All the proof he needed
May 26th, 2009 2:24 pm · 8 comments
E-mail of the day, regarding last weekend’s bit on gay marriage:
The proof that homosexual marriage is wrong is found in the Bible and God doesn’t approve of it.
Why was Sodom and Gomorra destroyed to dust-homosexual conduct.
In Romans it is not approved. I understand that you do not believe that you will be judged for actions and life but you will.
Can’t argue with that. I mean, you literally cannot argue with that: I believe this and you may not believe it but it’s nonetheless true and nyahhh.
But it sort of buttresses the point, which was that people want to make laws based solely on supernatural considerations - and this, for a large group of the population, is more than enough.
For an even larger group, though - it isn’t.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Gay marriage
There are currently 8 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogArtie See
5/26/09
3:43 PM | Marriage in most societies is a religious ceremony. As a conservative Christian, I am opposed to same-gender marriage. As noted above, it is a violation of Biblical principles.
On the other hand, denying specific rights to specific groups of people opens the door to denying more rights to more people, and eventually some rights to all people. For example, why are children born out of wedlock given the same tax deductions as children born to a married couple? Why are unmarried heterosexual couples allowed to live together, which also violates Biblical principles?
The answer is to legalize civil unions. The same-sex couple would not be legally married, and without a religious ceremony no Biblical principles would be violated. They would be allowed the same legal rights and responsibilities as any heterosexual couple which would take out a government-issued marriage license but not participate in a religious ceremony.
Why do I believe this is the right answer? Because I have personally known same-sex couples who literally had no family other than their partner. I have personally known same-sex couples who were denied access to the one person closest to them when they were near death. Why should anyone be denied companionship with the person closest to them when they need it most?
I have personally seen how Christians who exhibit intolerance and even hate have driven non-Christians away from Christ. If our primary responsibility as Christians is to spread God's love to everyone, exhibiting hatred to any group of individuals will do nothing more than drive them away from any desire for a personal relationship with Christ. People become Christians because of love, not hate. |
easy
5/26/09
8:22 PM | Marriage in most societies is a religious ceremony. As a conservative Christian, I am opposed to same-gender marriage. As noted above, it is a violation of Biblical principles.
On the other hand, denying specific rights to specific groups of people opens the door to denying more rights to more people, and eventually some rights to all people. For example, why are children born out of wedlock given the same tax deductions as children born to a married couple? Why are unmarried heterosexual couples allowed to live together, which also violates Biblical principles?
The answer is to legalize civil unions. The same-sex couple would not be legally married, and without a religious ceremony no Biblical principles would be violated. They would be allowed the same legal rights and responsibilities as any heterosexual couple which would take out a government-issued marriage license but not participate in a religious ceremony.
Why do I believe this is the right answer? Because I have personally known same-sex couples who literally had no family other than their partner. I have personally known same-sex couples who were denied access to the one person closest to them when they were near death. Why should anyone be denied companionship with the person closest to them when they need it most?
I have personally seen how Christians who exhibit intolerance and even hate have driven non-Christians away from Christ. If our primary responsibility as Christians is to spread God's love to everyone, exhibiting hatred to any group of individuals will do nothing more than drive them away from any desire for a personal relationship with Christ. People become Christians because of love, not hate.
If civil unions are acceptable, why should your religious views dictate whether other people of faith can come to a different conclusion?
|
Artie See
5/27/09
7:15 AM | If civil unions are acceptable, why should your religious views dictate whether other people of faith can come to a different conclusion?
My views as a Christian should never dictate anything to anyone. The purpose of an evangelical Christian is to help lead other people to a personal relationship with Christ - something that will never happen if what they can or cannot do is dictated by Christians, because it makes people angry.
What I am proposing is a compromise. It gives same-gender couples the rights that they believe they deserve, while taking into account the beliefs of people of faith.
I know that compromise is a term that today seems to be so 20th century. But compromise is often necessary to preserve civility in a civilized society.
At the same time, "civil unions" do not compromise the beliefs of people of faith. Nor do "civil unions" compromise the rights of same-gender couples. "Civil unions" are a compromise that does not compromise anyone's principles. |
Shirley U Geste
5/27/09
8:02 AM | If you want religion to stay out of politics then keep politics out of religion. Look at the recent New Hampshire same-sex marriage debate. The Governor wanted protections for religous organizations who did not want to perform same-sex marriages. That was rejected by the homosexual community. |
StrobeSML
5/28/09
9:08 AM | Marriage in most societies is a religious ceremony. As a conservative Christian, I am opposed to same-gender marriage. As noted above, it is a violation of Biblical principles.
The issue, though, is not with the religious aspects of marriage. After all, not all marriage ceremonies are religious. A couple may be married by a Justice of the Peace, a judge, the captain of a ship or even an Elvis impersonator (though that last may be considered a religious ceremony by some). Other faiths don't have your objections.
The fact is that marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It is a civil institution that is offered by religions as a sacrament. However, the law is to look only at the civil aspects of marriage. The opponents of same-sex marriage try to frame this as a religious issue. However, the churches that see same-sex marriage as being against their belief do not need to perform the ceremonies. They have the right to deny same-sex marriage based on First Amendment rights in the Constitution. On the other hand, denying same-sex marriage in a civil setting without a rational basis would be a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection laws. |
Shirley U Geste
5/28/09
10:33 AM | QUOTE However, the churches that see same-sex marriage as being against their belief do not need to perform the ceremonies. They have the right to deny same-sex marriage based on First Amendment rights in the Constitution.
Do churches have a right to ignore the public smoking ban? Do churches have a right to not license their daycare and educational centers? |
StrobeSML
5/28/09
12:47 PM | Do churches have a right to ignore the public smoking ban? Do churches have a right to not license their daycare and educational centers?
Different situations. Public smoking and daycare/education licensing are not part of the tenets of their faiths. This is not the case with homosexuality and, by extension, same-sex marriage.
In the most analogous scenario that preceded gay marriage, interracial marriage, churches could not be forced to perform those ceremonies either. Eventually churches, on their own, relaxed their restrictions on interracial and interfaith marriages but this was not by government mandate. It had much more to do with pandering to a shift in public opinion. |
Shirley U Geste
5/28/09
1:30 PM | QUOTE Different situations. Public smoking and daycare/education licensing are not part of the tenets of their faiths. This is not the case with homosexuality and, by extension, same-sex marriage.
The education are tenets of their faith. It goes to what they want to teach and who they want to hire. Those tenets go against current employment law as well as public education law.
As for the smoking, think bingo.....
|
View Topic | Comment on this blog
