TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › On the subject of gay marriages....do you think same sex couples should be allowed to get married in a church?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On the subject of gay marriages....do you think same sex couples should be allowed to get...

post #1 of 60
2/8/12 at 11:03am
Thread Starter 

I have just heard a debate advertised on tv...Is it right to let gay couples get married in a church? I will be very interested in your answers. I have nothing against same sex marriages at all and I am also not religious but I do know that in the bible it states that it wasn't agreed with and I do think that it should be respected.

  Have never started a IMO before so please keep it cilvillaughing02.gif x

Reply
post #2 of 60
2/8/12 at 11:12am
Well, first of all, churches are entirely voluntary associations. You don't have to get married in a church, and the church can refuse to marry anyone they want. People don't have to go to a church if they disagree with its policy on who it will marry, and they can try to change their pastor's mind on what to do. So, whether or not same sex couples are "allowed" to get married in a church is kind of a moot point. It all depends on what the church itself wants to do. If they want to marry or not marry gay couples, they risk losing membership either way.

Second, there's actually a huge debate within the Christian community on what the Bible even says about homosexuality. It's hard to "know" what the Bible says on any given subject considering it contains numerous ambiguities and even direct contradictions on lots of things. Add in the fact that it was written by several different people, edited and translated multiple times over the course of two millenia and you get the results of three main branches of Christianity, multiple denominations within each branch and several different Bibles to choose from. So once again, IMO it all comes down to the individual church.

Not being a believer in any god, I actually couldn't care less what church decides to marry whom. I'm more concerned with the government's role in the whole marriage debate.

PS -- I hope that wasn't too uncivil laughing02.gif
Reply
post #3 of 60
2/8/12 at 12:12pm
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by speakhandsforme View Post

Well, first of all, churches are entirely voluntary associations. You don't have to get married in a church, and the church can refuse to marry anyone they want. People don't have to go to a church if they disagree with its policy on who it will marry, and they can try to change their pastor's mind on what to do. So, whether or not same sex couples are "allowed" to get married in a church is kind of a moot point. It all depends on what the church itself wants to do. If they want to marry or not marry gay couples, they risk losing membership either way.
Second, there's actually a huge debate within the Christian community on what the Bible even says about homosexuality. It's hard to "know" what the Bible says on any given subject considering it contains numerous ambiguities and even direct contradictions on lots of things. Add in the fact that it was written by several different people, edited and translated multiple times over the course of two millenia and you get the results of three main branches of Christianity, multiple denominations within each branch and several different Bibles to choose from. So once again, IMO it all comes down to the individual church.
Not being a believer in any god, I actually couldn't care less what church decides to marry whom. I'm more concerned with the government's role in the whole marriage debate.
PS -- I hope that wasn't too uncivil laughing02.gif


laughing02.gif No,not uncivil at all being an unreligious person I was just kind of interested in everyones opinions religious and non religious. I have only learnt things about the bible from my best friend who is religious.I do think that christian churches now have an obligation to move with the times, I noticed at my daughters nativity one year a gay vicar (a lady) who was very open about her sexuality. I am not saying this is right or wrong,she was a lovely vicar but is it correct to move away from the bible in certain churches and have to move with the times from fear of being branded homophobic/sexist/racist e.t.c.... x

Reply
post #4 of 60
2/8/12 at 1:38pm
Oh, one more thing: America is far, far more religous than England, both in terms of people who identify with a religion and those who say that religion is actually importat in their lives. In fact we are the most highly religous of the developed countries as of 2011 (with the technical exception of Kuwait, IIRC from my Religion and Politics class last spring).

America is also much less progressive than other developed nations in the gay rights arena, especially western Europe and Canada.

So naturally, feelings over here are a lot more strong on this subject. wink.gif
Reply
post #5 of 60
2/8/12 at 2:12pm
I'm a member of an ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), and was raised Lutheran. A few years ago, the national conference of the ELCA voted that pastors could be openly gay, acknowledging their partners, even marrying.

Since then, and since the law was passed in NY making same-sex marriage legal, there have been a couple weddings in my church - a big congregation in Manhattan. Also, one of my dearest friends is a Lutheran pastor, and he married his partner in November, at his own church, with my pastor from my church performing the wedding! I was asked to sing for the wedding, and was extremely honored. It was, in fact, history making, as it was the first same sex marriage of a Lutheran pastor in NY since the law was passed. It was a glorious event!

