Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[McCulloch]

Ah, but enter the government redefinition of marriage, and suddenly, while the church can still tell the students that they have to dress modestly, not drink, not smoke and generally behave themselves, they must NOW allow people to live together if they are married in the eyes of the government--whether or not they are in the eyes of the church.

I'm not sure I fully appreciate this example; perhaps you can clarify it for me. In this case, why couldn't BYU [...] simply include among it's list of prohibited activities open homosexual relationships? That would prevent gay married couples from living together on campus, no?

What is prevented...at more than BYU...is living together without being married. This would automatically prevent homosexual partners from living together, in the eyes of the church. Change the law so that gays may marry, however, and the government can...and WILL...force the church to allow homosexual 'married' couples to live in married housing. I've already been told that the lawsuits are written and ready to be filed.

And that would force BYU into a decision that it does not want to make. Is BYU a school exclusively for Mormons in good standing with the LDS church? If yes, then kick out the married gays from the church and from the university. If no, then accept that some of the students will live by a different ethical code than some of the other students.

Good grief, the government armed soldiers to enforce it's view of marriage on a bunch of Mormons, for crying out loud, with the intent to imprison the leaders, confiscate church and personal property, divide families, take children from their parents and destroy everything.

.........and that was five years ago. We won't go into what they did back when the 'army' consisted, quite literally, of half the armed services of the USA and the leader's name was Brigham Young.

Brigham Young was alive five years ago?

Here, again, couldn't the church simply deny use of the facilities for gay marriages? As a private organization, it should still have that right, no?

No. Lawsuits which have been filed and won against other church owned propeties have proven that one.

Then the problem is with the law. In Canada, where we have had legal gay marriage has been legal in some provinces for ten years (next Monday), churches are explicitly allowed by the enacting legislation to decide who to marry and who not to marry, for whatever reasons they deem suitable. Some have argued that this provision was unnecessary, they had that right anyway, but in matters of separation of religion and government, better to be safe than sorry. Surely the US lawmakers could come up with similar protections. How hard can it be?

[Bust Nak]

It's actually the very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights; that government should not establish a religion (that is, dictate what religious beliefs are 'legal' and 'official") and that government may not interfere with the free exercise of any citizen to practice his/her religion. That there are limits is quite true; they generally involve keeping other people from enforcing THEIR religious opinions upon others.

That's right. You acknowledged that there are limits, yet complain when you are forced by law, to stay within those limits.

Now here's the problem you keep ignoring: this isn't about (at least for me) forcing gays to abide by my religious opinion of what marriage is. It's about gays wanting to force ME to approve, RELIGIOUSLY, of same sex marriage. If that's not a blatant abrogation of the first amendment, I don't know what is.

You don't need to approve of them religiously to rent them your space. All that is required of you, is the approve of them secularly and regonised that by law, they are married.

That's the begged question, isn't it? Since when does a 'protected class' mean that it can force RELIGIONS to accept them DOCTRINALLY?

Since never. But a protected class DOES mean it can be forced on organisation to accept them in a secular context, such as the things you stated with provifing services/space/accommodation.

I see.

So...what's the difference between forcing a religion to accept gays because they are a 'protected class,' even though gay marriage is against doctrine, forcing religions to show public approval and acceptance (and to provide liturgical as well as physical goods and services even in wholly church owned facilities) and, say....

forcing atheists to attend church on Sunday, bow their heads for school prayer, singing hymns 'as if they meant it,' and making them deal with crosses and nativity scenes in the public park?

The most obvious one is the first (apart from provide liturgical, which would be doctrinal acceptance) is not a violation of the freedom of religion where as the latter one is.

Forget that you, because you think you are correct and thus are entitled to force your opinion on everybody else for their own good (wait...isn't that what y'all seem to have a problem with when this attitude is exhibited by theists?), what's the difference? Personally, I don't see one.

Perhaps if you seperate out provide liturgical bit? The providing physical goods and services in wholly church owned facilities bit is what I am insisting.

I see...so in the same manner then, as long as the atheist isn't forced to actually SAY the prayer, it's acceptable to force him/her to bow the head, say "amen,' and be stuck throughout it in public school?

No. That is not the same manner at all. It is exactly why I said as preachers are not forced to perform wedding ceremonies. Ceremonies are more than just words.

