Today's Ruling

[LinkH]

Had you actually read my position you would know I said the court could not make any other ruling than it did in my view. I do not take issue with the government ruling. To deny them rights to marry, protect property, help each other in medical crises, etc. does not make sense to me in the framework of a country that has religious freedom.

I don't follow your line of reasoning here, especially considering your religious beliefs. Since the founding of the country, 'marriage' was between man and woman. None of the founders would have thought otherwise. They'd have impeached the court if it had made such a ruling in 1800.

This isn't a civil rights issue at all. In the 1800's, a man who preferred men had just as much right to marry a woman as a man with normal sexual preferences. There was no discrimination based on 'sexual orientation' from the state. There may have been from potential marriage partners and their parents.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm pretty certain that most have heard that this argument is a lot like the previous argument against inter-racial marriages....right? That wasn't too long ago (in the 1970's). I found this about Bob Jones University during that time:

Although the Supreme Court never considered whether Bilbo, Candler, Barnett or Byrd’s religious beliefs gave them a license to engage in race discrimination, a very similar case did reach the justices in 1983.

Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.

This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, theseminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. According to Weyrich, “t was not the school-prayer issue, and it was not the abortion issue,” that caused this “movement to surface.” Rather it was what Weyrich labeled the “federal government’s move against the Christian schools.”~http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

....perhaps it just wasn't the appropriate time prior to then (for that to even be confronted). I do believe in God's timing.

 

[LinkH]

With almost every one of your posts, there is some kind of misinterpretation of the posters meaning or intention or some sort of unfounded accusation.

That is an unfounded accusation.

I just quoted an example of it. I responded to your idea that you didn't like Christians telling other people when they did something wrong, and I pointed out that the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles did this and the Bible tells us to exhort one another, and you said I thought you should listen to me because I'm a man. Other responses of yours to me in the thread are the same way. The response about people not being passionate about the poor because it's not illegal comes to mind. The judgments of the Duggar's motives come to mind as well.

Yes of course. I hate men. Isn't that what you want to hear?

Your comments were of the woman v. man variety.

 

[mkgal1]

In regards to our founding fathers. The language of our declaration of independence is based on this:


The Declaration specifically mentions three rights which human beings possess by birth or by nature-life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one may rightfully deny us these things. Nor, since they are "unalienable," may we rightfully surrender them.

It is worth remarking that the Declaration does not proclaim a right to happiness itself. Happiness is not something we have by nature. Rather we are born with minds and talents that we may use to pursue happiness.

The right of conscience means religious freedom. As explained in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776: "religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." Each of us has a right to worship God in his own way and time.

....and, of course, those rights have responsibility--one person's rights ought not trample on another's (example==Westboro gang trampling on a grieving group's rights of protection against hate).

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

edit.....

 

[WolfGate]

I'm pretty certain that most have heard that this argument is a lot like the previous argument against inter-racial marriages....right? That wasn't too long ago (in the 1970's). I found this about Bob Jones University during that time:



....perhaps it just wasn't the appropriate time prior to then (for that to even be confronted). I do believe in God's timing.

BJU has always been, IMHO, a fringe organization. Still, there is a big difference between the inter-racial arguments and gay marriage. At best you have to stretch the scriptures and add layer upon layer of assumptions to come up with support for blacks and whites not marrying. BJU's opposition was a clear case of trying to claim scripture supported the "norms" of society as they saw them. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has what reasonable Christians can and do interpret as clear and direct New Testament scriptures that it is not as God intended.

I do tend to agree with something Tall73 said here though. Our government is not the government of a country of only Christians, so I do believe allowing same sex couples the same legal and social benefits as married heterosexual couples is a legitimate decision. I wish there were some other name to distinguish the civil legal union from a church joined marriage, because we now have two definitions of "marriage". I recognize the danger in that statement of making Christians who perhaps were married at a clerk of court feel like their marriage is somehow inferior. That is not my point because if they have pledged before God to honor their legal marriage in service to him, even among themselves, then it is the same. Anybody who is married but not before God doesn't have the same marriage - regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[tall73]

I'm over the personal accusations and berating will simply ignore any more.

