Same sex marriage is not a church issue.

[Christianity in crisis?]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

How can I say I'm a Christian, but I don't believe what Jesus is teaching? Don't call yourself a follower if you don't agree with what God teaches.

You are misleading people, creating religion that is seperated from the Eternal Word.

To say I'm a Christian, but I don't agree with God is to tell Him you don't need Him. You make yourself a god. Blasphemy.

I want to have a I believe stamp on my forehead, but I have my own opinion, seperated from God.

Don't do this.

If you have same sex attraction fight it with prayers. Do it for the love of God (in a true sense). Say it in your prayers, often. Tell Him, ask Him to help you. He wants to help us, to give us grace we need to follow Him. Humble yourself before God. Don't be too proud to say, I, little me, need You, Heavenly Father, to help me, this little creature, You created.

[Ragingmoogle]

[Replying to post 181 by rosary]

I would call Same sex marriage a very serious issue for the church. But I think that some of us are targeting the problem from the wrong place.

If the law were to change reguarding marriage the people will continue in there ways no matter what. The real battleground is the human heart. Win the heart and actions follow.The definition of marriage is sacred. But addressing the issue at the top reminds me of a covenant Moses made at Sinai and that didn't work out so well.

Christians belong in politics but we should never forget that our enemy is not flesh and blood. We have lost the soul of our nation. That's what we need to fight for. And the battle isn't in Washington but in our backyards. Win the hearts and the rest cannot help but follow.

[shnarkle]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

I agree with only half of your assertions. I agree that it isn't a church issue in the sense that it doesn't matter what the State wants to do. I also agree that it isn't a State issue either, and the State has no business telling churches what to do either.

Some day I'm going to cross some line, and be labeled as a broken record, but it is important to note the actual meanings of words, especially in a debate group.

The words "marry; marriage" comes from a Latin word that means "to impregnate" This was something that both the church and the State agreed needed to be sanctioned for the welfare of society at large. Both the Church and the State could see that they had a vested interest in promoting a productive and healthy society through nurturing healthy and productive families.

For the church and the state, this is no longer the case. I no of no churches that are sanctioning pregnancies anymore, and obviously the State isn't either with this newest legislation. However, the State is still discriminating against single people in that since reproduction is no longer an issue it makes no difference to offer tax breaks based on marital status. Yet, this is still the case. Single people are being discriminated against based on their marital status.

However, I do not believe that more legislation is the answer. Instead, it would be far more effective to simply abolish the whole idea of having a State permitting process that is there to do nothing but collect revenue and validate people's relationships. Who really needs this in the first place except perhaps extremely insecure people? Obviously I'm not referring to anyone based on sexual orientation; just anyone that feels the need for validation by the State. Get rid of it altogether and the problem goes away all by itself.

It should go without saying that if it weren't for laws that prevent people from marrying whoever they wanted to, people would be allowed to marry whoever they wanted to. The problem is that no one can agree on what is allowable. Regardless, if there were no laws preventing black people from marrying white people they would have gotten married a long time ago; same holds true for gay people as well. Racial integration would have happened considerably sooner due to the fact that black people were making more money than they knew what to do with.

The problem? The laws on the books prevented them from buying homes in nice neighborhoods. They also prevented white people from selling these houses to them. As Booker T. used to say, "You can't hold a man down in a ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him". Slavery disappeared from most countries practically by itself, but we had to have a war, and even then we still had numerous laws discriminating against black people. The laws are a nuisance and a blatant hindrance to progress. Eliminate the privileged status and progress increases exponentially rather than the snails pace of adding one privileged member at a time.

[McCulloch]

The words "marry; marriage" comes from a Latin word that means "to impregnate"

The English word marriage can be traced back to between 1250 and 1300. It is derived from the Middle English word marien and from the Old French marier and ultimately from the Latin marīt�re meaning to wed. It is a derivative of marītus meaning conjugal. The Latin word for impregnate is fetibus.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 183 by shnarkle]

State recognized marriage is more than being just about insecurities. If it were, there would be no concept of common-law marriage. It is about rights and obligations.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 184 by McCulloch]

Some of the better lexicons point out that maritare means to impregnate, but "conjugal means essentially the same exact thing so nuff said.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 183 by shnarkle]

State recognized marriage is more than being just about insecurities. If it were, there would be no concept of common-law marriage. It is about rights and obligations.

I never implied that marriage was just about people's insecurities. No doubt is much more than that. What I was pointing out was that some people are insecure to begin with and this just aggravates their insecurities all the more. However, maintaining rights and fulfilling obligations are also play a large part in people's insecurities. If a man doesn't fulfill his obligations to his marriage, his spouse has recourses available that she wouldn't have were she just something on the side. She has rights she can exercise so she doesn't have to be insecure about it.