Should gay marriages be banned?

[krazeeboi]

Ok saints, let's talk about this in depth. Should gay people be prohibited from getting married? Why or why not?

[nina]

I answered "yes" because of the way the question is formulated:
"Should gay people be prohibited from getting married?"

I don't think that this type of issue should be legislated, because of all the politics involved, especially in this case. In that sense, and from a secular point of view, in my opinion, it is one of the greatest hypocrisies ever.

From a believer's point of view, my main reason for not agreeing with gay marriage is that God gave us the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply". Something there does not compute??

Also, just in case, my answer is not prompted by any kind of homophobia or other related feelings...

[And Such Were Some Of You]

Yes!

Because the union itself is not of God.

[krazeeboi]

^But isn't that forcing a religious practice on those who may not follow our religion? Do we also halt the construction of Buddhist temples and Islamic mosques because their religion is "not of God"? How would you explain your reasoning of prohibiting gay marriage to an atheistic homosexual?

Nina, go in depth about the "hypocrisy" part, if you will.

[nina]

Gosh, KB, did you really have to ask?

Seriously, this is where I come from with the hypocrisy issue:

- first of all, there is nothing new under the sun, certainly not homosexuality. All we have to do to be convinced is look a little deeper in the history of ancient civilizations, and find it. If even the apostles spoke about it very clearly, it was there...

- gay marriages being such a topic today is only the logical conclusion of what has been going on for years now.
Why, suddenly, do some powers that be - so to speak - decide to draw the line there? Again, in the secular world, inch by inch, some things have been legalised: the right to declare themselves as common law couples, for taxes and other benefits purposes? Granted. The right to adopt, as a homosexual couple? Granted. The last barrier to take down was marriage. And, again, in absolute, one would wonder, why not? Everything else was lined up, in recent years, to lead up to that...

I don't agree with it, but, the fact is that on both secular and religious world, it's not possible to have your cake and eat it too.
A few years ago, when Clinton said - talking about homosexuals in the military - "don't ask, don't tell" everybody got on his case for suggesting it. However, isn't it very often what is going on?

We - general - have mastered the art of looking the other way on many issues, and, unless something blows out of proportion and makes it to the media, we - general - have been applying the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for a long time. Why are we shocked now, while it is still going on??

I am not saying that homosexuals should be ostracised either, professionally and otherwise, including in the church. However, if we claim to know the truth, then the truth has to be told.

If we try and take an objective look at what is going on today, we see that many christian leaders are so involved in politics that they can't back down or back out anymore, many are sitting on the fence and waiting for the wind to blow to decide on what side they are going to lean, and many are just blissfully ignoring it. Does that make it less real?

We don't have any problem calling someone out, cutting them out and declaring them heretics. Why is this specific issue making everybody walk on egg shells? That's why I call it hypocrisy.

Our greatest commandment is one of love. Jesus did not turn away anybody, he healed, delivered, and most of the time only asked "What do you want from me?" They asked and received...

The truth of the gospel cannot be compromised. All sinners can come to the cross. God made provision. We can't blame the world for being the world. Our part is to be about our Father's business too, for the light - His light - to increase.

We have to love enough to tell the truth. Otherwise, we are hypocrits.

[krazeeboi]

I can understand a bit better where you're coming from now Nina. However, you still seem to be approaching the subject from a strictly Christian worldview. I don't find the Church to be any more silent on this issue than on any other--if anything, it's more vocal about it. Sure we can tell the truth, but everyone is not of the truth. So do we legislate from a Christian point of view, recognizing that everyone is not a Christian and will not (nor should they be forced to) conform to the ways of Christianity? In this country, people have the right to worship Buddha, cohabitate with another consenting adult, smoke, drink, cuss, etc. We see what happens in nations where you are severely persecuted if you don't follow the "official" religion, and we should know that Prohibition didn't exactly work. So what makes us think we can restrict a privelege to two consenting adults from a purely Christian perspective?

In case y'all don't know, I'm playing D. A.

[stillfocused]

Sadly, this question is still the topic of Christians..who are right off the bat against it because it's against..homosexuals..who believe they have a right to do and say what they want to..while telling our children "there's nothing wrong with being gay God made me that way"; but, please don't stop me from telling like it is. We have become a society of people where anything goes..and God don't mind and I am still going to heaven..even though I don't believe there's a hell. Krazeeboi...you mentioned something very interesting in one of your previous post which was:

^But isn't that forcing a religious practice on those who may not follow our religion?