Accusation:

Because you're men, you think that women must listen to you. Ah, no.

We are quite ready for you to be "over" such accusations.

 

[tall73]

I don't follow your line of reasoning here, especially considering your religious beliefs. Since the founding of the country, 'marriage' was between man and woman. None of the founders would have thought otherwise. They'd have impeached the court if it had made such a ruling in 1800.

This isn't a civil rights issue at all. In the 1800's, a man who preferred men had just as much right to marry a woman as a man with normal sexual preferences. There was no discrimination based on 'sexual orientation' from the state. There may have been from potential marriage partners and their parents.

It is pretty straight-forward. I do not want the government making decisions based on religious criteria, because then they have to choose which religion. While the government certainly has a moral role given in Romans 13, etc. I do not think there is a clear moral consensus from a secular perspective on the homosexual issue. Or if there is it is trending the other direction. So what basis would they have to rule in favor of the position that the church takes?

If the church survived under Nero and Diocletian, and Stalin and Lenin, I think they can manage under a government that at least has some notion of religious freedom.

 

[mkgal1]

Still, there is a big difference between the inter-racial arguments and gay marriage. At best you have to stretch the scriptures and add layer upon layer of assumptions to come up with support for blacks and whites not marrying. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has what reasonable Christians can and do interpret as clear and direct New Testament scriptures that it is not as God intended.

My point is that I suspect that people felt much the same back then (prior to the acceptance of inter-racial marriages)....that the Bible verses were clear and direct *against* interracial marriages, and that they were just being reasonable about the Scriptures. There are still people that believe it's against "God's law" to intermarry.

Some that were used in that struggle were:

Acts 17:24-26: "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ..."

Because of their conservative Christian faith, essentially all anti-miscegenationists believe that every human is a descendent of Adam and Eve. However, they believe that at some point in history, God intentionally separated people into different races, each in a different area of the world.

The trial judge in a famous interracial marriage case appropriately titled "Loving v. Virginia" apparently agreed that racial separation was God's will and that mankind must not reverse that principle. He ignored the principle of separation of church and state as well as the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution when finding the Loving family guilty of miscegenation. Part of his ruling stated:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

• Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
• 
  Anti-miscegenationists typically interpret this verse after assuming that the Hebrews and Canaanites were of different races. Thus inter-marriage was forbidden on racial grounds. However, growing archeological and DNA evidence has revealed that the Hebrews originated as a sub-culture of Canaanites. Most theologians believe that the marriage prohibition in Genesis was grounded on a concern that the Hebrews would adopt the Pagan polytheistic religious beliefs and practices of nearby tribes if they were to marry outside of their culture. Thus the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differences.
• • Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
  • 
    This is one of the passages in the Pentateuch -- the first five books in the Bible -- in which God orders the ancient Hebrews to engage in genocide against other tribes. They were to kill every elder, adult, youth, child, infant and newborn from among the Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Perizzites without mercy. Anti-miscegenationists typically regard this as racially-based. However, a near consensus of Christian theologians regard this as religiously-based. God's concern appears to be that the Hebrews would marry Pagan polytheists, adopt the religions of the neighboring tribes, abandon worship of Yahweh, and become polytheistic.
    
    **Would have been that much of a struggle had everyone seen those verses as "clear and direct"?

 

[DZoolander]

What I found particularly problematic about the "Christian" side of the argument was the inconsistencies in the arguments that I would hear from them. The arguments ranged from issues like "what about Christian businesses like bakeries? Will Christian churches be forced to marry them?" to issues of "ought the state to sanction immorality?"

For the most part, I tend to err on the side of allowing people to do what they want to do - even if I find it morally problematic and/or inconsistently applied. I don't think that Christian bakeries ought to be compelled to bake for gay weddings or fined if they choose not to (I would, however, caution them about taking such a stance in today's political climate.)

