jay_a2j wrote:The problems with your comments are multiple.
1) You left out things like idol worship....that harms no one. I asked where do we draw the line, when is it ok for Christians to speak?
OH, I see now, you seem to think that this is about prohibiting people from saying they don't like homosexual marriages or homosexuality...
MY mistake. In that case, you are absolutely correct. A free society is all about discourse and varying views.
See, here I (and I believe a lot of other people) seemed to think you were saying that homosexuals should not be afforded the same right to visit sick loved ones, inherit property and have joint custody of kids as heterosexuals.
As for idol worship -- Hindus, etc do practice forms of idoltry. For that matter, there is the whole "Iconoclastic debate" regarding the Roman Catholic church. Not my way, but I don't want their religious rights perscribed
because once that route is begun, it is my worship that might be next on the chopping block.
jay_a2j wrote:As usual you only answer what you pick and choose to answer. You also never addressed why you so adamantly defend what God calls sin, instead of just keeping YOUR mouth shut and let them live their lives.
I pick and choose? But you have yet to answer any of the points I brought up. Instead, you bring in some blather about "Christians ought to be able to speak". As for "keeping mouths shut".. I am not the one telling other people how to live their lives. I am simply saying that there is no reason, outside of religion, to deny them that right. Since religious belief is not considered a valid reason to deny someone else's choices, except when those beliefs cuase others harm.. it is no argument. We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a free country. That means not just that you get to live how you want and I get to live how I want, but other people get to live how they like, whether we like it or not.
jay_a2j wrote:This I could at least understand but you are a stones through away from writing your Congressman and demanding that he or she puts forth a bill allowing gay marriage.
There is a kid in a nearby community who wound up in the hospital, had to drop out of school, because he declared he was homosexual. In the end, he pretended he was not homosexual (sort of) and did go back to school, but it meant denying who he is. It meant lying to his friends and the community -- or at least not being truly honest about who he was. How, exactly is forcing someone into that position a CHRISTIAN thing to do?
They had some interviews with one of the strongest opponents in the community. She did say that the way this boy was treated was wrong, but then went on to talk about this "agenda" of the homosexuals. You know what agenda I fear? I fear the agenda of hatred and intolerance.
Christ did give us rules to follow, but reread that. He gave US, his followers rules to follow. But, look at his actions. How did he act around the most reviled and despised people of his day? He sat down with them, ate with them and showed them love and caring. His anger and wrath was reserved for the "high and mighty" who tried to put themselves up as better than the others. ALL are welcome to Christ's/God's table ... all who seek him. It is not for you or I to lay other judgements. We may certainly lock up criminals becuase we need to protect our basic safety.
'
You want to say that you are not imposing restrictions on homosexuals. You claim that you don't want to see them locked up, but your comparisons are to people who rightfully should be locked up. Then you try to claim that WE and not you are being oppressive.
Here is a clue -- when you are preventing someone from doing as they wish, it is repression. That is justified if the action causes you or others harm. It is acceptable if it is your child, a congregant in
your church (at least if you are a clergy person, but also to an extent if you are not) or if someone gives you permission to decide choices in their life. (oh, and for the record, I am not a member of your particular church. I follow Christ and the Bible as I read it. Are you Christian? Probably, though that is just not for me to say. However, being Christian, unfortunately, does not automatically make you a stellar and shining example of Christ's teachings. In this case... I don't believe you are following his path.).
jay_a2j wrote:2) Would you object to your pastor conducting a gay marriage? (this is slowly creeping into the Christian religion) If so, you are a hypocrite. If not, I'd highly consider re-examining your faith.
Again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY. This is purely about the secular view, the secular and practical rights that the state attaches to marriage. Things like making medical decisions for loved ones who cannot, even just visiting loved ones. Its about not paying inheritance taxes when a partner dies, being able to share retirement accounts, have easy joint custody of kids, etc.
Those are things afforded by the government, not the church.
jay_a2j wrote:I'm not an "extremist". You and billybob can think what you like. It is this very reason that the church today is full of corruption. People sit by and quietly allow the "world" and its ways into the church. And you wonder why Jesus trashed the temple? Or why God warns the churches in Revelation?
I'm not telling people how to live. I am pointing out your complacency with and your strong support for things that displease God. The others here who don't profess to be Christians I can fully understand their adamant support for gay marriage. But when a "Christian" does, the red flags go up.
Except "displeasing God" only has validity within the church. I disagree firmly with much that the Roman Catholic Church puts forward. I disagree with Hinduism, Paganism, etc. I am not an atheist. I believe ALL of those things are against God, to an extent ( Roman Catholics are Christian, but I don't believe all they do is from God). I would absolutely object if those things were introduced into our services. However, that is only within the church. Once I step outside the "doors", talk to those who do not share my beliefs, those arguments have little or no validity, (except as a matter of free debate and discourse).
YOU wish to claim that your disapproval of homosexuality, the church's disapproval of homosexuality means that the state should not recognize homosexual unions. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Church. It is purely a practical matter.
jay_a2j wrote:I am reminded of something I heard a few years back. This couple wanted to get married and a pastor (I'm guessing over the phone) said he would be glad to marry them. That was, until he found out it was two women who wanted to get married. He then refused and the couple sued the pastor for discrimination.
Oh please!
The true case involved secular judges and folks offering wedding services. Clergy are not required to marry ANYONE. The local Roman Catholic Priest won't even marry everyone who is a member of HIS church. They have to go to other Roman Catholic churches. It is a church issue, but not a legal one. Someone can sue you over anything ... they are called "frivolous" lawsuits. However, those suits won't go anywhere and, in most cases are dismissed without even real consideration. Sometimes they are allowed to go forward as much to prevent future lawsuits as anything else. (legal precedent becomes effective law).
jay_a2j wrote:Either Christians take a stand for God or they need to stop calling themselves Christians. After all, how can you say I am for God and for gay marriage in the same breath?
Inside the church .. you have a debate. But Christianity has simply no bearing on the legality of unions. By your arguments, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, even Christians who don't practice your particular "brand" of Christianity should not be recognized, either. After all, they are not fully following God's laws, either.
Again, we don't live in a theocracy.
