Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Madeline]

I assume the scenario that you fear is one in which a person who is straight is seduced by someone who is the same sex and their family is disappointed that they aren't going to get grandchildren.

I gotta say, I have never seen this happen. Ever. But I do know GLBT people whose families broke their hearts and even some who are my age, still pretending to their families of origin that they are not GLBT.

There are tragedies all around us. One reason I should think christians would find it easy to extend friendship to GLBT people is that I have never known one who has not suffered in terrible ways over their personal lives. Isn't it incumbent on christians to comfort the suffering?

 

[logical4u]

Serious? You are serious here?

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

No, you rabidly badgered him into responding to your posts while he was also busy responding to other people's posts in a clear demonstration of Christian friendhsip toward the gay community. You repeatedly called him a "fucking bigot" like a distrubed turrets patient.

Even though I had argued against him on that particular point in several threads now, I jumped to his defense because any honest person can read this thread and see that Immie is not a bigot.

You keep on pretending that arguing about the minutia of one case or another makes Immie a BIGOT and you prove yourself to be a dishonest idiot who can't get over his own egotistical need to be "right".

Immie is not a bigot. Immie is stuck on a point that I disagree with. He thinks the Churches have a lot to fear from gays and lesbians if marriage equality is the law of the land.

I disagree.

I think some people who are tolerant of gays and lesbians still fear us, unnecessarily IMO.

He is a bigot because he doesn't want gays to publicly hold the title of "Marriage" because they are gay. If that isn't bigotry then what do you call it?

Why is sooo important for GLBT to use the term "marriage"? Why do you want to re-define a word that has had a significant meaning for thousands of years? Why can't you accept 'civil union' or "legal union"?
Many of the homosexuals (or their supporters) that argue for "marriage", reject the Lord. They speak of Him in a disrespectful manner and insult those that believe in the "sanctity of marriage". You say that you think LGBT should have the same opportunity for marriage, but the word does not have the same meaning to you.
You declare yourselves to be 'special' and want to have the laws changed to give LGBT additional rights; you say that you have been persecuted and discrimminated against. Why do you want to attack those that want the definition to stay the same? If your 'lifestyle' is so special, why can't you come up with a legally binding relationship that does not diminish others?
If you succeed in 're-defining' marriage, there will be a hyphen: L-marriage, G-marriage, B-marriage, T-marriage, and then of course: normal marriage. It will not give you one ounce more of respect. It will just show how far from reality the LGBT community really is.

 

[logical4u]

They changed their bylaws in order to discriminate better. They won. YOU WIN IMMIE. Churches are allowed to discriminate.


Consider the true legal issue here -- whether a piece of property that's open to public can claim itself to be a religious accommodation when its convenient. They instead present it to their followers in a way that makes it sound as if those damn militant homosexuals are trying to once again circumvent religious freedom.

This lesbian couple were not militant dykes going after the Church.

The church is a place of worship. If a group of people make a church and vote to buy property, why shouldn't the 'church' be allowed to permit actions that are approved by the 'church'?
If you own your house and kids gather in your yard to visit with your children and everything is good, then some kids that don't want to behave or follow your rules, visit under false pretence, wouldn't you ask them to leave?
Many homosexuals want to force their choices onto others as ACCEPTABLE; tolerance is no longer good enough (the original spoken public intent). Where will it stop? Already, some homosexuals are claiming they have 'a right' to marry; where is that written (millions of people are not married, sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes a person doesn't find a suitable spouse)?
Deception in the smallest form is still: DECEPTION.

Your house is PRIVATE property. The NJ church had a side business, renting out a PUBLIC accommodation. Kinda sorta like the difference between who you must serve at your dinner table vs. who you must serve in your restaurant.

Great avoid.

 

[Madeline]

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Immie is not a bigot. Immie is stuck on a point that I disagree with. He thinks the Churches have a lot to fear from gays and lesbians if marriage equality is the law of the land.

I disagree.

I think some people who are tolerant of gays and lesbians still fear us, unnecessarily IMO.

He is a bigot because he doesn't want gays to publicly hold the title of "Marriage" because they are gay. If that isn't bigotry then what do you call it?

