Christian Forums

Re: these blessing/wedding thingies that homosexuals do...

*sigh*

Opens more questions up than it provides answers, for me.

What is it to "get married"?

What constitutes a marriage?  Two sincere people bound to each other by personal commitment and local custom, one hopes-to-God for life?

Or is it not a marriage, no matter what anyone does or says, until Holy Mother Church waves her magic wand over it?

Is it the paper on file at the county courthouse that makes a couple a wedded pair?  Or the intent in their minds behind it?  Or the words spoken over them by one who holds a state license approving him/her as one who has power to open these contracts called marriages?

Despite legal obligations and customs that gave a "widowed" fiancee rights to something like the standing of a married person, even before the couple actually lived together, in the time and place where Jesus walked, wasn't it still when they took up residence together and presumably began sexual relations that they were actually truly "one"?  And are two lesbians sexually "one"?  Does the - um - "hardware" matter?

Do we care about what happened in Palestine 2,000 years ago in this matter?  If not, why not?  And if we do care at all, why don't we do things the same way today re: weddings and marriages, and inheritance?

And - since I'm picking up the gay side of the issue now - Do we care what Scripture says or not?  Do we pick up the Bible, and the earliest Church documents, which are a valuable source of recorded thought even if we won't accord them "inspired" status... And chuck 'em out the window?

Do we fool ourselves into thinking that Paul was a warped man and we ought not care what he wrote to the earliest Christians re: homosexuality?  

If we can translate away and pooh-pooh his words re: living out one's homosexuality, why don't we just do it with all his words?  Lots of other stuff he mentions I'd like to change our thoughts & practices on...

I'm left with very few basic bits of ideas after I whittle away the non-essentials:

Even if I account for some cultural bias and some context/history, I'm still left with Scriptural warnings against acting upon, living out, my homosexual... tendencies, thoughts, feelings, what have you.  There's still some sort of prohibition left, if I'm fair, no matter how I wrestle with Paul and other writers in the Bible.

I'm also left with warnings about sex-related sins being the worst - that is, the ones that affect us most deeply and so on.  Any sin unaccounted for might separate one from God - but the ones that emanate from our sexual selves are the sneakiest, IMO - and in Paul's.

So ... am I happy or comfortable or pleased when there's a legislative push on to stretch and broaden the definitions of what a marriage is?  Nope - but then I ain't happy with the definitions we already use, anyway.

Do I wish ill upon a same-sex couple who want so badly to have their couple-ness "blessed" that they work up a ceremony of some sort, or they go find a preacher in an accepting church to make them a ceremony?  No, of course not.

I don't believe in the magical administered-as-a-sacrament aspect of any marriage, anyway, though, mine or anyone else's.  Not as in some sort of special, independently power-filled-from-on-high function of Mother Church.

So --- if the question is "How do you think on this matter of same-sex marriage?"  --- I suppose the answer is, I'm still thinking.

If you have any answers, or any more questions, let me know.

Janine,

If you ladies would like to organize and strike for higher wages and better working conditions, I believe that is your right and will suppport you accordingly.


Brojees




Other than that, I strongly feel that marriages are of God and unions are of Ceasar. Personally the piece of paper from the government means nothing to me, it is the vow before God that counts.

Now does God recognize a union of the same sex? It appears His word says no rather emphatically. I accept His Word.

God made the woman to be a suitable companion for the man. We're talking about Adam and Eve. God created my wife to be a suitable companion for me. Whom did God create to be a suitable companion for the Samaritan woman with the checkered past? Who did God create as a suitable companion for V Gene Robinson? His former wife? His gay partner? If gay unions are immoral because they can't possibly result in children and are therefore unnatural, then what about couples who choose not to or are unable to have children? If marriage is all about companionship, then how does a same-sex marriage not qualify. Could two straight men marry and enjoy all the civil perks that go along with that, not to mention always having your best buddy around to hang out with?

