Churches, Christians and Gay Rights

[Tarheel Baptist]

The OP about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings is simply the next step  toward the homosexual  agenda masked as an equality issue.

You keep saying that, but you don't support it, and it doesn't make any sense. What homosexual agenda are you talking about? It sounds like nutty conspiracy theory junk to me.

I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community, and while some of them are politically active, they sure don't all agree on any agenda, other than to oppose R-74 this fall, which would repeal WA's new gay marriage law. And while some would like to get married, none of them want to do it in a church that doesn't want them.

The fact that there is a marriage amendment on the ballot goes to illustrate the gay rights agenda.

Gay marriage is already law in WA. It passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the governor. There is a campaign to put it to a referendum to overturn that, but it's by no means certain that it will get enough signatures, so it may not be on the ballot.

The church under fire for ahem...discriminating against a gay couple by not allowing them use of their buildings is another....
The photography company fined 6K for choosing not to work a gay marriage commitment ceremony...

The gay rights agenda is well documented and no secret.

You keep saying that, but I'm still not seeing any documentation.

The politically interested gays I know are conservative, liberal and libertarian, and of almost any party. Ok, most are liberal and Democrat, but that's normal for Seattle. They agree on gay marriage but on precious little else. Most do not favor getting married in a church that doesn't want them, or on getting pictures from a reluctant photographer.

Do others who practice immorality also deserve equal protection under the law?

Sure. Everybody does, if it doesn't involve committing acts of aggression against others.

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

No. I believe pagan temple prostitution, keeping sex slaves, and raping visitors to your city are condemned.

But if I believed it was? That wouldn't change my political position at all, because it isn't relevant to it.

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do others who practice immorality...

Whose morality?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...also deserve equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes. (See Amos.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?[/quote]

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.
[/quote]

Morality as identified Biblically.
But, pediphiles, polygamists.....practiced by consenting adults, after all.....those who practice beastiality.....should they have equal protection under the law?
See Andy.....

What sexual relationship, condemned in Scripture finds support in evangelicalism?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do others who practice immorality...

Whose morality?

Morality as identified Biblically.[/quote]

I've had a lot of people tell me a lot of different things, often contradictory, about what is Biblically moral. So, the question becomes...

...whose interpretation?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist][quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...also deserve equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes. (See Amos.)[/quote]But, pediphiles, polygamists.....practiced by consenting adults, after all.....those who practice beastiality.....should they have equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]See Andy..... [/quote]

??

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist][quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?[/quote]

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.
[/quote]What sexual relationship, condemned in Scripture finds support in evangelicalism?
[/quote]

"a lot less vocal about" ≠ "support"

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do others who practice immorality...

Whose morality?

Morality as identified Biblically.

I've had a lot of people tell me a lot of different things, often contradictory, about what is Biblically moral. So, the question becomes...

...whose interpretation?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist][quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...also deserve equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes. (See Amos.)[/quote]But, pediphiles, polygamists.....practiced by consenting adults, after all.....those who practice beastiality.....should they have equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]See Andy..... [/quote]

??

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist][quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?[/quote]

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.
[/quote]What sexual relationship, condemned in Scripture finds support in evangelicalism?
[/quote]

"a lot less vocal about" ≠ "support"
[/quote]

According to your answer about pedophiles, polygamy and beastiality, I guess your definition of immorality is irrelevant.

You have no problem with two men and three women who all love each other getting 'married'
A brother and sister who are in love could do the same?

What immoral marriages are evangelicals less vocal about?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]According to your answer about pedophiles, polygamy and beastiality, I guess your definition of immorality is irrelevant.[/quote]

I don't even think you understand my answer.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You have no problem with two men and three women who all love each other getting 'married'
A brother and sister who are in love could do the same?[/quote]

Do I have a problem with consenting adults signing a legal contract dealing with custodial agreements, property ownership, inheritance issues, medical power-of-attorney, etc? Nope. I don't care if you are man/man, man/woman, brother/sister, father/daughter, father/son, roommates, or a commune of all kinds of individuals.

Would I recognize all of those relationships as a marriage covenant in the eyes of God? Nope.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]What immoral marriages are evangelicals less vocal about?[/quote]

Stop moving the goalposts.

(And there are examples even of your new question.)

 

[T-Bone]

Without getting into a long debate about this issue...let me just say that I am in agreement with Tarheel Baptist and in  disagreement with the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" views and where they lead our society to.  But hey, I can be in disagreement on this forum and not turn into Invictus on the other forum!!! 8)

 

[Izdaari]

Morality as identified Biblically.
But, pediphiles, polygamists.....practiced by consenting adults, after all.....those who practice beastiality.....should they have equal protection under the law?
See Andy.....

Wait just a sec here...

How can pedophilia be practiced by consenting adults, when by definition, one of the partners is not an adult?

Similarly, how can bestiality be practiced by consenting adults when one of the partners is an animal? The animal cruelty laws, at least, would come into play.

Oh, and who is Andy?  ???

 

[Izdaari]

Without getting into a long debate about this issue...let me just say that I am in agreement with Tarheel Baptist and in  disagreement with the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" views and where they lead our society to.  But hey, I can be in disagreement on this forum and not turn into Invictus on the other forum!!! 8)

That's good!  :-*

Because, even though I like him, he's sometimes a bit hard to take, and not worth engaging on some matters.

 

[Izdaari]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

I didn't mean to say you discount your Biblical beliefs in your political views, but you obviously have a different hermeneutic than I do.....to take Scripture and say that homosexuality isn't considered sinful is quite a stretch, in many ways. Therefore, I don't think we have much else to discuss on this issue.

Here is a post I made on this subject on the 666:


I'm not advocating stopping homosexual conduct, only state sanction of homosexual marriage.
I'm assuming you understand my Biblical and moral opposition to the sin of sodomy, as the Bible calls it....so I'll approach it from another perspective.


Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, is the sole rieason for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

These are arguments made by secular as well as religious opponents of gay marriage recognition.hat you don't base your convictions on your Biblical beliefs

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Morality as identified Biblically.
But, pediphiles, polygamists.....practiced by consenting adults, after all.....those who practice beastiality.....should they have equal protection under the law?
See Andy.....

Wait just a sec here...

How can pedophilia be practiced by consenting adults, when by definition, one of the partners is not an adult?

Similarly, how can bestiality be practiced by consenting adults when one of the partners is an animal? The animal cruelty laws, at least, would come into play.

Oh, and who is Andy?  ???

My post said polygamy was after all practiced by consenting adults....at least that was my intention.
You're not old enough to get the Andy reference....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

You did say, as I re-read your post, that even if you believed homosexuality was a skin that it wouldn't  change yourolitical position, that it wasn't relevant.
With all due deference, how could you not place the ordinances of Jscripture as the foundation for all of your life experience?

And the reference in John you quoted was about persecution....if they persecuted me, Jesus Said, they will also persecute you.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Without getting into a long debate about this issue...let me just say that I am in agreement with Tarheel Baptist and in  disagreement with the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" views and where they lead our society to.  But hey, I can be in disagreement on this forum and not turn into Invictus on the other forum!!! 8)

Thou art a wise man.... 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]According to your answer about pedophiles, polygamy and beastiality, I guess your definition of immorality is irrelevant.

I don't even think you understand my answer.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You have no problem with two men and three women who all love each other getting 'married'
A brother and sister who are in love could do the same?[/quote]

Do I have a problem with consenting adults signing a legal contract dealing with custodial agreements, property ownership, inheritance issues, medical power-of-attorney, etc? Nope. I don't care if you are man/man, man/woman, brother/sister, father/daughter, father/son, roommates, or a commune of all kinds of individuals.

Would I recognize all of those relationships as a marriage covenant in the eyes of God? Nope.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]What immoral marriages are evangelicals less vocal about?[/quote]

Stop moving the goalposts.

(And there are examples even of your new question.)
[/quote]

Perhaps I didn't understand, splain it to me.

So, in your opinion,  state approval or sanction of marriage is unnecessary and misplaced?

YOU are the one stated such, I merely asked for examples.
What are some examples, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

 

[Izdaari]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

You did say, as I re-read your post, that even if you believed homosexuality was a skin that it wouldn't  change yourolitical position, that it wasn't relevant.
With all due deference, how could you not place the ordinances of Jscripture as the foundation for all of your life experience?

And the reference in John you quoted was about persecution....if they persecuted me, Jesus Said, they will also persecute you.

Yes, I did say that, and I meant it. Because, while I do believe my religious beliefs are correct, else I wouldn't believe them, that doesn't give me the right to impose them on others by force... and that's what government is, force. As Mao Tse Tung said, "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Many (small "d") democratic politicians believe that too, but they wouldn't say it, and Mao did.

We have a nation that's based on freedom of religion, and that doesn't include just Christians: Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, even Satanists all have just as much right to practice their beliefs as we do, so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And if one of those other groups should gain a majority, what then? Would we feel comfortable with them imposing their beliefs on us? If not, then the Golden Rule of do as you would be done by applies.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]What immoral marriages are evangelicals less vocal about?

Stop moving the goalposts.

(And there are examples even of your new question.)

YOU are the one stated such, I merely asked for examples.

