Featured Support for the Right for Adam and Steve to Wed Grow in California...

I'm not responding to the poll, but would say that we need to start realizing that same-sex marriage will be legal and used across the US in 5 years...or less depending on the results in November (which I predict, less.)

Government needs to get out of the marriage recognition business imho. The covenant of marriage, as defined biblically, is a sacred act that is for two maturing Christians. The trivial and flippant nature with which it is treated in our large culture demeans the true meaning of this most significant eschatological act.

 

Honestly, I don't think its necessarily a bad thing for the GOVERNMENT to recognize same sex marriage. (the CHURCH is a whole different topic)

Let me see if I can explain. Harry is estranged from his abusive parents. His "partner" is Henry and Henry is the person Harry trusts the most to make decisions on his behalf. But when Harry gets run over by a teenager texting on her cell phone and ends up unconcious in the hospital, guess who gets the call to make his medical decisions??? his parents who hate him! Even if he has a living will Harry's PARENTS get to make decisions on his behalf because they are "family" and Henry is not.

As a person who would rather die on the hospital table than EVER have her parents make another decision for her (because I know from experience that those decisions will be made based on what is best for THEM) I fully understand this delima. There is no other way to make an unrelated same sex person "family" other than some sort of "marriage". (civil union if you'd rather call it that)

You think this isn't so? hehe. Yeah okay. Go ask your local hospital what they are going to do when you come in dead, but your driver's license says you wish to be an organ donor. You probably think that by putting that designation on your lisence that is all that must be done and your organs will go to some person who would die without them. Not so. If your family says "I don't care what he wanted, you aren't taking his organs" you'll be buried with them all. Family rules.

And that's not a bad thing. Family form the basic foundational structure of society. But sometimes families just aren't a reliable foundation. We believe in freedom in America. Should we not have the freedom to chose who we trust most to be our "family"? You think about this now. Are you relying on your parents to make decisions in your stead? Or did you get to marry the person of your choice with the side benefit that you trust that person implicitly to make those decisions for you?

Who are we to say that we get this freedom because we "married right" and you should suffer the consequence of your "marrying wrong" of having to submit to the decisions of someone who really just doesn't care and will not make those decisions out of love? This is America. We still believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness right? Or is that only for Christians? Or is it only for Baptists? Or is it only for folks who believe just like you?

Of course I'm a liberal's liberal. I don't care if two men want to call themselves "married" in the sight of the law and government. It's not going to be the "down fall of America". Know why? Cause God doesn't expect the unsaved to act like the saved. He says: "If MY people." God isn't worried about what "they" do, He's worried about what WE do.

So if you don't want to allow a same sex couple membership in your church, don't allow it (I wouldn't want my church to accept such!). But we have better things to do as God's children than deny the freedoms we take for granted to others.

Now I expect some here will say that this is just another part of the H*mosexual Agenda that "they" want to stuff down our throats. Well, I grew up through the Sexual Revolution and heard the same sorts of rhetoric. Sin is sin, whether in the open or behind closed doors. You don't stop it by changing laws. You stop it by changing hearts. You do that and the laws will change themselves.

 

ONLY poll that really counts would that of the father/Son/Holy Spirit, and last I checked...

was still a big NO!

 

Homosexuality is a sin and condemned by God; such marriages are wrong also. I will NEVER change my view on that unless God does.

 

Mandatory that I as a pastor and my church also sanction same sex marriage????? And suffer fines and the loss of IRS tax exempt status and jail time????

I will rot in jail before I perform my first same sex marriage!!!

:flower::flower:

 

And that should be your right, Blackbird. But just because a Christian won't marry them doesn't mean the justice of the peace or someone of their choosing won't or shouldn't.

let me ask you a question Blackbird, would you marry a Muslim couple? Do you consider Muslim marriages to be null and void because they weren't married the way we Baptist's believe they should be?

Marriage for a nonbeliever doesn't depend on what we Christians believe! How they view marriage had better NOT be how we view marriage!! WE better do a better job than they do, because marriage for us is a representation of salvation. But we don't do a better job of it. Christian marriages fail at the same rate as other demographics. So just what makes us think we've got it right?

 

My answer is NEVER.

I used to think that perhaps "civil unions" was the answer. Not anymore. "Approving" a civil union is approving the sin, IMHO. Throughout the scriptures, God is specific about this sin, as it's mentioned over an over again. Just as He's specific about stealing. Would it be OK in His sight, if we humans figure out a way to label stealing as something else other than taking what doesn't belong to us? Can we call stealing my car "civil positioning" and make that acceptable?

God doesn't change. It's my understanding that the scriptures are complete. Thus, they aren't subject to change, either. (I stand to be corrected on the latter, if someone can show it is probable that God will change them before Revelation comes to pass.)

 

We've already legailized stealing Oldtimer. It's called taxes and social security right?

