I don't get it
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: northeast usa
jbr,
the marriage is what is left after the procreation. thats where family takes over.
marriage is a commitment to stick together, work through issues, and with children, to give them the beliefs and traits you hope to see reflected in your grandkids. it gives a strong sense of 'us' and 'we' and hopefully theres some pride thrown in as well.
i think it helps solidify a bond between people. i lived with my wife for 5 years before we were married, and it was fun, but the marriage is the 'signing on the dotted line'.
any a$$ can create a child and take off and let that baby fend for itself or rely on other for guidance. although its not always given the importance that it should be, marriage should show that you will be doing that as a family.
of course there are exceptions to almost everything, but i still believe getting married is a strong statement of showing where your head & heart are at and it defines a family mentality.
i think this is a key factor that forms my lack of belief in a same sex marriage.
the marriage is what is left after the procreation. thats where family takes over.
marriage is a commitment to stick together, work through issues, and with children, to give them the beliefs and traits you hope to see reflected in your grandkids. it gives a strong sense of 'us' and 'we' and hopefully theres some pride thrown in as well.
i think it helps solidify a bond between people. i lived with my wife for 5 years before we were married, and it was fun, but the marriage is the 'signing on the dotted line'.
any a$$ can create a child and take off and let that baby fend for itself or rely on other for guidance. although its not always given the importance that it should be, marriage should show that you will be doing that as a family.
of course there are exceptions to almost everything, but i still believe getting married is a strong statement of showing where your head & heart are at and it defines a family mentality.
i think this is a key factor that forms my lack of belief in a same sex marriage.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Ok, let me clarify my original post about gays. I wanted to get things going… 
I don’t have a problem with gays in general, so long as they remain quite about it. I do not need to know someone is gay no more then I need to know that Joe down the street is doing 2 women every night. That is the same thing, flaunting a life style and slapping someone in the face with it.
The only reason gays have parades is to flaunt and slap everyone else in the society (the vast majority) that are not gay and say “Hey big boy I am gay and proud of it” Gays do NOT deserve nor warrant any special favors from society neither. I think business should have the right to fire them like anyone else for sexual harassment. Someone tell me I can walk into work and start talking about ******* some women or any other sexual talk and tell me that I will NOT most likely face some type of punishment and/or just be fired. Same should be the case for a gay person. If they walk in wanting to flaunt how they are gay should be fired. It IS sexual harassment.
However, if they come in and keep their mouth shut like everyone else about their sex life but are fired because someone just don’t like a gay person then yes the law should step in like it would for a minority or other special reason that may be needed to protect someone because they have a particular life style. That would be the same protection that someone that may practice a particular religion would get if they were to be fired because the boss didn’t agree with their religion. Therefore there is NO need for anything added to the law for gay people.
billycouldride hit the ball out of the park (no pun intended) with his comments about marriage so I am not going to go into them except say that NO gays should not be allowed to marry nor have any special rights for living together, no tax breaks or what ever. Many single couples live together and do not get any special privileges for living together, so neither should gay people.
Here is something else to think about as far as the marriage issue. If you allow gays to be legally marry then how about multiple partners (I can not think of the term) where you have a guy with 3 wife’s, or maybe someone wants to call a marriage or family 3 males and 4 females. How about allowing young girls to be married, so long as say the 13 year girl is ok with it and her parents are ok with it and of course her 40 year old soon to be husband is ok with it. So how about it, all the important parties think its ok, the 13 year old, and her parents so why not? Who are we to tell the 40 year old guy he can not have a 13 year old wife when everyone in the family is ok with it? Flip the coin and make it a 40 year old woman wanting to marry a 13 year old boy and everyone in the family is ok with it, you going for that?
What about cousins being able to marry or brother and sister? How about a mother and son, or father and daughter? Why would that be wrong if it is ok for two males or two females to marry? It seems like people “try” to justify gays being able to marry and have a family because they “think” they too could raise children just as good as a mother and father. Well I could use the same justification for any of the combinations above and say if the two people, be it the 13 year old and 40 year old, or mother and son, or cousins truly love each other then that is what is important for raising children and nobody should come out against it. I would think and expect the liberals who support gay marriage to come out in my defense and say well if gays can marry then so can all the other combinations that 01 came out with because it’s about love, it’s about feelings, and it’s about NOT judging others.
