Gay Marriage Revisited

[JakeStarkey]

Your only hope is repentance and returning to the Christian faith.

Again, what church, denomination, or cult, are you a member of? ....

A false, impertinent question that reveals your stubborn sin on turning you back on Jesus. Turn to Jesus, infidel.

 

[Sunni Man]

A false, impertinent question that reveals your stubborn sin on turning you back on Jesus. Turn to Jesus, infidel.

There are soo many to chose from.

Which one do you belong to? .....

 

[The Irish Ram]

The problem lies within the vilifying of anyone who does not accept gay marriage and the ability to be sued for refusing to marry gays. The push is for churches to embrace marriage between anybody. That was the problem with Pergamus.
Pergamus means mixed or objectionable marriage. In historical context, when Babylon was over run, it's priests migrated to Pergamus and then to Rome, and brought their idols with them. A new religion was formed by marrying the worship of God, with the worship of idols.
Today a perfect example would be Chrislam, or a church that has mingled their worship of God, with the politically correct world of anything goes...... .

 

[Mindlight]

The problem lies within the vilifying of anyone who does not accept gay marriage and the ability to be sued for refusing to marry gays. The push is for churches to embrace marriage between anybody. That was the problem with Pergamus.
Pergamus means mixed or objectionable marriage. In historical context, when Babylon was over run, it's priests migrated to Pergamus and then to Rome, and brought their idols with them. A new religion was formed by marrying the worship of God, with the worship of idols.
Today a perfect example would be Chrislam, or a church that has mingled their worship of God, with the politically correct world of anything goes...... .

Yes agree with this. Civil contracts between whoever for whatever reason are about protecting property rights and the rights of involved minors for example. If 2 gays have such a contract it means nothing in terms of the church but it does mean that basic rights to hold property are respected.

So there is an in practice separation in most places between what the bible and true churches say about homosexual practice and the civil contracts by which the state endorses legal commitments between 2 or more parties.

That said I have no problem about my marriage in a church also including a civil dimension. My problem comes from being told that a church must accept anything that would receive the states support as a civil contract.

The problems in forcing the equating a civil contract with a Christian marriage are:

1) A civil contract is something that has the authority of the civil community of which we are members of but which does not have Gods authority and the endorsement of the Christian body of which we are members. If the state forces this acceptance it does so in defiance of the church and God and therefore the marriage remains invalid
2) Homosexual practice is detestable to God so directly endorsing its practice by affirming a gay relationship is a blasphemy enshrined into law.
3) It is a matter of freedom of religion and speech that people should be able to decide the rule by which they endorse or refuse marriages. So non Christian liberal churches may choose to do this but everyone knows them for their worldliness anyway but a true church could never do this and should not be forced.
4) I see this trend towards gay Marriage in terms of a broader deChristianisation of the state and its laws and a movement towards a pluralistic vision that is in fact intolerant of true Christians.

 

[DriftingSand]

I know it's been discussed before here, but with the USSC getting ready to weigh in I though it might be entertaining to take another whack at it.

Throughout the time while this subject has been in the public consciousness, I have never heard anyone else express views that are the same as mine, so here goes.

The "institution of marriage" that is created by any Church is NOT THE SAME as the "institution of marriage" that is created by the State.

Examples:

(1) I get married by a Roman Catholic priest, then get divorced by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under the laws of the Church I am still married. Under the laws of Pennsylvania I am divorced. If I remarry, the Church condemns me for bigamy.

(2) I get married by a justice of the peace. The Catholic Church does not recognize that marriage. My kids are illegitimate. Under the rules of the Church, I am free to divorce and re-marry, if I like.

(3) I get married by a priest. Six weeks later I realize that my wife and I had totally different views on marriage, family, procreation, etc. I go to the Church and have my marriage annulled. According to the Church, I was NEVER MARRIED. According to Pennsylvania I am still married.

The point being...

These are two different institutions, and it shouldn't really matter to the Church what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania thinks, and vice versa.

The perversity that should be addressed is this: Church priests, ministers, and rabbis should NOT HAVE THE POWER to marry someone in the eyes of the State. Two separate ceremonies should be required, because the couple is entering into two different types of commitments and two different institutions.

Bottom line...
It should not matter to the Church if the State decides to recognize other types of relationships as "marriages." It is none of their business or concern.

The State takes no notice of the SEXUAL ACTIVITY of people who marry (except to the extent that living children come out of it), and the forms and frequency of the sexual activity of married people is totally irrelevant to the State, while it may have grave moral consequence in the Church. But it doesn't matter, does it?

Using your logic, then, nobody who belongs to a religious community should be forced or coerced into accepting a "State" marriage as legitimate and should not be punished in any way, shape, or manner if they discriminate based on their religious views.