 

I would leave my church if same-sex marriage would be accepted there.
However, I incline to agree with Menagerikeeper about the recognition of such "marriages" by the _government_ - pretty much for the same reasons as him. Those people do exist in the society, and they need legal protection, such as in medical decisions. They are not going to change their lifestyle, whether they can "marry" or not. We won't prevent a sin by prohibiting civil unions or whatever it can be called.
We can't ask the government to make all the sinful behavior illegal. It is simply impossible, and it won't save anybody: avoiding sinful behavior is not a salvation.

 

That’s a profound thought…who’d you steal that from? Jk. But, the first problem with it is you’re mixing salvation with the command to men and women to leave their parents, become one, and to fruitful and multiply and you’re trying to link the two (salvation-marriage) together. I see no such condition (salvation/Christian belief) being linked to God’s instructions to His creatures from creation pertaining to marriage, but I do see instruction of it being between a man and woman. Nice try at red herring though…

Well it should!!! …And I’ll tell you why!

Christians understand the sanctity of marriage to consist of a commitment made before God; you mention a marriage before the justice of the peace, which is still before God regardless. And here's the problem!...the word “marriage” has it origin/definition from within the bible and has special meaning, let those who oppose God’s will call their “union” something else rather than to trample the established definition of “marriage” which actuality equates to nothing more by the homosexual than demand of equality between that which is spiritual/and/or God's will and that which is worldly. Romans 12:2. How's that you ask? Glad you asked:

But first let me ask you a question: Just how is protecting the sanctity of the definition of the word 'marriage" discriminating against homosexuals? Seems more like they are the ones discriminating and stepping on things that others hold dear, the right to have meaning in a certain type of union, i.e. like the origins, meanings and definition of the word "marriage". Please give me another reason for them to call their unions "marriage" if all other rights were the same, if it is not about discrimination of our values on their part?!

 

Let the GOVENMENT recognize "it" as a "union" then.

First problem you have here, is the ones trying to "change" law here are the homosexuals. Second, you speak of rhetoric? Your whole arguement in that post basically centered on a fallicious "argument from pity", pure rhetoric.

 

My daughter is getting married May 12th, and my wife and her were reading how to address invitations. I about choked on a sandwich when she read aloud the proper way to address an invitation to a lesbian and gay couple. I cannot believe it. It has even infected our etiquette books.

There has always been sin, and always will be. However, when a nation that has been blessed like this one makes it official law of the land, state by state, ever marching towards fifty, we go from the realm of sinning to the realm of rubbing God's nose in it. We deserve what we get. One can see it in the election for President. We are being given a choice of two individuals who support gay rights and abortion.

 

We are only reaping what we sowed in 1973 when this nation legalized murder. We went beyond, as you put it, the realm of sinning way back then, IMO. "We deserve what we get." Totally agree!!!

 

Well you of course!

It is still a Christian viewpoint that we are trying to insist the world live by. When has this world EVER lived by the instructions God gave to his creatures? It isn't me who links together marriage and belief, it is you...and most of Christian conservatives. (and I appear to so totally be a liberal. You know, I wasn't one before I joined this board. (not exactly sarcasm))

I dare you tell that to a Muslim. That their definition of marriage came from our Jewish/Christian scriptures. They'll laugh. Oh, and their definition of marriage continues to treat women as something close to property, I don't think that comes from our scriptures......God may have allowed it, but He didn't condone it.

Personally, I don't care what they call them. We speak English and the word for a personal contract between two people to combine their resources into one entity is called marriage. We dont' have a second word to describe this contract. Civil union doesn't do it, because there are no laws written concerning such. In order to create a combined household that gives two people equal legal rights to the combined resources of both the word used MUST be marriage. There is no other way to ensure the precedence of both parties to each other over other familial entities. One would have to change a host of laws just to include a new term. It becomes an issue of practicality.

Now, I know you don't like that idea. You think they are sinners bound for the pit because of their abomination and they can just suffer the consequence. But we as Christians aren't called to force consequences on non Christians. So why are we bothering to fight this? It simply doesn't detract from the meaning of a Christian marriage anymore than a marriage between two Muslims or two Hindus or two clams for that matter does.

 

The issue is not would I marry a Muslim couple---and the issue is not would I marry an unbelieving couple----the issue is same sex marriage----I challenge anyone to read through 1Cor 7 which deals with the issue of maritial "problems" that Paul deals with----and notice the times he brings up the issue of "He/She"---"if he . . . then let her"----or "if she . . . then let him"----the issue is always male/female-----never male/male female/female------the same is taught in the book of Ephesians chapter 5

I'm still gonna rot in jail before I perform a same sex marriage----if the JOP decides he's gonna do it---well--he's got a right to do it---but that doesn't make it right in God's eyes and one day God's judgement fire will come and probe that particular judge's life and . . . !!

 

:thumbsup: to you. If you were to perform the ceremony, the message being given would be that you, as a man of the cloth, you would be endorsing sin. Because many view a pastor/priest as God's representative, your approval would be viewed as His as well.

 

And I'll come pay your bail when you do. But, that JOP is gonna be judged first for how he treats Christ and second for how he performed his job. If he does the first right, the second isn't going to matter because a civil marriage between two people simply isn't and doesn't have to hold the same meaning as one performed by a man of God.

