Christians Supporting Gay Marriage

[RickSp]

With a movement to amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage picking up steam, the United Church of Christ became the first mainstream Christian denomination to officially support same-sex marriages today when its general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender." The resolution was both a theological statement and a blow to discrimination, said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the president and general minister of the denomination, which has 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members. "On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages," Mr. Thomas said at a news conference following the vote.

Christian Group Passes Resolution to Support Same-Sex Marriage

I have often wondered why mainstream moderate Christians have stood by and let the fundamentalist lunatics like Dobson, Falwell and Robertson hijack the "Christian viewpoint."

Do you think that there will be a moderate Christian backlash against the intolerance of the fundamentalist right?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: RickSp Do you think that there will be a moderate Christian backlash against the intolerance of the fundamentalist right?

I don't know that I am a "backlash", but I am a christian who supports the right of gay people do get married.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: RickSp I have often wondered why mainstream moderate Christians have stood by and let the fundamentalist lunatics like Dobson, Falwell and Robertson hijack the "Christian viewpoint."

I would assume that the "Christian viewpoint" would be defined by the source of Christian belief, the Bible. Or are you looking for the "mainstream moderate Christian viewpoint"?

I also don't think that referring to these persons as "lunatics" wins any "tolerance" points for yourself, does it?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I support the "civil union" option but leave the word Marriage out of it. That avoids pissing contests while giving gay people what they want in terms of rights and status.

[Prometheus]

Marriage is a religious idea. The state has no place in it. If you want to conduct a ceromony and call it marriage, go ahead, but the state has no place in it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isaiah I would assume that the "Christian viewpoint" would be defined by the source of Christian belief, the Bible. Or are you looking for the "mainstream moderate Christian viewpoint"? I also don't think that referring to these persons as "lunatics" wins any "tolerance" points for yourself, does it?

My presumption is that you claim the exclusive right to interpret the Bible in exclusion of the "mainstream moderate Christians."

I also suspect your, so called, "tolerance" points are pretty meaningless anyway so I am not terribly concerned about losing them. And is the label "lunatic" accurate? I think so.

Falwell blamed civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Likewise Robertson claimed that feminism is" is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." Dobson has compared the white-robed men of the Ku Klux Klan to the black-robed men of the federal bench. Lunatic works for me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Prometheus Marriage is a religious idea. The state has no place in it. If you want to conduct a ceromony and call it marriage, go ahead, but the state has no place in it.

My guess is that you have never been married. Marriage is a legal contract with both rights and obligations. There need be no religious aspect to it. One can get married at city hall or by justices of the peace in many states.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: RickSp My guess is that you have never been married. Marriage is a legal contract with both rights and obligations. There need be no religious aspect to it. One can get married at city hall or by justices of the peace in many states.

True, I have not been married.

I understand that it is no longer an explicitly religious thing - but it's roots are. When our marriage law were being enacted marriage *was* only religious. The government just regognized the religious ceromony. Now the tables have been turned. In my mind it is not an appropriate function of government. If you want legal protection sign a contract. The government doesn;t need to legislate our interpersonal relationships.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: RickSp My presumption is that you claim the exclusive right to interpret the Bible in exclusion of the "mainstream moderate Christians.".

Your presumption is inaccurate in that I prescribe to the historical-linguistic method on exegetical interpretation. The same methodology applied by scholars to most works of ancient literature to understand the intentions of the original author(s).

Besides, interpretation is not necessary on many of the passages that the Bible speaks about on this matter as it is quite clear. One may reject what it says, but to say that it doesn’t say what it clear does say is illogical because one would be deriving argument support from a source that one is himself deprecating.

When one disagrees with someone that does not necessarily mean they are a "lunatic". It just means that you and they see the point from a different perspective and maybe that you both possess differing information or presuppositions. I believe the discussion of such things is one of the stated goals of this forum.

Personally, I would prefer “wrong” rather than “lunatic” but that’s just me.

