Gay Marriage

[kodacolor]

I totally agree.

**Setting up anti-themidiroom campaign**

ROLMBO

[LaylaMonroe]

Because I've seen comments to the effect of

"I don't care either way",
or
"Our laws don't govern others"

But if we know that God is opposed to it, how do we carry these views?

You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it.  I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).

[malthumb]

...
2) Doesn't fining church violate church and state?  The state is, pretty much telling the Christian church to veer from what they believe in or else they will pay consequences.  I wonder if Islamic churches have this same issue.  (BTW:  I know of this guy who was a Christian and gay, but then when he converted to Islam he said he wasn't gay anymore because it's not allowed in Islam.    Alas, another thread for another day.    )

I don't think that part can happen.  If a church chooses not to perform your wedding ceremony, it does not mean they are not allowing you to get married.  They're just not letting you do it there.  You can always go somewhere else.  A friend of mine was a member of Perfecting Church (Marvin Winans' church) in Detroit.  When she asked to have her wedding there at the church, they said "NO" because she and her fiance' had...errrr.."jumped the gun" shall we say  .  They did not say you can't still be members here.....they did not say we won't recognize your marriage....They just said, "y'all go on downtown to the sheriff's office and get married LEGALLY then y'all come on back here and we'll love you.

Peace,

James

[malthumb]

They're healthy carbs...like vermicelli (which literaly means "little worms" in Italian).


Thing is that there are a lot of unsaved heterosexual people who get married and could care less about the sprititual aspect of it (for that matter, there are quite a few uninformed Christians who enter into marriage lightly without any regard for the spiritual).  In fact, proponents of gay marriage will argue that this isn't abut religion, but rather about having the rights and privilliges that they feel they deserve as American citizens.  So my question to you is this; why not call it a marriage?  If they are enjoying all the same legal and social benefits, then wouldn't it be a marriage by default?  Simply modifying existing laws to appease them and maintain the traditional definition of marriage will not work.  They want full equality and acceptance.

In my first post on this topic I mentioned a co-worker who is in a committed gay relationship.  I've known him for years and often heard him discussing with others the things he and his spouse were going to do, places they were going to go, hangin' out with family, sharing the cooking duties, I could go on and on.  I was very impressed that he spoke so lovingly of his wife and the things they were going to do together and how they made family decisions.  Because his Sig-Other has a name that could be male or female, it was at least a couple years before I realized the person he was talking about was another man.  At the same time, I know hetero couples where one or the other chooses not to come home on occasion, or where one makes all the financial decisions, or is totally uninvolved in raising the kids.  I step back and ask myself, who presents the better model?  Even though I do not care for or choose to participate in the gay life-style, seeing a positive example of it made it very difficult for me to condemn this co-worker based on a fact it took me a couple years to learn.

So I have no problem with gays entering into committed relationships.  I would PREFER not to see it called MARRIAGE because there needs to be some way to discern between unions made and documented within the legal system and unions made and blessed by the church.  I recognize that leaves a HUGE loophole for weddings of hetero couples who don't even wonder whether or not there is a God, but heck, I can't solve e'erthing     

Peace,

James

[malthumb]

... I just don't agree with people telling me what I should speak out against.  I just feel a little irked that we, as a body, pay so much attention to preventing one group of society from marrying, and so little attention to ministering to those who are struggling to keep their marriages together or those who are shacking or remarrying. 

That's all I'm saying.  But, I don't want my point to be lost, so I'll reiterate: whatever floats your boat.

WELLLLLLL!!!

[funkStrat_97]

Pants - yep
Pinot Noir - NEVER... yuck! Hate that stuff... now offer me some White Merlot and you got yourself a bad apple, indeed! LOL

White merlot?!?  It's against nature; it actually does not exist.  How about a nice sauvignon blanc or a pinot grigio instead.

[gtrdave]

At the same time, I know hetero couples where one or the other chooses not to come home on occasion, or where one makes all the financial decisions, or is totally uninvolved in raising the kids.  I step back and ask myself, who presents the better model? 

Why is it that you choose to see the broken hetero relationships and compare them to a single homo relationship in order to ask the question? All you're doing is comparing the world to the world. What do you expect the result to be?
Why not, instead, look at the Biblical role model for marriage according to the Scriptures and then compare that to all the relationships in the world? I'd bet you that you'd fine both homo and hetero marriages in the "fail" column.

[joshuag]

You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it.  I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).

   This county was built from religion. The reason for the pilgrams coming here was because they wanted freedom to worship God in there own way without death.