Once you break down the institution of marriage which is based on procreation and “raising” the children you will find there will be no reason for marriage at all.
Can gays be loving toward children? I am sure they can and would do the best they could at raising children, however in my opinion they can not raise children properly. They would give children the wrong moral values, and quite frankly I think it is unfair to put children into that position of having two daddy’s or two mommy’s or possible more then both of them.
If it is ok to have gays raise children from birth then what is wrong with a normal person and the spouse being a drug addict or alcoholic? Well, we know that a drug addict is not good nor is an alcoholic based on “history”.
I guess the bottom line is you have to have a point where something is right and something is wrong. This belief in the “gray area” is an easy out for most people who “refuse” to make a decision on something. In my opinion it is right for one male and one female to marry, any other combination is wrong.
I don’t have a problem with gays in general, so long as they remain quite about it. I do not need to know someone is gay no more then I need to know that Joe down the street is doing 2 women every night. That is the same thing, flaunting a life style and slapping someone in the face with it.
The only reason gays have parades is to flaunt and slap everyone else in the society (the vast majority) that are not gay and say “Hey big boy I am gay and proud of it” Gays do NOT deserve nor warrant any special favors from society neither. I think business should have the right to fire them like anyone else for sexual harassment. Someone tell me I can walk into work and start talking about ******* some women or any other sexual talk and tell me that I will NOT most likely face some type of punishment and/or just be fired. Same should be the case for a gay person. If they walk in wanting to flaunt how they are gay should be fired. It IS sexual harassment.
However, if they come in and keep their mouth shut like everyone else about their sex life but are fired because someone just don’t like a gay person then yes the law should step in like it would for a minority or other special reason that may be needed to protect someone because they have a particular life style. That would be the same protection that someone that may practice a particular religion would get if they were to be fired because the boss didn’t agree with their religion. Therefore there is NO need for anything added to the law for gay people.
billycouldride hit the ball out of the park (no pun intended)
with his comments about marriage so I am not going to go into them except say that NO gays should not be allowed to marry nor have any special rights for living together, no tax breaks or what ever. Many single couples live together and do not get any special privileges for living together, so neither should gay people.Here is something else to think about as far as the marriage issue. If you allow gays to be legally marry then how about multiple partners (I can not think of the term) where you have a guy with 3 wife’s, or maybe someone wants to call a marriage or family 3 males and 4 females. How about allowing young girls to be married, so long as say the 13 year girl is ok with it and her parents are ok with it and of course her 40 year old soon to be husband is ok with it. So how about it, all the important parties think its ok, the 13 year old, and her parents so why not? Who are we to tell the 40 year old guy he can not have a 13 year old wife when everyone in the family is ok with it? Flip the coin and make it a 40 year old woman wanting to marry a 13 year old boy and everyone in the family is ok with it, you going for that?
What about cousins being able to marry or brother and sister? How about a mother and son, or father and daughter? Why would that be wrong if it is ok for two males or two females to marry? It seems like people “try” to justify gays being able to marry and have a family because they “think” they too could raise children just as good as a mother and father. Well I could use the same justification for any of the combinations above and say if the two people, be it the 13 year old and 40 year old, or mother and son, or cousins truly love each other then that is what is important for raising children and nobody should come out against it. I would think and expect the liberals who support gay marriage to come out in my defense and say well if gays can marry then so can all the other combinations that 01 came out with because it’s about love, it’s about feelings, and it’s about NOT judging others.
Once you break down the institution of marriage which is based on procreation and “raising” the children you will find there will be no reason for marriage at all.
Can gays be loving toward children? I am sure they can and would do the best they could at raising children, however in my opinion they can not raise children properly. They would give children the wrong moral values, and quite frankly I think it is unfair to put children into that position of having two daddy’s or two mommy’s or possible more then both of them.
If it is ok to have gays raise children from birth then what is wrong with a normal person and the spouse being a drug addict or alcoholic? Well, we know that a drug addict is not good nor is an alcoholic based on “history”.