Yet, it could be the other way around. They don't walk in love; even if they say they are saved. If you give the slightest hint that you don't agree with their practices; you labeled homophobic and you might just get cussed out in the same breath. If they know you are a "Christian" they automatically don't like you. Many times they marry because they know it's not the thing to do; yet, to prove a point. Often the emotional roller coaster is there; you're talking about people of the same sex; with the same hangups..they are not equipped to comfort one another the way that God intended. A woman may know another woman; but, she cannot bring the feelings of protection, security, and love that a man can. Neither can a man hold, encourage, and offer insight to a situation like a woman. Even though they say it's love that only thing they are really offering one another is the knowledge that they are handling forbidden fruit. Have you ever seen the drama close up that jumps off from homosexual relationships ? It's the world of prey and get preyed upon..I had a relative who was gay and Mr H and his partners did some foul things. They had no shame in their game; because whatever happened Saturday night; continued in the choir box on Sunday morning !!
And because of the spirit of compromise by our leaders in high places..the gay agenda has silently crept into our homes, our schools, and churches. By the way whether they are saved or not, go to church or not, believe they won't be judged or not, this thing is has an affect on everyone..whether they choose to agree or disagree.

[krazeeboi]

I'm not sure what that has to do with gay marriage though.

It seems as though some of our political leaders are hellbent on creating a so-called "theocracy" where every political decision discriminates against non-Christians.

Should the government also prohibit non-Christians from worshipping the way they so desire, as long as it harms no one? If not, why are we all of sudden invoking Christianity here? Exactly how will gay marriage do untold damage to the fabric of our nation as the doomsday prophets say?

[nina]

"In case y'all don't know, I'm playing D. A. "

It always starts like that... Then, we blink and it's in the hands of the Supreme Court!

"If not, why are we all of sudden invoking Christianity here? Exactly how will gay marriage do untold damage to the fabric of our nation as the doomsday prophets say?"

We will all be old and grey before this subject is exhausted...

However, it seems that you really hit the spot where it hurts by using the expression "fabric of our nation".

With that, it is reasonable to ask some other questions:

- What is the fabric of our nation made of?

- What exactly has been woven in the fabric of our nation, from it's beginning?

- Look at the wording, from the very beginning, which officially established our nation: "One nation, under God..."

That was an awesome pledge for a young nation to make before God. Should not He expect such a nation to live up to it?

- Another key factor: "Land of the free..." How did the young nation live up to this one?

- Like many other nations who came of age, the laws of the land were all based on what we have come to call "judeo-christian values". Basically, everything the Bible calls a sin, the law calls a crime... So, what makes the difference? IF living in a country, you - general - abide by the laws of the land, regardless of what religion you - general - practice, right?
Those judeo-christian values are very much part of the fabric of our nation.

- In recent years, if we paid attention, a lot of things have started to wear out the fabric of our nation. The main reason, usually, is the word "freedom". The main factor which has caused the fabric of our nation to wear and tear: having to balance "in the name of God" and "in the name of freedom".
With that, some choices have been made, laws have been amended, etc... And, the name of God has been taken out/off basically most places where it used to be proeminent re the courts. What/who guided those decisions?

- Now, after years of pushing its agenda, the gay community at large has finally reached this culminating point: legalising gay marriage. Why now? Why is it so important to "win" this one, officially, legally?

The government now faced with this issue can't turn back the clock on everything else which lead to that. So, the last resort is to change the Constitution.... How is that for doing untold damage to the fabric of our nation?

.The previous laws and amendments can't or won't be repelled.

.The politics at work can't "afford", literally, to cut themselves from the support of the gay community at large.

.Changing the Constitution is the only way to say yes and no at the same time, because, regardless, each state - individually - won't lose its prerogative to do or not do.

.Also, it's the only way to satisfy everybody, to be able to keep claiming to be a devout Christian and cash in on that side, and to not totally upset - and still cash in - the other side by leaving the door open to "correct" the situation right there, where we live.

So, homosexuality is not a crime anymore, no more laws punishing sodomy, etc. We can deal with that part, because truly it's not a crime punishable by law, should never have been.

Is it still a sin? How else, KB, can we deal with it but "under God", whether people believe or not, does not His word stand true?

