Gay marriage in the Christian world

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Wow, kind of like responsible recreational drug users, that refuse to sacrifice their rights to consume drugs into their own bodies, of free-will, against the threats of the nanny-state with a moralist agenda? Perhaps I should give this argument the same amount of respect, and say that once you imprison enough pastors for this "crime", perhaps we can discuss how rational it is to imprison people for others beliefs, as opposed to actions that actually harm others? Sorry, had to make the parallel, since I see it quite relevant and equal.

Well, there is a problem in the parallellism, for one, consuming recreational drugs can cause harm to a person other than the consumer, as can be shown by the drugged up guy driving down the road and swerving into the oncoming lane.

On the other hand, a pastor refusing to marry a gay couple based on ethical reasons would not cause harm to others. He will have his wits about him when he gets in the car.

For some reason, I don't see the similarity.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: nilan3000 CHILD MOLESTORS are allowed by law to adopt children

What law do you refer to?

[nilan3000]

Quote by: PatrickHenry What law do you refer to?

I refer to the lack of law. There is no law forbidding formerly convicted child molestors or murderers or rapists to adopt babies. So why should gay couples be any worse off than them?

That statement was in response to a post that said gay couples should not be allowed to adopt babies. The object of my statement was to tell him that there are worse people who are allowed to adopt babies, so why shouldnt homo sexuals be allowed to do so?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: nilan3000 I refer to the lack of law. There is no law forbidding formerly convicted child molestors or murderers or rapists to adopt babies. So why should gay couples be any worse off than them? That statement was in response to a post that said gay couples should not be allowed to adopt babies. The object of my statement was to tell him that there are worse people who are allowed to adopt babies, so why shouldnt homo sexuals be allowed to do so?

Actually, there are laws regarding that, because Department of Children and Families, at least in Florida, will not allow child molesters to adopt while they are still on the list of known sexual offenders. Now, once their time on the list is finished, they are allowed to adopt.

[nilan3000]

I am unaware of such a law but you could be right because Im not an expert in Florida law. Generally though, there is no law forbidding such criminals from adopting children. But even if what you say is true, even florida law permits the person to adopt a child once his/her time on the list is over.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage. For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality. This has been done before, when a gay group tried to sue a pastor. Another thing is it would force pastors to head up the marriages, and most, like my pastor, say that he will go to prison rather than that.

Excuse me if I am skeptical about the claim. Even if it is true, it is a suit without merit. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Threatening to sue someone is pretty meaningless. Suing when the claim is so clearly a violation of the First Amendment is equally meaningless.

This sounds to me like just another example of the odd tendency of certain members of the overwhelmingly majority religion claiming that they are a persecuted minority. It doesn't make any sense but that fact never seems to stop the whining.

To speak plainly your "demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage" is complete nonsense.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Excuse me if I am skeptical about the claim. Even if it is true, it is a suit without merit. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Threatening to sue someone is pretty meaningless. Suing when the claim is so clearly a violation of the First Amendment is equally meaningless. This sounds to me like just another example of the odd tendency of certain members of the overwhelmingly majority religion claiming that they are a persecuted minority. It doesn't make any sense but that fact never seems to stop the whining. To speak plainly your "demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage" is complete nonsense.

Among my generation, there is only 15% who claim to be Christian. The next generation is only going to have 4%. We are no longer the "majority religion." In fact, BIMI and the ABWE have declared America the second least reached country in the world. I would not call us the majority religion. In fact, there are countries in the 10/40 Window that have more Christians per capita than America. There are now more Russian missionaries to America than there are American missionaries to Russia. What does that say about America? It says that we have officially gone off the path.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: nilan3000 I am unaware of such a law but you could be right because Im not an expert in Florida law. Generally though, there is no law forbidding such criminals from adopting children. But even if what you say is true, even florida law permits the person to adopt a child once his/her time on the list is over.

Yes, but I agree with that law. IT is not right for us, as humans, to hold something from 10 years past against them as humans. Now, as I understand it, in Florida, people who are on the watch list are not allowed to have a residence within a certain distance of schools and are only allowed to visit them on business matters or dropping their biological kids off. Notice that they are allowed to marry and have kids of their own, though. After ten years, the crime is not allowed to be considered except for the fact that, yes, they did do it. However, a person employing people to work with kids is not allowed to consider that crime of the past in the hiring process. If they did so, they would, themselves, be breaking the law. Now, I no longer live in Florida and have not for the last 2 years, but this is how it was before the last election.

[Jack]

Among my generation, there is only 15% who claim to be Christian. The next generation is only going to have 4%. We are no longer the "majority religion.

