ES Gay Marriage Poll

[AsburySkinsFan]

You can talk about "sin" ASF, but there are those of out here who don't believe in the concept of "sin" so anything that is deemed a sin is just not recognized by some.

I totally agree, which IS the strongest argument you have in your arsenal. But, you have to remember that you're dealing with a group of people who see the ideal in this country as being a modified Republic theocratic democracy.

"Sin" is part of the made up stories and are dependent upon faith, and not reality.

According to you, the majority of all population today and throughout history disagrees with you.

[No Excuses]

According to you, the majority of all population today and throughout history disagrees with you.

Funny argument. Majority of the world population also disagrees with and doesn't follow Christianity.

[LadySkinsFan]

Yes we do. But you can't point out to me where one of the core tenants of the church is that being white/black/asian/latino "being with" someone of a different race is a sin.

You must not have heard of the story of the white church secretary who was fired because she married a black man. Yes, in 2011 in the US of A. Her Tennessee church doesn't condone interracial marriages, so they fired her. One Kentucky church went so far as to ban interracial marriages/couples from membership. Once the story became public and there was much hew and cry, the church then reversed their ban. Here are the links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/debra-dodd-fired_n_1152356.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-marriage-150009470.html

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Pike_County_Church_Says_No_to_Interracial_Members_134768383.html

Also, the Supremes have upheld a religious organizations right to hire and fire regardless of anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular organizations. So religious organizations get a pass on doing the right thing if it doesn't fit into their religious tenets. So they get a state-sanctioned right to discriminate. Yay them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is true now, but it wasn't necessarily true of the early church, or even many churches in America through the Civil War and into the 1960s. The beliefs of the church have changed over time, maybe nowhere as dramatically as the topic of race and slavery.

"[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -Jefferson Davis

You're right there are times in the history of the church who have perverted the church for their own ends, as on the racial issue. We would cite the elimination of the racial divide as true nature of Christian teaching as taught in scripture.

Is it possible that the church will evolve on the issue of gay marriage as well? Maybe Paul criticized the homosexuality in Roman times because it was based on lust rather than love. Or he was concerned that people didn't consider it adultery when it was. The Bible doesn't really address the concept of a long-term, monogamous, committed gay relationship. Some churches (like the Episcopal Church) have embraced this as an institution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/the-episocpal-churchs-gay-rights-pilgrimage/2013/02/28/18a7637c-820e-11e2-a350-49866afab584_blog.html

Might the rest of Christianity follow?

It might, but the issue of homosexuality is consistent throughout scripture, and I would argue that and "evolution" in that direction would be corrected in time.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Funny argument. Majority of the world population also disagrees with and doesn't follow Christianity.

Which does nothing to refute my point.

[No Excuses]

Which does nothing to refute my point.

Nor did your point refute LSF's.

[Popeman38]

If someone wants to abide by their tenets of faith of their particular religious organization, then they may do so. But they may not restrict others who do not share that particular faith/tenets.

And that is the exact reason why we don't have a state religion, why God is not mentioned in the Constitution and why we have the 1st Amendment so that one's personal faith cannot be restricted.

Don't agree with same sex marriage because your religion doesn't support that? Then don't have one, that is your religious right. But you cannot impose your religious doctrine on the population in its entirety. No state religion.

Same with abortion.

Just want to point out what I think on this subject:

My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. My personal beliefs, however, do not extend to denying government benefits to people that think differently than I do. I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church, so I was taught that gay=sin. But I learned over years and personal study that we are not to judge, we are not to assign weight to sin, and we are not to ostracize people because of their sins. I also learned that you are to love people and hate the sin. I can treat someone with respect and dignity, express love for them, and still disagree with their choices and lifestyle. I have enough to keep me busy in cleaning my own house that I don't need to be telling others how to keep theirs clean or to define for them what clean is. I also am pretty certain that we are instructed to honor the laws of the land we live in, not just the ones we agree with or ignore the ones that contradict our faith.

What you are responding to is my defense of religion defining what is and isn't acceptable as part of the religion.