 

[Politico]

Gov. Snyder Michigan Will Recognize About 300 Gay Marriages - ABC News

Only a matter of time before it is legal for gay people to get married.

Only a matter of time? What rock have you been living under?

 

[PratchettFan]

The problem lies within the vilifying of anyone who does not accept gay marriage and the ability to be sued for refusing to marry gays. The push is for churches to embrace marriage between anybody. That was the problem with Pergamus.
Pergamus means mixed or objectionable marriage. In historical context, when Babylon was over run, it's priests migrated to Pergamus and then to Rome, and brought their idols with them. A new religion was formed by marrying the worship of God, with the worship of idols.
Today a perfect example would be Chrislam, or a church that has mingled their worship of God, with the politically correct world of anything goes...... .

Yes agree with this. Civil contracts between whoever for whatever reason are about protecting property rights and the rights of involved minors for example. If 2 gays have such a contract it means nothing in terms of the church but it does mean that basic rights to hold property are respected.

So there is an in practice separation in most places between what the bible and true churches say about homosexual practice and the civil contracts by which the state endorses legal commitments between 2 or more parties.

That said I have no problem about my marriage in a church also including a civil dimension. My problem comes from being told that a church must accept anything that would receive the states support as a civil contract.

The problems in forcing the equating a civil contract with a Christian marriage are:

1) A civil contract is something that has the authority of the civil community of which we are members of but which does not have Gods authority and the endorsement of the Christian body of which we are members. If the state forces this acceptance it does so in defiance of the church and God and therefore the marriage remains invalid
2) Homosexual practice is detestable to God so directly endorsing its practice by affirming a gay relationship is a blasphemy enshrined into law.
3) It is a matter of freedom of religion and speech that people should be able to decide the rule by which they endorse or refuse marriages. So non Christian liberal churches may choose to do this but everyone knows them for their worldliness anyway but a true church could never do this and should not be forced.
4) I see this trend towards gay Marriage in terms of a broader deChristianisation of the state and its laws and a movement towards a pluralistic vision that is in fact intolerant of true Christians.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any church should be required to marry anyone. A Lutheran and a Jew can't insist they be married in a Catholic church, but it would be illegal for the state to refuse to allow them to marry on that basis. The Catholic church is certainly free to refuse to acknowledge the validity of that marriage.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I know it's been discussed before here, but with the USSC getting ready to weigh in I though it might be entertaining to take another whack at it.

Throughout the time while this subject has been in the public consciousness, I have never heard anyone else express views that are the same as mine, so here goes.

The "institution of marriage" that is created by any Church is NOT THE SAME as the "institution of marriage" that is created by the State.

Examples:

(1) I get married by a Roman Catholic priest, then get divorced by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under the laws of the Church I am still married. Under the laws of Pennsylvania I am divorced. If I remarry, the Church condemns me for bigamy.

(2) I get married by a justice of the peace. The Catholic Church does not recognize that marriage. My kids are illegitimate. Under the rules of the Church, I am free to divorce and re-marry, if I like.

(3) I get married by a priest. Six weeks later I realize that my wife and I had totally different views on marriage, family, procreation, etc. I go to the Church and have my marriage annulled. According to the Church, I was NEVER MARRIED. According to Pennsylvania I am still married.

The point being...

These are two different institutions, and it shouldn't really matter to the Church what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania thinks, and vice versa.

The perversity that should be addressed is this: Church priests, ministers, and rabbis should NOT HAVE THE POWER to marry someone in the eyes of the State. Two separate ceremonies should be required, because the couple is entering into two different types of commitments and two different institutions.

Bottom line...
It should not matter to the Church if the State decides to recognize other types of relationships as "marriages." It is none of their business or concern.

The State takes no notice of the SEXUAL ACTIVITY of people who marry (except to the extent that living children come out of it), and the forms and frequency of the sexual activity of married people is totally irrelevant to the State, while it may have grave moral consequence in the Church. But it doesn't matter, does it?

As a theological issue, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not forbid gay marriage. They all condemn homosexual acts (between men anyway, don't mention women, and none condemns the orientation minus the acts,) but no where do any of their holy texts say two members of the same sex may not marry. Rather this prohibition is merely infered because all 3 condemn the acts of homosexual sex. But all 3 also condemn murder and a lot more than homosexuality. Yet they don't claim then murderers can't get married. So why the theological emphasis on one relatively minor offense?

 

[hobelim]

So why the theological emphasis on one relatively minor offense?

Why? Because Christians never understood the figurative language used in the law or that Jesus died trying to reveal this hidden teaching to the common people who were excluded from comprehension. ,

"Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine." Mark 4:21



Manual of Discipline

When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].