Even if these figures are accurate (and I have serious doubts, since that fails to agree with several reputable surveys done recently in the U.S.) it will be a few years yet before your generation forms the majority of the population. At present, we baby-boomers are still the largest age group in the country, and I can believe the 75%+ figure of those who call themselves Christian among my age group.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood Even if these figures are accurate (and I have serious doubts, since that fails to agree with several reputable surveys done recently in the U.S.) it will be a few years yet before your generation forms the majority of the population. At present, we baby-boomers are still the largest age group in the country, and I can believe the 75%+ figure of those who call themselves Christian among my age group.

Who CALL themselves or who actually practice Christianity? Even DL Moody said that not even 20% of his congregation were truly Christians. So if we take a 20% figure of that we have around 15% of your generation who actually are practicing Christians. ANd those figures are from a modest sized number. Based on what I have seen in my discussions aboard Greyhounds, it is even less than that today. From those, it was three of us on average in each bus that were Christians and around 10-15 who were not. These averages are based on 5 different trips I have taken via greyhound, with a change of bus for each one, so it is based on 10 different groups of people whom I had no choice of being with. I would say around 100 people would have participated in these discussions.

Edit: Yes I know the greyhounds are limited by the fact that they were informal. So don't go there with this.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Yes, but I agree with that law. IT is not right for us, as humans, to hold something from 10 years past against them as humans. Now, as I understand it, in Florida, people who are on the watch list are not allowed to have a residence within a certain distance of schools and are only allowed to visit them on business matters or dropping their biological kids off. Notice that they are allowed to marry and have kids of their own, though. After ten years, the crime is not allowed to be considered except for the fact that, yes, they did do it. However, a person employing people to work with kids is not allowed to consider that crime of the past in the hiring process. If they did so, they would, themselves, be breaking the law. Now, I no longer live in Florida and have not for the last 2 years, but this is how it was before the last election.

I agree with you, but do you feel that gay couples are actually worse than these guys?

[Duke1985]

Quote by: dthmstr254 There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage. For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality. This has been done before, when a gay group tried to sue a pastor. Another thing is it would force pastors to head up the marriages, and most, like my pastor, say that he will go to prison rather than that. Secondly, in the above situation, I would write in a vote instead of voting for the two major people in candidacy

First of all, gay people can already do that, I can do that, any American can do that because we have what in the United States? Freedom of speech and a right to protest, and as long as its done peacefully, you can't really complain, because its those same freedoms that let you come on here and say your piece.

Secondly, if a pastor does not agree with gay marriage, they don't have to head up the wedding. There are pastors out there that have no problem with gay marriage, and do not belong to your church, thus making this point rather void, as your pastor wouldn't be really effected. Maybe someone would ask him, but if your church already takes a stand on this issue, that is unlikely.

Quote by: dthmstr254 Problem is, the event spoken of has already happened before. A gay group sued a pastor because he spoke against homosexuality.

Sadly enough the precedent for anyone suing anyone was set long ago, and if the pastor was not asking for violence or some nut bag attacked them, and he was just peacefully stating his opinions, then it is sad and as frivolous as a 400LB woman suing McDonald's for being so cheesy and delicious.
But alas this is America and the precedent for anyone being able to sue anyone else for any reason happened long ago. The problem there would be our legal system, and not gay or straight.






Did I win?

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Among my generation, there is only 15% who claim to be Christian. The next generation is only going to have 4%. We are no longer the "majority religion." In fact, BIMI and the ABWE have declared America the second least reached country in the world. I would not call us the majority religion. In fact, there are countries in the 10/40 Window that have more Christians per capita than America. There are now more Russian missionaries to America than there are American missionaries to Russia. What does that say about America? It says that we have officially gone off the path.

LOL. I suppose evangelicals are predisposed to whine. Between 75% & 80% of Americans identify themselves are Christian, depending on whose statistics you use, so your claims about Christianity not being a "majority religion" bears no relation whatsoever to reality.

U.S Demographics for Religion
Demographics of the United States

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Who CALL themselves or who actually practice Christianity? Even DL Moody said that not even 20% of his congregation were truly Christians. So if we take a 20% figure of that we have around 15% of your generation who actually are practicing Christians. ANd those figures are from a modest sized number.

So between 75% and 80% of Americans claim to be Christian but you know better? Don't you think that it might be just a wee bit presumptuous and more than tad arrogant to tell a few hundred million people that they are not Christians because they don't meet your particular standards? I guess you missed the "accept one another" part of Romans l5:7.

