interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2006, 08:43 AM   #136
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:55 PM
[Q]This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. [/Q]

You are joking right?

The last state to outlaw marital rape was in 1993. Why was marital rape viewed as legal?

Marriage for the longest time was about PROPERTY. Period. Women in this country were not supposed to be able to own property. They were viewed as part of the property. In some states until the 1940's woimen were not allwed to enter into contracts without their husband.

Interratial Bans on marriage were outlawed in 1967(Loving v. Virginia). Activist judges was the cry of the protestors.



Marriage has been redefined in this country.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 08:59 AM   #137
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kimby
Why "nevermind"?
Because I can't delete my own posts when I make a mistake, but I can edit them to say "Nevermind!"

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:07 AM   #138
War Child
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 519
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Allrighty then.
__________________
kimby is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:49 AM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Well, that's it. Someone with a *simple* understanding of genetics would understand how homosexuality could be passed on genetically. An in-depth study of genetics would reveal *several* mechanisms as to how it would be possible.

It just amazes me the kind of misinformation that is passed on. Last I remembered, lying/"bearing false witness" was a sin too. Maybe "ignorance" gets a free pass in many circles, but not in my book.

Melon
Sorry buddy. Again, there are many scientists who disagree and I am just "summarizing" their findings. Again, a quick random sampling of this debate will give good arguments for both "sides" - and even more "mixed" answers.

While one liners are cute and get a nice round of applause from the peanut gallery - that does not make them true.

Again, I have no vested interested in the outcome of the "why is there homosexuality" debate. I say again, Because I believe in a fallen creation - the genes and environment for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is out of whack.

All things considered - I am actually leaning toward allowing gays to legally marry. I would not actually vote for it – but I certainly would not protest it. I personally do no think there would be so many gay marriages that it would “threaten” society. There is of course the argument of “where will it end?” Can we allow “group marriages?” Can we allow “incestuous marriages?” Why or why not? If they are in love and consenting adults? (I know this is already covered in another thread – no need to respond, it is not my main point)

However, I still believe the Bible (specifically the New Testament) is VERY clear on this issue – that homosexual behavior is a sin. I have a conservative interpretation of the Bible, and all conservative scholars agree – there is no ambiguity on the subject (why I accept a conservative interpretation is another debate). I realize that sin does not have a meaning for non-believers, but it certainly does for believers. And as a pastor – I would not perform gay marriages. I cannot and will not officially endorse what I believe God calls sin.

Does this mean that I would not love and accept the gay person as a brother? I most certainly would love him as a brother. And I would not hang his “homosexuality” over his head. I would simply point him (as well as everyone else) into the direction of Christ and let him and God work it out.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:07 AM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:55 PM
[Q]While one liners are cute and get a nice round of applause from the peanut gallery - that does not make them true.[/Q]

This is insulting to many here in this forum.

Many of us, straight, and gay, attend churches with Gay/Lesbian ministers and with Gay Married Couples, with children who are very happy and loved.

[Q]I would simply point him (as well as everyone else) into the direction of Christ and let him and God work it out.[/Q]

[Q]I realize that sin does not have a meaning for non-believers, but it certainly does for believers. And as a pastor – I would not perform gay marriages. I cannot and will not officially endorse what I believe God calls sin.[/Q]

This in and of itself is my biggest issue with Conservative/Evangelical/Born again denominations. They feel they have the ultimate grasp on right and wrong, and at the expense of the manner in which God has revealed himself to other denominiations.

How dare you imply with this statement that Christians who may embrace homosexual marriage be non-believers!!!! How dare you imply that if we as Christians do not recognize what you do as sin, we are non-believers.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:27 AM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]While one liners are cute and get a nice round of applause from the peanut gallery - that does not make them true.[/Q]

This is insulting to many here in this forum.

Many of us, straight, and gay, attend churches with Gay/Lesbian ministers and with Gay Married Couples, with children who are very happy and loved.

[Q]I would simply point him (as well as everyone else) into the direction of Christ and let him and God work it out.[/Q]

[Q]I realize that sin does not have a meaning for non-believers, but it certainly does for believers. And as a pastor – I would not perform gay marriages. I cannot and will not officially endorse what I believe God calls sin.[/Q]



How dare you imply with this statement that Christians who may embrace homosexual marriage be non-believers!!!! How dare you imply that if we as Christians do not recognize what you do as sin, we are non-believers.
Not what I said. Please re-read post.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:29 AM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Not what I said. Please re-read post.
If I do not recognize homosexuality as sin....your staement in and of itself implies I am not a believer.