As long as he doesn't have to put the nativity set on his lawn HIMSELF, it's fine if he is forced to allow someone ELSE to put it there?

Sure, if he allows the public to put stuff on his lawn at all, then he must allow Christians to put nativity there.

As long as he doesn't have to glue the "What would Jesus Do" or the "Honk if you love Jesus" or the Christian fish (or cross) on his car bumper, it's OK for someone else to do it for him?

That's right. If he allows the public to stick stuff on his car at all, then he must allow Christians to stick fishes/crosses on.

As long as the American Atheists don't have to provide the pray-er, it's acceptable to force them to let the Baptist come in and open their meetings with prayer?

No, not while they are using that space. But if they let the pubic use their space, then they must also allow Baptist to use it.

It's the SAME THING.

I would only agree with my additional caveats.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You realize that gays aren't restricting this to people who are actually members of the church involved, right? As well, doesn't any organization, religious or not, have the right to deal with members who break the rules of that organization?

No goalpost moving - you said church members first, I say church members for consistence sake. As for your new contention. That depends on what the church is allowing for non-gays. If they allow non-gays non members, then they must allow gay non-members. If they disallow non-members in the first place, then they don't need to accept gays non-members.

I rather thought that one of the problems (for instance) with the recent Catholic pedophile priest scandal was that these priests were NOT held accountable and disciplined (and turned over to the authorities) for their actions, which violate every aspect and tenet of priestly morality and ethics there are. I don't think anybody figures that being a priest gives them license to break all the rules without consequences, no matter how silly YOU might think those rules are. Why would members of a church be able to break the church rules, and violate doctrine, and still be allowed full fellowship and access to all the privileges?

That depend on what rules you are talking about. What I propose is easy to understand, sexuality must not be a factor for consideration.

Translation: as long as they are dragged kicking and screaming into YOUR opinion of the way the 21st century should be, so be it. Here's the problem with that: it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, feels or beliefs, we are ALL in the 21st century. You do not have the final say...or even the majority say..on how people should behave in it.

You are talking to a moral subjectivist. I may not have final say on the law, but I do have final say on what is right and what is wrong.

As long as we don't interfere with someone ELSE'S freedom of religion, or do physical harm to unwilling participants (and to those who are incapable of consent) we certainly do.

Don't forget mental harm. That limits your freedom of religion too.

Those who claim that we don't, because they like THEIR religious opinions better than ours, are absolutely wrong.

That much I can agree with.

We are not interfering with your freedom of religion.

Granted. I accept this too.

Gay rights advocates, when they force us to change our beliefs and practices, are very much interfering with ours.

Only in instances where you go beyond the limits mentioned here.

"Marriage" should be divorced from government altogether; that is, the cultural and religious aspect of it must be. Let everybody marry...or not...according to their own beliefs. Let the government assign rights to civil unions...to everybody. Separate church and state.

But that just opens the door for discrimination on demand. I would be able to lawfully refuse services to you because I don't believe in "Christian marriages." Racists would be able to lawfully refuse services to others because they don't believe in "mixed-race marriage." You are willing to give up that protection just so you can refuse services to gay couples?

No. This isn't about discrimination, except for descrimination against religion.

This isn't about keeping gays out of rental housing, or health care, or survival rights, or tax advantages/disadvantages. That's the government's purview. This is about allowing churches to be true to their doctrines within their belief systems.

But the point is the doctrines in question do clashes with gays renting housing, getting health care, and until very recently, and still do in many places, survival rights and tax advantages/disadvantages.

It's not about me refusing to cater a birthday party because the parents are gay. It's about my church being forced to publicly support gay marriage when gay marriage is totally against our beliefs.

You don't have to support gay marriage to let church space out to gay couples. I certainly don't support Christianity when I sell my stuff to them.

...and heterosexual marriage is so integral to our basic doctrines that I don't see how it could ever be possible for us to recognize it AS marriage as we see it.

Does not matter, you don't have to recognize it as marriage as you see it, what you have to do is recognize it as marriage as the law sees it.

It would be like forcing orthodox Jews to serve pork at a bar mitzvah. Worse..it would be like forcing an Orthodox Rabbi to say Mass.

...Like forcing an atheist to baptize his children, personally.

More like forcing orthodox Jews to serve pork to atheists at a bar mitzvah, if they already serve pork to Jews at a bar mitzvah.
Or like forcing an Orthodox Rabbi to say Mass to Hindus, if they already say Mass to Jews.