Funny that you use DL Moody as a source. The dude died in 1899. He sounds guilty of arrogance and presumption as well. Then again he did name his church after himself, so that may not be surprising.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp So between 75% and 80% of Americans claim to be Christian but you know better? Don't you think that it might be just a wee bit presumptuous and more than tad arrogant to tell a few hundred million people that they are not Christians because they don't meet your particular standards? I guess you missed the "accept one another" part of Romans l5:7. Funny that you use DL Moody as a source. The dude died in 1899. He sounds guilty of arrogance and presumption as well. Then again he did name his church after himself, so that may not be surprising.

Actually, the name was a write in vote by the church. It was not in the original voting list of names. It came the same way that the Lee Roberson Center got its name. It came, as does everything in the Independent Baptist denomination, by a vote of the congregation. There is a big difference between him naming it and the congregation. ANd the quickest forum I have ever seen is when my pastor retired and we voted on the next pastor. the first vote was all but unanimous.

Anywho, I didn't write the standards. I just report them. If I bring a message saying that you owe your entire life savings to pay off a debt, it isn't my fault now is it? Now, if I bring another offer of someone willing and able to pay that debt for you, do you praise me??? I bring both. There is a gift, I bring how you accept that gift and what that gift is. I also bring the evidence of the gift that will be seen when it is accepted. If a person is saved, as I said in another board, they will change. a changed life is one of the evidences of Christianity.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. I suppose evangelicals are predisposed to whine. Between 75% & 80% of Americans identify themselves are Christian, depending on whose statistics you use, so your claims about Christianity not being a "majority religion" bears no relation whatsoever to reality. U.S Demographics for Religion Demographics of the United States

This is based on studies, not surveys. In surveys, people can lie. People usually do lie on surveys. According to English Comp 101 and Speech Communications, as well as General Psych, all 100 level college classes that I am pretty sure that a good group of the people who have or are taking college have or are taking, studies are more accurate than surveys. Surveys grab the basics, while studies go for the detailed and most accurate answer.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Duke1985 First of all, gay people can already do that, I can do that, any American can do that because we have what in the United States? Freedom of speech and a right to protest, and as long as its done peacefully, you can't really complain, because its those same freedoms that let you come on here and say your piece. Secondly, if a pastor does not agree with gay marriage, they don't have to head up the wedding. There are pastors out there that have no problem with gay marriage, and do not belong to your church, thus making this point rather void, as your pastor wouldn't be really effected. Maybe someone would ask him, but if your church already takes a stand on this issue, that is unlikely. Sadly enough the precedent for anyone suing anyone was set long ago, and if the pastor was not asking for violence or some nut bag attacked them, and he was just peacefully stating his opinions, then it is sad and as frivolous as a 400LB woman suing McDonald's for being so cheesy and delicious. But alas this is America and the precedent for anyone being able to sue anyone else for any reason happened long ago. The problem there would be our legal system, and not gay or straight. Did I win?

Ok. That is a post I have to give a point simply because it has only one thing in it that seems to be un clear (the first paragraph, I am assuming that they are allowed to protest, but protest what?). I like the cheesy and delicious comment. It is very fitting to that. Just a note, the lawsuit failed thanks to the wonderful work of Dr David Gibbs (the third or the first I do not know) and the rest of the team at the Christian Law Association.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: nilan3000 I agree with you, but do you feel that gay couples are actually worse than these guys?

Look at it from my pov. I believe strongly that parents are to lead their children in what is right. I also believe that homosexuality, as the Bible describes it, is an abomination to God.

On the other hand, still in my POV, there is nothing in the Bible that says that a sin of the past is a sin of the present and effects your current beliefs. Jesus taught that instead of "Eye for an eye" we are to show mercy under the law. Now, by under the law, it means to show mercy when they are trying at the current time to right themselves. It says nothing about that for those who are trying to hold their boat upside down. Thus, at some point, there needs to be a time that we allow the person to have a second chance.

[loser]

Perhaps we should simply have civil unions, that just give the legal benefits, and no government institution of marriage.

What does that mean? In what way does the government "institute" marriage other than in civil matters?

[loser]

Oh, the bible is quite clear about gays as it's authors demonstrate remarkable homophobia & hatred towards homosexuality.

What a load of crap! The REAL hatred is that levied towards scripture. Though the Bible (just like the world) contains people who ARE full of hatred, that is NOT its primary message. When discussing people, unless you lie under the false banner of PC, their 'warts' will show. The Torah was tough (think of it as "martial law") during tough times. Jesus brought a NEW message, one of TOLERANCE and MERCY. If people aren't, let's put the blame where it belongs...on human nature!