Seriously? it's 2014 - "Kansas House passes bill allowing service refusal to gay couples"

Thank you!

I can only answer from the liberal denomination point of view, this answer will not be accepted by all Christians.

The Old Testament has a number of restrictions that many of the arguments against homosexuality are drawn from. However, if a reader is honest with themselves when reading the Old Testament, then it’s impossible to come out of it without finding a number of verses that condemn the reader himself.

By the time of the New Testament there was a sect of scholars called the Pharisees who took a very legalistic view of the Old Testament law. Without getting too far into it, Jesus took exception with them because they understood the written law without understanding the reason for it. So even though they followed it letter for letter they completely missed the point.

And that’s the crux of the argument. Some churches think the Bible is the literal word of God, that every word is sacred and unquestionable. Other churches think the Bible is inspired - God’s word is in it, but the writers also pepper it with their own opinion and customs. Denominations that consider the Bible as inspired don’t give the “anti gay” verses as much thought. They consider them to be local custom, the writers opinion, or just another in a long list of faults that man has to deal with.

Let me expand just a bit more on what I said. Some churches don’t think the Bible condemns homosexuality as strongly as other churches do which is what I expressed in my last post. Those churches tend to have several gay members in their congregations already and for the most part are accepting of gay marriage. Gay people who are already involved in those churches will want to be married in the church because they consider it important.

The Bible doesn’t only teach “thou shalt nots” - it also teaches charity, love of neighbor, and civic responsibilities. Jesus’ message aligns FAR more with liberal thought than it does with conservative thought. Even in the old testament, tithing and treatment of the poor is more in line with liberal ideology. The Bible is far less against homosexuality than some churches preach which is why many gay people are Christians. To want to be married in a church is natural.

Esco, you seem to be assuming that if the word marriage is used, it means marriage in a Christian church. That’s not correct. I don’t know if I can clarify as well as Frazzled, but I’m trying to write just as respectfully.

The word “marriage” is used for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists… pretty much everyone in that type of relationship. Creating a separate “Civil Union” for gays is offensive. Should Jews be forced to have Civil Unions instead of marriages because they don’t get married in a church? Christians do have a Sacrament of Marriage, but they didn’t invent the institution. Greeks and Romans had marriage (matrimony) long before Christianity, and it has never been true that all marriages were religious in nature.

Okay, thats all fine and and dandy.

But then why not just let each Christian or Catholic church decide on their own if they wanna gay people, or not wanna marry gay people???!!

Seems simple enough!!!

If a state legalizes gay marriage, that does not mean they gays can walk into any church and demand to get married. If it is against the teachings of a church, that church doesn’t have to do it.

Gay people, like some straight people now, tend to get married by a judge.

Marriage instantly creates a set of legal rights and protections for the gay couple. Protection that straight people have but gays do not.

For instance there is a recently publicized case of a gay couple. They are older. One of them has Alzheimer’s. The sister of the sick man, who does not approve of gays, had her brother committed. Issued an ‘order of protection’ against his lover and evicted him from their home. (Which was in her brother’s name) If that couple were married, this could not have happened.

That’s what’s happening. The government cannot compel a church to perform a marriage it doesn’t want to perform, nor to recognize a marriage it doesn’t want to recognize. All it can do is say that institutions that serve the general public (the government itself, schools, hospitals, etc.) has to recognize the marriage.

That’s how it works. Churches are not compelled to marry any couples, gay or straight.

The debate about same-sex marriage is about legal marriage, not church marriage. Bigots bring up church marriage in an attempt (apparently successful) to make people, some of whom would otherwise be in favor of marriage rights or at least indifferent to the issue, think the fight against civil rights is a fight for religious freedom. It is not.

I’m okay with that!!

Maybe there is a compromise at all :wink:

Being Topeka Kansas, I have to admit that I would feel a bit of a guilty pleasure at seeing Phred Phelps forced to perform a gay marriage or a thousand.

Religious institutions are not compelled in any way to perform marriages that c onflict with their dogma.

And Phred’s head exploded a long time ago. As a native Topekan I’ve stood in many a counter picket line, back in the 90’s, that opposed Freddie, and as offensive as he is he’s also so crazy that nothing he says, or said, makes sense. It took me a long time to realize that.

And now nobody outside of his family has heard or seen of him in a very long time. One of his granddaughters is an RN, and an acquaintance of mine, another RN that knew her in training, says the family needed someone they could trust to help take care of him.

Frazzled, I like what you said in post #22. Jesus was a flaming liberal for his day. He flouted religious laws, went postal in the moneychangers in the Temple, and forgave people that could have, by their laws, be put to death. Remember the woman folks brought to him for judgement, the one accused of adultery.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian denomination. I’m now Episcopalian, which is a much more accepting group to gays. Although we haven’t gone whole hog yet it’s just a matter of time.

I take my stand on acceptance from Roman’s 8:38-39, which say there’s nothing at all that can seperate us from the love of God. Seems to me that means sexual orientation as well.

Exactly. That’s what “Separation of Church and State” means. Churches marry only who they want. The fight for SSM is the fight for the legal contract recognized by state and federal government, and the legal rights and responsibilities that go with it.

Churches are completely independent of this and can do whatever they like.

Well, it’s not a compromise, because basically nobody is attempting to force churches to marry anybody.

Err…that will change very quickly once (not if) a few churches refuse to marry gay couples

They’re refusing now, and it’s not changing.

No. Many churches now refuse to marry same-sex couples, including in states that allow same-sex marriage. Again: Separation of church and state.

LMAO…wait till the lawsuits start flying :eek:

No. The lawsuits have not started flying. Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for 10 years. Again: Separation of church and state.

Much more likely will be increased divisions and dissention within the churches. As time goes by, and SSM becomes more mainstream, more and more church members will want their churches to celebrate it. You’ll find more ministers willing to perform such marriages, and more and more church councils willing to hire such ministers.

And, of course, there will still be die-hard hold outs. They will remain free to refuse.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a few people try to file such lawsuits, but they won’t go anywhere.

(One of the funniest suits I ever saw filed was against the Catholic Church, for “Incorrect Teaching of the Bible.” Summary dismissal. But funny.)

Meh, religion should be banned anyways.
Spirituality is where its at, people :slight_smile:

Are they friendly spirits?