So, in answer to your question - I see nothing wrong with it, and everything right. smile.gif
Reply
post #6 of 60
2/8/12 at 2:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanner View Post

I'm a member of an ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), and was raised Lutheran. A few years ago, the national conference of the ELCA voted that pastors could be openly gay, acknowledging their partners, even marrying.
Since then, and since the law was passed in NY making same-sex marriage legal, there have been a couple weddings in my church - a big congregation in Manhattan. Also, one of my dearest friends is a Lutheran pastor, and he married his partner in November, at his own church, with my pastor from my church performing the wedding! I was asked to sing for the wedding, and was extremely honored. It was, in fact, history making, as it was the first same sex marriage of a Lutheran pastor in NY since the law was passed. It was a glorious event!
So, in answer to your question - I see nothing wrong with it, and everything right. smile.gif


Wow,that sounds amazing and what an honour to be asked to sing. I have gay friends and straight friends,all are the same to me.x

Reply
post #7 of 60
2/8/12 at 2:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakhandsforme View Post

Oh, one more thing: America is far, far more religous than England, both in terms of people who identify with a religion and those who say that religion is actually importat in their lives. In fact we are the most highly religous of the developed countries as of 2011 (with the technical exception of Kuwait, IIRC from my Religion and Politics class last spring).
America is also much less progressive than other developed nations in the gay rights arena, especially western Europe and Canada.
So naturally, feelings over here are a lot more strong on this subject. 

That is a great fact to know,I don't know much about religion so very interesting to know.x

Reply
post #8 of 60
2/8/12 at 4:26pm

I think people should be allowed to get married where they want to. Marriage is a legal bond, not a spiritual one. Even in a Church people are required to sign a legal document to be filed with The Courts.

Reply
post #9 of 60
2/8/12 at 6:10pm

If a church agrees to marry the couple, more power to them, if they don't, the couple will just need to go elsewhere. And why would anyone want to get married in a place that didn't want them in the first place?

 

I was actually just fussing today about how it is completely unacceptable to discriminate based on race, religion, sex but for some insane reason people think its OK to openly discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Two gay people getting married has absolutely NO impact on my life or my marriage. When people claim that gay marriage is ruining the sanctity of marriage, I just point to the divorce rate.  It just blows my mind how self-important people can be. 

 

Sorry, this is one of my hot button issues. 

Reply
post #10 of 60
2/8/12 at 6:19pm
I don't see the harm if gay marrying each other.. Church or not. They aren't hurting anyone so who cares what they do? If they are happy then that's all that matters.
Reply
post #11 of 60
2/8/12 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFM View Post

When people claim that gay marriage is ruining the sanctity of marriage, I just point to the divorce rate.

yeah.gif

When I hear that, I go, "No, MARRIED PEOPLE are ruining the sanctity of marriage." laughing02.gif
Reply
post #12 of 60
2/8/12 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFM View Post

 It just blows my mind how self-important people can be. 

I would say "bigoted."
Reply
post #13 of 60
2/8/12 at 6:37pm

I have no problems with gay marriage.  Churches also have the right to decide who can and cannot get married in their church.  People who are divorced and have not gotten an annulment from the church cannot get married in the Catholic church even though they can legally be married.  That is what is truly great about separation of church and state.  Many evangelicals see it as an infringement on their rights and the foundation that the U.S. was built on.  It actually protects the church and the rights of people to practice their religion as long as they aren't infringing on other people's rights.

Reply
post #14 of 60
2/9/12 at 3:54pm

These topics sort of hits a nerve with me.. (Not in a bad way). I am not a lesbian, as in I am not attracted to females in general but I was with my partner for several years and we are sort of trying to patch things up. I was brought up in a Christian home and do practice Christianity myself, so part of me feels its wrong to be with someone of the same sex and of course, get married...even in a church...But at the same time, as speakhandsforme said, its hard to know EXACTLY what the Bible says about some subjects.