[belverron]

Quote by: Prometheus If you want legal protection sign a contract. The government doesn;t need to legislate our interpersonal relationships.

If you were gay you'd know this isn't the answer. Many same-sex couples do it, and it's very costly paperwork. Civil union is a much better solution. I agree that marriage should be left to churches.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: belverron If you were gay you'd know this isn't the answer. Many same-sex couples do it, and it's very costly paperwork. Civil union is a much better solution. I agree that marriage should be left to churches.

So we do away with "marriages" and get "civil unions". Sounds like a word game to me. I really do not see this as an issue for the government. Peopl can cohabitate and share assets just fine without the government telling them how to do it.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pro, the problem with that is that Gay couples want the legal rights such as medical insurance, and the like that married couples now get.

The issue won't go away, the Gay Activist push "gay marriage" in everyones face so harshly that even liberal states like Oregon rejected them, but a move to giv ehtem the legal status without making it into altering "marriage" would work. It's that or we fight this damn fight every election cycle listening to BS from both sides.

[belverron]

You're right, Prometheus. If that kind of arrangement were more common, the cost of the documents would be negligible. Right now it just doesn't work out that well. And of course we'd have to make sure the documents were actually honored. Again, that probably wouldn't be a problem if it were a more commonplace occurence.

[belverron]

You're really starting to piss me off, Vicchio >.<

Neither of us is talking about giving marriage to same-sex couples. So get over it.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pro, the problem with that is that Gay couples want the legal rights such as medical insurance, and the like that married couples now get. The issue won't go away, the Gay Activist push "gay marriage" in everyones face so harshly that even liberal states like Oregon rejected them, but a move to giv ehtem the legal status without making it into altering "marriage" would work. It's that or we fight this damn fight every election cycle listening to BS from both sides.

Whoah - I have never been called a "pro" before. Awesome.

Anyway -

Isn't marriage in a legal sence kind of artificial these days? As a religious person, I think you can agree with me that the legal definition has no real resemblance to what we personaly believe union between a man and womon ought to be.

Is this not a personal, religious issue? Why should government have a say in it? Why should buisinesses give discounts based on an essentially religious and/or moralistic interpersonal arrangement? If marriage were not a legal issue, this type of discrimination would end.

Any type of person ought t be able to cohabitate and share assets in any way they see fit. They should be able to call it whatever they want. But the government should not be enforcing it.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: belverron Neither of us is talking about giving marriage to same-sex couples. So get over it.

If the government is going to be involved in marriages, why shouldn't gays get it too? Get the government out of marriage and we can forget about debating gay and plural marriage. It's a personal issue.

[belverron]

Quote by: Prometheus If the government is going to be involved in marriages, why shouldn't gays get it too? Get the government out of marriage and we can forget about debating gay and plural marriage. It's a personal issue.

Now we're on the same page.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: belverron You're really starting to piss me off, Vicchio >.< Neither of us is talking about giving marriage to same-sex couples. So get over it.

I was commenting on the issue of "marriage" or Civil Unions.

Pointing out, or atleast trying to, that Marriage is a man woman thing to many, and isntead of all this dicking about the issue, just give gays "civil unions" and leave the word Marriage out of it... issue solved.

Both sides win, if you start messing with the definition of "marriage" it causes more problems then it solves.

[belverron]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pointing out, or atleast trying to, that Marriage is a man woman thing to many, and isntead of all this dicking about the issue, just give gays "civil unions" and leave the word Marriage out of it... issue solved.

Issue not solved, Vicchio. There's still the inequality of "marriage" and "civil unions" to deal with.

I like Prometheus's idea much better, and government offering only civil unions comes in a close second.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I was commenting on the issue of "marriage" or Civil Unions. Pointing out, or atleast trying to, that Marriage is a man woman thing to many, and isntead of all this dicking about the issue, just give gays "civil unions" and leave the word Marriage out of it... issue solved. Both sides win, if you start messing with the definition of "marriage" it causes more problems then it solves.

So basically you want to give them the same thing but call it by a different name? Lets lose the banal word games.