I Hope this never happens....

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, that's what I think too. However, I don't have the confidence in the government that you do.

Your fear of the government does not mean people should be denied their right to wed because of their sexual preference. I fear the government and the things they do, but that does not mean I think individuals should be denied freedoms simply because of that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Your fear of the government does not mean people should be denied their right to wed because of their sexual preference. I fear the government and the things they do, but that does not mean I think individuals should be denied freedoms simply because of that.

When did I say they should be denied the legal rights of being in a domestic partnership???

[Tekneek]

Sounded like you were afraid of gay marriages because you think it will cause the government to bust into the church for the first time.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Before I get the wrong idea here, can you elaborate on what you mean? Are you saying that people get married in ceremonies that mention Jesus Christ but are not "serious" about him? What do you mean by "serious about Jesus Christ" exactly?

Not a biggie here. I'm just saying (and QuikSand appears to have understood exactly what I was saying, and offered a potentially solid explanation for it...) that the words spoken at the average "church wedding" could make someone not heavily plugged in to the faith pretty uncomfortable.

The wedding ceremony in the church is not the marriage. It is a ceremony surrounding the marriage. You sign the paperwork that gets you married. I was not married in that kind of setting, but my best friend was and as Best Man I had to make sure those things were taken care of. The ceremony did not get them married. The paperwork signed in the back before it ever started was what got them married.

Agreed, technically. However, that's a hair-splitter in relation to my concerns.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Sounded like you were afraid of gay marriages because you think it will cause the government to bust into the church for the first time.

Well, not exactly, but close enough. However, that isn't a reason they shouldn't be legal. I said clearly that I am ok with them having the legal rights conferred by being in a domestic partnership.

[Tekneek]

I think you are carefully choosing "domestic partnership" over "marriage." It seems that way. Is that true? What, in your mind, is the difference between "domestic partnership" and "marriage", or is this just semantics?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
I think you are carefully choosing "domestic partnership" over "marriage." It seems that way. Is that true? What, in your mind, is the difference between "domestic partnership" and "marriage", or is this just semantics?

You're perceptive. I use that phrase because to me it encompasses the legal side of the union. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't performed a wedding yet, (the first one will be next Spring) so I haven't done the extremely detailed Biblical research that I'd like to do regarding marriage. Specifically, I'm not sure whether or not the Bible teaches that it is a sacrament of the Church. (Clearly, the Catholic Church concludes that it is, which explains their position....) If it does, then the only position I can take with any integrity is that a wedding performed outside the body of Christ is a legal ceremony, but not a marriage. Does that all make sense?

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---the reverse is also true. If I were to come to the conclusion that marriage is NOT a sacrament, then I'd be quite comfortable using that word generically. Right now, while I'm not reasonably certain either way, it seems more correct for me to make the distinction.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
The government can't and won't force a church to marry 2 people they do not want to marry.

I get the feeling people using this argument are actually trying to find an easy way to veil their fear of homosexuals, and it is a very weak argument being presented.

Originally posted by Blackadar
The government can't and won't require Churches to marry anyone they don't want. It flies in the face of over 200 years of US law and hundreds of years before that of English Common Law. Not to mention it's entirely against the 1st Ammendment. That's just fear tactics used to scare people into making a knee-jerk reaction to this issue. Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted that some folks have even brought it up or are arguing it.

Seems to be the norm for some folks. Let's bring up some oblique peripheral issue to hide the fact that we really want to say "gays will burn in hell!"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Seems to be the norm for some folks. Let's bring up some oblique peripheral issue to hide the fact that we really want to say "gays will burn in hell!"

Hmmm....I assume this is referring to me, since I'm the one who brought it up. This is odd on several levels...

1. I've stated clearly that I'm ok with the law being changed. I've merely tried to explain why legal recognition of gay marriage makes me (and many others by the way) uncomfortable.

2. I think I've been clear in threads where matters of faith have come up that I have no CLUE who will receive God's grace. I'd never say, nor do I believe, in a categorical statement that "gays will burn in hell." I believe there will be homosexual offenders, heterosexual offenders, drug addicts, murderers, rapists, alcoholics, and all other manner of delivered sinners in heaven.

3. Even though I've stated my sincere opinion and motive, you continue to assign additional motives to me. That is very frustrating. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm not being straight up with you, and I think by now I have a rep of being s straight-up guy. Why do several of you take others' words at face value, but continue to assist that mine are obfuscating the truth???

[tucker342]

What happened to everyone is created equal? So wouldn't that mean that homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals have?

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
But you have to admit having two people get married and believing they won't have sex is just silly.

Not necessarily. I would say there are probably plenty of elderly couples who get married for companionship but don't consummate the marriage.

[Butter]

Originally posted by SkyDog
3. Even though I've stated my sincere opinion and motive, you continue to assign additional motives to me. That is very frustrating. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm not being straight up with you, and I think by now I have a rep of being s straight-up guy. Why do several of you take others' words at face value, but continue to assist that mine are obfuscating the truth???

You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner, and...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner, and...

I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Elucidate please.

[Butter]

Not a big Carly Simon fan, eh?

I apologize for the implication my post appeared to have directed toward you. However, I feel many many more on the boards feel exactly the way described above.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Not a big Carly Simon fan, eh?

I apologize for the implication my post appeared to have directed toward you. However, I feel many many more on the boards feel exactly the way described above.

Sorry, not a Carly Simon fan, so I missed the reference. Apology certainly accepted. I'm curious though. Which folks on the board do you think feel that way?

[ctmason]

Many people think homosexual men and women are terrible people, and hate them. It stands to reason that some people on this board feel the same way. What kind of revelation do you think you're making here?