Why is sooo important for GLBT to use the term "marriage"? Why do you want to re-define a word that has had a significant meaning for thousands of years? Why can't you accept 'civil union' or "legal union"?
Many of the homosexuals (or their supporters) that argue for "marriage", reject the Lord. They speak of Him in a disrespectful manner and insult those that believe in the "sanctity of marriage". You say that you think LGBT should have the same opportunity for marriage, but the word does not have the same meaning to you.
You declare yourselves to be 'special' and want to have the laws changed to give LGBT additional rights; you say that you have been persecuted and discrimminated against. Why do you want to attack those that want the definition to stay the same? If your 'lifestyle' is so special, why can't you come up with a legally binding relationship that does not diminish others?
If you succeed in 're-defining' marriage, there will be a hyphen: L-marriage, G-marriage, B-marriage, T-marriage, and then of course: normal marriage. It will not give you one ounce more of respect. It will just show how far from reality the LGBT community really is.

How does anyone else's marriage diminish yours, logical4U? If your marriage matters to you, why's it so hard to grasp that their marriages matter to others, even if the partners are same sex? The GLBT community does not want to be "special"; they do not want "separate but equal". They want their marriages to be given the same respect and dignity as yours. Not better. Not different. The same.

As to whether they have "God in their marriage", that is highly personal...but many have had religious ceremonies, and presumably, they feel they do.

 

[eagleseven]

Why is sooo important for GLBT to use the term "marriage"?

Because, historically speaking, wholesome families are built around the institution of marriage. Legalizing gay marriage allows LGBT people to formally build the same familial units that have been the backbone of our civilization.

Why do you want to keep LGBT people on the fringes of society?

---

There are plenty of heterosexual atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. Do you think they should be banned from marriage too?

 

[Madeline]

The church is a place of worship. If a group of people make a church and vote to buy property, why shouldn't the 'church' be allowed to permit actions that are approved by the 'church'?
If you own your house and kids gather in your yard to visit with your children and everything is good, then some kids that don't want to behave or follow your rules, visit under false pretence, wouldn't you ask them to leave?
Many homosexuals want to force their choices onto others as ACCEPTABLE; tolerance is no longer good enough (the original spoken public intent). Where will it stop? Already, some homosexuals are claiming they have 'a right' to marry; where is that written (millions of people are not married, sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes a person doesn't find a suitable spouse)?
Deception in the smallest form is still: DECEPTION.

Your house is PRIVATE property. The NJ church had a side business, renting out a PUBLIC accommodation. Kinda sorta like the difference between who you must serve at your dinner table vs. who you must serve in your restaurant.

Great avoid.

So you feel the GLBT community is engaged in some conspiracy and that their stated goals are not what they really want. They are not seeking respect or tolerance. They actually want something else.

So tell us, logical4U, what is this something else?

 

[logical4u]

I assume the scenario that you fear is one in which a person who is straight is seduced by someone who is the same sex and their family is disappointed that they aren't going to get grandchildren.

I gotta say, I have never seen this happen. Ever. But I do know GLBT people whose families broke their hearts and even some who are my age, still pretending to their families of origin that they are not GLBT.

There are tragedies all around us. One reason I should think christians would find it easy to extend friendship to GLBT people is that I have never known one who has not suffered in terrible ways over their personal lives. Isn't it incumbent on christians to comfort the suffering?

I think you have part of the idea; you should comfort the sinner (that would be all of us), not the sin (that would be the homosexual act). Legalizing LGBT would be giving comfort to the sin, not the sinner (it would make it easier to sin).

 

[Madeline]

logical4U, I challenge you (with warmth, not anger) to reconsider this. It should be enough for you to choose not to sin, as you perceive that, and to teach those values to your family. Beyond the scope of your personal influence, I would like you to try and open your heart a little and just focus on the GLBT person. I am not exaggerating when I say I don't know a single such person who has not suffered in terrible ways over their personal lives.

This is pain you have never known, and mebbe if you could listen to these folks' stories, and try and gain some understanding of what they endure, you might be able to find some peace and adhere a bit more to the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" commandment.

I'm not sure exactly what you fear will happen if you do not "resist" GLBT people's rights....but I have a feeling you could advance your understanding and compassion, and might be willing to do so. I think you are sincere, but possibly just a bit in need of growth...as are we all.

 

[eagleseven]

I think you have part of the idea; you should comfort the sinner (that would be all of us), not the sin (that would be the homosexual act). Legalizing LGBT would be giving comfort to the sin, not the sinner (it would make it easier to sin).

Should we whip the sinner? It would make it harder to sin.