Soooo, From a personal view, I have no problem with same sex couples getting married in a Church.. but the "Christian" part of me says it may be a no no. I feel like I am indirectly caught in the middle of the whole debate. laughing02.gif

Reply
post #15 of 60
2/10/12 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denice View Post

I have no problems with gay marriage.  Churches also have the right to decide who can and cannot get married in their church.  People who are divorced and have not gotten an annulment from the church cannot get married in the Catholic church even though they can legally be married.  That is what is truly great about separation of church and state.  Many evangelicals see it as an infringement on their rights and the foundation that the U.S. was built on.  It actually protects the church and the rights of people to practice their religion as long as they aren't infringing on other people's rights.



I totally agree with this.     There needs to be the separation of church and state.     If a church or a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple than that is their establishment's or personal/moral choice but the government should have no say in the matter.   Most businesses have the "right to refuse business", a church or a priest has the same right. If they don't agree with gay marriage than that's fine, don't perform those marriages. I'm sure there's other churches and priests that will be happy to have the business instead.

Reply
post #16 of 60
2/11/12 at 7:19am

I'm not a religious person and this is not a religious country. I don't see a problem with gay people getting married in a church. The bible forbids female pastors/priests (not sure what the correct term is in english) and yet they have them. If you are breaking one rule, why follow the others? Am I making any sense?laughing02.gif

 

A bit OT but we just had presidential election here, and on the 'second round' there was a straight man (married) against a gay man who is in a registered relationship ("married") with an Ecuadorian guy. The straight guy won however, so no gay president for us. I was actually surprised to see the gay man get that far in the elections, I didn't think the country was quite ready for that yet. (Our current president until 1st of March is a woman..who looks like Conan O'Brien..biggrin.gif)

Reply
post #17 of 60
2/11/12 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernGlow View Post

I'm not a religious person and this is not a religious country. I don't see a problem with gay people getting married in a church. The bible forbids female pastors/priests (not sure what the correct term is in english) and yet they have them. If you are breaking one rule, why follow the others? Am I making any sense?laughing02.gif

A bit OT but we just had presidential election here, and on the 'second round' there was a straight man (married) against a gay man who is in a registered relationship ("married") with an Ecuadorian guy. The straight guy won however, so no gay president for us. I was actually surprised to see the gay man get that far in the elections, I didn't think the country was quite ready for that yet. (Our current president until 1st of March is a woman..who looks like Conan O'Brien..biggrin.gif )

Ha! We just had our first president who wasn't white, much less anything else nontraditional. People even started conspiracy theories that he was a Muslim, because apparently being non-Christian makes you unqualified for office in the US, despite the "no religious test" clause in Article VI of the Constitution. rolleyes.gif The US is going to take quite a bit longer to catch up to Finland, I'm afraid.
Reply
post #18 of 60
2/13/12 at 7:34pm

My favorite author puts it best

 

I contend the state ought to do its thing and provide legal rights for all couples who want to be joined together for life. The church should bless unions that it sees fit to bless, and they should be called marriages.
Tony Campolo


In other words, if a church wants to bless a union- they may. If not, the government should not force them to do so (either directly, or by threatening to remove their tax exempt status)
 
As someone who is a Christian, and still somewhat middle liberal, The govt has no right to say who can and can't marry anyone.
 
America was never founded as a "Christian" nation. It was founded on religious freedom- be it Christian, Buddhism, Muslim, Judaism, Shintoism, Krishna, Whatever your choice of religion, or choice of none.
 
Now some other thoughts on Separation of Church and state. This covers prayer in schools and anything of that sort.
 
Religious education should be PRIMARILY taught by the family and parents, and SECONDARILY by the church. Public school is not the place for it. I don't want my kids learning my faith from someone I might not trust to teach it correctly. In the same way, I wouldn't want them "learning" an alternate faith that went against our families beliefs.
 
Public school is the place for learning academics, not religion. Unless of course they offer an equal number of classes on different religions. I plan to enroll any future kids I have in a World Religions class so they know what they are "up against.".
 
The problem I have with allowing prayer in school (which BTW- Public School students have TONS of rights, they can lead prayer) Prayer just can't be led by an administrator or staff member of the school. Bibles can be read during non instructional times. There has yet to be a SINGLE CASE of public school persecution that lost. And mostly, if you research those stories- they didn't follow rules or laws. Such as recently a group of kids got suspended for having a prayer meeting on the sidewalk. The uproar screamed "persecution", but in reality- they were given a time and place to do it (during lunch in an empty classroom) but they broke the rule, so they got suspended.
 