I guess the bottom line is you have to have a point where something is right and something is wrong. This belief in the “gray area” is an easy out for most people who “refuse” to make a decision on something. In my opinion it is right for one male and one female to marry, any other combination is wrong.
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Lawrenceville, GA
ok,
I agree with you about some gay people flaunting their lifestyle. However from my perspective I most of the time only see this happen in parts of town that are known as being largely populated by gays. Their neighborhood....fine flaunt it. At work, no don't...but I haven't seen a gay person flaunt their lifestyle outside of their own "domain" for lack of a better term.
As for gay marriages...after thinking about a little more I say they should be allowed to marry. I don't recall any part of my vows being about having children and rasing them in a loving nurturing home, I remember it going something along the lines of Love, Honor, and Cherish for as long as we both shall live...something like that.
And you have to remember what marriage rights most Gays are wanting, that being the legal right, not religious right. There religion is between a person and his or her God. They are wanting the legal right to be reconized as a couple by the Governement. I think that the government should reconize common law marriages as well, there by offering the same reconignition to different sex couples who have not gotten married for reasons of their own if they so choose.
As for the 13 year old getting married....come 01 you can do better than that....Legal Age of consent. How many 14 year old boys do you think would drink beer if they thought it was ok and that was enough....Little johnny at the corner Stop and Go buying a 12 pack saying "I know I'm only 14 but I think that's old enough", Clerk "Oh ok then, if you thgink that's old enough that will be $14.58 please, thanks and come again" That is just not realistic. And there is no need to bring incest into this either. While true that there has to be a line between right and wrong, I think pretty much everyone knows that line...the line is probably a little different for some people but as long as they are consenting adults not hurting anyone or harming ones right to life liberty or property then what is the problem.
Stan
Dang my fingers are tired now
I agree with you about some gay people flaunting their lifestyle. However from my perspective I most of the time only see this happen in parts of town that are known as being largely populated by gays. Their neighborhood....fine flaunt it. At work, no don't...but I haven't seen a gay person flaunt their lifestyle outside of their own "domain" for lack of a better term.
As for gay marriages...after thinking about a little more I say they should be allowed to marry. I don't recall any part of my vows being about having children and rasing them in a loving nurturing home, I remember it going something along the lines of Love, Honor, and Cherish for as long as we both shall live...something like that.
And you have to remember what marriage rights most Gays are wanting, that being the legal right, not religious right. There religion is between a person and his or her God. They are wanting the legal right to be reconized as a couple by the Governement. I think that the government should reconize common law marriages as well, there by offering the same reconignition to different sex couples who have not gotten married for reasons of their own if they so choose.
As for the 13 year old getting married....come 01 you can do better than that....Legal Age of consent. How many 14 year old boys do you think would drink beer if they thought it was ok and that was enough....Little johnny at the corner Stop and Go buying a 12 pack saying "I know I'm only 14 but I think that's old enough", Clerk "Oh ok then, if you thgink that's old enough that will be $14.58 please, thanks and come again" That is just not realistic. And there is no need to bring incest into this either. While true that there has to be a line between right and wrong, I think pretty much everyone knows that line...the line is probably a little different for some people but as long as they are consenting adults not hurting anyone or harming ones right to life liberty or property then what is the problem.
Stan
Dang my fingers are tired now
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
I don't agree with incest; but, as long as there are no babies being made, I can see where this could be argued for as well. "Come on. The Homos can get married. Why can't me and my cousin?"
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: SE Houston
The first thing you need to realize is this is taking place in the Episcopal Church, not Catholic. The man is a priest already. He has been elected a Bishop. He is a divorced father of 2 adult children, that struggled with his being gay well into adulthood, after marriage and children, he divorced and began living as a homosexual. There is no vow of celibacy in the Episcopal Church.
Some of the other remarks I have read don't deserve mention, or comment.
I am sure children of drug addicted, alcoholic or abusive parents are much better off than the children in a stable loving environment of same sex parents. <this is sarcasm>
As far as having parades and such to flaunt one's lifestyle and/or heritage, I offer St. Patrick's Day and Mardi Gras as occasions in which persons can party and celebrate their lot in life and say to society, "I am proud of who I am!"