I do find it different than other civil rights issues in the past, simply because when you talk about the South and blacks being denied the right to do this or that - often those forms of discrimination went hand in hand with civil legislation put in place to re-enforce the discrimination across the board. If there's a bakery down the street that will bake it for you just as well - then it's not the same thing black people faced in the pre-civil rights south - and you ought go to that other bakery. There are no equitable jim-crow type laws that I'm aware of (and in a sense the legalization of gay marriage in place of "civil unions" was an attempt to avoid jim-crow type segregation) - so the actions of one baker are not a representation of what you will find as a whole. For that reason - I find it different.

Morally, I would have no problems with someone turning down baking a wedding cake for the Westboro Baptist people, or turning away an offer to bake a KKK wedding cake. So if I've allowed personal/subjective feelings about the client to matter in the decision on whether or not to accept their business in one scenario - I ought allow it in the other.

The only way I would change my mind is if those bakers then tried to convince the gov't to get involved and legislate the behavior of those they're offended by (ding ding ding). The role of gov't in my eyes is to ensure that people are not denied access to services/goods due to prejudice...not to prevent people from feeling butthurt by the fact some people don't like them. I don't believe the "Christian Baker" community to be so large that the gay community would experience true "denial of a service or good" due to their orientation.

So on that issue - if it comes up - I will side with the "conservatives" while holding my nose. Let them find another baker - and let the "Christians" take their licks in the court of public opinion. I would caution them to be prudent in that, however, since the whole "gofundme to support a Christian business" phenomenon will only tolerate a few examples before they tire of giving money to them in symbolic gestures.

Next there's the "will churches be forced to marry gays" stuff. I don't think that holds water or is a legitimate concern. Churches deny people the ability to get married within their walls for lots of reasons. Catholic churches won't marry a Catholic and a protestant (or Jewish) unless the protestant/Jewish person signs a contract with the archdiocese agreeing that you will both have children and will raise them Catholic. The Jewish faith has lots of rules about inter-faith marriages as well. Many other faiths do. Nobody after getting denied has ever stepped in and said "Hey, you can't practice your faith and you must marry us" before that I'm aware of...and I doubt such a claim would hold up. I see gay marriage no differently.

On that one, then, I think it's a bunch of paranoia over nothing. Churches of all types deny people the ability to get married in their churches for lots of reasons. I don't see that changing, or gay marriage being any different.

...nor do I think gay people want to get married in churches anyhow. I know a few gay people that have gotten married in places that have allowed it - and the first place they ran off to was the courthouse. They didn't start beating down the local church's door demanding that they get married there. Gays know how "the faithful" feel about them - and the feeling is mutual for the most part.

That all being said - where the "Christian" folks crossed the line in the sand for me was in their stance that gays ought not be able to get married anywhere. You hear all this talk about marriages in churches, this, that, etc...but that's not what the Christians were trying to stop. They were trying to stop gay people from being able to run down to the courthouse and have their union recognized by the state. Like I said - if gay people were running off to churches to get married - that would be one thing. I support the right of the church to have it's own standards.

What I don't support is the church butting it's nose into civil matters and saying "No gay marriage any time, any place, any how" - which is exactly what they were trying to do. That, I do not support, and consider an over-reach on their part. A state sponsored, state recognized, state administered wedding is not an infringement upon anyone's religious rights...and so long as that's where it remains...I think religious people need to butt out.

 

[katerinah1947]

I'm pretty certain that most have heard that this argument is a lot like the previous argument against inter-racial marriages....right? That wasn't too long ago (in the 1970's). I found this about Bob Jones University during that time:



....perhaps it just wasn't the appropriate time prior to then (for that to even be confronted). I do believe in God's timing.

Hi,

Other than your "in God's timing." words, I loved all you said, using the reference about Bob Jones University, in that time frame you mentioned.

And, I accept and see things like racism being a setting of the captives free, from slavery as a "in God's timing." sort of event.