Or like forcing an atheist to baptize his gay children, personally, if he already personally baptized his straight children.

[tokutter]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

Who is making such a charge? This is a legal issue that religion is butting into for no reason. These people should be allowed to get legally united. If they call it a marriage and you disagree, so what? They aren't imposing anything on you by being married according to the law.

How does this issue have ANYTHING to do with religion? Could someone please tell me?

Apologetics.

It's in the right section.

Marriage has always been, first, cultural and religious...and THEN the government appends rights and responsibilities to it. When the government tells a church/belief system/culture that IT must change the way it defines marriage in order to accomadate the government view, it certainly has an impact on (and therefore 'has to do with') religion.

...and before you get all strawman-y about this, this is NOT about forcing preachers to perform wedding ceremonies. It's about forcing religions to recognize marriages WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM that are performed contrary to their doctrines.

You know...like forcing them to support such marriages with goods and services, even as the people they are being forced to support are operating directly against the rules of the religion in ways, if it were not about 'marriage,' would NOT be required of them had the actions been against other aspects of the religion.

For instance:

You have a church school that says...no drinking on campus, no drugs, no smoking anywhere...and, oh, there's a dress code. No bare midriffs, everybody wears shirts, and if you race naked through the quad on game day you'll get kicked out. Oh, yeah...and if you ain't married, you ain't living together as if you were.

Now, the church that owns this school might be laughed at. It might be criticized...but nobody will argue that it's not the school's right (if church owned) to enforce such things.

Ah, but enter the government redefinition of marriage, and suddenly, while the church can still tell the students that they have to dress modestly, not drink, not smoke and generally behave themselves, they must NOW allow people to live together if they are married in the eyes of the government--whether or not they are in the eyes of the church.

The church which provides use of its facilities (for free or for a small fee) for weddings must now be forced to show that it approves of marriages it does not recognize by forcing said church to provide those facilities to weddings which violate doctrine.

The church which provides services (for a fee or free volunteer) to church members for any reason must now be forced to show support for marriages it does not recognize by forcing it to provide those services to weddings which violate doctrine.

....and the thing is, all this is applied with considerable bigotry and discrimination; no Catholic church is required to allow divorced heterosexual couples to use facilities and services that the church doesn't want it to...but let this couple be GAY, and everybody will be forced to it. That's discrimination against heterosexual marriages, and puts the lie to all the bushwa about how the government isn't interfereing with the free exercise of religion.

The whole thing is.

Get government out of marriage altogether. Period. [/u]

FEAR NOT Dianaiad....your leader/leaders will get a little ringy ding dingy in the middle of the night from the big guy/guys and you'll change to meet the times.....happened before.......yes....no.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[tokutter]

[quote="99percentatheism"]
There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?[/quote]


Why.....because you a little boy crying wolf ....in a sea of little boys crying wolf....you christians don't ADHERE to any of the stuff you preach.

What about DIVORCE....ADULTERY...both pretty bad things as far as marriage is concerned.....whats the christian ADHERANCE percentages on these things.

Your left banging the only drum you have left.......trying to margilize a minority......thats right show the lord how serious you are about the rules....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

99.....I think you and the christian community need to start right...the process...of reinterpretation......

[kayky]

It seems to me that a school such as Brigham Young University will have to decide just how important this issue is to them. If they accept no government funding (including financial aid to students), they can refuse admission to anyone they want.

[historia]

Change the law so that gays may marry, however, and the government can...and WILL...force the church to allow homosexual 'married' couples to live in married housing. I've already been told that the lawsuits are written and ready to be filed.

No. Lawsuits which have been filed and won against other church owned propeties have proven that one.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? There have been several instances where exactly this has happened.

I will be the first to admit that gay marriage is not a topic that I have researched extensively. It seems you have some kind of inside knowledge on this. Perhaps you can point those of us less well versed in these matters to some published articles (online or otherwise) that describe some of these lawsuits?

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?[/quote]


Why.....because you a little boy crying wolf ....in a sea of little boys crying wolf....you christians don't ADHERE to any of the stuff you preach.

What about DIVORCE....ADULTERY...both pretty bad things as far as marriage is concerned.....whats the christian ADHERANCE percentages on these things.