I think it's funny that millions of heteros resist marriage and commitment and faithfulness so strongly while gays are fighting tooth and nail to consecrate their lifestyle in the context of faithfulness and commitment. What if straight marriages were outlawed. Would we fight as hard to gain back that right?

How could they be outlawed?

I don't know. Maybe a Shaker president; who knows. I'm speaking hypothetically.

Who ever would have imagined it would be so easy to snatch a baby out of the womb or so hard to bring your God into the school with you?

How easy it might well be to outlaw marriage - those other things were once unthinkable.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (charlie @ Oct. 20 2003,08:19)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think it's funny that millions of heteros resist marriage and commitment and faithfulness so strongly while gays are fighting tooth and nail to consecrate their lifestyle in the context of faithfulness and commitment.[/quote]
I think this is a naive assessment of what's going on.

This is really about extracting insurance coverage from employers and social security benefits and tax exemptions from the government.

LOLOL My obscure point is as Marriage is between the man, the woman and God, then how could anyone else outlaw it?

You all do need to study Irish if we are to communicate effectively!

I understood that point Booty - I was talking about the red-tape, bureaucratic side of it.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Who ever would have imagined it would be so easy to snatch a baby out of the womb or so hard to bring your God into the school with you?
[/quote]

My children have no difficulty at all bringing God to school with them.  

Just as nothing can keep God out of our schools, or offices, or any other place as long as we bring Him with us; nothing can change the nature of marriage because marriage is His creation.

Why worry so much about what the temporal world does?  It isn't our real home, is it?

Kari

p.s.  When I say my children have no problem taking God to school with them, I don't just mean that they bring Him in their heart.  They are also free to speak about Him, write about Him, talk to their friends about church, even pass out invitations to our vbs carnival.  Of course, they don't disrupt the school day, and they don't disrespect the religion of others.

The high school my kids attended has a Christian fellowship club that meets whenever the other clubs meet.

They did this every other Wed. during school, but of course they choose to be or not to be in this club.

I haven't seen any problem bringing anything to school yet either, but I am sure there are some out there. I just thank God that my kids attended a public school that allowed them to have such clubs.

They still have prayer before and after graduation ceremonies too.

Memmy :thumbup:

My teaching and up bringing would say that a same sex marrage is wrong. in the end we will all stand before God.
Its only by his grace that we will be able to do that.
we make vows before God but we are all sinners, so we get things wrong and end up breaking promises.
We are free in Christ to choose the way we live,but they are not always what God wants.

My teens go to a public school in this somewhat small town in WA. My 16 year old daughter says about 70% of the girls are bisexual. It is a very popular stance. Some of those 70% claim not to be bi-sexual and yet have sex with other girls, just for the heck of it. AND a lot of those girls, make claims to being a Christian because most of the kids in that school are very involved in church.

So do you think this is unusual? It isn't. We just close our eyes to what is happening around us and pretend that our kids would never be like that, because they go to church with us. How many of your kids are telling you the way it really is? Mine tell me because I do not judge but face reality where most of the church does not. It took me not being involved in church to see what is really happening in the world today. We stay sequestered in our little worlds and then are shocked at what we see on TV. Look around you.

seekr

What goes on in schools today doesn't surprise me at all.  It wasn't that many years ago that I was in high school.

Your Massasschussetts State High Court has ruled the bans on same sex marriages as unconstitutional.

The ruling from the great state of Massachusetts is going to make things interesting.

Marriages performed in that state are presumptively entitled to recognition in all other states and that will include the homosexual marriages that the court has ordered the legislature to permit.   However, many states have enacted "defense of marriage" acts which say that marriage is exclusively a heterosexual arrangement.   I'm unsure whether those state statutes will stand up against the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, but I'd guess probably not.


What I'm waiiting to see is whether some state governor, supreme court or whoever has the grit to invite the Mass supreme court to attempt tp enforce the ruling outside the boundaries of Massachusetts.

I'm also curious as to what the Mass. legislature might do - it would be fascinating to see them just ignore the supreme court.  They could do even better;  while I'm sure the legislature can't abolish the court, they could write it out of the next year's budget.   That would be entertaining, wouldn't it?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Your Massasschussetts State High Court has ruled the bans on same sex marriages as unconstitutional.[/quote]
God, have mercy on America...