I just am human, possible spoiled also, as my thoughts are: "Now. Now. I want it now. Give. Give. I need, I need." with emotions just like any spoiled child might say.

I have been told that more than once, I think. One time in particular, I did not want that to be so, but it was said so well, that I could not tell Who was talking. Oh, it was the priest's lips, but nothing else told me it was not God, using his lips and voice. "In God's good timing." And, then he was gone, as he returned to his teaching job at Mount Angel.

I did not like that, but he is and was right.

So, I was left to contemplate just how much, I don't know about God, in this way. How can I know and have the proofs for what is right and God still lets an atrocity, continue, like Sodom and Gamorrah, were everyone was guilty there, before God intervened?

I will say it again, He let everybody convict themselves before He, intervened, and do not think that you know what their sin was, as temple same sex things were done for spirits, by people who were not gay, but straight.

Also, I am told temple prostitution was done, and not for the normal reasons, but for spirit worship.

Do not think, you know, unless it is their lack of "Love others as you love yourself". If you do not suspect, it was that, and not Loving God with all their stength and might and will, plus not loving their neighbor as they loved themslves, unless you think that was their universal crime to God, then do not presume anything else, without proof. And poor Bible understandings of God, being translated into sodomy as their crime that convicted them with God, is not a proof, it is rather a possibility that does not in any way, match God's other laws that we are to follow.

All other laws God says to follow, disagree with that interpretation, of the sins everyone in Sodom and Gamorrah, were guilty of, except those rescued by God, using angels.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[sdmsanjose]

BY EZ
What I don't support is the church butting it's nose into civil matters and saying "No gay marriage any time, any place, any how" - which is exactly what they were trying to do. That, I do not support, and consider an over-reach on their part. A state sponsored, state recognized, state administered wedding is not an infringement upon anyone's religious rights...and so long as that's where it remains...I think religious people need to butt out.

Why should religious people butt out?

I do not think that religious people should butt out. Let me clarify why I think Christians should not butt out. Almost every person that is actively involved in politics has an agenda. The way that it works in the USA is that the citizens have a vote and can shape the government policy to some extent if they get enough votes. I am not going to try and name all the political action committees and all the groups that form to try and persuade the politicians to act on their values or interests. I am sure you all are aware of many of those. They have that right and some pursue that right very aggressively.

Some Christians believe in the Bible as inspired by God and they take the Bible verses very serious. Those Christians understand homosexuality to be a sin so they are going to exercise their right in politics and try and pursued the politicians to rule according to their values and interests just like all the others that do not see things the way Christians who believe the bible do. Therefore, why should the bible believing Christians “BUTT OUT” when the opposing view people and groups do NOT butt out? Does the Christian have the same right as those that oppose them do?

When you ask that the Christians to BUTT OUT you are trying to deny them their political right to persuade the laws of the land to reflect their values and interests without telling the opposing views to BUTT OUT. Furthermore, you are asking the Christians to butt out of an issue that they see as a violation of God’s law and butting out will give the opposing view a great advantage.

The bible believing Christian in the USA can be involved in several arenas. One is the government and some of the others are his church, his family, his own self, which includes his relationship with God. As Tall73 has mentioned the church is different in some areas than the state government. What has authority and what you can do in each is different. However, in the USA the Christian is allowed to voice his opinion, vote his opinion, and try to persuade others of his views and does not have to butt out.

 

[LinkH]

I'm pretty certain that most have heard that this argument is a lot like the previous argument against inter-racial marriages....right? That wasn't too long ago (in the 1970's). I found this about Bob Jones University during that time:

There is a big difference. The Bible does not say "The sons of Japeth may not marry the daughters of Ham. There are no race-based restrictions on Gentiles marrying each other. And Hebrews could marry foreigners who were not from the seven nations if they weren't priests. Judaism as it developed later allowed it if women converted.

