Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Valerie]

You are full of shit. Just because someone does not support gay marriage, does not mean they hate gay people. I believe the state should treat both gay and straight equally. I support your right to get married in any church that will marry you. In the mean time, the state should sanction civil unions for all and stay out of the religious field.

You seem to hate everyone that does not give in to you. I feel so sorry for you. Once you admit that the state has no business being involved in religious rites, we can have an honest discussion. Until then, your hatred of those who will not bow down to your cause will always be in the way.

You talk of Christians hating you? You should look in the damned mirror.

Immie

You said Marriage EQUALITY...I am a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. You are nothing but a Segregationist....just like the Segregationists of old....to sit there and expect us to believe your CRAP about not hating us when we have done NOTHING to you yet you want the STATE to without equal rights from us....sorry, but I'm not the idiot you want me to be.

BTW...there has been an effort to start a Proposition here in CA to get the word "Marriage" removed from all legal documentation and make all civil marriages into civil unions....guess who, when faced with something like that REALLY happening, have started SQUAWKING? You guessed it, the churches.

A segregationist? Now that is a damned lie.

I have stated repeated for years, that I believe the government should license all "marriages" both gay and straight as civil unions and you know full well that is the case.

Makes you the liar here.

What equal rites have I denied to you? None! Not a damned one!

Immie

Yes, Immie, I have always seen you as rational and fair on this issue every time it comes up. IMO you are very consistent and very kind.

 

[Immanuel]

There's really no compelling reason not to allow gay couples to marry.

I agree with you.

That being said, the thread was started sounding like it was going to be a discussion of whether or not Christians have gay friends or Christians hate gay people. The thread turned out not to be at all what the title implies. What I expect will happen when gay marriage is legal, and I believe it will be, is that a good portion of the gay community will still resent Christians and view them as an enemy. This issue is a lose-lose, and no matter what the turn-out of the gay marriage issue, the resentment will still be there. It really doesn't matter to me personally, because I have no beef with either side, but this will be an ongoing point of contention imo.

The Christian community will still be the enemy in the eyes of the homosexual community because nothing will have changed. Making homosexual marriage legal and giving homosexuals the legal benefits of a civil marriage will not change the heart of Christians.

I am a Christian and the church I attend is a conservative church. We still do not even ordain women let alone homosexuals. I do not agree with every practice of the denomination I have chosen but spiritually this denomination fits me better than most others. I can still pray that my denomination will become truer to God's word in these manners.

In the meantime, granting homosexuals the right to marry won't magically change the hearts of Christians. That is going to take time and it will need to be done from within.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

This thread started out dead.

God does not hate gays. Christians (not meaning all of them, but in general) don't hate gays.

The Bible says that gay sex is sin, just like outside of marriage heterosexual sex is sin.

That statement is not at all bigotted, or hateful. It is what the Bible says, and what Christians believe.

I personally don't believe the story of the OP. I have lived on this earth for a good while now, and it is not as common as the OP says to have that many gay friends if you are a straight. It is not that common to even knoe that many gays (the Op seems to indicate that a large number of his/her peers are gay).

Should Christians befriend gays, yes, just like any other person. Do they have to approve of gay sex, no. Can they believe that the Bible is correct, and still have gay friends, yes. Can they have an active gay lifestyle and be a Christian? Not if they are in God's will.

There are many gay Christians, but they have usually chosen to not have gay sex relationships. That is what God calls for.

I have known a few gays over the years, and have not rejected any of them. However, when the issue comes up, I don't stray from telling them how I feel about the Bible's words.

If gay marriage is rightfully denied because it is a sin then all hetero marriages should be banned as well. Why? If the only valid marriage is one free of sin then no marriage on earth should be recognized since (according to mainstream Christian theology) we are all sinners.

Next!

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If gay marriage is rightfully denied because it is a sin then all hetero marriages should be banned as well. Why? If the only valid marriage is one free of sin then no marriage on earth should be recognized since (according to mainstream Christian theology) we are all sinners.