My point, is this, if I am a gay man in a loving committed relationship, I should be afforded the same rights as any straight couple in the world. The rights of survivorship, inheritance, power of attorney, power to "pull the plug". Those type rights, which are not guaranteed to a gay or lesbian couple, whether together 50 days or 50 years. The right to provide a home to an orphan. The right to live without fear of living life outside of a closet.
Peace.
DLF
Some of the other remarks I have read don't deserve mention, or comment.
I am sure children of drug addicted, alcoholic or abusive parents are much better off than the children in a stable loving environment of same sex parents. <this is sarcasm>
As far as having parades and such to flaunt one's lifestyle and/or heritage, I offer St. Patrick's Day and Mardi Gras as occasions in which persons can party and celebrate their lot in life and say to society, "I am proud of who I am!"
My point, is this, if I am a gay man in a loving committed relationship, I should be afforded the same rights as any straight couple in the world. The rights of survivorship, inheritance, power of attorney, power to "pull the plug". Those type rights, which are not guaranteed to a gay or lesbian couple, whether together 50 days or 50 years. The right to provide a home to an orphan. The right to live without fear of living life outside of a closet.
Peace.
DLF
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Flint Hills area of Kansas
dlf posted:
"The first thing you need to realize is this is taking place in the Episcopal Church, not Catholic."
Thanks dlf, I was getting madder by the minute to think of all these folks going off half-****ed because somebody did not bother to read the article a little closer.....
"The first thing you need to realize is this is taking place in the Episcopal Church, not Catholic."
Thanks dlf, I was getting madder by the minute to think of all these folks going off half-****ed because somebody did not bother to read the article a little closer.....
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Fine if they want rights to inheritance and power of attorney or to pull the plug then great, give it to them. However they do not need a marriage certificate to have those rights.
I am sorry but all the different situations of marriage I brought up are relevant, be it the 13 year old to a 40 year old, cousins or within the same family. Why is that wrong but the same sex marriage is not? Sounds prejudice to me and any good liberal out there should be crying FOUL to those comments of being prejudice.
Your right, the wedding vows do not mention anything about having children or raising them in a loving home, so what? My point is marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman, just like it is wrong for incest, or for cousins to marry etc, same thing.
Why is it wrong for cousins to marry or someone who is 13 to marry a 40 year old? Well, right now a 40 year old can not marry a 13 year old because there is a “law” in place, but once you start changing the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable in society then the question can be raised is the law that states a 40 year old can not marry a minor judgmental, wrong and/or prejudice? Your damn straight it can be raised same for the law against a man to marry 3 women or 10 women, hey if all the women don’t mind having one husband then why is someone judging them?
There is nothing wrong on passing judgment especially on morality and what the majority thinks is the correct morality. The only reason a 40 year old can not marry a 13 year old is because the majority of the public thinks it is immoral to do so. There is no physical reason why they can not marry, its moral and maturity and that is it. There is no physical reason why two cousins of legal age cannot marry, nor is there any physical reason why a brother and sister of legal age cannot marry its completely because of the moral values society has placed on those situations for why it is illegal. Some one may say well their children would have metal and/or physical defects, fine make it illegal for them to have children, but why can they not marry and get all the benefits afforded to married couples.
Marriage carries legal baggage with it, if you divorce and decide to dump your spouse and she/he has not worked or is limited then the court (society) states that one of them may have to pay the other. Therefore unless someone is married they do NOT deserve the same rights and/or privileges of a married couple. Common law marriage is a joke, it is two people that have decided to NEVER commit to each other, kind of like a “gray area” If they are not willing to sign the contract (marriage certificate) then no benefits of the contract, very simple.
People in the “gray area” afraid to actually commit, gays etc all have the power to do all the things mentioned above, right to inheritance (will it to the other person, legal document), power of attorney (legal document), right to pull the plug (legal document) ect, all it takes it a lawyer and signing a paper (damn, there’s that commitment thing again)…
I am sorry but all the different situations of marriage I brought up are relevant, be it the 13 year old to a 40 year old, cousins or within the same family. Why is that wrong but the same sex marriage is not? Sounds prejudice to me and any good liberal out there should be crying FOUL to those comments of being prejudice.