Your left banging the only drum you have left.......trying to margilize a minority......thats right show the lord how serious you are about the rules....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

99.....I think you and the christian community need to start right...the process...of reinterpretation......

OK. Awesome. You are one of those kinds of people that know exactly what a Christian should be like. Excellent.

Let's start with marriage since that is what this thread is about. We can address the bash aspects of your views somewhere else.

Marriage in the New Testament "for Christians," is man and woman/husband and wife.

So I see that you are completely supporting that view in your demands that Christians behave as Christians should. And that, of course, would put any support for some alternate configuration of marriage as honestly outside the scope of Christian truth.

Excellent demand pal.

And of course met.

Thank you.

Oh and also, anyone or any organization that would label hate, or bigotry or some kind of irrationality to marriage as immutably man and woman . . . for Christians would be in the wrong in this case. And more than likely guilty of a hate crime against Christians for suing them, boycotting their businesses etc., etc..

I can't thank you enough for your total support of Christian marriage as only man and woman. Please, also, be there for us as we get continually attacked for living (like you present) as Christians should.

That would make those that want to attack us for our "Christian consistency" as the bad guys.

Whew!

[99percentatheism]

It seems to me that a school such as Brigham Young University will have to decide just how important this issue is to them. If they accept no government funding (including financial aid to students), they can refuse admission to anyone they want.

Religions such as LDS, should obey the law of the land and at the same time teach the inappropriateness of certain kinds of behaviors that are antithetical to thieir religious views.

We Christians should offer them our understanding under the First Amendment. Theologically we are incompatible, but socially we must be supportive. We face a determined and driven adversary.

I have already addressed the alternate sexual lifestyles issue at my childrens private religious school. We are all sure that sooner or later "progressive" activists will get around to our school and do their thing to us.

What should happen, is nothing, towards these people. If they somehow find a teaching position within the school, we parents and Bible-Affirming staff will just stick to Christian truth and fend them off if they attempt to inject and infect orthodoxy in any way. Maybe, we will save them. Probably not. So our focus has to be the body of believers instead.

Jude and Peter have already laid out the framework with how to deal with these kinds of people. In Peter's case he advises that we stay away from them and their behaviors and just live as Christians should. He seems to believe that many people in society would support the Christians over the rabble rousers.

In Jude's estimation, he urges that we contend against them and that we just highlight their antithetical nature and focus on their actions and realize that they are not in anyway something we should condone.

The New Testament Testimony is clear, that from the foundation of The Church, Christians have been dealing with paganism, idolatrous factions and heresy coming at the Church from within. We see that now in total focus.

[99percentatheism]

Sexual behavior is being equated with race. Even in the common world of internet websites.

Actually, I believe falling in love with the same gender is being equated to race.

If you view homosexuality as simply sexual behavior then I can see why you're angry and confused.

You are entitled to your opinion. And I see it is rather partyline progressive. This thread is not about baiting, it is about the veracity of Christian life.

Now, if you can produce one single shred of evidence from the New Testament, incluidng the Gospels, that marriage is anything other than man and wife, you would be the first in history to do so.

As this will prove, your opinion is based on something other than reality and I am far from being confused or angry. But seriously, keep away from the personal taunts and employ the social justice you people decry so loudly. This will prove that the decent Christian position is that marriage is as Jesus defined it: Man and woman/husband and wife.

Mahalo

[keithprosser3]

There is no serious argument that the orthodox Christian position does not allow same-sex marriage.

The issue is whether that means that same sex marriage should be disallowed by secular law, and I think it is obvious from the concept of the separation of church and state that secular laws don't have to conform to the dogma of any religion.

It may be that gay Christians have to choose between getting married which is legal but 'a sin' or not getting married, forgoing the legal advantages of marriage but avoiding the sin (although what they get up to unmarried is hardly likely to be less of one!).

We are not talking about a law that forces gay people to get married, or even more absurd a law that forces people to marry someone of their own sex. The British version of this explicitly allows churches to opt-out of conducting same-sex marriages. There is no compulsion, only the new option of allowing gays to marry.

Opponents of gay marriage might not like the idea, but married or not, gays are going to live together and screw each other anyway. To any rational person, this is a mountain out of a molehill because it is a largely a matter of words, not of facts. Christians who want to avoid the 'sin' of being married to someone of the same sex can do so, making the issue one of personal choice and conscience as it should be.