To allow administrators to pray in school, or lead public prayer would be to have to allow all religions. I don't want my kids listening to a muslim or buddhist prayer etc (no offense intended)l
 
"Persecution" is also rampant. Take the story of the nurse in England who got fired for breaking dress code by wearing a necklace. She made a fuss, why? Because it was a cross necklace- so naturally, it was Christian persecution. In reality, she broke the rules of dress code and got fired- the rules which said necklaces were not allowed. this is the kind of thing I have no patience for :(

Edited by Nebula - 2/13/12 at 8:39pm
Reply
post #19 of 60
2/14/12 at 6:51pm

I personally have no problems with same sex marriages being made legal on state and national level. I DO however have a problem if the government tries to force religions to do something against their fundamental beliefs and make them recognize a same sex couple as "married" in the church. It's up to the individual church, IMO. If they agree, then great. If not, then the couple should find a church that does. Religion is a choice and you can change teams at any time. I believe we all have different ways of worshiping a higher power, but it's all the same entity. The rules are set by humans and their interpretations. 

Reply
post #20 of 60
2/14/12 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula View Post


The problem I have with allowing prayer in school (which BTW- Public School students have TONS of rights, they can lead prayer) Prayer just can't be led by an administrator or staff member of the school. Bibles can be read during non instructional times.

Almost, but not quite. Students can't lead prayer at school events, like football games or graduation ceremonies. (US Supreme Court, Santa Fe v. Doe, 2004)They can't lead prayer if it disrupts class. At no time are staff members allowed to lead prayer (except, I think, if they're the staff sponsors of after-school Bible clubs or something like that. Could be wrong on that one though).

As for offering classes on all religions, I agree with offering elective religious classes from a learning, but not an indoctrination, standpoint. Although I'm an atheist, I certainly see value in learning how others' belief systems work. I just don't want my kids being taught which one is right or why they should be in one.
Reply
post #21 of 60
2/14/12 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post

I personally have no problems with same sex marriages being made legal on state and national level. I DO however have a problem if the government tries to force religions to do something against their fundamental beliefs and make them recognize a same sex couple as "married" in the church. It's up to the individual church, IMO. If they agree, then great. If not, then the couple should find a church that does. Religion is a choice and you can change teams at any time. I believe we all have different ways of worshiping a higher power, but it's all the same entity. The rules are set by humans and their interpretations. 

The government doesn't force any church to recognize any kind of marriage... kinda really unconstitutional. laughing02.gif
Reply
post #22 of 60
2/14/12 at 9:10pm


I agree with everything in the quote below except the part in BOLD...I will explain below:
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula View Post

My favorite author puts it best

 

I contend the state ought to do its thing and provide legal rights for all couples who want to be joined together for life. The church should bless unions that it sees fit to bless, and they should be called marriages.
Tony Campolo


In other words, if a church wants to bless a union- they may. If not, the government should not force them to do so (either directly, or by threatening to remove their tax exempt status)
 
As someone who is a Christian, and still somewhat middle liberal, The govt has no right to say who can and can't marry anyone.
 
America was never founded as a "Christian" nation. It was founded on religious freedom- be it Christian, Buddhism, Muslim, Judaism, Shintoism, Krishna, Whatever your choice of religion, or choice of none.
 
Now some other thoughts on Separation of Church and state. This covers prayer in schools and anything of that sort.
 
Religious education should be PRIMARILY taught by the family and parents, and SECONDARILY by the church. Public school is not the place for it. I don't want my kids learning my faith from someone I might not trust to teach it correctly. In the same way, I wouldn't want them "learning" an alternate faith that went against our families beliefs.
 
Public school is the place for learning academics, not religion. Unless of course they offer an equal number of classes on different religions. I plan to enroll any future kids I have in a World Religions class so they know what they are "up against.".
 
The problem I have with allowing prayer in school (which BTW- Public School students have TONS of rights, they can lead prayer) Prayer just can't be led by an administrator or staff member of the school. Bibles can be read during non instructional times. There has yet to be a SINGLE CASE of public school persecution that lost. And mostly, if you research those stories- they didn't follow rules or laws. Such as recently a group of kids got suspended for having a prayer meeting on the sidewalk. The uproar screamed "persecution", but in reality- they were given a time and place to do it (during lunch in an empty classroom) but they broke the rule, so they got suspended.
 