 

Boy, could we have a talk about values, rules, …the origins of moral principles …concerning the existing laws in ANY civil society and these “moral laws” in fact are being “imposed” on others within that society. You call these “conservative values” …as if being conservative in one’s values is shameful and Christians have no rights to engage in the matter of establishing these moral laws in the society in which they live. If you believe that you are failing to see and relate this to how moral laws are in fact actually established in ANY civil society, and where these individual values come from, and on what and how lines are drawn on morality and these rules which are based on moral principles are imposed and not to be crossed and are enforced by laws which carry penalties, all established through the individuals from within that society. You might want to ask yourself when are these morals imposed on others, and according to what, …and why we, as Christians (surely, not something to ashamed of) make these decisions (moral laws), which are part of ANY civil society, and how these (moral laws) are established according to one’s own values and willingness to stand up for these values, …which in our case are, or should be, led by “our” Christian beliefs!

I really believe your claim of being “liberal” is merely a rejection of the some of the distorted views on this board on how moral principles should be established, rather than based on an outright objection to “your” morality being imposed on others according to your values somewhere along the line. (If you don’t agree this is easy enough to prove) In your case I believe it is still being based on your Christian values (which would make you appear to be conservative to someone somewhere anyway, and I could logically prove this too) but you just do so in hesitation because of fear of how the world says it views your decisions if you admit they come from your religious beliefs. IOWs, I think you have bought into a lie that you are liberal only because you reject some of the reasoning given here to impose your Christian values into the world to establish moral laws.

First, show me a Muslim that doesn’t believe in the roots of marriage to coincide with the creational design of God to be between a man and a woman. You might as well just openly present your reasoning to be that if, “marriage between a man and woman is not perfect in every way, then we should throw out the whole concept of it being so and redefine it to include those of the same sex”. Then I could explain to you why your reasoning is a “perfectionist fallacy” and how it illogical to try to come to the truth in the matter about preserving the meaning of marriage to be defined to be between a man and a woman as created and defined by God can be discounted by throwing in a claim that some Muslims abuse the situation.

“Marriage” certainly does have established meanings involving a husband and wife as well as being a social contract that pertains to moral standards as well as legal contracts. The homosexual agenda is not about the legal contracts, if so those laws are easily enough written, it is about dissolving other’s moral standards, it is about claiming equality between that which is natural, such as the ability to produce children as per God’s design, and that which is not. It is about the homosexual’s attempts at abolishing moral standards in a society, equality, and justifying “their’ union through getting the members of a society to agree with them that God’s plan had it wrong.

Again, marriage is word that has meanings that are held dear, I don’t care if it is "not practical” or burdensome to have to establish a new “second” word or design a new contract; they do NOT have the right to redefine marriage on such pretenses that insist it is it an issue of “practicality”. That is simply a lame excuse to go about their agenda to discriminate against our values and trample the established definition of a marriage, which like I said, “equates to nothing more than a demand by the homosexual of equality between that which is spiritual/and/or God's will and that which is worldly”, it is an stereotypical “in your face” about what we hold sacred that could easily be avoided if they chose another term, but they won’t because it defeats their true agenda, which I spelled out. You have failed to show another reason that if “all other rights were the same how is it not about discrimination on their part against us?”

Then you don’t know me as well as you think, not that I accept these labels, but I’d probably be considered liberal compared to many here because I really don’t give a rats if the homosexuals have “government established” legal rights to pervert that which is natural and designed by God, that is between them and God. It’s not my job to judge whether an individual will be saved or not according to their sins; …as a matter of fact you will never hear me draw a line on sin that someone cannot cross as that would indicate that I believe another has “worked” his way in Heaven or out of hell. If I did that it would effectively demonstrate, with all practicality a denial of “my” own true reliance of be that salvation only comes by faith through grace alone. Off topic, but I believe this is what Matthew 7: 1-3 is relating to about one’s own judgments in this very matter and it coming back to bite him, and that later in Matthew it is referring to the same thing about the corrupt tree meaning the roots would be grounded in works rather than grace; therefore, the fruit of a confessed believer can be seen as either coming from works (bad fruit) or grace (good fruit) nothing more, so then to attribute good fruit to human works in seen by me to show a lack of understanding that salvation comes through faith by grace alone; further, that is what Jesus is telling those idiots that are thinking themselves justified and making their case while in actuality demonstrating where their true reliance is by saying “look at all the wonderful things “we” have done” and effectively revealing their thinking, what their faith is based on, that it is yet possible to have “worked” their way into heaven, Mathew 7:21-23, rather to place “all” their hope and faith solely on His loving grace. Another tread no doubt, but the point is: I fight the agenda of the homosexuals because it discriminates against an established type of union that is called “marriage” that I hold the meaning of as sacred being a union defined by God and I’m not fooled for one minute about their motives which are devious attempts to integrate that which God calls an abomination to that which is held sacred because they believe this would supposedly include them as having an equal type of union in every way and thereby make a statement that “you can’t separate our values from yours”.