It's totally unfair to accuse those on this thread of such, however, specifically those who have agreed with Skydog. I think they've pretty well explained their points without venom or hatred. Whatever they might feel personally about homosexuals is their business and irrelevant to the discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

then the only position I can take with any integrity is that a wedding performed outside the body of Christ is a legal ceremony, but not a marriage.

Well this is your opinion, but there are many other marriages performed not in the 'body of Christ'. Specifically those of other religions, which are recognized by the state.

I see no reason to deny homosexuals marriage and the rights that go along with such a union.

I would say there are probably plenty of elderly couples who get married for companionship but don't consummate the marriage.

Not with the Viagra around .

[Butter]

Originally posted by ctmason
Many people think homosexual men and women are terrible people, and hate them. It stands to reason that some people on this board feel the same way. What kind of revelation do you think you're making here?

No revelation. I just think that the quotes of those two particular people I quoted were not addressed and were worth addressing. I feel that the kind of thinking you mention here, though, is ridiculous, outdated, and dangerous. I can express that opinion, can't I?

Whatever they might feel personally about homosexuals is their business and irrelevant to the discussion.

It is relevant if the rationalization for their beliefs is couched in a moral disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle which is glossed over in favor of other, much weaker, more apparently "objective" arguments.

I agree that their opinions are their own business, however, and I am not accusing anyone HERE, ON THIS BOARD of anything. I just feel that anyone who uses these tactics, whoever that might be, is being disingenuous.

I also feel that the Alabama governor who is using Biblical reasons to support a tax increase on the wealthy is misguided, though admirable for sticking to and expressing his heartfelt belief.

[WSUCougar]

No, according to the Scriptures, which makes it clear on what is right and wrong, if you choose to put your faith in that. If you have been chosen to minister the Gospel to others, as Ben and pastors have been called to do, then that is the authority in spiritual matters. However, many can say the right words and act all godly in front of others (even faking out a pastor) while not putting their faith into the principles of the Scriptures. There is no way to avoid that but those that have been called, esp. in performing a sacred marriage ceremony, you have no choice but to adhere to the truth of the Gospel - as best as we can.

Understood. So the clergy is assessing the righteousness of the couple, based upon the precepts set forth in the Scriptures – is that a fair way to put it?

If I can answer in part. Being sinful (which we all are) is not the barrier to marriage but in the authority of those performing the sacredness of a marriage ceremony in upholding the Scriptures.

But what I’m hearing is a somewhat selective assessment of sinfulness. Understanding that every person is a sinner, we move to the willful continuation of sinful ways as defined by the Scriptures. Again, correct me if I am misstating your position, but in this instance, a homosexual lifestyle is interpreted as sinful (according to Scripture), and thus its continuation is grounds for exclusion from a Christian marriage ceremony. But what of other sins and the willful continuation of them? Repeating from yesterday, what of the willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc.?

No. Absolutely not. I'd marry anyone who expressed a desire to submit to the authority of Scriptures to the best of their abilities. What I am saying is that I wouldn't marry anyone who flat-out states that they plan to continue a lifestyle defined by a particular transgression of God's Law.

I added the emphasis, which is a key element to this discussion IMO. So, to follow this out, can a gay couple get married under these guidelines if they “express a desire” to abstain from homosexual sex?

I’m also curious what your thoughts are on gay priests, pastors, etc.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
But what I’m hearing is a somewhat selective assessment of sinfulness. Understanding that every person is a sinner, we move to the willful continuation of sinful ways as defined by the Scriptures. Again, correct me if I am misstating your position, but in this instance, a homosexual lifestyle is interpreted as sinful (according to Scripture), and thus its continuation is grounds for exclusion from a Christian marriage ceremony. But what of other sins and the willful continuation of them? Repeating from yesterday, what of the willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc.?

Intriguing question. I'm basically staying out of this debate, but I find this point particularly troubling, simply from a logical point of view. Will be interested in responses on point.

[Anrhydeddu]

Understood. So the clergy is assessing the righteousness of the couple, based upon the precepts set forth in the Scriptures – is that a fair way to put it?

Yes, I believe so (since I am not clergy) in supporting Ben's statement.

But what I’m hearing is a somewhat selective assessment of sinfulness. Understanding that every person is a sinner, we move to the willful continuation of sinful ways as defined by the Scriptures. Again, correct me if I am misstating your position, but in this instance, a homosexual lifestyle is interpreted as sinful (according to Scripture), and thus its continuation is grounds for exclusion from a Christian marriage ceremony. But what of other sins and the willful continuation of them? Repeating from yesterday, what of the willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc.?

Obviously it differs from pastor to pastor and church to church. When my wife and I got married, we were required to go through pre-marital counceling. There is enough history, precedent and tests to know if the marriage is sincere or not, esp. since in our case, it was a sacred ceremony (as oppose to having a casual mountain-top ceremony, which was my choice ). It's not about condeming or anything like that, but the role of a clergy is to minister the Word and everything any one of us should do, should be about glorifying God. If something obvious comes out (like just marrying for the money), then counceling would help - but not necessarily as an impedement to marriage. They (just like any believer) would not want to see marriages breakup as well as families and lives destroyed, so some preventive maintenance would be helpful.

I added the emphasis, which is a key element to this discussion IMO. So, to follow this out, can a gay couple get married under these guidelines if they “express a desire” to abstain from homosexual sex?

I’m also curious what your thoughts are on gay priests, pastors, etc.

Yes, the Scriptures talk about homosexual acts being sinful, not being homosexuals. This is a tough issue but I always strived to make it a point that engaging in adulterous relationship is no different. The point is to not to willfully continue to sin but to become a new person living a life to glorify God. We, as sinful humans, can only do the best we can (imperfectly that may be) to speak out against sin and to speak for the alternative. Good questions.