interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox said:
I was thinking.....

Would Christ be pushing for IDEALS or dealing with reality.

The only time he is violent, based on my recollection is towards the money changers at the TEMPLE.

The rest of the time, it seems to me, he looked at reality....

this sick need healing...shudder...even on the Sabbath....so he did against the IDEAL of the day.

He ate with the TAX collector, against the IDEAL of the day.

He accepted the gentile, against the IDEAL of the day.

I think GOD would love the ideal, and I dare say, there are people who make it in this word who fit the mold, but I also believe GOD a realist...look at the people he chose to work with...They were certainly not the ideal.....

There were many IDEALISTS in Jesus' day...I am not certain he hung with them.

Why is Billy Joel going through my head......

Good point. To add to it - Jesus promises to make us INTO the ideal. That is the common theme in most of my posts.
 
AEON said:


Good point. To add to it - Jesus promises to make us INTO the ideal. That is the common theme in most of my posts.

So did he say reject those until then? Because that's what seems like your common theme.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


So did he say reject those until then? Because that's what seems like your common theme.

What? :ohmy: Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.
 
AEON said:


What? :ohmy: Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.
Let's remember how Christian marriage was defined a century ago...
 
AEON said:


Genetic homosexuality cannot be passed down as a trait because of the very simply fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate. There is nothing to pass down because “the buck stop here.” – so to speak…

Your kidding, right? It most certainly does not stop there!

Everyone out there, please excuse me for using a genetically caused disease as an example, but...

I have a cousin who has cystic fibrosis.
The way I understand it, each of his parents (who didn't have the disease) carried a copy of the cystic fibrosis gene and a "normal" gene that "corrected" for it or "cancelled" it out--in other words it is a recessive gene. As long as a person procreates with someone who doesn't have a copy of the 'cystic' gene they won't have children with the disease.

If, as with my cousin, two people with a copy of this gene meet and reproduce, their chances of having a child with cystic fibrosis go way up.

I know, your saying "So what? What does this have to do with homosexuals passing it along genetically, etc".

Until fairly recently children with cystic fibrosis didn't survive to adulthood. No way to reproduce and pass on the gene...yet they were still being born.

So you *don't* have to have homosexuals procreating to have genetic homosexuality passed down as a trait...just two heterosexuals with the same recessive gene!

They will probably find that gene...eventually...

(I'm going on what I learned in science classes and what I've read on the subject(s) of genetics and cystic fibrosis, so forgive any errors--or correct them, if ya'll like.)
 
Last edited:
AEON said:


This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Sorry...my (admitedly casual) readings of historical articles, etc, indicate otherwise. Marriage has been repeatedly redefined in various ways for thousands of years.
 
kimby said:

(I'm going on what I learned in science classes and what I've read on the subject(s) of genetics and cystic fibrosis, so forgive any errors--or correct them, if ya'll like.)

You got it in one try :wink: except that, unlike CF, there might be several genes involved.
 
kimby said:
(I'm going on what I learned in science classes and what I've read on the subject(s) of genetics and cystic fibrosis, so forgive any errors--or correct them, if ya'll like.)

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
 
AEON said:


What? :ohmy: Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.


Hello to Aeon and all! Peace and blessings to all of you!

I am very glad that you wrote "Christian marriage" now, because when you previously wrote “Marriage is defined by God and nature”, I thought, wow! He is on a roll now .. not only have you upset gay men and women (and their supporters and people who love them) .. even if it isn’t your intention to do so .. you’d more than likely have happily married couples of other beliefs and faiths (eg Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans ..) hopping mad as well!

Another thing that caught my eye a few pages back was the bit about

"Then the Holy Spirit enters into us and begins to mould us into the image of Christ".

Long story short, I was baptized and brought up in the Catholic faith .. albeit not very strictly, I never felt anything forced upon me by anyone. Anyway, nowadays, I do not label myself with anything and don’t feel the need to belong to any religion. The only way I view myself is just a human being trying to live as decently and kindly as I can. And yet, I have experienced many times the ‘hand of God’ upon me. God, being to me personally as, the embodiment of love and compassion. I sincerely believe that I have had a 'Holy Spirit' experience … via yoga class! It was probably one of the most beautiful things that ever happened to me .. I actually bawled my eyes out all the way home because the happiness and joy was so overwhelming. The first thing my boyfriend at the time (whose parents are Baptist Christians) said was I had been touched by the ‘holy spirit’. Despite developing a severe headache anytime religion was discussed with his family, I couldn’t help but feel touched and comforted by his comment.

Anyway .. I do have a point! This experience more than anything else only enhanced and confirmed what I had always believed. My heart was filled with such intense love and compassion, that I could see it also in everything and everyone I looked at afterwards.

Maybe it's just too simplistic, but IMO, I've always believed that God's love extends to everyone, no matter who or what they are. To be so focused and consumed by another's sexuality, don't you overlook what is in the heart and soul of a person?? Isn't that the most important thing?

To live so rigidly 'by the book' seems to me so cold sometimes. But that's just me :)

ps I ramble too much
 
AEON said:


What? :ohmy: Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.

So is it your duty to try and make the entire country....follow your definition of "Christian Marriage". I did not realize we are living in a theocracy where "Christian Marriage" has to be established by the governement.
 
[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.
 
Last edited:
melon said:


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.
 
Last edited:
[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 said:
[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 said:


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 said:


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.
 
Dreadsox said:


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)
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:

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.
 
AEON said:
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?
 
Dreadsox said:


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 said:

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 said:



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.
 
Back
Top Bottom