Should Christians interact with Gays at all?

[BigBadWlf]

The will of the people always trumps gay marriage - everywhere that votes on it - votes against it.

You want the will of people? Stop trying to force gay marriage on them.

A generation ago bans on interracial marriage were popular
A generation ago segregation was popular
In the 1930’s lynching was not only legal but popularly supported
Jim Crow laws were popularly supported
The internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps was popular
The forcing of Native American children away form their families and into fosters care was popular
The sterilization of children deemed unfit was popular
There was a time when slavery was the popular thing to do

Did the fact that these atrocities were supported by popular opinion make any of them good or moral or just?

 

[mpok1519]

whats gross and perverted is people's will to power and abusing that power for great malevolence.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

It will go to us supreme court most likely again it wont be happening soon.

It will be in a very short time and I am sure it will in the next 4 years.

 

[mpok1519]

A generation ago bans on interracial marriage were popular
A generation ago segregation was popular
In the 1930’s lynching was not only legal but popularly supported
Jim Crow laws were popularly supported
The internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps was popular
The forcing of Native American children away form their families and into fosters care was popular
The sterilization of children deemed unfit was popular
There was a time when slavery was the popular thing to do

Did the fact that these atrocities were supported by popular opinion make any of them good or moral or just?

Bravo! Just bc something is popular doesn't mean its right, just or morally valuable.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Those voters didn't vote on the issue; the politician did.

Don't think that a politican's representation is EVER a good representation of the public's opinion.

I did research over PEOPLES' OPINIONS, not how POLITICIANS VOTED.

Uh no the voters did it - after one man a mayor in san fransisco went against state law and allowed something the people had already voted on - then 3 judges allowed it - and it was overturned by a state constutional amendment that cannot be overturned by those activist judges - that was the purpose of the vote. you think cause one wants gay rights they can trump a whole state election that is to ammend the constitution?

Dont look for it to be overturned.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

Uh no the voters did it - after one man a mayor in san fransisco went against state law and allowed something the people had already voted on - then 3 judges allowed it - and it was overturned by a state constutional amendment that cannot be overturned by those activist judges - that was the purpose of the vote. you think cause one wants gay rights they can trump a whole state election that is to ammend the constitution?

Dont look for it to be overturned.

They already stated it was unconstitutional and as such it would be overturned just as the CA attorney general and the Governor have stated. You will not be happy I am sure. An amendment cannot overturn civil rights that have previously been found to be guaranteed under the US and state Constitutions.

 

[BigBadWlf]

30 states have recently enacted bans on it - its split (not)

More states than that had bans on interracial marriage…I guess that made racism an acceptable thing

 

[Angel4Truth]

They already stated it was unconstitutional and as such it would be overturned just as the CA attorney general and the Governor have stated. You will not be happy I am sure. An amendment cannot overturn civil rights that have previously been found to be guaranteed under the US and state Constitutions.

Link please where they(the attorney general and the governor) said this recent vote would be overturned thanks cause if that were the case there would be no reason to even have a vote - and no "right" was ever given - the san fran mayor broke the law and allowed it

 

[Angel4Truth]

Gwenmead drop me a pm when you return to the thread so we can continue our conversation and thank you for your kind and civil discussion.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Parents rights and the family rights and children rights are infringed upon as they teach gays literature along with the rhetoric denouncing Christians formal role of marriage. No you hurt me by undermining my authority and my teaching by teachings gay sex in the public schools. Filling their minds up with perverted filth and ideology's that only 13million gay people believe in out of 3o5million that believe that's its between a man and a woman also to say that gay marriage doesn't make it right any how. It still grossly perverted and wrong.

This is a really odd understanding of "rights". No-one is denouncing one view just by telling people that another view exists, or by allowing that view to exist.

What you're really saying is that you're unhappy because your beliefs aren't given greater status and enforced as being better than others' beliefs. Just because you're not allowed to discriminate against others, it doesn't mean you're being discriminated against.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Uh no the voters did it - after one man a mayor in san fransisco went against state law and allowed something the people had already voted on - then 3 judges allowed it - and it was overturned by a state constutional amendment that cannot be overturned by those activist judges - that was the purpose of the vote. you think cause one wants gay rights they can trump a whole state election that is to ammend the constitution?

Dont look for it to be overturned.

Just like how those darn activist judges overturned popular laws baring integrated schools and interracial marriage.

 

[quatona]

Should Christians interact with Gays at all?

You make it sound like there are no gay Christians.

 

[gwenmead]

Correct.


No i wouldnt object -if I could be 100 percent certain that churches would not be forced to perform civil services and christian businesspeople would not be forced to partake in the "nuptuals" ie invitations - photography etc.. Churches forced to allow membership and recognize the gay unions and not be sued for discrimination if they preach against them ...etc.. thats most christians issue with it

I just explained above.

Okay. Thank you for explaining. I appreciate it.

I am in agreement with you that when gay unions are federally approved, churches and/or clergy should not be compelled to perform them, if a given church or clergy has a religious objection to doing so. Such would, in my opinion, violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. But take that as merely an opinion, as I am no legal expert.

Christian-run businesses should have as much freedom to turn away clients as any other business does, just as potential consumers have the right not to do business with a given company. Provided, of course, that a contract has not already been established between parties.

Unfortunately though you might be in the minority. Examples are easily shown where gays have pushed that envelope as far as they can.

That is very unfortunate. I'd be very interested in seeing some examples of cases in which that's happened. Do you have access to any links or info I might check out?