God does show His mercy to individuals...but why would He show it to this nation, as a whole, when we have not shared that very same mercy? This is what He requires of us. This is what will turn things around. We keep thinking if only we can stop people from acting "wicked", or our version of "wicked" when God says "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is when things will change. How many churches are showing mercy for the downtrodden? Do people get turned away when they are not a member? This is what needs changed and then, and only then will things turn around. You cannot claim to be His and then judge one another for certain stances or whose church is the most correct...this is not love. Read in Ezekiel 33, what God considers wickedness to be. First..."10 "Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of [2] them. How then can we live?" ' 11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?' Doesn't this sound like what we are saying...now "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' 13 If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. 14 And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- 15 IF HE GIVES BACK WHAT HE TOOK IN PLEDGE FOR A LOAN, RETURNS WHAT HE HAS STOLEN, FOLLOWS THE DECREES THAT GIVE LIFE, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. 16 None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.


I recently heard of a woman who was thrown in jail because she did not have the money to refinance her house after her divorce. This is in our country. Our country, filled with too many churches, who watch the hungry on the streets and walk past them with all our excuses for not helping. We see the news of families losing their homes and going hungry and wipe our own mouths clean and say the government should take care of it, when it is our responsibility. Where's the church? Sitting in their warm pews and showing God how wonderful their worship is and frowning at the wickedness of others. Maybe someone should read Amos 5. Maybe someone should understand what the law truly is instead of pointing fingers at the US laws changing and wickedness reigning.

Yes, it is the same old tune I keep playing...

seekr

Seeker:"I recently heard of a woman who was thrown in jail because she did not have the money to refinance her house after her divorce. This is in our country. Our country, filled with too many churches, who watch the hungry on the streets and walk past them with all our excuses for not helping. We see the news of families losing their homes and going hungry and wipe our own mouths clean and say the government should take care of it, when it is our responsibility. Where's the church? Sitting in their warm pews and showing God how wonderful their worship is and frowning at the wickedness of others. Maybe someone should read Amos 5. Maybe someone should understand what the law truly is instead of pointing fingers at the US laws changing and wickedness reigning. "

Lauren: This is true.  But payday is coming, isn't it. Scary thought for me.

:uhh:

Seekr,

I just read Amos 5. You know, this nation [the USA] has been responsible for many wonderful and terrible things. Just as we as individuals have committed wonderful and terrible acts. God looks at us and only asks, "do I know you?" Our country, though founded on religious principles, also built in a safeguard against religious excess through the first amendment. It was the first country that I know of to create a separation between government and organized religion. Oh you can elect nothing but Christians to your posts if you want, but the laws are in place to make sure that those who are not Christian, or not the right kind of Christian are not disadvantaged because of that. It is a great experiment that continues to this day. Perhaps the jury is still out on it, but I for one am very happy to have it. Freedom has its price and its dangers as well as its privileges. Freedom of religion is no exception.

In the end, though, I can look at my country and rail that it is unjust and immoral and harmful and sinful, but it's just like the church, really. If I say, "the church isn't doing enough," what I'm really saying is that "we Christians aren't doing enough" which is uncomfortably close to saying "I'm not doing enough." If I am condemning of my country or even my church because of what I perceive as apathy or inaction, how much of that is just projected self-guilt?

BTW, Amos 5 talks about the day of the Lord. What Lauren calls "payday." It is indeed a scary thought. Let us all be found busy in the vineyard when the master returns, realizing that it may well be much sooner than Jesus' return. The day of the Lord, to Amos' audience was not the messianic return, but a local and terrible "day of reckoning." Like some divine 'spring cleaning'. There have been many throughout history. One may be coming soon.