If christianity and judeo christian values are such a vital part of the fabric of our nation, how do we, believers, not react but act upon this new situation? Because, indeed, the world is watching us.... and so is God.

Exemple: what are "we" going to do when a young, proud, married, openly homosexual couple, comes to attend a service with their adopted children already enrolled in Sunday school??

God is going to "make us" toe the line and actually live by every word which proceeds out of his mouth. Are we willing? Are we ready?

So, we definitely should consider the impact on the fabric of our nation. Most of all, we should be concerned about the fabric of the garment of His bride, without spot or wrinkle. And it shall be so...

[stillfocused]

Krazeeboi..it has everything to do with gay marriages. Meaning they believe they have the right to marry as others do; and should receive the same rights and benefits as others do. Yet, they do not want the name Jesus or God mentioned in their presence. Yet, they can sit and talk about what they do and who they do it. We all know that this an abomination in the eyes of God; yet, they do not acknowledge it's sin. And whether it we like or not this sin affects us all; because God never turned his back and blinked at the sin commited by one man.
Take David when he took a cenus..a whole nation was affected; not just his household. This is a topic that cannot be discussed without acknowledging God and what his word says about this. Whether old or new testament..it is mentioned. Romans 1 is very clear. So, just because they threatened to suit do we stick our heads in the sand ? and say "Praise God, you are welcome here. And we just can't wait for you to teach our teens the lesson on sexuality". God, forbid.

Many times we don't understand the importance of living to please God; because we do whatever we want to do and just believe that God will bless it. KB..I disagree with the "theroacy" comment. You may not agree; yet, there is a subtle attack of Christianity; because of the a gay agenda. How can you reach them if the the good news cannot spoken ?
How their eyes be opened if homosexuality cannot be mentioned ? Yet, every other sin can.

FYI...the first gay couple who got married in the state of MA are not longer together; was a short lived victory or a long life pain ? Do we have to wait until we hear " We have just voted; 45 -7 that from this day on; the worship of God is forbidden and anyone caught doing so, will be killed" and today we have also passed a law that says " It is not lawful for a man and woman to marry; anyone caught performing or participating the marriage of a man and a woman will automatically receive a 25 yr prison term."

What I was saying before is that those who particpate in that lifestyle don' t want you to " put " your beliefs on them; yet, they will push their lifestyle on you. As we are actually being forced to accept that very sins that were found in Sodom and Gomarrah. They don't have a problem telling you that you are supposed love them; and loving them means not only accepting them; but, accepting the sin as well. Even, though both parties know it's wrong. All while using the word of God; using it for their purposes.

I agree it's time to take a stand..yet, the question is this: What kind of stand will you take ?

[krazeeboi]

Stepping away from the "DA" position here for a moment...

OK yall, here's what I'm trying to get you guys to say/see. Religion is continually invoked in your responses, but this will not stand up in a court of law because Congress shall not make any law respecting any particular religion, nor restricting the free excercise thereof. To make a case against gay marriage from a strictly Christian perspective, as you guys are doing, is to violate the the first part: Congress making a law respecting any particular religion. And even if gay marriage is legalized, churches that do not agree with gay marriage will not be forced to marry gay couples, as that would violate the "restricting the free excercise thereof" argument.

In other words, I think we've become blinded by the religious right here, because guess what? THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. I know that may come as a surprise to you all because we've gotten so used to the rhetoric of the religious right, but I actually think they are weakening the position against gay marriage by continually talking about the nation's "Christian heritage," "moral values," etc. Oh yeah, another thing: the church was never called to police the world.

So back to the drawing board guys. Act as though you are presenting your case to a strictly secular audience. And you can actually make a solid case WITHOUT invoking religion. Doing so eradicates the merits of your position.

[stillfocused]

In some states it is against the law to cohabitat..even though it may not be enforced. I guess we're really going to be in trouble; because it's really going to a free for all in the USA; because it's my right. The laws as we know them are being to fit an agenda that has detroyed the very fabric of all the USA once stood for. Maybe it's time we as believers stop taking about the issue and do something about what we all know is wrong. From a world's view...it's not natural. Not, religion I beg to differ. Our elected officials took an oath to up the whole Constitution which I know is filled with the Word of God.

[krazeeboi]

Maybe it's time we as believers stop taking about the issue and do something about what we all know is wrong.

Maybe we should start with the laws that's already on the books.