Next!

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

Smartt, you're a homo hating douche. The US should just make all their laws on equality apply everywhere in the US, even to churches. It's like condoning having a church that hates junglebunnies, would that even be allowed?

And once that has happened, then the government is going to turn to telling you what god you need to worship. Are you ready for that?

There was a very good reason that our founding fathers set up the separation of church and state. I pray it will remain longer.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

If gay marriage is rightfully denied because it is a sin then all hetero marriages should be banned as well. Why? If the only valid marriage is one free of sin then no marriage on earth should be recognized since (according to mainstream Christian theology) we are all sinners.

Next!

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

That's not true.

 

[CurveLight]

If gay marriage is rightfully denied because it is a sin then all hetero marriages should be banned as well. Why? If the only valid marriage is one free of sin then no marriage on earth should be recognized since (according to mainstream Christian theology) we are all sinners.

Next!

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

That is a complete myth. Having gay marriage does not mean churches would be forced to marry gays. You have been suckered into believing homophobic propaganda.

 

[CurveLight]

I have tried before, but every time I do, I get slapped in the face by her.

I have tried to come up with a workable solution to the issue. I have not once stated that she should not be able to be married in a church that will marry her. Unfortunately, she is not happy with that. It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage. That may come eventually, but it is not going to happen by force.

Immie

Bodecea is interested in civil marriage equality. that's what I read in her posts. What are the churches doing messing around with civil law? They can choose to marry whoever they like.

bodecea can speak for herself but I see no evidence that she believes every church must submit to accepting gay marriage.

In case you didn't know it, Marriage has been an institution of the Church since before the western hemisphere was even discovered.

As I have stated, because America sees the need, and rightly so, of keeping the church and state separate, the state should not have a damned thing to do with the religious Rite of marriage.

It is for that reason that the government should change its view of what they now call contractual marriage, to civil unions. Doing so in no way inhibits a church from choosing to marry any couple.

Immie

In case you didn't know, atheist marriages have existed as long as any other type of marriage.

 

[CurveLight]

You are full of shit. Just because someone does not support gay marriage, does not mean they hate gay people. I believe the state should treat both gay and straight equally. I support your right to get married in any church that will marry you. In the mean time, the state should sanction civil unions for all and stay out of the religious field.

You seem to hate everyone that does not give in to you. I feel so sorry for you. Once you admit that the state has no business being involved in religious rites, we can have an honest discussion. Until then, your hatred of those who will not bow down to your cause will always be in the way.

You talk of Christians hating you? You should look in the damned mirror.

Immie

Don't forget about the Christian gays who oppose same sex marriage. Those I know think the government has no place authorizing what they claim is a religious tenet of faith. "We should all have civil unions" is the general opinion.

But spewing hate with a different political purpose seems to be the preferred tactic.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I have come up with what I think is a fair and equitable solution to the very real problem that the homosexual community faces. That would be "civil unions" as the legal contract between any couple and allowing any church the ability to decide whether or not it will marry a couple. Marriage under the umbrella of the church would offer no legal advantages whatsoever. If a couple wants the legal benefits of a relationship, they would have to be under a civil union.

For the life of me, I cannot see why that is not a very good solution to the problem, except some people like bod do not seem to want that.

Immie

The proposal of civil unions is not a solution but only a delay to the solution. That is advocating "separate but equal" ideology and we don't have to look very hard to see the problems with that legal position.

 

[Immanuel]

Don't forget about the Christian gays who oppose same sex marriage. Those I know think the government has no place authorizing what they claim is a religious tenet of faith. "We should all have civil unions" is the general opinion.

But spewing hate with a different political purpose seems to be the preferred tactic.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I have come up with what I think is a fair and equitable solution to the very real problem that the homosexual community faces. That would be "civil unions" as the legal contract between any couple and allowing any church the ability to decide whether or not it will marry a couple. Marriage under the umbrella of the church would offer no legal advantages whatsoever. If a couple wants the legal benefits of a relationship, they would have to be under a civil union.