To allow administrators to pray in school, or lead public prayer would be to have to allow all religions. I don't want my kids listening to a muslim or buddhist prayer etc (no offense intended)l
 
"Persecution" is also rampant. Take the story of the nurse in England who got fired for breaking dress code by wearing a necklace. She made a fuss, why? Because it was a cross necklace- so naturally, it was Christian persecution. In reality, she broke the rules of dress code and got fired- the rules which said necklaces were not allowed. this is the kind of thing I have no patience for :(



That is not true.  Settlers came to America so they could worship GOD - not Allah, not Buddah, not the sun or the planet.  GOD.   Our constitution was written by Christian men, our nation was founded on Christian principals and values.  One nation, Under God.  Now we have moved far from that foundation and have become more about "religious freedom" in this day and age.  ...but it absolutely did not start that way. 

 

As for same sex marriage...sure, why not?  My ex step-dad is gay and has hid it most of his life (hence how he was once my step-dad).  I love him dearly and he lives a committed life with his partner and has for longer than I have been married to my husband.  If he wants to legally get married, then he should be able to do so.  Will it be recognized by God?  That is not for me to answer or judge...but as far as being recognized by the state...it should be.  They have been together for over 10 years, but if he died today, his partner wouldn't get nearly what a wife or husband would have gotten from their spouse's death...yet they live committed, loving and peaceful lives together.  They should not be "punished" because they were born gay.

 

Being married in a church?  If the church will marry them, great.  Most won't though...and that will probably be the "norm."  I have to say, though, the Lutheran story is AWESOME!  Imagine accepting people for what they are and loving them anyway?  How Christlike!  My one hot button with the Baptist doctrine is this lack of acceptance and welcoming...as if it is THEIR church and not God's! (I am "Baptist" btw...but I stray hard on this point of contention).

 

Reply
post #23 of 60
2/15/12 at 5:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRexBear View Post

That is not true.  Settlers came to America so they could worship GOD - not Allah, not Buddah, not the sun or the planet.  GOD.   Our constitution was written by Christian men, our nation was founded on Christian principals and values.  One nation, Under God.  Now we have moved far from that foundation and have become more about "religious freedom" in this day and age.  ...but it absolutely did not start that way. 

Well, it's more complicated than that. It depends on which colony you mean, since we weren't a nation until 1776.

If you're talking about, say, Massachusetts, where the Puritans lived, then you'd be right. The idea that they came for their own religious freedom is right; the idea that they came to establish a free society where anyone could worship is wrong. Not sure how that crept into the school history books, but there you have it. The Puritans demanded that everyone living within their settlements attend their church or be expelled, and you had to be a church member to hold office or vote (and I think own land), and Puritan church membership requirements were pretty stringent.

If you're talking about, say, Virginia, technically Virginia's official religion was Anglicanism, and you had to be a property-holding church member to vote or run for office. But they didn't require you to be a member of your local church, although almost all were. I wouldn't say Virginia was founded as a Christian colony, not in the same way Massachusetts was.

And if you're talking about Rhode Island, that's a whole different can of worms. Rhode Island was founded as a colony for religious freedom (note that in this day, it meant allowing the then-hated Catholics and Jews to reside in the colony, as well as atheists, but since Hindus and others coming into contact with these colonists was unheard of, we don't know if they would have allowed religious freedom for these folks as well). It had no official religion, no church attendance requirement, and no church membership requirement for either voting or officeholding. These laws were considered pretty radical back then. (If you want to know more about Rhode Island vs. Massachusetts, I have a 12-page term paper that talks about it that I can send you smile.gif )

And if you mean the country after 1789, under the Constitution, saying that we were founded as a Christian nation would just be flat wrong. If you look closely at history, some of the Founding Fathers' Christianity would be unrecognizable to modern Christians, and some just plain did not worship. None of them envisioned a country in which everyone had to be (or even should be) a Christian; otherwise they would have put that in the Constitution, don't ya think? wink.gif

To conclude, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the '50s as a supposed deterrent for schoolchildren not to join communism. It was not in the pledge when it was originally written.

That is all smile.gif
Reply
post #24 of 60
2/15/12 at 8:44am

I homeschool...can you come teach history to my kids.  :)  Awesome knowledge (much further than my own) on the subject. 