But God did say that a man shall not lie with a man as one does with a woman, and one of the apostles also spoke against the practice in letters to saints in Rome and Corinth. The apostles perceived that the Spirit told them to tell the Gentiles to abstain from sexual immorality. That's a big difference?

 

[LinkH]

I will say it again, He let everybody convict themselves before He, intervened, and do not think that you know what their sin was, as temple same sex things were done for spirits, by people who were not gay, but straight.

The concept of 'gay people' probably did not exist back then, not as an identity in the cultural way it exists in our society, where people think that everyone has one of two 'orientations'. They had people who desired that sort of things. Romans 1 is clear that those who Paul was writing of actually desired that sort of thing. Men burned in their lust for that which was against nature. Both man and woman experienced these 'vile passions.' Trying to read this idea that the people weren't gay, but straight is really an anachronistic way of reading the text.

I just listened to an NT Wright video last night where he said as a historian, he knew that those who said that those who argued that there as no concept of loving homosexual relationships back then are wrong. He mentioned Plato's Symposium as evidence. Paul still condemns this activity in I Corinthians 6 as well. Another of his videos made a good point that it is important to understand the mindset of first century Jews to understand the text of scripture.


I wish the homosexual activists promoting sophistry on Paul's writings would just be intellectually honest and just say they don't agree with Paul. Reading all these anachronistic ideas from their own LGBT philosophy into the text is obviously the wrong way to approach the text. One man was trying to argue that Romans chapter 1 is a kind of polemic where Paul didn't mean anything he said. It's really grasping at straws. Atheists who read it and don't like the Bible take it for what it means. I don't get why someone wants to have an atheist's sexual morality on this issue, but can't just admit that they don't agree with what the scriptures say. Why would students of scripture only be smart enough to figure out what the text really means after the LGBT rights movement was developed and created the anachronistic framework through which to interpret the text?

As far as first century Jews ideas about homosexuality, a good source is the first century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria Philo. Seminary students may be familiar with his works on the Logos. He considered homosexual practicioners, cross dress dresser, eunuchs, etc. to be sinners and thought they were worthy of death as well. He may go further than Paul on that.

It's some heavy duty historical revisionism to think that Paul was not opposed to such activities. He was a first century Jew.

 

[LinkH]

EZoolander, the Christian faith is rooted in history and historical events like God talking to Moses through the burning bush, God talking to Moses and the people of Israel, even where they could hear it audibly, on Mt. Sinai, God speaking and giving dreams to prophets, a voice from heaven at the baptism of Christ, numerous miracles that Christ performed and Jesus raising from the dead. Paul did see Jesus. The Lord appeared to Him. The Lord also taught him for three years in the desert before he met those who were apostles before he was. The Spirit spoke to prophets in teachers in Antioch of his and Barnabas' call to the work to which he had called them.

Why believe in any of it if there is no revelation? And if God has revealed it, why can't something supernatural happen like a vision of Christ? I've been a witness to plenty of supernatural works of God from specifically answered prayer, to 'read your mail' type prophecies, and supernatural healing. I'm coming from a different world view. I'd have to be a fool not to believe in the supernatural with my own life experiences alone.

Earlier, I'd said I'd got the impression that you were mildly against gay marriage. I remember the homosexual kissing grossing you out when you were a child. Maybe the topic was homosexual adoption. My memory is fuzzy. Did you see a problem with that based on your own experiences? That's one of the really bad things about gay marriage. Adopted kids and foster kids may get raised in this really weird environment (e.g. two men or two women kissing.) I've read that there is some research to suggest that lesbian households are the most prone to domestic violence when compared to male-female or male-male households. Then the children are raised without male and female role models. And honestly, I'm concerned for teenage boys in male homosexual households and girls in lesbian households in the foster care system where no one is blood related anyway. In England, the government wouldn't give foster kids to Christian parents who taught against homosexual morality. So you have the people in favor of sexual libertinism and the homosexuals raising foster kids while devout Christians are rejected for an aspect of the Christian faith that relates to sexual morality.