For the life of me, I cannot see why that is not a very good solution to the problem, except some people like bod do not seem to want that.

Immie

The proposal of civil unions is not a solution but only a delay to the solution. That is advocating "separate but equal" ideology and we don't have to look very hard to see the problems with that legal position.

Tell me how if all "marriages", including gay and straight, are done as civil contracts and no one being married only in the church is given the benefits of a civil contract, does that equate to "separate but equal" Maybe I am not making myself clear. Just as a Baptism does not offer a person any legal advantages, neither would a marriage performed in a church. If a couple wanted the legal advantages offered under the civil union contract, they would need to "sign on the dotted line" so to speak. That includes gay and straight couples. Any couple (gay or straight) that wanted to be married within the church would have the right to do so and would simply need to find a church body that would perform the marriage.

I don't see where you get "separate but equal" from that but am willing to listen to learn.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

That's not true.

I think you are wrong. It will come down to a "discrimination" issue. Once the SCOTUS gets the case, any church that refuses to do so will be sued for discrimination and the costs of defense will become astronomical.

Immie

 

[eagleseven]

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals.

Why?

Do you think that Catholic Churches will suddenly be forced to marry Muslim couples?

 

[Madeline]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

 

[bodecea]

You are full of shit. Just because someone does not support gay marriage, does not mean they hate gay people. I believe the state should treat both gay and straight equally. I support your right to get married in any church that will marry you. In the mean time, the state should sanction civil unions for all and stay out of the religious field.

You seem to hate everyone that does not give in to you. I feel so sorry for you. Once you admit that the state has no business being involved in religious rites, we can have an honest discussion. Until then, your hatred of those who will not bow down to your cause will always be in the way.

You talk of Christians hating you? You should look in the damned mirror.

Immie

You said Marriage EQUALITY...I am a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. You are nothing but a Segregationist....just like the Segregationists of old....to sit there and expect us to believe your CRAP about not hating us when we have done NOTHING to you yet you want the STATE to without equal rights from us....sorry, but I'm not the idiot you want me to be.

BTW...there has been an effort to start a Proposition here in CA to get the word "Marriage" removed from all legal documentation and make all civil marriages into civil unions....guess who, when faced with something like that REALLY happening, have started SQUAWKING? You guessed it, the churches.

A segregationist? Now that is a damned lie.

I have stated repeated for years, that I believe the government should license all "marriages" both gay and straight as civil unions and you know full well that is the case.

Makes you the liar here.

What equal rites have I denied to you? None! Not a damned one!

Immie

This very post of yours PROVES that you are a Segregationist. I don't lie...you do...and badly too.

 

[bodecea]

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals.

Why?

Do you think that Catholic Churches will suddenly be forced to marry Muslim couples?

Don't you know that churches have been forced to marry interfaith couples by the government....interracial couples by the government....none church goers by the government....?

 

[bodecea]

Don't forget about the Christian gays who oppose same sex marriage. Those I know think the government has no place authorizing what they claim is a religious tenet of faith. "We should all have civil unions" is the general opinion.

But spewing hate with a different political purpose seems to be the preferred tactic.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I have come up with what I think is a fair and equitable solution to the very real problem that the homosexual community faces. That would be "civil unions" as the legal contract between any couple and allowing any church the ability to decide whether or not it will marry a couple. Marriage under the umbrella of the church would offer no legal advantages whatsoever. If a couple wants the legal benefits of a relationship, they would have to be under a civil union.

For the life of me, I cannot see why that is not a very good solution to the problem, except some people like bod do not seem to want that.

Immie

The proposal of civil unions is not a solution but only a delay to the solution. That is advocating "separate but equal" ideology and we don't have to look very hard to see the problems with that legal position.

For those who don't understand Segregation = Separate but equal.