And no, this isn't a religious issue. In other words, one could make a solid case against gay marriage WITHOUT appealing to religion whatsoever. And as I say, if what you are saying is the case you would present to a secular audience, it would erase any merits of your position. It makes Christians sound like religious radicals who are out to police the entire world and force everyone to follow their rules instead of making them sound like rational, thinking, civic-minded citizens who are well-informed of social issues.

I said it once, and I'll say it again: the Church has not been called to Christianize society through political process. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and he meant it.

In other words, while I may agree with your position, I agree for totally different reasons. It's crazy, because we'll march for a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but not for children in poverty, not for adult illiteracy, not for poor rural schools, etc.

[nina]

"OK yall, here's what I'm trying to get you guys to say/see. Religion is continually invoked in your responses, but this will not stand up in a court of law because Congress shall not make any law respecting any particular religion, nor restricting the free excercise thereof."

True, Congress won't. Congress has to remain consistant with everything already and previously ruled about. That's why, I think, eventually any reference to God or the Bible, from top to bottom will have to be taken out.
In doing so, the freedom for all will be upheld, it will cut out all the actions in court for "being forced to" say or apply for something involving God's name when re: "yada yada I don't believe in that, I just want to be a boyscout..."
Then, and only then, nothing will be remotely a religious matter, only a matter of law.
And, in all of justice/legal instances, DAs and defence lawyers will be arguing cases standing on laws established to uphold moral principles and values without any foundation, the breaking question being "Says who?" Says the law? Based on what?...

"To make a case against gay marriage from a strictly Christian perspective, as you guys are doing, is to violate the the first part: Congress making a law respecting any particular religion. And even if gay marriage is legalized, churches that do not agree with gay marriage will not be forced to marry gay couples, as that would violate the "restricting the free excercise thereof" argument."

Right again. They won't be forced to. If they don't though, they will be liable to be sued for breaking the law which says that it is legal, not as a religious entity, as anybody and everybody else re: any employer not satisfied with an employee for strictly professional reasons but, after the fact, the employee suing because he's gay and claiming that, in fact, that's the real reason why he was fired. I know, it's different, but the process is the same, only more obvious in the case of marriage.
And, in that case, why would a gay couple want to be married in church anyway? To make a point? a political point? A religious point?
So, a church would not be forced to perform gay marriages, but a church would definitely be breaking the law by not performing them. Should such a church actually go to court, what would the defence of that church be based on, in a secular court of law? Freedom? We did not feel like it?
This defence could not possibly be allowed to mention the name of God or the Bible in court, the other side would claim "irrelevant", the sitting judge would move to strike, and would be right, according to the law.

"In other words, I think we've become blinded by the religious right here, because guess what? THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. I know that may come as a surprise to you all because we've gotten so used to the rhetoric of the religious right, but I actually think they are weakening the position against gay marriage by continually talking about the nation's "Christian heritage," "moral values," etc. Oh yeah, another thing: the church was never called to police the world."

I think I'm beginning to catch your drift with this not being a "religious issue" :-).
True again, the church was never called to police the world. Then, the church has to, like Jesus, have no ties whatsoever with any form of government, politics, and other entities standing for or representing anything related to it, even remotely.
This way, the courts will be completely objective in the eyes of the law, and the church will be completely free to stand for what she believes even in a non religious way (reasoning by the absurd is still a valid option, right? :-)

"So back to the drawing board guys. Act as though you are presenting your case to a strictly secular audience. And you can actually make a solid case WITHOUT invoking religion. Doing so eradicates the merits of your position."

Well, Professor... I would rather not go back to the drawing board with those premices.
Not because of a strictly secular audience, I think that I should be entitled to assume that strictly secular does not mean completely illiterate or uninformed. Based on that, and only for those who might never have heard about it, I should be able to (very briefly) remind them of the religious foundation which made homosexuality first illegal and a crime, now legal and totally harmless.
I honestly don't believe that, even as objective as I would try to be, a solid case against gay marriage could be made without invoking religion. When we move to the non religious side, we have already lost the case: all of the cases related to homosexual issues are civil rights matter. The end....

Now, Professor, could you point me towards the lion's den? My way of recusing myself...

[krazeeboi]

nina said:

"OK yall, here's what I'm trying to get you guys to say/see. Religion is continually invoked in your responses, but this will not stand up in a court of law because Congress shall not make any law respecting any particular religion, nor restricting the free excercise thereof."