    If we are going to talk about gay marriages and if you aggree or not, this really isnt a choice concedering that the bible speaks on this topic, so there is really nothing to think about. There is no intrepetating, it is very clear.
    With that said this is why we have so many different religions popping up. Everyone doesnt want to live by the whole bible not half or pick and choose what they want to agree with and the rest they forget about. We can debate about these issues all day but if the body of Christ would come together in one voice it will make a difference, But the promblem if someone did half there members will leave there church or no church would back them. Sad but true, we sit in here talking but the bible says NO, secondly it is not natural, nor morally correct and if you disagree you should pray and really read your bible. These are the end times and instead of becoming stronger we sound like we are divided about things clearly in the bible.


(side note: I know someone is going to grammer check me) 

[malthumb]

Why is it that you choose to see the broken hetero relationships and compare them to a single homo relationship in order to ask the question?

Because in this specific instance I was relating to you MY THOUGHT PROCESS in figuring out if and how my perception of my co-worker's relationship should change at the point that I learned it was not a hetero relationship.  So at that point I weight the quality of that relationship to the quality of other relationships that I am familiar with.  No need for me to focus on the whole universe in defining my own view of this one relationship.  Just my own little sphere of exposure and influence.  That's how I came upon my position to the original poster's question.....Does legalizing gay marriage affect MY marriage.  The answer is NO.

All you're doing is comparing the world to the world. What do you expect the result to be?

True.  And there you will find the CONSISTENT thread in my comments.  There are elements of marriage that are holy and there are elements of marriage that are legal.  I can support gay couples enjoying the benefits of marriage that are of the world (or of the law as I describe in my earlier posts).  The aspects of marriage that are sacred and holy need to remain such.  Again, the primary reason I would LIKE for non-religious unions to be called something else.

Why not, instead, look at the Biblical role model for marriage according to the Scriptures and then compare that to all the relationships in the world? I'd bet you that you'd fine both homo and hetero marriages in the "fail" column.

Hopefully you read in the post from which you clipped my comments that I said exactly that.  That there are good and bad examples of relationships in both gay and hetero couples.  Because everyone who gets "married" be they gay or hetero is not necessarily a believer of what's in the Bible.  Unless we are proponents of restricting marriage to only those who profess belief in the Bible, we simply have to except that.

Peace,

James

[gtrdave]

Here's the bottom line for me...and understand that I'm still learning as I go and have failed in the past, but experienced grace and mercy and forgiveness and more and my marriage was restored to better than before...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.
Just like everything else, if people can work the Bible out of the equation, the floodgates will open and alternatives to the "standard" will be offered up as normal. Have that alternative happen over and over and all of the sudden you get people who are supposed to believe in the Bible saying "I don't see the big deal in the alternative".
God didn't change the standard; we did.

[BassbyGrace]

Here's the bottom line for me...and understand that I'm still learning as I go and have failed in the past, but experienced grace and mercy and forgiveness and more and my marriage was restored to better than before...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.
Just like everything else, if people can work the Bible out of the equation, the floodgates will open and alternatives to the "standard" will be offered up as normal. Have that alternative happen over and over and all of the sudden you get people who are supposed to believe in the Bible saying "I don't see the big deal in the alternative".
God didn't change the standard; we did.

Excellently stated.

[BBoy]

(clears throat just a bit)

I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .

Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?

The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?

What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . .  )

BBoy 

[joshuag]

(clears throat just a bit)

I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .

Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?

The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?

What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . .  )

BBoy 

i agree with you, we are supoose to preach the word the whole word of God but we are in fear or un-willingness to stand on God's word. 

[sjonathan02]

(clears throat just a bit)

I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .

Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?

The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?

What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . .  )

BBoy 

I don't see where anyone in this thread is saying it's ok, condoning it, etc.

I think the level of passion given towards speaking to this particular issue is varied, that's it.

[Incognegro]

I don't see where anyone in this thread is saying it's ok, condoning it, etc.

I think the level of passion given towards speaking to this particular issue is varied, that's it.

...greatly.

[sjonathan02]

...greatly.

Absolutely.

[fmason3]

...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.

Great points.  There are two things that God made holy in Eden before the fall (Marriage and..........).  Both of which have been/are being redefined and trampled on.

[themidiroom]

Great points.  There are two things that God made holy in Eden before the fall (Marriage and..........).  Both of which have been/are being redefined and trampled on.

I still think there's a difference between the holy union before God and a legal agreement recognized by the state.

[fmason3]

I still think there's a difference between the holy union before God and a legal agreement recognized by the state.

I agree. 

[brutha28]

You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it.  I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).

I guess all the ten commandments should be nullified to huh... and while ur at it i guess the biggest law itself the bible might as well be trashed too.... mmmm.. naw that's what laws are for the lawless which are folks like us.. humans.  Even angels have laws.