Charlie[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]In the end, though, I can look at my country and rail that it is unjust and immoral and harmful and sinful, but it's just like the church, really. If I say, "the church isn't doing enough," what I'm really saying is that "we Christians aren't doing enough" which is uncomfortably close to saying "I'm not doing enough." If I am condemning of my country or even my church because of what I perceive as apathy or inaction, how much of that is just projected self-guilt?[/quote]


I'll tell you when I finally came to the point of understanding what the law of love, meant, then I looked at my life in church and saw the wasted years, maybe what you have called "projected self-guilt", only it wasn't "projected". I saw clearly and that is when change in my life occurred. It was God who showed me truth. All those years of thinking my overcoming certain things equalled righteous behaviour. All those years wasted sitting in a pew trying to worship correctly. All those offerings that were filthy rags. All God wanted from me was to love as He loved and that would cover all wrongs. All He wanted was for me to follow Him, no matter the cost to myself. We make much more about sin than God does. We make more judgments about others than God does, because our perspectives are not His. We look at the outside and determine who is holy and who isn't. God has paid that price already, so who are we to judge? But we do judge.  

What would it take to change this nation? Stop the laws from allowing gay people to get married? Do any of us really think that will start the change? The change starts with God's people caring about one another first.  This is the sacrifice and the worship that pleases God. The reason Sodom was destroyed was ""Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Do you see what I mean by perspective? We act aghast at sin when we all do the same things. Romans 2:1 says so. The entire bible is about taking care of one another and that is all God is asking us to do.

I even though of something recently that could change the church and its practises. Something tangible that could work no matter the labeled building. Something that would help us to love and have unity. If each church adopted a family for at least 2 years. A family that was hungry and on the edge or even homeless, leaving judgments out of this. "Love does no harm to its neighbor". The reason for 2 years is because we expect too much too soon and that in intself cause judgemnts in us. Think of all the churches joining in in this. Think of how our country would change. If we did this as an act of love, and not just an "act"...then we would start to see results as we would start to add more people to this. What would be more pleasing to God? This would be a pracitical way of being the church, instead of playing church. This is what the tithe and offerings were about("that there may be food in my house") It was never meant for building bigger and greater buildings...but for taking care of one another and not allowing others to go hungry. The church is the one for the most part "robbing God". It is not a law we keep, except for the act of loving. No numbers, just being merciful because God is merciful to us. This is what will cause God to open the floodgates of heaven. We have been so backwards in our attempts at almost everything. Ministry is a picture of God pouring Himself in us and God flowing out of us, sharing His love. And this takes Him doing it, IN us. Do I have "projected self-guilt"? No. I know what He wants and He brings those in my life with needs and He always has. I just didn't recognize it at the time, years ago. We are not to deny Him anything.

seekr

I got this idea from somewhere else and wanted to get your take on it...

Marriage, divorce, and remarriage is a topic on which many of us here disagree. One thing we're in agreement on is this: when a Christian man divorces his Christian wife for "irreconcilable differences" and marries another woman, he is doing something that is sinful.

It is, however, legal. Regardless of how the church treats him, he enjoys the same marital status with respect to the law of the land as he did when he was married to his first wife. I know of no efforts to criminalize unscriptural remarriages (not even from the Roman Catholic Church).

That being said, how should we Christians engage the efforts of those who wish to legalize same-sex marriages in light of our tolerance of legal remarriages which violate Christ's teachings?

Christians should oppose those efforts in every way that is consistent with Christian behavior.

The situation you describe is lamentable but I think irrelevant.    Just because our society isn't perfect doesn't mean we should roll over and it accept it becoming even less perfect than it already is.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Just because our society isn't perfect doesn't mean we should roll over and it accept it becoming even less perfect than it already is.[/quote]

I agree. My concern is over consistency. If we resist legalization of same-sex marriages because they are immoral, why do we not oppose the legal status of adulterous marriages for the same reason?

Nobody does it now because it would be rather like locking the barn door after the horse is gone.

As to why it wasn't resisted in earlier days, I don't have an answer.