Again then i believe on that you are in the minority.

Quite possible. But I do have a slightly unusual position: I would rather see religious entities out of the legal marriage business altogether. I do not feel that religious unions should amount to a civil contract, any more than I feel that civil unions should be compelled upon unwilling religious officiants. Removing civil authority from religious institutions would, in my estimation, bolster separation of church and state more fully, benefiting both.

But again, only my opinion, and I am a bit unusual that way.

Thanks for your explanations, I do appreciate them.

 

[mpok1519]

State sanctioned bans arent always morally just; take the ban on interracial marriage, the ban on woman's ability to own land or vote for example. And state sanctioned institutions such as slavery were not morally just.

the ban on gay marriage falls within the same lines as these.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Okay. Thank you for explaining. I appreciate it.

I am in agreement with you that when gay unions are federally approved, churches and/or clergy should not be compelled to perform them, if a given church or clergy has a religious objection to doing so. Such would, in my opinion, violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. But take that as merely an opinion, as I am no legal expert.

Christian-run businesses should have as much freedom to turn away clients as any other business does, just as potential consumers have the right not to do business with a given company. Provided, of course, that a contract has not already been established between parties.


That is very unfortunate. I'd be very interested in seeing some examples of cases in which that's happened. Do you have access to any links or info I might check out?

Quite possible. But I do have a slightly unusual position: I would rather see religious entities out of the legal marriage business altogether. I do not feel that religious unions should amount to a civil contract, any more than I feel that civil unions should be compelled upon unwilling religious officiants. Removing civil authority from religious institutions would, in my estimation, bolster separation of church and state more fully, benefiting both.

But again, only my opinion, and I am a bit unusual that way.

Thanks for your explanations, I do appreciate them.

Lesbians have already sued a church in america for refusing to hold their civil union in a chapel (methodist church)

So do you really think it wont happen more and worse if gay marriage was allowed?

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.
"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."
The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.
"We were crushed," she says. "I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful."
Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. "We were so stunned, we didn't know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done," she says.
So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.
"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

A man in new mexico was sued for 6000.oo for refusing photography for a gay couple as well and i could go on and on - do you still need more links? Its already all happened here.

so much for "we promise not to force it in churches and on christian businesses"

 

[mpok1519]

People use the Bible in order to justify a ban on gay marriage; the Bible also has been used and quoted for the justification of sexism, racism, and slavery.

Thats doesnt make any of those things right.

 

[allhart]

There are a big number of heterosexuals that support gay marriage and they are increasing every year just as your ignorant and bigoted numbers are decreasing every year.

that because they been listen to that rhetoric as a kids. I walked away from God as a teenager. At the ages between 15-34 years I was believing this junk,but the more unmoral i became the more unhappy and broken i was upon my choices. I thought i was moral, but as i have said before. Your choices are self condemning. Your psyche is effected by your life style your heart becomes calloused and dead. You rationalize everything to have politically correctness.Its doesn't matter if its right or wrong as long as no one condemns your preferences. Someone has to test what you know what is right and wrong and if their was no God it wouldn't matter. Anarchy would be soul ly minded to how the individual felt at the time in society as whole and that's not true to be the case.

 

[b&wpac4]

that because they been listen to that rhetoric as a kids. I walked away from God as a teenager. At the ages between 15-34 years I was believing this junk,but the more unmoral i became the more unhappy and broken i was upon my choices. I thought i was moral, but as i have said before. Your choices are self condemning. Your psyche is effected by your life style your heart becomes calloused and dead. You rationalize everything to have politically correctness.Its doesn't matter if its right or wrong as long as no one condemns your preferences. Someone has to test what you know what is right and wrong and if their was no God it wouldn't matter. Anarchy would be soul ly minded to how you felt at the time in society as whole and that's not true to be the case.

Just because that was your experience does not make it true for all. I understand what you are saying, but there are people who go though life just fine, happy and all, not believing in a deity.

 

[gwenmead]

Lesbians have already sued a church in america for refusing to hold their civil union in a chapel (methodist church)

So do you really think it wont happen more and worse if gay marriage was allowed?

Thank you for the link. The state AG's determination (.pdf here) is an interesting read. It seems that the issue there hinged on whether or not the rental of the pavilion (not a chapel) was considered a public accommodation, or was restricted to members of the religious organization in question and hence, private (like a club's facilities would be). It looks as if the organization made the pavilion otherwise publicly available, thus was subject to anti-discrimination laws connected with public spaces in that given jurisdiction.

If the couple had been barred from marrying in a Methodist chapel, that would have been one thing: churches often restrict weddings to members only, as is their clear right as private organizations. Seems the above pavilion was in a rather more gray area: a space privately owned, but offered to non-members for public use. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

When same-sex marriage is legalized I suppose more suits will happen. But oddly enough, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing: such suits can serve the purpose of working out where the boundaries of church and state are. And I think that still benefits both, in the long run, though it may be troublesome in the short run.

But eh, that's just me.

Thank you again for the link. Let me know if you have others.

 

[allhart]

Just because that was your experience does not make it true for all. I understand what you are saying, but there are people who go though life just fine, happy and all, not believing in a deity.

Anarchy is solely minded to how the individual felt at the time in society as a whole and for now we believe in God as a Whole, but yes we will lose the culture war( we are on the decline) and be careful what you ask for, you may get. No one that is good will be here to hold back evil for evil will reign over anything good and at that point who care about who lives or dies