 

I was mostly speaking of the first few to come here from England.  My thoughts were back to the Bradfords and such...so yes, Puritans would be correct. I was thinking specifically of the group who left England for religious persecution and first went to Holland...then on to America.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by speakhandsforme View Post


Well, it's more complicated than that. It depends on which colony you mean, since we weren't a nation until 1776.
If you're talking about, say, Massachusetts, where the Puritans lived, then you'd be right. The idea that they came for their own religious freedom is right; the idea that they came to establish a free society where anyone could worship is wrong. Not sure how that crept into the school history books, but there you have it. The Puritans demanded that everyone living within their settlements attend their church or be expelled, and you had to be a church member to hold office or vote (and I think own land), and Puritan church membership requirements were pretty stringent.
If you're talking about, say, Virginia, technically Virginia's official religion was Anglicanism, and you had to be a property-holding church member to vote or run for office. But they didn't require you to be a member of your local church, although almost all were. I wouldn't say Virginia was founded as a Christian colony, not in the same way Massachusetts was.
And if you're talking about Rhode Island, that's a whole different can of worms. Rhode Island was founded as a colony for religious freedom (note that in this day, it meant allowing the then-hated Catholics and Jews to reside in the colony, as well as atheists, but since Hindus and others coming into contact with these colonists was unheard of, we don't know if they would have allowed religious freedom for these folks as well). It had no official religion, no church attendance requirement, and no church membership requirement for either voting or officeholding. These laws were considered pretty radical back then. (If you want to know more about Rhode Island vs. Massachusetts, I have a 12-page term paper that talks about it that I can send you smile.gif )
And if you mean the country after 1789, under the Constitution, saying that we were founded as a Christian nation would just be flat wrong. If you look closely at history, some of the Founding Fathers' Christianity would be unrecognizable to modern Christians, and some just plain did not worship. None of them envisioned a country in which everyone had to be (or even should be) a Christian; otherwise they would have put that in the Constitution, don't ya think? wink.gif
To conclude, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the '50s as a supposed deterrent for schoolchildren not to join communism. It was not in the pledge when it was originally written.
That is all smile.gif


 

Reply
post #25 of 60
2/15/12 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRexBear View Post


I agree with everything in the quote below except the part in BOLD...I will explain below:
 



That is not true.  Settlers came to America so they could worship GOD - not Allah, not Buddah, not the sun or the planet.  GOD.   Our constitution was written by Christian men, our nation was founded on Christian principals and values.  One nation, Under God.  Now we have moved far from that foundation and have become more about "religious freedom" in this day and age.  ...but it absolutely did not start that way. 

 

As for same sex marriage...sure, why not?  My ex step-dad is gay and has hid it most of his life (hence how he was once my step-dad).  I love him dearly and he lives a committed life with his partner and has for longer than I have been married to my husband.  If he wants to legally get married, then he should be able to do so.  Will it be recognized by God?  That is not for me to answer or judge...but as far as being recognized by the state...it should be.  They have been together for over 10 years, but if he died today, his partner wouldn't get nearly what a wife or husband would have gotten from their spouse's death...yet they live committed, loving and peaceful lives together.  They should not be "punished" because they were born gay.

 

Being married in a church?  If the church will marry them, great.  Most won't though...and that will probably be the "norm."  I have to say, though, the Lutheran story is AWESOME!  Imagine accepting people for what they are and loving them anyway?  How Christlike!  My one hot button with the Baptist doctrine is this lack of acceptance and welcoming...as if it is THEIR church and not God's! (I am "Baptist" btw...but I stray hard on this point of contention).

 

I don't think anyone is born gay- some may have a certain chromosome that leans that way, but it certainly isn't the way God intended it. However, they have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as does anyone. If they want to get married, great- if not- that's OK too.

I understand. I go to a baptist church, but im not "Baptist", I am a Christian who happens to attend a Baptist church. My preferred church would be a NT functioining one They met daily. In Homes, and shared (no sermon or pastor etc). I despise labels.

 

Not all of the men who formed the constitution were Christian, Washington was a Deist for starters, and jefferson took the miracle of Jesus out of the Bible!! Said it was only good for "moral persuasion"

 

The "One Nation" the "Under God" Part was not even added to the pledge until 1925, it wasn't in the original. And the US "motto" "In God We Trust" wasn't added to paper notes until we lost the gold standard.

 

Luther: Great man of God, great story, great movie.