[Predicto]

KB, Not for nothing... one of my things...I don't get how people want to worry about getting married in a church or even hold religious beliefs when I can't think of a religion that accepts homosexuality.

What the? Plenty of religions accept homosexuality. There is nobody more sincere and religious than the Quakers, and they embrace gays. Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Anglican all accept it. Hindus historically have been all over the map on the issue. Buddhists probably don't care about it at all.

[Popeman38]

You must not have heard of the story of the white church secretary who was fired because she married a black man. Yes, in 2011 in the US of A. Her Tennessee church doesn't condone interracial marriages, so they fired her. One Kentucky church went so far as to ban interracial marriages/couples from membership. Once the story became public and there was much hew and cry, the church then reversed their ban. Here are the links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/debra-dodd-fired_n_1152356.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-marriage-150009470.html

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Pike_County_Church_Says_No_to_Interracial_Members_134768383.html

Also, the Supremes have upheld a religious organizations right to hire and fire regardless of anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular organizations. So religious organizations get a pass on doing the right thing if it doesn't fit into their religious tenets. So they get a state-sanctioned right to discriminate. Yay them.

Again, the teachings of Christianity do not espouse differentiation of the races. There is no core tenet that says inter-racial marriage is a sin. However, a core tenet is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is why churches should have the right to deny the use of the church for gay marriage and not be forced to approve of them. Doesn't mean the state has to follow.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nor did your point refute LSF's.

When she makes a philosophical statement that is at best subjective and the majority of humanity past and present disagrees, then IMO here is something to that. You obviously disagree, but your disagreement doesn't prove you right any more than it did her.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 12:32 PM ----------

Again, the teachings of Christianity do not espouse differentiation of the races. There is no core tenet that says inter-racial marriage is a sin. However, a core tenet is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is why churches should have the right to deny the use of the church for gay marriage and not be forced to approve of them. Doesn't mean the state has to follow.

Agreed.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Again, the teachings of Christianity do not espouse differentiation of the races. There is no core tenet that says inter-racial marriage is a sin.

I can cite a number of verses that disagree with that statement.

However, a core tenet is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is why churches should have the right to deny the use of the church for gay marriage and not be forced to approve of them. Doesn't mean the state has to follow.

I don't agree, necessarily, that it is a core tenet of Christianity. If Paul had won the day, it likely would have been impermissable for Christians to marry at all.

I do agree that Churches should not - would not - be forced to perform marriages between homosexuals. I also believe that Churches that believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin should not be forced to perform them.

[Major Harris]

Also, the Supremes have upheld a religious organizations right to hire and fire regardless of anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular organizations. So religious organizations get a pass on doing the right thing if it doesn't fit into their religious tenets. So they get a state-sanctioned right to discriminate. Yay them.

You either want church and government intertwined or you don't

[DjTj]

It might, but the issue of homosexuality is consistent throughout scripture, and I would argue that and "evolution" in that direction would be corrected in time.

The Bible is also very consistent on forbidding women pastors, but many churches seem to be moving away from that restriction as well. There are a lot of these issues where this is a divide among denominations and congregations, and I would hesitate to call any particular interpretation the "true nature" of Christian teaching with absolute certainty. We can never be completely sure of our current doctrinal interpretation of every detail, at least not in this world.

[LadySkinsFan]

When she makes a philosophical statement that is at best subjective and the majority of humanity past and present disagrees, then IMO here is something to that. You obviously disagree, but your disagreement doesn't prove you right any more than it did her.

Religion is not an absolute, it is a philosophy, and it is subjective at best also. Your religious beliefs do not trump my non-religious beliefs, except where the Supremes give a pass to religions having to conform to non-discrimination laws. You cannot prove I'm right any more than I can prove you are right, although my belief in the concrete rule of law may have more foundation than your belief in something created in man's mind.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who has ever actually read The Bible. Paul's views on marriage are rather out there.

1 Corinthians 7:25-35

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I can cite a number of verses that disagree with that statement.

And their exceptions simply prove the rule as they stand as outliers to the consistent Christian teaching and the scripture themselves.

