Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree. Marriage is primarily a religious institution/union, therefore the government shouldn't even be determining who can enter into the covenant.

To that end, anyone wanting to enter into a civil union for tax benefits should be able to do so...IMO. That should be distinct from church-sanctioned marriages.

I don't feel threatened by two gay men wanting to share a checkbook and household expenses. That's the least of my worries, actually, in reference to homosexuality.

This is another case where Christians becoming political activists is contradictory and detrimental to sharing the Gospel.

We would be better off campaigning for the government to release control of marriage altogether, and create civil unions for tax purposes only. Those who want to play house and share expenses can do so. The sanctity of marriage then remains intact because the only ones entering into such a covenant will be those who (presumably) respect the tradition and sober nature of the commitment.

Progressives. Here are two problems we see today. If gay marrige laws pass, that means DOMA will be wiped out. If gay marriage becomes a law, they can enter a church and the pastor can't refuse to do the wedding. The other one with court cases is the pastor can be punished for hate speech if he says the bible calls it sin. Both cases the Government is crossing the line and damaging religious freedom.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.

Originally Posted by tstew

I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...

I agree 100%. In fact I am more in favor of marriage being removed from the secular lexicon than anything.

Marriage is a religious institution. However the government has some investment in stable families and thus has a reason to sanction (from a secular perspective) contractual relationships: i.e. Civil Unions

While the two things are in some ways the same thing, what is at the heart of them is quite different. They should be treated as such.

[Aquila]

The nation has no authority to define marriage. I'd say that many marriages in America today aren't really "marriages".

The church should define marriage for the Christian.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by coadie

Progressives. Here are two problems we see today. If gay marrige laws pass, that means DOMA will be wiped out. If gay marriage becomes a law, they can enter a church and the pastor can't refuse to do the wedding. The other one with court cases is the pastor can be punished for hate speech if he says the bible calls it sin. Both cases the Government is crossing the line and damaging religious freedom.

Not so. If the church is allowed to have full jurisdiction over a religious matter, e.g., the marriage covenant, and the government then issues civil unions to any adult couple regardless of sex, the church gains MORE control, not less. The government no longer has a vested interest in who can have a religious ceremony, because they only care about the civil unions for financial reasons.

Churches already have the right to refuse a marriage ceremony based on a multitude of criteria, including the right of the minister to simply have the opinion that it isn't a good match. Removing government jurisdiction would only enhance that power. I know of ministers who won't marry interracial couples--it could be argued that this violates civil rights--but I haven't heard of any cases where pastors have been sued for this--have you?

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by coadie

Go ahead and give us your statistics. I take it you have some. I am sure you don't have research in your education.
Slanted research is research with findings people don't want to see.

The surgeon general said life expectancy was in the 40's .. must be slanted.
Fortunately the term homophbia is a street term for name calling purposess. It isn't a genuine phobia.

Life expectancy for a gay person is in the 40's????? See what I mean? You're using complete malarkey for this. The research you cite is a small sample from the obituaries from a gay newspaper from gay men who died of Aids.

Using garbage like this is exactly what I'm talking about when I use the word, "Homophobia."

I've tried to talk civilly to you but you're a blithering foghorn of bias noise.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Ferd

First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.

With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.

So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.

If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?

Is there one?

Home run.

As a Libertarian myself ... I refuse to bow at the altar of man made theocracy.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Not so. If the church is allowed to have full jurisdiction over a religious matter, e.g., the marriage covenant, and the government then issues civil unions to any adult couple regardless of sex, the church gains MORE control, not less. The government no longer has a vested interest in who can have a religious ceremony, because they only care about the civil unions for financial reasons.

Churches already have the right to refuse a marriage ceremony based on a multitude of criteria, including the right of the minister to simply have the opinion that it isn't a good match. Removing government jurisdiction would only enhance that power. I know of ministers who won't marry interracial couples--it could be argued that this violates civil rights--but I haven't heard of any cases where pastors have been sued for this--have you?

3 cases to mention.

Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.


STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

This case under employment discrimination laws.

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by coadie

3 cases to mention.

Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.


STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

This case under employment discrimination laws.


There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.

You didn't find the cases I asked for, coadie. I asked if you had heard of any cases where a pastor was sued for refusing to marry an interracial couple, which, IMO, IS a violation of civil rights. (But it's within the rights of a pastor in the United States to be a bigot without the government stepping in.)

Additionally, we're talking about the United States here--not Canada or Sweden.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by coadie

3 cases to mention.

Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.


STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

This case under employment discrimination laws.


There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.

These should be two very separate issues. and if we are marching toward them becoming one issue then we Christians have a very good reason to stand up and scream.

There is never a time when the government should be challenging what a church does in relation to preaching/teaching what is sin.

The government should never step in and tell a church they have to allow a wedding to avoid punishment for discrimination! Churches discriminate. We say being a drunkard is a sin. Churches have every right to say something is a sin and refuse to allow their property to be used to sanction certain activity.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Ferd

These should be two very separate issues. and if we are marching toward them becoming one issue then we Christians have a very good reason to stand up and scream.

There is never a time when the government should be challenging what a church does in relation to preaching/teaching what is sin.

The government should never step in and tell a church they have to allow a wedding to avoid punishment for discrimination! Churches discriminate. We say being a drunkard is a sin. Churches have every right to say something is a sin and refuse to allow their property to be used to sanction certain activity.

Correct--and IF the U.S. government tries to force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies, there will be something to yell about.

In my opinion, we would all be better served to "keep our friends close and our enemies closer", and in this case we would actually benefit from supporting the United States moving to secular civil unions and getting their big, fat fingers out of the marriage ceremony entirely.