No other way to read it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:38 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


If I do not recognize homosexuality as sin....your staement in and of itself implies I am not a believer.

No other way to read it.
I have to agree with that. I don't see any other way to interpret what you said.

I am a believer. I just don't believe that gay people being gay is a sin, or that who they are attracted to and who they love is a sin. The Bible might say so according to the way in which some people interpret it, but what I know in my heart and soul and mind about God and Jesus tells me in all other ways that what I believe is true. You don't agree with that but please don't question my integrity as a Christian AEON.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:46 AM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


If I do not recognize homosexuality as sin....your staement in and of itself implies I am not a believer.

No other way to read it.
1) Sin has no meaning to non-believers. This means that calling homosexual behavior a sin to someone who is not a Christian is a waste of time.
2) Sin does has meaning to believers, because if you are a Christian – you are to avoid it. (both liberal and conservative churches agree on this)
3) I have a conservative interpretation of the Bible, and this conservative interpretation has led me to conclusion that God teaches homosexual behavior is in fact, a sin. (liberal churches disagree – that’s their take on it, not mine)
4) Because I believe homosexual behavior is a sin, I cannot as a pastor endorse it.

How is this calling you a non-Christian? At worst - I am calling you a liberal Christian (but a Christian nonethless - as long you accept Jesus Christ - which I have posted several times in this thread)
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:50 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

This in and of itself is my biggest issue with Conservative/Evangelical/Born again denominations. They feel they have the ultimate grasp on right and wrong, and at the expense of the manner in which God has revealed himself to other denominiations.

How dare you imply with this statement that Christians who may embrace homosexual marriage be non-believers!!!! How dare you imply that if we as Christians do not recognize what you do as sin, we are non-believers.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 12:01 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
4) Because I believe homosexual behavior is a sin, I cannot as a pastor endorse it.


i still don't understand this point and what falls under "behavior." in my somewhat limited understanding, one of the points of sin is that it involves a conscious choice, that if we do not know something is a sin, how can our actions be sinful? likewise, if i do not choose my sexual orientation, how can it be sinful? this leads us to the point where the church is essentially saying -- and this has been the Catholic church's position, until recently -- it's fine for people to be gay, they just can't date and have sex and fall in love. but this is a huge spectrum of human "behavior," and it's not just about sex.

i would also argue that refraining from homosexual "behavior" would lead to other, greater sins -- example: the amount of gay men who cannot face their own sexuality, get married, have children, then affairs, and wind up doing greivous harm to several lives, not just their own. i've said it before -- it was this realization that to try to pretend to be straight and to continue to attempt to date women with the intention of getting married and having children because this was what was expected of me would have been the worst thing i could do, both to myself and to theoretical girlfriend/wife.

even if we are to take homosexuality as a sin, isn't honesty a virtue?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 12:19 PM   #147
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I cannot as a pastor endorse it.

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 01:39 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


This in and of itself is my biggest issue with Conservative/Evangelical/Born again denominations. They feel they have the ultimate grasp on right and wrong, and at the expense of the manner in which God has revealed himself to other denominiations.

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism? An ethos which at it's core says truth comes from inside, not outside ourselves, that all experiences and expressions are equally valid--all life choices equally conventional.

Has any major church leader, Christian thinker, prophet or teacher argued in favor of same-sex marriage prior to this generation?

Same-sex marriage as a political/social issue decided democratically in a free society is one thing, let the best man win. But to "do what is right in our own eyes" is not an option for believing Christians. My eyes included.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 01:49 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism? An ethos which at it's core says truth comes from inside, not outside ourselves, that all experiences and expressions are equally valid--all life choices equally conventional.

Has any major church leader, Christian thinker, prophet or teacher argued in favor of same-sex marriage prior to this generation?

Same-sex marriage as a political/social issue decided democratically in a free society is one thing, let the best man win. But to "do what is right in our own eyes" is not an option for believing Christians. My eyes included.

hasn't the church admitted to making many, many errors in its past? are you arguing for church infalibility? that tradition is always correct? that there's no value in rethinking the past?

i do appreciate the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage, and the marriage equality movement has never demanded that churches must change, only that people be treated equally under the laws of the United States.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 01:54 PM   #150
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



hasn't the church admitted to making many, many errors in its past? are you arguing for church infalibility? that tradition is always correct? that there's no value in rethinking the past?

Exactly and this is the problem with the "tried and true" method of thinking.

We'd still think the Earth is flat, women should just be child bearing creatures, and races shouldn't mix.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com