Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Azzan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Azzan, if you knew someone loved you dearly, but felt that they couldn't attend your ceremony because of their beliefs, would you take offense to that?

I'm so glad you asked me this question.

I've been asking myself the same question since the topic came up. While I can't say for certain that I would still feel this way if I were ever in this situation, I would say, no, I would not take offense. But would I be hurt? Definitely. But I would not hold their actions against them.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by DAII

For the legalists and non-legalists ... please answer this poll ... about attending a certain type of wedding ceremony ...

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=32943

This is apples and oranges, because the joining of that man and that woman, itself, is not offensive. It's a completely different issue.

I know people who wouldn't attend the wedding of people who had been living together. They had been married previously, so they felt that the relationship was founded on sin. Even that is a different scenario, because although sin brought them together (unless you believe that married people should divorce their current spouses and go back to their original ones), their 'being married' isn't a continuing of sin. Once they are married, it's no longer sin, even though it began with sin. For a homosexual couple, it's a continuation of sin. There is simply no righting of the wrong. That's why a homosexual wedding is so different than the others that are brought up.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Azzan

I'm so glad you asked me this question.

I've been asking myself the same question since the topic came up. While I can't say for certain that I would still feel this way if I were ever in this situation, I would say, no, I would not take offense. But would I be hurt? Definitely. But I would not hold their actions against them.

Thank you for your answer.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is apples and oranges, because the joining of that man and that woman, itself, is not offensive. It's a completely different issue.

I know people who wouldn't attend the wedding of people who had been living together. They had been married previously, so they felt that the relationship was founded on sin. Even that is a different scenario, because although sin brought them together (unless you believe that married people should divorce their current spouses and go back to their original ones), their 'being married' isn't a continuing of sin. Once they are married, it's no longer sin, even though it began with sin. For a homosexual couple, it's a continuation of sin. There is simply no righting of the wrong. That's why a homosexual wedding is so different than the others that are brought up.

Apples and oranges how????? ... at least in this thread the basic premise is: attending is an approval and promotion of a sinful lifestyle, AQP.
Explain how this is not the case in this latter example ... the lifestyle represented at the Non-Judeo Christian one is permeating with an ungodly lifestyle of paganism, idolatry, etc ..

A covenant is being made on that very premise with the blessing and sanctioning for this union premised on this lifestyle and false god.

As one friend said on facebook who would not attend a gay wedding or a non-Judeo Christian wedding:

"What do you say when you shake their hand? Congratulations? It's not to say you condemn them every time you see them or speak with them, but a wedding ceremony is a big deal. The sanctity of marriage is a big deal."

Aren't we told that everything we do in action and in deed be done in the name of Jesus? (for my 3 stepper friends every time "in Jesus name" or "in the name of Christ/the Lord" is in the bible they think it means to invoke the proper name ... so they spend most of their day saying "Jesus".)

Are you celebrating this pagan service and union in His name, because that's what it is ... really, in Jesus name?

And for the foreseeable future it is sealing a continuation ... by the means of a sinful lifestyle ... is it not ?
What if this union is in the middle east and the man's fourth wife? ... how does a missionary handle this?

BTW, all wrongs are righted under the blood. A gay person would be compelled to leave the lifestyle whether married or not ...

Jest askin' ... cause it sounds like a compartmentalizing of convenience and more sin prioritizing.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is apples and oranges, because the joining of that man and that woman, itself, is not offensive. It's a completely different issue.

I know people who wouldn't attend the wedding of people who had been living together. They had been married previously, so they felt that the relationship was founded on sin. Even that is a different scenario, because although sin brought them together (unless you believe that married people should divorce their current spouses and go back to their original ones), their 'being married' isn't a continuing of sin. Once they are married, it's no longer sin, even though it began with sin. For a homosexual couple, it's a continuation of sin. There is simply no righting of the wrong. That's why a homosexual wedding is so different than the others that are brought up.

Right, the event it'self I think is recognized by God in a heterosexual wedding even while they are not giving honor to Jesus. A homosexual event is further entrenching the couple in sin and damnation - nothing celebratory about that.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Right, the event it'self I think is recognized by God in a heterosexual wedding even while they are not giving honor to Jesus. A homosexual event is further entrenching the couple in sin and damnation - nothing celebratory about that.

The union is recognized by God ... not the liturgy of the event.

While again it can still be argued that the sanctioning of this religious event is further entrenching the couple into the lifestyle they've chosen.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by DAII

Apples and oranges how????? ... at least in this thread the basic premise is: attending is an approval and promotion of a sinful lifestyle, AQP.
Explain how this is not the case in this latter example ... the lifestyle represented at the Non-Judeo Christian one is permeating with an ungodly lifestyle of paganism, idolatry, etc ..

.

Lifestyle? Not so much - except by extension. Whether it's Christian, strictly secular, homosexual or otherwise I think the event it'self is a celebration of two people coming together, pledging their hearts and giving a commitment for monogamous love and relationship.

It is the event it'self that cannot possibly be blessed of God in the case of a homosexual couple.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Lifestyle? Not so much - except by extension. Whether it's Christian, strictly secular, homosexual or otherwise I think the event it'self is a celebration of two people coming together, pledging their hearts and giving a commitment for monogamous love and relationship.

It is the event it'self that cannot possibly be blessed of God in the case of a homosexual couple.

Wiggle .. heehaw ... squirm ... it's like trying to nail jello.

You'd attend, place your stamp of approval and celebrate the union of your Christian friend with an unbeliever as well ... despite the clear command not to be unequally yoked ...

We're not arguing their standing ... we're arguing whether your or my attendance is a stamp of approval or promotion of a lifestyle.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by DAII

The union is recognized by God ... not the liturgy of the event.

While again it can still be argued that the sanctioning of this religious event is further entrenching the couple into the lifestyle they've chosen.

I agree. Though, when a Christian couple is joined in Holy Matrimony the liturgy can be a very significant part of the event. I think that is a good thing.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I agree. Though, when a Christian couple is joined in Holy Matrimony the liturgy can be a very significant part of the event. I think that is a good thing.

And the inverse is true at the pagan wedding that you'd attend, condone, approve and promote.