A guy that I work with has chosen a gay lifestyle and lives with his partner. He has no desire to "marry" his partner, however, he feels to be realize better tax rates (married vs single) and for insurance benefits that it might be beneficial.
I have noticed you never dig up facts and statistics. Do you know why? Have you ever conducted a behavioral science experiment or survey?
The largest problem with research of gays is the data acquisition. It is done by "self assessment" and is not neutral.
If the average gay in a committed relationship says he has 8 outside encouners a year, how can that be tested for accuracy?
Sir once again you are obfuscating.
I am very aware with statistical analysis ... yet you are unable to support your assertions.
Bias of course is a factor .... and yours is obvious.
Some want monogamy.
Break that down. They don't want their partner to do it elswhere.
They think their perfect partner will be so nifty they won't think of other partners
They are trying to live out and adopt ideology.
Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist. interesting pop psychology
Some want monogamy.Break that down. They don't want their partner to do it elswhere. They think their perfect partner will be so nifty they won't think of other partners
They are trying to live out and adopt ideology.
Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist. interesting pop psychology
Wouldn't that be on reason they would want to be married?
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Taking this to the actual end of the discussion and answering Charnock’s question…
1. I am against the government using the term “Marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations to define what it means when its members choose to marry.
2. I am for the government allowing any 2 people to form a Civil Union. Said union is a contract with monetary implications. It has nothing to do with sex. Most married people would want to form a civil union. But two sisters who live together might also want to form a civil union. It would allow for protections not afforded such people.
3. I would never perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. I would not likely perform such a ceremony between a man and a woman who did not fully accept the covenant relationship with God that I personally believe marriage to entail (in other words, if you are Baptist or neo-pennycostal go find someone else to hitch you)
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I don't think there is a question as to gay marriage in a biblical church. We'd not perform them or recognize them. The issue is Constitutional liberty. Who would want the GOVERNMENT to tell them who they can or cannot marry? Personally, I don't think the GOVERNMENT is qualified to tell us what private arrangements or relationships we're allowed to have. That is a highly personal and private matter regardless of preference. Frankly, the GOVERNMENT has more important matters to attend to than who enters a social contract with whom. Besides, the more you involve GOVERNMENT in anything, the more you're going to see it deteriorate. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT meddling with marriage? I think GOVERNMENT should get out of the "marriage" issue altogether. It's been a mess since the GOVERNMENT got its hands on it.
Also you run into issues of "Freedom of Religion". Some liberal churches wish to perform these marriages and theologically see no issue with them (as wrong as we might believe it is). Do we use GOVERNMENT to force those churches to practice their faith as we do?
I think we might agree all day on it's immorality and the issues connected with it. But freedom has a cost...that cost is often allowing others to do what you would never do as long as it doesn't endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. Now, I'm not FOR these marriages... but I do see the principle of individual liberty at stake here. The moment we start codifying distinctly religious laws we open the the door wide open for the coming wave of Islamic enfluence in America. I think a LIBERTARIAN approach is best. Let the sinner live as they choose in a free country. Because although they are choosing something unholy... the freedom to make that choice is sacred. Freedom is sacred. Let's protect it... even if men use that very same freedom to do what we believe to be sin.
The church isn't the world. We should heavily denounce and refuse to marry anyone unless it's biblical. We should teach and preach against certain lifestyles that are sinful emphasizing the dangers they present to the human soul and human happiness. But I get a little nervous when people want to use GOVERNMENT to enforce moral statues on otherwise free individuals. In my opinion... it's about freedom and liberty. We are either Americans who believe in a free country... or we are not. It seems we all value our freedom until another chooses to use that very same freedom to do what we strongly disagree with. The answer isn't using GOVERNMENT to enforce what we believe. The answer is living what we believe and presenting Jesus to a lost and dying world, allowing HIM to change, mold, and lead others by the power of the Holy Ghost.
We are in the world and not of it. Let's keep it that way. Let's not become so entrenched that the church begins to look like just another polical action committee.
Banning these kinds of marriages isn't going to stop the action. People are still doing this. And biblically, the issue isn't taxation or rights. It's sin. So rather they "marry" or not the sin is present. They need Jesus. Just preach Jesus. Preaching politics will only damage the cause of the Gospel. The REAL political issues as I see them are safe guarding OUR freedom of speech and religious conscience. They will one day be free to do as they choose. That's a given. We need to stand up and defend our freedom to speak as we wish about it and maintain our religious convictions.
Linear Mode