I don't agree' date=' necessarily, that it is a core tenet of Christianity. If Paul had won the day, it likely would have been impermissable for Christians to marry at all.[/quote']

But it is, man and woman together are made in the image of God and in their union we see the fulfillment of God's desire for creation, this is consistent from Genesis 2 onward.

I do agree that Churches should not - would not - be forced to perform marriages between homosexuals. I also believe that Churches that believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin should not be forced to perform them.

Agreed

[LadySkinsFan]

Again, the teachings of Christianity do not espouse differentiation of the races. There is no core tenet that says inter-racial marriage is a sin. However, a core tenet is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is why churches should have the right to deny the use of the church for gay marriage and not be forced to approve of them. Doesn't mean the state has to follow.

No one is forcing churches to do anything they don't want to do or approve. And the state shouldn't follow religious doctrine at all, because we don't have a state-approved church.

Marriage is a civil construct not a religious construct. It's just that simple.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who has ever actually read The Bible. Paul's views on marriage are rather out there.

1 Corinthians 7:25-35

Is it really that "out there"? People often wonder about the Catholic teaching of priestly celibacy....you just stated it.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 12:46 PM ----------

No one is forcing churches to do anything they don't want to do or approve. And the state shouldn't follow religious doctrine at all' date=' because we don't have a state-approved church.[/quote']

No, we're just called hate filled if we don't. What's more is that there is NO law that forbids us from following through with our convictions into the public life, any more than there is a law that forbids you from following through with your philosophical convictions into the public life.

Marriage is a civil construct not a religious construct. It's just that simple.

Well, it isn't...so it isn't.

[Forehead]

I don't know, I've always thought of the concept of marriage as a religious construct; I associate marriage with the church, synagogue, etc. I associate "civil construct" as getting a pair of witnesses and going to the justice of the peace.

[rick1796]

my true opnion on this is the word "marraige" should be stripped from every government record and replaced with civil union. Marriage, Katb el-Ketāb, Vivaaham, are all words for these civil unions (we tend to just say Islamic marriage, or Hindu marraige but they are actually a little different) based on traditional religious practices and therefore should have no part in our government. We should recognise all civil unions equally ( a benefit to the people and the government as civil unions create stability and play a large role in freeing the participants to pursue more risky livings. . .i.e. using your civil partners health insurance makes it easier for a person to start a small business etc.) or recognise none at all. Either way leaving us on equal footing. Should a person want any of the afor mentioned titles along with their civil union they need to take that up with the appropriate religious practitioner. A decidedly non-government issue.

[Koolblue13]

I don't know, I've always thought of the concept of marriage as a religious construct; I associate marriage with the church, synagogue, etc. I associate "civil construct" as getting a pair of witnesses and going to the justice of the peace.

there are a lot of religious gays who find it important to have equal rights and a lot of churches who do too.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Religion is not an absolute, it is a philosophy, and it is subjective at best also. Your religious beliefs do not trump my non-religious beliefs, except where the Supremes give a pass to religions having to conform to non-discrimination laws. You cannot prove I'm right any more than I can prove you are right, although my belief in the concrete rule of law may have more foundation than your belief in something created in man's mind.

LoL! The concrete rule of law is something created in the mind of man. You say my religion is but a philosophy therefore I have just as much a right to try and enact my philosophy into law as you do yours. This is the hypocrisy of your position. Philosophy is not absolute either, and neither do your philosophical beliefs trump mine simply because you hold them.

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't know, I've always thought of the concept of marriage as a religious construct; I associate marriage with the church, synagogue, etc. I associate "civil construct" as getting a pair of witnesses and going to the justice of the peace.

In the US of A, marriage is a civil construct in that a couple has to get a state/government issued marriage license for the marriage to be legal. And that's true whether a couple has a religious ceremony or goes to the justice of the peace. That is fact.

[Koolblue13]

LoL! The concrete rule of law is something created in the mind of man. You say my religion is but a philosophy therefore I have just as much a right to try and enact my philosophy into law as you do yours. This is the hypocrisy of your position.

Do you think the Christians have a right to make laws, that impact the rights of every other American?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Do you think the Christians have a right to make laws, that impact the rights of every other American?

That is the nature of our Republic, and this same right is given to all.