 

Reply
post #26 of 60
2/15/12 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRexBear View Post

I homeschool...can you come teach history to my kids.  smile.gif  Awesome knowledge (much further than my own) on the subject. 

I was mostly speaking of the first few to come here from England.  My thoughts were back to the Bradfords and such...so yes, Puritans would be correct. I was thinking specifically of the group who left England for religious persecution and first went to Holland...then on to America.

LOL, now I'm just being contrary, but once again, not quite. The Bradfords landed here on the Mayflower at Plymouth Rock in 1620, but the first permanent settlement was at Jamestown in 1608... in Virginia, and those guys were the Anglicans. wink.gif (Before that there was Roanoke, of course, but they didn't last, mysteriously...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula View Post


I don't think anyone is born gay- some may have a certain chromosome that leans that way, but it certainly isn't the way God intended it. However, they have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as does anyone. If they want to get married, great- if not- that's OK too.


Science disagrees with you on that one, the "no one is born gay" thing. There's mounting evidence that sexual orientation is indeed something developed neurologically in the womb. (I'm curious, are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is a choice?) BUT -- I have to say, I am VERY glad that you and Rebecca understand that regardless of what your own religion says, it isn't the government's place to take that belief and use it against a group of people and tell them they can't get married. smile.gif I think a lot of your Christian brothers and sisters are pretty wayward from the truth on that one. It just makes me wonder if they skipped over the whole "do unto others" thing that was at the crux of Jesus' message.
Reply
post #27 of 60
2/15/12 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakhandsforme View Post

LOL, now I'm just being contrary, but once again, not quite. The Bradfords landed here on the Mayflower at Plymouth Rock in 1620, but the first permanent settlement was at Jamestown in 1608... in Virginia, and those guys were the Anglicans. wink.gif (Before that there was Roanoke, of course, but they didn't last, mysteriously...)
Science disagrees with you on that one, the "no one is born gay" thing. There's mounting evidence that sexual orientation is indeed something developed neurologically in the womb. (I'm curious, are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is a choice?) BUT -- I have to say, I am VERY glad that you and Rebecca understand that regardless of what your own religion says, it isn't the government's place to take that belief and use it against a group of people and tell them they can't get married. smile.gif I think a lot of your Christian brothers and sisters are pretty wayward from the truth on that one. It just makes me wonder if they skipped over the whole "do unto others" thing that was at the crux of Jesus' message.

I wonder the same thing st times
Reply
post #28 of 60
2/15/12 at 6:24pm

Again...come teach history to my kids (and I!).. :)

 

I disagree with you on the idea that no one is born gay.  My step-dad was showing signs of interest in the same sex at a VERY young age.  He has always been a bit feminine and such too.  I absolutely believe it was NOT a choice for him.  "Not part of God's plan" just doesn't make sense to me as to someone being born a certain way.  People are born with the desire and ability to sin in all ways.  If I went out tomorrow and had an affair...it would not be in God's plan for me, but I still have a choice to act or not act on something that I was born with the ability to do.  I absolutely believe that people are born with gay feelings - and it is up to them whether or not to act on those feelings.

Reply
post #29 of 60
2/15/12 at 6:30pm

Some Clarification.

 

When I say "it is not God's way", it means- because of original sin- it is not the way he desires. He doesn't desire sin.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, that due to man's original sin, some people are born with the "desire", I suppose--

 

But youre right, its the action we can control.

Reply
post #30 of 60
2/16/12 at 9:43am
IMHO if God created all of us in his likeness.... it created them too, in his likeness..... They were created BY GOD, just like US. And deserve to be happy, to have fuller lives, to experience love, to have a family, and to love God, if that is what they believe, just like US.
Gay, straight, black, white, yellow, blue.... No matter who you are..... if you truly believe in God, you also believe, IMHO, that all of us are God's children, and were created in his likeness....
We are not better or worst than anyone..... We are all brothers and sisters..... with our own lives to live.....
Judging to me, is what is not God like.
Being gay..... That is not a matter of choice - it is just a matter of being - the same way as I am straight and I just am.
I wish that one day people would get to that conclusion..... That God, as the creator..... created them too...... and they have every right to be who they are, and that is not a sin. Existing, being who they were meant to be; who they were created BY GOD to be... is not a sin. IMHO.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › On the subject of gay marriages....do you think same sex couples should be allowed to get married in a church?