Boston Mayor Letter to Chick-Fil-A bashes them over their anti-gay stance

To add to my own post: sometimes the Bible talks about social norms at the time rather than normative moral judgments. Look at when Paul discusses homosexuality, and the adjectives he uses (unnatural or dishonorable). Compare that with his words about moral wrongs and sins (evil, wicked etc.)

 

So a gay person marrying the person they love is not pursuing their happiness?

 

What would you think if another Christian minister choose to perform same sex marriages... would it be a valid marriage? How is the government to decide? Do they go with the Baptist extremists that do not always recognize Catholic marriage? What about Seventh Day Adventists? The church down the street from me said that biracial marriage is wrong, do we go with their belief system? Christians cannot even agree on the holy trinity, baptism or eucharist...........

 

That is a cop out. If they were "throwing their money away", this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

No you're not. You are practicing hate. Jesus would be as disappointed in you as I am.

 

Asking for government recognition of said love has nothing to do with pursuit of happiness. They could say 'I won't be happy unless the government confirms my relationship and therefore my right to pursue happiness has been violated.', but that would be the equivalent of me saying 'I won't be happy until Obamacare is repealed and therefore Obamacare violates my right to pursue happiness.'

 

But it has to do with equal protection under the law

 

There are a lot of things the Bible explicitly mentions that we no longer find acceptable. Take for example slavery, the beating and killing of women, death penalty for a whole host of infractions which we think don't even merit a slap on the wrist, valuing men more than women, and rape of young virgins taken as prisoners of war. It goes on and there is no need to go into it further, because relying on specific biblical turns of phrase should be meaningless when it comes to enacting policy.

History also argues for slavery, and the unequal treatment of women. Why should we be bound to practices of the past when they are wrong?

Source?

Source? And even if there was one, psych research tells us a lot of things, that doesn't mean we have to craft our society with the field in mind at all times.

Oh come on, really. You could "fit" into a cow if you wanted. You can also "fit" into a flesh-light, an anus, and a mouth if you put your mind to it. With God all of these things are possible. Why else would he have made us able to sexually fit into all these things and more?

Nature doesn't argue anything. In fact, you'll find tons of different animals buggering each other, so, at best, nature argues for having both practices. I've also never heard of any animals being for or against any type of marriage, but maybe some of your alternative media sources will be instructive on that specific point. You'll see a lot of crazy things in nature, you'll find animals trading sex for food, you'll find cannibalism and you'll find that humans can act pretty terribly if they act in their nature. We have things like government, society, and religion because we sometimes seek to rise above nature. That doesn't say that we should always seek to buck nature, but it certainly doesn't speak to any particular viewpoint.

You rely a lot on the Bible. Fixating on a couple specific lines while ignoring countless others, and that's your prerogative. Cafeteria Christianity is the right of all Christians and really the only way one can sensibly practice in the modern era. You are welcome to try to force your version of Christianity on others, but just because they disagree doesn't make them senseless, faithless, heartless and ruthless.

 

The democrats are the ones who don't want to separate church and state...

 

In this instance, yes (and some conservatives). If you disagree, simply show me the democrats who propose getting government out of the marriage certification business. I don't know of any, but I could be wrong.

 

Thanks for this. Well said.

 

nature argues against marriage/monogamy PERIOD.

 

I try not to watch Christian TV or find out what other Christian minister's are doing, but I am serving on a commitee with 5 other pastors right now drawing up a community marriage policy for the Brazos port Ministerial Alliance.

I really don't decide what is a valid marriage, that is a govt. issue.

I don't know how the government decides but I decide who I marry based upon different criteria.

I don't consider myself an expert on these questions, I study scripture and try to keep it simple.

I also have little interest in agreeing with all or any of the sects, denominations in the church world.

If you have a bible question get one and look it up.

I view homosexuality different than you do but I don't see that as a problem.

 

I don't rely on anything. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily care. But I do think that all coupling should be deemed as Civil Unions by the Government with all the benefits/detriments associated with it.

FWIW when the Episcopal church tried to start integrating/changing attendance dropped sharply. That being my denomination, I am against my church going away. I suppose that could be seen as selfish, but it is what it is.

 

Tell that to the PENGUINS.

 

Err... you're welcome.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

among the 3% of mammals that mate for life!

 

It isn't an issue.

 

I agree with you that viewing homosexuality is not a problem.

My question is simple.... if another reverend marries a homosexual couple, should it be recognized by the state and should the receive all the benefits received by heterosexual married couples?

 

What a sad life to live if you need a legal piece of paper to pursue happiness. Legal Marriage is more about legal protection than it is about love.

I admit, I'm trolling this thread more than anything. :grin: