In response to:

Churches: Time to Fight!

Earl Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:04 AM
Perhaps the essence of this problem is the word "marriage." Any two people, regardless of gender or orientation, can make a legal contract committing themselves to each other. Marriage, is a commitment made publicly and before God and should adhere to different rules. The problem with codifying marriage as whatever anyone wants it to be, then marriage itself loses all relevance and meaning. As a Christian, I really have no objection to people doing whatever they want in their sex lives as long as they don't hurt anyone and keep it to themselves. Frankly, I'm not interested in how you canoodle. So, keep it in the closet and we have no problems. People should be free to enter into legal relationships without calling it a "marriage."
Wherewithall Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:33 AM
I do have a problem with how people decide to canoodle because it does affect society at large. The fruits of that effect is what is in front of the Supreme court today. It is the erosion of the family unit and the perversion thereof. No two ways about it. This kind of prevelant behavior did not happen overnight. When the righteous turn a blind eye towards this then that is the same thing as showing your approval. These individuals should be excluded from all church involvement and any leadership roles whatsoever. Finally being celebate is not a sin and one should not be too quick to judge on who is gay and who isn't.
Earl Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:38 AM
I agree completely about excluding them from church involvement, especially leadership roles. Being gay is no more a sin than being an alcoholic. It's the practice and not the inclination that is sinful. Churches can accept alcoholics but they shouldn't condone drunken behavior. The argument, "God made me an alcoholic so throw me a cocktail party" wouldn't wash with most religious bodies. Neither should, "I'm this way by DNA, so you have to accept my behavior." No, we don't.
Gilchrist Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 7:15 PM
The thing is, the government still issues a license for your church to perform it's rite. Why should the government refuse to issue a license for another church to perform it's rite simply because the two individuals electing to participate in that rite are of the same gender? That's the government interfering with those couples right to freely exercise their religion. When did one denomination receive a copyright on the word "marriage"? As long as the government is going to extend privileges and immunities to hetero couples, it should extend the same to homo couples.
Wherewithall Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:33 AM
I do have a problem with how people decide to canoodle because it does affect society at large. The fruits of that effect is what is in front of the Supreme court today. It is the erosion of the family unit and the perversion thereof. No two ways about it. This kind of prevelant behavior did not happen overnight. When the righteous turn a blind eye towards this then that is the same thing as showing your approval. These individuals should be excluded from all church involvement and any leadership roles whatsoever. Finally being celebate is not a sin and one should not be too quick to judge on who is gay and who isn't.
Gilchrist Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:09 AM
Who says marriage is a commitment made before god? That may be your religious belief, but why should your religious belief be empowered to deny that right to anyone who does not share your religious belief? What about their First Amendment rights?
Earl Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:33 AM
The First Amendment protects religious practice from the government. You cannot believe whatever you want and expect a belief system to accept you or condone your behavior. You have no right to conform a Church to your beliefs. You do have a right not to believe or to go to a religious denomination that accords with your beliefs. Meanwhile, don't try to make others accept your perverse interpretation of morality. We can still respect you as a human being while denying you marriage under our belief system. If the Federal Government tries to force this on the Church, it's violating the First Amendment.
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 1:11 PM
" You cannot believe whatever you want and expect a belief system to accept you or condone your behavior. "

Good point!

Do you have any evidence for your beliefs about god? Or were you just presenting more immoral bullshi+ in a context where is absolutely doesn't belong; among rational people discussing ethical policy.
Gilchrist Wrote: Mar 31, 2013 11:47 AM
" You do have a right not to believe or to go to a religious denomination that accords with your beliefs." Granted, my point, which you miss as well as the one atop your Klan capped head, is neither do you. There are several church groups which recognize and solemnize marriages of same gender couples. Why does you choice in religion get to trump theirs? The ultimate rational conclusion to reach is that a religious based argument cannot be used to sustain or deny the right to marry to same gender couples because there are religions on both sides of the question and the First Amendment prevents either from being used as a precedent.
Earl Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:07 AM
Should a couple find some spiritual guru who wants to call in the blessings of God, then it's between them and the guru but don't force churches to condone your interpretations of what is moral. Nor should people be compelled to respect your concept of what is right and moral. As I said, keep your sexual proclivities where they should be...private...and we'll all get along fine.

You can’t win the fight if you don’t put on the gloves.

A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that’s a truism, but not the churches of America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative -- and moral -- position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not...