Your right, the wedding vows do not mention anything about having children or raising them in a loving home, so what? My point is marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman, just like it is wrong for incest, or for cousins to marry etc, same thing.
Why is it wrong for cousins to marry or someone who is 13 to marry a 40 year old? Well, right now a 40 year old can not marry a 13 year old because there is a “law” in place, but once you start changing the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable in society then the question can be raised is the law that states a 40 year old can not marry a minor judgmental, wrong and/or prejudice? Your damn straight it can be raised same for the law against a man to marry 3 women or 10 women, hey if all the women don’t mind having one husband then why is someone judging them?
There is nothing wrong on passing judgment especially on morality and what the majority thinks is the correct morality. The only reason a 40 year old can not marry a 13 year old is because the majority of the public thinks it is immoral to do so. There is no physical reason why they can not marry, its moral and maturity and that is it. There is no physical reason why two cousins of legal age cannot marry, nor is there any physical reason why a brother and sister of legal age cannot marry its completely because of the moral values society has placed on those situations for why it is illegal. Some one may say well their children would have metal and/or physical defects, fine make it illegal for them to have children, but why can they not marry and get all the benefits afforded to married couples.
Marriage carries legal baggage with it, if you divorce and decide to dump your spouse and she/he has not worked or is limited then the court (society) states that one of them may have to pay the other. Therefore unless someone is married they do NOT deserve the same rights and/or privileges of a married couple. Common law marriage is a joke, it is two people that have decided to NEVER commit to each other, kind of like a “gray area” If they are not willing to sign the contract (marriage certificate) then no benefits of the contract, very simple.
People in the “gray area” afraid to actually commit, gays etc all have the power to do all the things mentioned above, right to inheritance (will it to the other person, legal document), power of attorney (legal document), right to pull the plug (legal document) ect, all it takes it a lawyer and signing a paper (damn, there’s that commitment thing again)…
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
From: Whitehorse, Yukon
dlf,
Good post, well written, and lots of thought put into it
I share almost the same opinion with the following exception...
You can't really compare a St Patrick's Day parade with a "Gay Pride Parade"
I see what you're saying, but really, it's apples & oranges.
Fine, if they have a big celebration (parade) in Provincetown, or something like that, well, ok,this is their territory, and anyone who goes there knows ahead of time what kind of community it is.
Having a Gay Pride March in small town America however, well, I don't know, it just doesnt sit right with me.
It's not like those of us who arnt gay have a yearly "Proud to be Hetro Parade"
** A little story about how my attitude towards gays changed:
A long time ago, I was very good friends with a fellow musician, our friendship lasted from mid 80's until 7 or 8 years ago when he moved away.
During that time, we hung out together an awful lot, spent time writing and recording, and just had a good friendship.
My wife (g/f at the time) came over with me to his place often, as we were both fond of him.
Neither of us ever suspected he was gay.
Back then, my tolerance for "those people" was zilch, zero, nada, I was always cracking jokes, and pretty much an ahole when it came to gays.
So about 5 years ago, I found out through the grapevine that my old friend was gay, even when we were friends while we hung out.
I thought back to the things I said, how I behaved, and pretty much felt like a zero for being how I was.
Here's the thing, before I knew he was gay, I trusted, respected, and admired him.
So then I asked myself this question:
Ok, so he is gay, and was gay, how does that change what I think about him now?
The only answer I could muster up is that nothing changed.
All that changed was me, and me feeling like a jerk for how I was.
Don't get me wrong you guys, I'm not like a gay advocate or anything, I'm just trying to share how my experience taught me to stop being a shallow ahole and accept people for who they are, and not what they are.
Habibi
Good post, well written, and lots of thought put into it
I share almost the same opinion with the following exception...
You can't really compare a St Patrick's Day parade with a "Gay Pride Parade"
I see what you're saying, but really, it's apples & oranges.
Fine, if they have a big celebration (parade) in Provincetown, or something like that, well, ok,this is their territory, and anyone who goes there knows ahead of time what kind of community it is.
Having a Gay Pride March in small town America however, well, I don't know, it just doesnt sit right with me.