What are some examples, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

No. I stated that there are "other sexual relationships." That is not "immoral marriages." (Thus the fairly obvious point that you are moving the goalposts.)

As for examples: heterosexual couples shacking up, casual sexual relationships among heterosexuals, and (with your moved goalposts), marriages between believing individuals who are divorced but not on Biblical grounds. For that matter, you could even through in adulterers, just so long as it's heterosexual adultery.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

You did say, as I re-read your post, that even if you believed homosexuality was a skin that it wouldn't  change yourolitical position, that it wasn't relevant.
With all due deference, how could you not place the ordinances of Jscripture as the foundation for all of your life experience?

And the reference in John you quoted was about persecution....if they persecuted me, Jesus Said, they will also persecute you.

Yes, I did say that, and I meant it. Because, while I do believe my religious beliefs are correct, else I wouldn't believe them, that doesn't give me the right to impose them on others by force... and that's what government is, force. As Mao Tse Tung said, "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Many (small "d") democratic politicians believe that too, but they wouldn't say it, and Mao did.

We have a nation that's based on freedom of religion, and that doesn't include just Christians: Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, even Satanists all have just as much right to practice their beliefs as we do, so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And if one of those other groups should gain a majority, what then? Would we feel comfortable with them imposing their beliefs on us? If not, then the Golden Rule of do as you would be done by applies.

What in the world does the gay marriage amendment have to do with religious freedom?
I didn't know immorality was a religion.
What if bank robbers form a religion that say heists are a religious ritual?

I am for religious freedom, for everyone.
I am against government sanction of one religion over another.
I am also against government sanctioning immorality.

Since I'm not in charge, some governments have done both from time to time.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]What immoral marriages are evangelicals less vocal about?

Stop moving the goalposts.

(And there are examples even of your new question.)

YOU are the one stated such, I merely asked for examples.

What are some examples, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

No. I stated that there are "other sexual relationships." That is not "immoral marriages." (Thus the fairly obvious point that you are moving the goalposts.)

As for examples: heterosexual couples shacking up, casual sexual relationships among heterosexuals, and (with your moved goalposts), marriages between believing individuals who are divorced but not on Biblical grounds. For that matter, you could even through in adulterers, just so long as it's heterosexual adultery.

Certainly all people have equal protection under the law....the constitution applies even to serial killers.....but the perversions don't deserve protection under the law.

I didn't move the goalposts just responded to YOUR post...which is a diversion from the issue.
No evangelical I know Issa proponent of any of the things you listed.
If there was an amendment giving special status to serial fornicators, I'd vote against it......


And, I basically agree with you about government sanctioned marriage.....but sine we live in the real world and not Libertarian Land, I'm just playing the hand I'm dealt.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

OK, that helps me gain perspective.
My position and action on this and other moral issues are based on my Biblical belief.
And, obeying Scripture affects all aspects of my life, including political action.

And I too believe in obeying Scripture to the best of my admittedly imperfect understanding. But I do not believe, and never have believed, in using the force of government to make others obey them. Nor do I believe that Scripture enjoins me to coerce others in that way. Jesus never did, and as He said, "A servant is not greater than his master."

I think if we believe others ought to behave more like Christians, the way to accomplish that is not through the force of law, but through the Great Commission.

Let's not follow the Muslim example of making our Scriptures the law of the land, but rejoice in a pluralistic society that allows everyone to practice their own faith and morality so long as they don't aggress against others.

You did say, as I re-read your post, that even if you believed homosexuality was a skin that it wouldn't  change yourolitical position, that it wasn't relevant.
With all due deference, how could you not place the ordinances of Jscripture as the foundation for all of your life experience?

And the reference in John you quoted was about persecution....if they persecuted me, Jesus Said, they will also persecute you.

Yes, I did say that, and I meant it. Because, while I do believe my religious beliefs are correct, else I wouldn't believe them, that doesn't give me the right to impose them on others by force... and that's what government is, force. As Mao Tse Tung said, "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Many (small "d") democratic politicians believe that too, but they wouldn't say it, and Mao did.

We have a nation that's based on freedom of religion, and that doesn't include just Christians: Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, even Satanists all have just as much right to practice their beliefs as we do, so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And if one of those other groups should gain a majority, what then? Would we feel comfortable with them imposing their beliefs on us? If not, then the Golden Rule of do as you would be done by applies.

Maybe you should start a thread about theocracy and religious freedom if you think it deserves a discussion here. I don't think there would be a lot of controversy in principle, at least.

 

[Izdaari]

Maybe you should start a thread about theocracy and religious freedom if you think it deserves a discussion here. I don't think there would be a lot of controversy in principle, at least.

Good suggestion. That could be an interesting discussion.  8)