True, Congress won't. Congress has to remain consistant with everything already and previously ruled about. That's why, I think, eventually any reference to God or the Bible, from top to bottom will have to be taken out.
In doing so, the freedom for all will be upheld, it will cut out all the actions in court for "being forced to" say or apply for something involving God's name when re: "yada yada I don't believe in that, I just want to be a boyscout..."
Then, and only then, nothing will be remotely a religious matter, only a matter of law.
And, in all of justice/legal instances, DAs and defence lawyers will be arguing cases standing on laws established to uphold moral principles and values without any foundation, the breaking question being "Says who?" Says the law? Based on what?...

And that just may be the case. And when it does, we need to remember that THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE THE WORLD. Legislating morality does not cause spiritual transformation; only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that.

"To make a case against gay marriage from a strictly Christian perspective, as you guys are doing, is to violate the the first part: Congress making a law respecting any particular religion. And even if gay marriage is legalized, churches that do not agree with gay marriage will not be forced to marry gay couples, as that would violate the "restricting the free excercise thereof" argument."

Right again. They won't be forced to. If they don't though, they will be liable to be sued for breaking the law which says that it is legal, not as a religious entity, as anybody and everybody else re: any employer not satisfied with an employee for strictly professional reasons but, after the fact, the employee suing because he's gay and claiming that, in fact, that's the real reason why he was fired. I know, it's different, but the process is the same, only more obvious in the case of marriage.
And, in that case, why would a gay couple want to be married in church anyway? To make a point? a political point? A religious point?
So, a church would not be forced to perform gay marriages, but a church would definitely be breaking the law by not performing them. Should such a church actually go to court, what would the defence of that church be based on, in a secular court of law? Freedom? We did not feel like it?
This defence could not possibly be allowed to mention the name of God or the Bible in court, the other side would claim "irrelevant", the sitting judge would move to strike, and would be right, according to the law.

Pastors today can refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples, so I don't see how a case for a pastor refusing to marry gays would stand up in a court of law, especially when they could just go to a justice of the peace.

"In other words, I think we've become blinded by the religious right here, because guess what? THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. I know that may come as a surprise to you all because we've gotten so used to the rhetoric of the religious right, but I actually think they are weakening the position against gay marriage by continually talking about the nation's "Christian heritage," "moral values," etc. Oh yeah, another thing: the church was never called to police the world."

I think I'm beginning to catch your drift with this not being a "religious issue" :-).
True again, the church was never called to police the world. Then, the church has to, like Jesus, have no ties whatsoever with any form of government, politics, and other entities standing for or representing anything related to it, even remotely.
This way, the courts will be completely objective in the eyes of the law, and the church will be completely free to stand for what she believes even in a non religious way (reasoning by the absurd is still a valid option, right? :-)

Actually, yes. I'm not sure if you know, but the gay marriage movement received two setbacks in Georgia and New York state by the high courts of those states. The statements of the court were well-reasoned and presented logical arguments, all without appealing to religion. For us to think that we have to invoke religion to oppose gay marriage actually demonstrates that we have failed to "cast down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," which is actually TRUE spiritual warfare. I hope to come back and put flesh on that later on in the discussion.

"So back to the drawing board guys. Act as though you are presenting your case to a strictly secular audience. And you can actually make a solid case WITHOUT invoking religion. Doing so eradicates the merits of your position."

Well, Professor... I would rather not go back to the drawing board with those premices.
Not because of a strictly secular audience, I think that I should be entitled to assume that strictly secular does not mean completely illiterate or uninformed. Based on that, and only for those who might never have heard about it, I should be able to (very briefly) remind them of the religious foundation which made homosexuality first illegal and a crime, now legal and totally harmless.
I honestly don't believe that, even as objective as I would try to be, a solid case against gay marriage could be made without invoking religion. When we move to the non religious side, we have already lost the case: all of the cases related to homosexual issues are civil rights matter. The end....

Now, Professor, could you point me towards the lion's den? My way of recusing myself...

The key to understanding the issue of gay marriage is understanding the issue of marriage in general--which is common all across the globe, in predominantly Christian nations and predominantly non-Christian nations.

I would also point out that the laws that first declared homosexual acts illegal also made interracial marriages illegal as well. Now I do NOT believe that this whole gay marriage movement is akin to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, but I do believe there is actually a slight parallel here.