It's not like those of us who arnt gay have a yearly "Proud to be Hetro Parade"
** A little story about how my attitude towards gays changed:
A long time ago, I was very good friends with a fellow musician, our friendship lasted from mid 80's until 7 or 8 years ago when he moved away.
During that time, we hung out together an awful lot, spent time writing and recording, and just had a good friendship.
My wife (g/f at the time) came over with me to his place often, as we were both fond of him.
Neither of us ever suspected he was gay.
Back then, my tolerance for "those people" was zilch, zero, nada, I was always cracking jokes, and pretty much an ahole when it came to gays.
So about 5 years ago, I found out through the grapevine that my old friend was gay, even when we were friends while we hung out.
I thought back to the things I said, how I behaved, and pretty much felt like a zero for being how I was.
Here's the thing, before I knew he was gay, I trusted, respected, and admired him.
So then I asked myself this question:
Ok, so he is gay, and was gay, how does that change what I think about him now?
The only answer I could muster up is that nothing changed.
All that changed was me, and me feeling like a jerk for how I was.
Don't get me wrong you guys, I'm not like a gay advocate or anything, I'm just trying to share how my experience taught me to stop being a shallow ahole and accept people for who they are, and not what they are.
Habibi
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: Montana
....ok.....
01, I agree with you to no end on this, it is wrong. In my opnion there is no grey area in this, you have right and wrong. I am never around gays around here, there just aren't that many around here that are out spoken, the straight lifestyle is overpowering. But anyway to the orignal disscussion, they should not be allowed to become a priest. That would indicate that they believe in the bible, it would seem to me that there were a couple of cities destroyed by God for their kind of behavior. Nor should they (gays) be allowed to get married, not in the us nor in canada. It is wrong, when they can give birth to their own child, I will be willing to give then a chance to marry.
Cody
01, I agree with you to no end on this, it is wrong. In my opnion there is no grey area in this, you have right and wrong. I am never around gays around here, there just aren't that many around here that are out spoken, the straight lifestyle is overpowering. But anyway to the orignal disscussion, they should not be allowed to become a priest. That would indicate that they believe in the bible, it would seem to me that there were a couple of cities destroyed by God for their kind of behavior. Nor should they (gays) be allowed to get married, not in the us nor in canada. It is wrong, when they can give birth to their own child, I will be willing to give then a chance to marry.
Cody
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: NW Arkansas
Hello, all:
Since this is a church matter, and should not really be considered a legal one (see U.S. Constitution, Amendment I), I will use only religious arguments here.
The last time I checked, the Episcopalians used the Holy Bible in church, and the last time I checked (read: right now) the Bible still says:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev. 18:22
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lu****lly has already commited adultery with her in his heart." Matt. 5:28
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adutery." Matt. 19:9
"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not seperate." Mark 10:9
"Love the Lord your God with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30-31
Let me sum up. God decided a long time ago that men and women should be married, not men and men.
Also, the first excerpt from Matthew suggests that desiring to sin (in this case to have homosexual relations) is just as bad as doing it. How would he know that he was gay if he had not thought about it?
Thirdly, divorce is explicitly described as immoral and sinful "except for marital unfaithfulness." Now I don't know if either the person in question or his ex-wife committed adultery, so I will not say more about that.
Fourthly, despite the fact that this man is not perfect, we should love him as a human being. This does not mean, however, that he shold be allowed to serve in the clergy, especially if he continues to assert that he is homosexual and does not consider it a sin nor ask the Lord for forgiveness. Again, I have no personal contact with this person, so I cannot say whether this is the case.
Now, it is not our place to decide a man's fate; God will do that. But it is the place of a Christian, Bible-believing denomination to promote and uphold the Word of God (and those of Jesus, Son of God) as commanded to us.
Like I said, this is a religious debate, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what non-Christians or government officials believe in this case because the church is not subject to their opinions.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
Just my $.02
-James
Since this is a church matter, and should not really be considered a legal one (see U.S. Constitution, Amendment I), I will use only religious arguments here.
