Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by DAII

I believe God abhors all sin, Esther ... amen.

Thank God for His Son!

The verdict is out on Chuck and Coadie.

Yes He does!

[Sam]

Here is a person who is alienating a whole bunch of people all at once

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Esther

But forcing your beliefs on those that disagree is ok with you?

Again, it is not about forcing any beliefs. It is about non-discrimination policies. Their beliefs should not be the only beliefs allowed, your beliefs should not be the only ones allowed. Both beliefs should be allowed.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Gay marriage will eventually be legal in the United States.

As such, what should the church have to say about the issue?

How do you feel about the issue?

Do you believe a gay person should have a legal right to marry? If so, which do you think is most important, that person's individual liberty (rights as an American), or God's opposition to homosexuality?

Should the church remain silent on this issue, or should the church work the political system to preserve traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays.

Which should a Christian be most concerned with; protecting individual liberties or declaring Bible absolutes?

I haven't and don't plan to read the whole thread. However, if two people want to live together, it's their business. If they want their "togetherness" recognized by the government, I guess they can be taxed as a couple and get health insurance as a couple. BUT if we have to add a word to the front of marriage in order for people to know what we're talking about... well, to me, that isn't a matter for the courts to decided. "Marriage" is the union of a male and female. There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Gay/homosexual=same sex union. Marriage=union of male and female. Gay marriage=oxymoron.

I looked up marriage in Webster's the other day... the official definition of marriage was recently changed. Still, I think "gay marriage" should have it's own term... "union", "coupling", "joining"... something, but it's not a "marriage".

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Esther

I would think any God fearing Christian would as this is an abomination to God.

But appartently to some political correctness is more important to them.

The question becomes, "Can the state prohibit certain people from uniting under laws once limited to male/female relationships simply because the Bible says it isn't right according to some understandings of scripture?" I think we've missed the boat on this one.

There's a city not that far from my home that will be voting soon on whether churches and businesses can prohibit transvestites from going in opposite gender restrooms. Churches can yell "abomination!" all they want. What they should be doing is arguing "Separation of church and state!", discussing the legal ramifications of the state interfering with church restroom policies, and making clear the political and fiscal damage that could be done by the passage of such a law. ("We will drive out of town to shop at the mall in the next county if any of us ladies ever walk out of a stall to see a man standing at the sink touching up his mascara.") Sadly, it took several years of debates to determine whether smoking should be allowed in bars. It probably won't take three months to decide whether to pass this.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I think you became lost. lol

Cindy asked me if I thought homosexuality was a choice or something that a person has no control over.

She then said that if it was a choice, "then there is no discrimination legally".

I was merely giving examples of how people can discriminate over other's people choices, and not merely over what they have no choice over. Thus, her statement would not be correct.

I agree with your conclusion.

[Aquila]

And then there is a very "strict" view of marriage. It's called the "Gold Standard of Marriage". The idea is that if a couple (traditional or non-traditional) are going to live together and be physically intimate, they owe it to each other to be in legal union. Hense "marriage" is a protective institution wherein all are expected to enter in if they desire physical intimacy regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Just adding this concept to the conversation because many here are saying, "If people want to live together that's their business, but that doesn't mean they should be considered married." Essentially this is accepting non-binding "shack-up" relationships. One could argue that right or wrong, holy or sinful, if two people are going to live together and be intimate... they should be in legal union for the protection of all parties involved.

Thoughts?

[Aquila]

Why can't we all just accept that we're all sinners... no sin is worse than any other (baring blasphemy of the Holy Ghost) ... that we all need Jesus... none of us are perfect... we all have individual struggles?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And then there is a very "strict" view of marriage. It's called the "Gold Standard of Marriage". The idea is that if a couple (traditional or non-traditional) are going to live together and be physically intimate, they owe it to each other to be in legal union. Hense "marriage" is a protective institution wherein all are expected to enter in if they desire physical intimacy regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Just adding this concept to the conversation because many here are saying, "If people want to live together that's their business, but that doesn't mean they should be considered married." Essentially this is accepting non-binding "shack-up" relationships. One could argue that right or wrong, holy or sinful, if two people are going to live together and be intimate... they should be in legal union for the protection of all parties involved.

Thoughts?

"legal union" doesn't protec parties. Singles ahve protection.




2009

Psychologists admit it may be a religious problem because they can't help gays.

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...#ixzz0yqcCOxwA

Our liberal churches are loaded with folks that place the culture above their faith. Gotta please the people and lower civil standards.

People pleasers and seeker friendly churches. They can't have big churches if they don't support gay marriage?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why can't we all just accept that we're all sinners... no sin is worse than any other (baring blasphemy of the Holy Ghost) ... that we all need Jesus... none of us are perfect... we all have individual struggles?

Then the "Defenders of the Faith" wouldn't be able to validate their existence and brown nose within their shrinking circle of influence.