Anyway, consistency is a virtue only if it is consistency in virtue.   Consistency in error is just stubbornness.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]BOG wrote:
Nobody does it now because it would be rather like locking the barn door after the horse is gone.[/quote]
Based on this, might we be looking at another abandoned barn in 20+ years, regarding homosexual "marriages"? (That is, of course, if this world lasts that long...)

I guess I can see the alarm of both sides of the debate over legalization. Libertines are afraid that if the fundies successfully outlaw homosexual marriages that they won't stop there, but will go on to outlawing other things. Likewise, the fundies don't trust that gays will stop with just legal marriages. Both sides say, "if we give in here, there'll be no stopping them."

I didn't mean to suggest that we should simply allow the gay marriage agenda to pass unobstructed, nor that we should see what other immoral marriage arrangements we should outlaw anew. I'm only pointing out an inconsistency that might come up in the arguments. Based on the responses so far, I'd say it's a pretty big wrinkle.

My question is still:

If we resist legalization of same-sex marriages because they are immoral, why do we not oppose the legal status of adulterous marriages for the same reason?

And now further, I ask:

How do we justify our inconsistent opposition to different types of immoral marriage? Is there a compelling reason why one should be opposed while the other is ignored?

BOG has suggested that the reason is simply because we missed the chance to oppose the legalization of adulterous marriages, but that we shouldn't miss this one. Anybody else got any ideas?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (charlie @ Dec. 01 2003,12:34)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If we resist legalization of same-sex marriages because they are immoral, why do we not oppose the legal status of adulterous marriages for the same reason?[/quote]
Two reasons, both overwhelmingly practical and therefore undoubtedly "tainted"  in some minds, but valid nonetheless:

1.   It's going to be a big enough job opposing homosexual marriages without starting some other fight.   Personally, I think the homosexual marriage issue is a fight that will be lost, temporarily, but we must fight it anyway.

2.   If you start talking about other evils you'd like to eliminate, it will just bring the people who practice those evils into the fight on the other side.    So leave it alone.   If, in the future, the opportunity to further reform the marriage laws comes along, take advantage of it then.   There's no need to let your possible future opponents know your plans.

I'm all for pushing for eliminating civil divorce and remarriage. Charlie hit the nail on the head. The "slippery slope" to same-sex "marriage" started with the liberalization of the divorce laws. Basically, society gave up its obligation to defend the marriage bond because it didn't want to invade the privacy of the individual and, frankly, because most individuals wanted that exit route out of the marriage to be available.

Once the marriage bond is not view as sacred and society doesn't find it worth protecting then eventually marriage can mean anything people want it to mean.

Ken

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]My question is still:

If we resist legalization of same-sex marriages because they are immoral, why do we not oppose the legal status of adulterous marriages for the same reason?
[/quote]


Please define "adulterous marriages".  All that I can come up with is that you're saying we should oppose the legal right of married people to have adulterous relationships, but I don't think that's what you mean.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Please define "adulterous marriages".  [/quote]

Nevertheless,

I'm referring to marriages between people in which at least one of them had been married before and had gotten a divorce for some reason other than sexual immorality or abandonment by an unbeliever, and the previous spouse had been available for reconciliation. I understand that this is not a scriptural term for such a marriage, and I don't mean to imply that the marriage is a continual act of adultery, nor that intercourse within that marriage is adultery; only that the marriage is referred to by Jesus as adultery.

Ken,

I'm glad you see what I saw. I totally understand BOG's statements that Christians should oppose gay marriages even though they have allowed other marriages to be legal that are considered immoral. I honestly never even thought about this inconsistency until someone else (one who supports gay marriages, of course) mentioned it.

Given that Christians will probably not be able to successfully oppose gay marriages, what if the Christian community were able to somehow strike a balance with the gay community (and by the way, these two communities do overlap) to allow "civil unions" without opposition while simply not referring to them as "marriages", since that term historically refers to a sacrament of the church. That way, gay partners can enjoy the security and social and financial benefits of a monogamous relationship (denial of which is one of the main causes of promiscuity within the gay community) and Christians can protect the sanctity of "marriage" as it has always been understood. I figure, if we don't give them civil unions, we'll have to give them marriage anyway.