The last time I checked, the Episcopalians used the Holy Bible in church, and the last time I checked (read: right now) the Bible still says:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev. 18:22
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lu****lly has already commited adultery with her in his heart." Matt. 5:28
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adutery." Matt. 19:9
"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not seperate." Mark 10:9
"Love the Lord your God with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30-31
Let me sum up. God decided a long time ago that men and women should be married, not men and men.
Also, the first excerpt from Matthew suggests that desiring to sin (in this case to have homosexual relations) is just as bad as doing it. How would he know that he was gay if he had not thought about it?
Thirdly, divorce is explicitly described as immoral and sinful "except for marital unfaithfulness." Now I don't know if either the person in question or his ex-wife committed adultery, so I will not say more about that.
Fourthly, despite the fact that this man is not perfect, we should love him as a human being. This does not mean, however, that he shold be allowed to serve in the clergy, especially if he continues to assert that he is homosexual and does not consider it a sin nor ask the Lord for forgiveness. Again, I have no personal contact with this person, so I cannot say whether this is the case.
Now, it is not our place to decide a man's fate; God will do that. But it is the place of a Christian, Bible-believing denomination to promote and uphold the Word of God (and those of Jesus, Son of God) as commanded to us.
Like I said, this is a religious debate, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what non-Christians or government officials believe in this case because the church is not subject to their opinions.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
Just my $.02
-James
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Lawrenceville, GA
Ok...so now you are describing the Democracy that we live in...
OMG that is just scary. That quote right there is the biggest problem with the Republican party today. They see no problem whatsoever telling someone else how to live their life in a morally upstanding manner...(while they go live theirs as they see fit so long as they don't get caught) The fact of it is that each and every human gets one shot at life, we each should have the chance to live it as we see fit. not how W. Bush thinks we should live it.
BTW if you notice the first line of this post and think something looks odd there....the USA is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy is Mob rull as 01 so eloquently (sp) pointed out this is a very dangerous concept.
Meant by who? God? Ok...what about people who don't belive in God?
BTW...I am not directly attacking you 01...I think you've noticed my views thus far are very close to yours on fiscal matters...
and I'm having fun with this...I never get to debate a Republican
Stan
There is nothing wrong on passing judgment especially on morality and what the majority thinks is the correct morality. The only reason a 40 year old can not marry a 13 year old is because the majority of the public thinks it is immoral to do so. There is no physical reason why they can not marry, its moral and maturity and that is it.
OMG that is just scary. That quote right there is the biggest problem with the Republican party today. They see no problem whatsoever telling someone else how to live their life in a morally upstanding manner...(while they go live theirs as they see fit so long as they don't get caught) The fact of it is that each and every human gets one shot at life, we each should have the chance to live it as we see fit. not how W. Bush thinks we should live it. BTW if you notice the first line of this post and think something looks odd there....the USA is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy is Mob rull as 01 so eloquently (sp) pointed out this is a very dangerous concept.
My point is marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman
BTW...I am not directly attacking you 01...I think you've noticed my views thus far are very close to yours on fiscal matters...
and I'm having fun with this...I never get to debate a Republican
Stan
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: SE Houston
Originally posted by Ford4Fun
....ok.....
It is wrong, when they can give birth to their own child, I will be willing to give then a chance to marry.
Cody
....ok.....
It is wrong, when they can give birth to their own child, I will be willing to give then a chance to marry.
Cody
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
A couple of things that don't make sense to me about equal rights:
Why do the gays that are going to attend the new school in NY only get to go if they are gay. Shouldn't straight people be allowed to attend as well since their parents are paying taxes on the school? Not that they would want to, but I am sure they would not be allowed to if they wanted. That right there is segregation.
Also, why can African Americans have Black Expos? I think that if there were a White Expo, then it would be deemed racist? I am not making this comment to put down African Americans, but I think it is an interesting point.
Why do the gays that are going to attend the new school in NY only get to go if they are gay. Shouldn't straight people be allowed to attend as well since their parents are paying taxes on the school? Not that they would want to, but I am sure they would not be allowed to if they wanted. That right there is segregation.
Also, why can African Americans have Black Expos? I think that if there were a White Expo, then it would be deemed racist? I am not making this comment to put down African Americans, but I think it is an interesting point.