comes a time when we have to live and let live. You believe your way and when you go to the voting booth you vote the way you want to. Others that disagree with you can vote how they want to. Live and let live.

[John317]

Do you support the right of gay couples to marry?

I voted against it here in California because I believe marriage between two members of the same gender is wrong.

I believe in the right of gays to live together and to be treated fairly and with dignity, but I couldn't vote to make it legal for them to be joined in marriage. I believe God intends only people of the opposite sex to be together.

[John317]

...And politically I support gay marriage...

Why?

Do you think you would have supported it in any other time in history? For instance, do you think you would have wanted it during the 1920s or 1950s? Why now?

When was the first time you remember supporting it?

I wanted to get "married" to my partner back in the early 1970s when marriage between gays was not only NOT legal but was hardly ever even heard of. We wanted to have the ceremony at the gay church and live as if we were married. In those days, though, the only people who favored gay marriage was a minority of gays. I never heard it discussed in the mass media or by straight people.

[BibleOnly]

Personal note: It's always funny and a little sad to see people quote Leviticus 18 with so much gusto. Ask them about wearing mixed clothing, cutting the sides of the hair or shaving their beards, sacrificing rams as atonement for sleeping with another man's slave, or any other the other ridiculous stuff in Leviticus that nobody pays attention to, and you get a laundry list of excuses why that doesn't apply to us anymore. But no, Leviticus 18:22 magically applies, those people are faggots and they shouldn't be allowed to marry! I mean, why not quote Leviticus 20:13 and advocate that they be stoned to death as well? It's Biblical cherry-picking at its finest.

People who think the laws of the land should reflect the Bible, are fooling themselves. So are people who think that one successful person raised by a lesbian couple, or one insane person raised by straight people, proves much of anything.

People who use Leviticus to defend their views have no idea how the Bible works.

At the end of the day, the real issue, is the idea that God somehow especially hates gay people. He hates sin, and a gay couple who want to get married are not 'worse' than someone who is in to the club scene and has three sexual partners a week. The opposite is also not true. You're in or you're out, there's no grades of sin, and the church is called to keep it's own house in order, not legislate morality for the unsaved.

[Dr. Shane]

Adventists, as a collective body, tend to be very non-political. As a body we are pretty much a single issue organization, politically speaking. That issue is religious liberty.

As individuals, the entire political spectrum of thought can be found in Adventist circles. There are extreme liberals, extreme conservatives, many that vary in degree and many like myself - a political moderate. As individuals living in democratic countries, we have a certain level of civil obligations to the nations of which we are citizens. But those are entirely separate and distinct from our religious obligations to God.

As an organization our biggest concern about gay marriage is its impact on religious liberty. That is because we are pretty much a single issue organization - politically speaking.

[Igakusei]

How will legalizing gay marriage affect your ability to worship the way you want? Are you concerned that the SDA church will be forced to marry and accept gay couples? I don't think that would be constitutional.

[Dr. Shane]

Are you confused about the concerns that Seventh-day Adventist Religious Liberty departments have regarding the impact of gay marriage? Have you not read or been exposed to any of those concerns?

[CoAspen]

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues! In fact it is kept going year in and year out. And no Iggy, gay marriage doew not threaten my right observe sabbath or sunday, a red herring issue meant to inflame, for those so inclined to keep that at the top ot their sin list regardless of disclaimers. One need count the # of posts on subject to understand it is the primary concern for 'sins' on this forum.......gluttony and all those other ones that people die of are waaaaaayyyy down on the list!

[Dr. Shane]

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues!

Not on this board. I may not see every thread posted here but the liberals are the ones that can't seem to stop talking about gays and gay marriage. I think it is a liberal obsession.

[Dr. Shane]

gay marriage does not threaten my right observe sabbath or sunday, a red herring issue meant to inflame...

Are you familiar with the concerns of the Seventh-day Adventist Religious Liberty departments? Are you familiar with the Seventh-day Adventist telecast "It Is Written" and is it your opinion that "It Is Written" is putting out red herrings with the intent to inflame?

[Igakusei]

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues! In fact it is kept going year in and year out. And no Iggy, gay marriage doew not threaten my right observe sabbath or sunday, a red herring issue meant to inflame, for those so inclined to keep that at the top ot their sin list regardless of disclaimers. One need count the # of posts on subject to understand it is the primary concern for 'sins' on this forum.......gluttony and all those other ones that people die of are waaaaaayyyy down on the list!

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think it's fair to accuse me of throwing a red herring out there when Shane is the one that brought it up:

If it is a red herring, it is the organized church throwing it out there, not me.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Up to this point it has been the 'conserv' side that keeps bringing up the 'homo' issues!

Not on this board. I may not see every thread posted here but the liberals are the ones that can't seem to stop talking about gays and gay marriage. I think it is a liberal obsession.

Indeed sir.