Your thoughts?

I'm opposed to it because I'm opposed to the church giving any kind of legitimacy or sanction to an inherently sinful relationship.

I know that the church and the "gay community" overlap to some degree, but I don't see how the church can give any approval to the conduct involved.

To me, it's vitally important the church hold fast on this issue.  There's no doubt that the church has been faithless with other moral issues related to marriage over the years.    This is an opportunity to be faithful to God's word and to stand for it even in the face of the fact that we are facing temporary defeat.   It may be the last opportunity for Christians in the United States to be faithful; we dare not let it pass.

BOG  [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]To me, it's vitally important the church hold fast on this issue.  There's no doubt that the church has been faithless with other moral issues related to marriage over the years.    This is an opportunity to be faithful to God's word and to stand for it even in the face of the fact that we are facing temporary defeat.   It may be the last opportunity for Christians in the United States to be faithful; we dare not let it pass.[/quote]

And what does God say is being faithful? Do you really think this is the act upon which God would commend us for being faithful? God's definition of faithful is best described in this scripture, although ther are many, amny more..."45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them THEIR FOOD at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns."

See everytime I bring it back to active love. This is the faithfulness God wants from us. In this country we have already denied God in that, for the most part...INCLUDING the church. What changes a country is when we become "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and the needy." This is what brings about judgment.

"Isaiah 10
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?
4 Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives
or fall among the slain.

Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised."

You want to inspire change? Then truly love your neighbor as YOURSELF. If we are looking to find favor with God, it isn't through trying to stop people from sinning...but showing love and mercy.

seekr

Charlie,

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Given that Christians will probably not be able to successfully oppose gay marriages[/quote]

First, I don't think that is a given.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]what if the Christian community were able to somehow strike a balance with the gay community (and by the way, these two communities do overlap) to allow "civil unions" without opposition while simply not referring to them as "marriages", since that term historically refers to a sacrament of the church[/quote]

That wouldn't work because the radical gays and their supporters will not stop at "civil unions". They want marriages in a civil and religious context. Why give any ground when the other side has shown itself not to be trustworthy (look at the Episcopal church)? The radical gay coalition will not be satisfied with same-sex "marriage", they will continue until everybody is coerced to agree the gay lifestyle is OK even good (look at Canada where it is illegal to say homosexuality is a sin). Besides truth isn't something to sacrifice.

If marriage is technically a religious term used in church then all the State is doing is granting "civil unions" to heterosexuals. If you then grant "civil unions" to gays then for all intents and purposes same-sex "marriage" has been granted. But I will tell you that that gays will not stop there. They will not stop until every public and private institution agrees that same-sex "marriage" is OK or even good.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]That way, gay partners can enjoy the security and social and financial benefits of a monogamous relationship (denial of which is one of the main causes of promiscuity within the gay community)[/quote]

I can't believe you said that! Are we living in the same country? Monogamous relationships don't come from the State they come from people willing to make a commitment and stick with it despite the forces against them. I can't think of any benefit I may lose with respect to my marriage that would make me go out and fool around. I completely disagree that denial of marriage benefits is "one of the main causes of promiscuity within the gay community". One is not logically connected to the other. Besides the benefits of marriage from a secular standpoint are greatly exxagerated.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] and Christians can protect the sanctity of "marriage" as it has always been understood.[/quote]

Except that marriage would have been completely undermined and the radical gay agenda will not stop at "civil unions".

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I figure, if we don't give them civil unions, we'll have to give them marriage anyway.
[/quote]

Believe me, if society caves into same sex "civil unions" it will only be matter of time until it caves on same sex "marriage".

Ken

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (seekr @ Dec. 02 2003,12:19)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And what does God say is being faithful?[/quote]
Being faithful in this context is speaking the truth:  That God, not men, designed marriage and that it is exclusively between a man and a woman.

You can talk all you want to about love and mercy:  it isn't love or mercy to give consent to a lie.