 

[LinkH]

It is pretty straight-forward. I do not want the government making decisions based on religious criteria, because then they have to choose which religion. While the government certainly has a moral role given in Romans 13, etc. I do not think there is a clear moral consensus from a secular perspective on the homosexual issue. Or if there is it is trending the other direction. So what basis would they have to rule in favor of the position that the church takes?

History, anthropology, common sense, law, the Constitution, respect for the rule of law, respect for the democratic process, concern for the welfare of children (e.g. adopted and foster), public health concerns, and a basic understanding of biology.

If the church survived under Nero and Diocletian, and Stalin and Lenin, I think they can manage under a government that at least has some notion of religious freedom.

Sure, but righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to any people. And within religious institutions, this may be one of many issues that the Lord can use to make a distinction between the just and the unjust. Paul was concerned about Corinthian divisions, but said that there must be divisions among them so that it might be known who has the Lord's approval. In the first century, when Christ appeared to John He sent messages to churches who tolerated those who taught the people to engage in sexual immorality. Paul addressed sexual immorality, including homosexual behavior, in I Corinthians, so these issues have been pertinent in the church from the first century.

 

[DZoolander]

Why should religious people butt out?

I do not think that religious people should butt out. Let me clarify why I think Christians should not butt out. Almost every person that is actively involved in politics has an agenda. The way that it works in the USA is that the citizens have a vote and can shape the government policy to some extent if they get enough votes. I am not going to try and name all the political action committees and all the groups that form to try and persuade the politicians to act on their values or interests. I am sure you all are aware of many of those. They have that right and some pursue that right very aggressively.

Some Christians believe in the Bible as inspired by God and they take the Bible verses very serious. Those Christians understand homosexuality to be a sin so they are going to exercise their right in politics and try and pursued the politicians to rule according to their values and interests just like all the others that do not see things the way Christians who believe the bible do. Therefore, why should the bible believing Christians “BUTT OUT” when the opposing view people and groups do NOT butt out? Does the Christian have the same right as those that oppose them do?

When you ask that the Christians to BUTT OUT you are trying to deny them their political right to persuade the laws of the land to reflect their values and interests without telling the opposing views to BUTT OUT. Furthermore, you are asking the Christians to butt out of an issue that they see as a violation of God’s law and butting out will give the opposing view a great advantage.

The bible believing Christian in the USA can be involved in several arenas. One is the government and some of the others are his church, his family, his own self, which includes his relationship with God. As Tall73 has mentioned the church is different in some areas than the state government. What has authority and what you can do in each is different. However, in the USA the Christian is allowed to voice his opinion, vote his opinion, and try to persuade others of his views and does not have to butt out.

The problem that I have with that is the fact that Christians weren't simply trying to exercise their voice as part of a democracy. It wasn't a "one opinion, one vote" type of thing (which I would have wholeheartedly supported.) Rather, they were trying to do an end run around democracy.

The tide has been turning for a while now in the realm of public opinion/public support for gay marriage. I think most national polls now show that the majority of people support the idea that gay people ought be able to get legally married (in a courthouse). More and more states were allowing it - and the trend was obvious.

That's democracy. What was the "Christian" response? Extraordinary legal gymnastics like talking about trying to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as "one man/one woman". Some states attempted to stop trying to issue marriage licenses altogether - and some even went so far as to say that the state no longer issued them - but rather churches did."

That's the exact opposite of "one man, one voice, one vote". That's people being butthurt about the fact they aren't going to get their way - and trying ignore the will of the people. A constitutional amendment means "We don't care what people think - it's illegal anyhow."

 

[tall73]

History, anthropology, common sense, law, the Constitution, respect for the rule of law, respect for the democratic process

Up until this point though these have not been moral arguments.

, concern for the welfare of children (e.g. adopted and foster),

This one is a moral concern, and the court reviewed material on this. However, if you start having the government rule on who can have kids based on their views and practice--watch out.

public health concerns,

Which they would still have if they were marrying or not. And are you extending this to all homosexuals? You may have to explain this one further.

and a basic understanding of biology.