 

[bodecea]

Gay marriage is not denied because gay marriage is a sin. Gay marriage promotes sin and gives gays the belief that gay sex is OK just because a society says so. I know the laws can alow for gay marriage, and I would really not be personally effected by that at all. However, when that law happens, it makes gay marriage, thus gay sex something that is approved and condoned by the society. That would be a sin by the society, and would numb the next generations to the effects of the sin of gay sex.

How is heterosexual marriage sin?

The only valid marriage is not connected to if it is sin or not. It is connected to who is getting married. Marriage in the Bible is valid only when it is one man and one woman. There are a few other things that can make a marriage invalid as well, such as the person is currently married, when it is a forced marriage, when the people don't allow God to be in it. Of course these are Biblical reasons not legal ones.

For nearly 40 years, our society has promoted the taking of innocent human life. Why shouldn't it promote equality in the lives of homosexuals?

One reason, I want the term "civil union" to be adopted rather than just allowing "gay marriage" is that when gay marriage becomes legal, all churches will be required to marry homosexuals. That blurs the line of Separation of Church and State and is not a line I care to see crossed.

Immie

That's not true.

He's bought into that several million dollar lie.

 

[bodecea]

I have tried before, but every time I do, I get slapped in the face by her.

I have tried to come up with a workable solution to the issue. I have not once stated that she should not be able to be married in a church that will marry her. Unfortunately, she is not happy with that. It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage. That may come eventually, but it is not going to happen by force.

Immie

Well now...that is simply a lie...and we all know what the 10 commandments say about that.

It seem to me that you are the liar in this case.

How many dozens of times have you jumped all over me when I have suggested the idea of civil unions?

Are you claiming that I am wrong when I state that it seems you believe that every church must submit? You have attacked me personally for stating that I believe churches should be free to choose whether or not to marry homosexual couples. I do not see how I can be wrong in that case.

Immie

You have accused me of this: " It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage" ...now PROVE that I have ever said that or tender me your abject apology.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I have come up with what I think is a fair and equitable solution to the very real problem that the homosexual community faces. That would be "civil unions" as the legal contract between any couple and allowing any church the ability to decide whether or not it will marry a couple. Marriage under the umbrella of the church would offer no legal advantages whatsoever. If a couple wants the legal benefits of a relationship, they would have to be under a civil union.

For the life of me, I cannot see why that is not a very good solution to the problem, except some people like bod do not seem to want that.

Immie

The proposal of civil unions is not a solution but only a delay to the solution. That is advocating "separate but equal" ideology and we don't have to look very hard to see the problems with that legal position.

For those who don't understand Segregation = Separate but equal.

except he is not saying separate
he is saying that both gay and straight get the exact same thing from the government perspective

 

[Madeline]

The common law of family, which in this country (except for Louisiana) dates back to Merry Old England, should be discarded. The family courts and statutes they administer should be dismantled. Entirely new bodies of law, governing everything from inheritance to alimony, should be developed. The unintended consequences and ambiquities benefiting no one, apart from trial lawyers.

All this, so that we can avoid allowing gay couples to partake of marriage ceremonies just as heterosexual couples can?

And the advantage of this would be? What, exactly?

This is insanity. Immie, I dun know what it bothering you about allowing gays to marry, since it cannot be a fear that religion will be impacted. Can you point out to me the up side of altering laws dating back hundreds of years, just so gays cannot participate?

 

[DiveCon]

The common law of family, which in this country (except for Louisiana) dates back to Merry Old England, should be discarded. The family courts and statutes they administer should be dismantled. Entirely new bodies of law, governing everything from inheritance to alimony, should be developed. The unintended consequences and ambiquities benefiting no one, apart from trial lawyers.

All this, so that we can avoid allowing gay couples to partake of marriage ceremonies just as heterosexual couples can?

And the advantage of this would be? What, exactly?

This is insanity. Immie, I dun know what it bothering you about allowing gays to marry, since it cannot be a fear that religion will be impacted. Can you point out to me the up side of altering laws dating back hundreds of years, just so gays cannot participate?

so that all citizens under the law are treated EQUAL