It is not a compelling argument to most people that unnatural in this case equals immoral.

Sure, but righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to any people.

Agreed. And this could apply to numerous other things that we do, such as allowing pornography, allowing in some places prostitution, allowing abortion, etc. And when given the chance I vote for what I feel the government's role is, to uphold morality. But the numbers are not there to change this, or folks would be pushing a constitutional amendment. Moreover, while to me it is a moral issue, I would say it is mostly so because the Scriptures say so. And asking the government to start enacting laws on the basis of one group's holy book is dangerous. If you want the nation to be righteous then we have to get to convincing them to be righteous by presenting the gospel, and by providing an example of holiness. So far the church is dropping both in many cases.

And within religious institutions, this may be one of many issues that the Lord can use to make a distinction between the just and the unjust. Paul was concerned about Corinthian divisions, but said that there must be divisions among them so that it might be known who has the Lord's approval. In the first century, when Christ appeared to John He sent messages to churches who tolerated those who taught the people to engage in sexual immorality. Paul addressed sexual immorality, including homosexual behavior, in I Corinthians, so these issues have been pertinent in the church from the first century.

And you have seen me argue at great length for just that--in the churches.
Right now the state of the church is sad. We are all part of it, and need to focus on that. The church historically has actually been more pure and been more involved in outreach when it was not loved by the politicians.

 

[DZoolander]

Earlier, I'd said I'd got the impression that you were mildly against gay marriage. I remember the homosexual kissing grossing you out when you were a child. Maybe the topic was homosexual adoption. My memory is fuzzy. Did you see a problem with that based on your own experiences? That's one of the really bad things about gay marriage. Adopted kids and foster kids may get raised in this really weird environment (e.g. two men or two women kissing.) I've read that there is some research to suggest that lesbian households are the most prone to domestic violence when compared to male-female or male-male households. Then the children are raised without male and female role models. And honestly, I'm concerned for teenage boys in male homosexual households and girls in lesbian households in the foster care system where no one is blood related anyway. In England, the government wouldn't give foster kids to Christian parents who taught against homosexual morality. So you have the people in favor of sexual libertinism and the homosexuals raising foster kids while devout Christians are rejected for an aspect of the Christian faith that relates to sexual morality.

I'm scratching my head, and trying to think about what you're alluding to also.

I've never really taken a stand on gay adoption, so I don't think that's it. The only thing that really pops to mind - and where I do have issues with the gay community - is in the embracing of sexual orientation/identity issues in children. By that I mean the whole "I've known I was gay since I was 5 years old" type of stuff.

At 5 years old I was interested in worms, cartoons, cap guns and killing ants with a magnifying glass. I certainly wasn't "straight" at that point - as sexual issues were not even present in my life yet.

So I find that kind of stuff bizarre. I think the issues of sexual orientation and sexual identity are significant enough that they ought not be addressed in childhood.

That's my guess as to what you're remembering.

 

[mkgal1]

I will say it again, He let everybody convict themselves before He, intervened, and do not think that you know what their sin was, as temple same sex things were done for spirits, by people who were not gay, but straight.

Also, I am told temple prostitution was done, and not for the normal reasons, but for spirit worship.

Exactly. That's what I've heard/read, too---even from conservative preachers (when not focusing their sermon on same-sex marriage). That's lust---and worse than just lust, it was lust directed towards idol worship. It's clear and direct to me why it's considered vile (sex is supposed to be an expression of mutual love and that was all far from that).

Some scholars/preachers that have written about or said this: John MacArthur; Dr Merrill Unger; Dr Charles Lee Fineburg; Howard F. Vos; Dr Robert Gagnon.....are all vocal opponents of gay Christians.....yet they admit that the ancient issue addressed in the Bible was the sexual perversion and idol worship (not committed and faithful non-cultic relationships of the same-sex).