 

[logical4u]

He is a bigot because he doesn't want gays to publicly hold the title of "Marriage" because they are gay. If that isn't bigotry then what do you call it?

Why is sooo important for GLBT to use the term "marriage"? Why do you want to re-define a word that has had a significant meaning for thousands of years? Why can't you accept 'civil union' or "legal union"?
Many of the homosexuals (or their supporters) that argue for "marriage", reject the Lord. They speak of Him in a disrespectful manner and insult those that believe in the "sanctity of marriage". You say that you think LGBT should have the same opportunity for marriage, but the word does not have the same meaning to you.
You declare yourselves to be 'special' and want to have the laws changed to give LGBT additional rights; you say that you have been persecuted and discrimminated against. Why do you want to attack those that want the definition to stay the same? If your 'lifestyle' is so special, why can't you come up with a legally binding relationship that does not diminish others?
If you succeed in 're-defining' marriage, there will be a hyphen: L-marriage, G-marriage, B-marriage, T-marriage, and then of course: normal marriage. It will not give you one ounce more of respect. It will just show how far from reality the LGBT community really is.

How does anyone else's marriage diminish yours, logical4U? If your marriage matters to you, why's it so hard to grasp that their marriages matter to others, even if the partners are same sex? The GLBT community does not want to be "special"; they do not want "separate but equal". They want their marriages to be given the same respect and dignity as yours. Not better. Not different. The same.

As to whether they have "God in their marriage", that is highly personal...but many have had religious ceremonies, and presumably, they feel they do.

How can two people of the same sex with one or both playing the part of the opposite sex to make the relationship work be the same? You are pretending that you are the same, but even children can see that there is something strange about a same sex relationship.

As for dimminishing another's marriage: think of it as graduating college. You select a school (mate). You work hard to build your grades (a relationship). You work hard to be acceptable to your teachers (their family). You select a major (decision to marry). You now have your diploma (marriage). Then, some 'elitist' decides they are going to redefine 'diploma', now anyone that "acts" like they want to graduate will be given a diploma, it doesn't matter if they are in college or not, all that matters is "their perception" of what a diploma (marriage) should be. Now, society has all these diplomas walking around, which is real and which is fraud? It dimminishes all those that followed the 'rules' to build a life, and gives to those that "believe" what they have is the same. It is not.

 

[eagleseven]

You select a major (decision to marry). You now have your diploma (marriage). Then, some 'elitist' decides they are going to redefine 'diploma', now anyone that "acts" like they want to graduate will be given a diploma, it doesn't matter if they are in college or not, all that matters is "their perception" of what a diploma (marriage) should be. Now, society has all these diplomas walking around, which is real and which is fraud?It dimminishes all those that followed the 'rules' to build a life, and gives to those that "believe" what they have is the same. It is not.

Drive-thru weddings are valid in every state.

 

[Madeline]

So, logical4U, if I understand you...you fear people will treat marriage as less respectable if same sex marriage is not resisted. Exactly how do you see this playing out? Will people stop addressing one another and "Mr and Mrs"? Will there be confusion at family reunions as to whether newly-weds should be celebrated?

How exactly do you think this lack of respect will show itself? And if some small loss of respect does happen (and I don't concede that it will)...doesn't that help you just a bit to grasp what it must be like for the same sex couple who is denied even a modicum of respect for their marriage?

Seems to me, compassion dictates you not take your satisfaction at someone else's expense, especially when doing so causes such grief.

 

[logical4u]

logical4U, I challenge you (with warmth, not anger) to reconsider this. It should be enough for you to choose not to sin, as you perceive that, and to teach those values to your family. Beyond the scope of your personal influence, I would like you to try and open your heart a little and just focus on the GLBT person. I am not exaggerating when I say I don't know a single such person who has not suffered in terrible ways over their personal lives.

This is pain you have never known, and mebbe if you could listen to these folks' stories, and try and gain some understanding of what they endure, you might be able to find some peace and adhere a bit more to the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" commandment.

I'm not sure exactly what you fear will happen if you do not "resist" GLBT people's rights....but I have a feeling you could advance your understanding and compassion, and might be willing to do so. I think you are sincere, but possibly just a bit in need of growth...as are we all.

If... me choosing not to sin would stop LGBT from trying to say what they are doing is NOT a sin, and not try to bully those that disagree with them, it would be enough. To do that now, in today's society would require me to turn my back on my beliefs and the Lord's teaching. I would be like Lot in Sodom: ignore it and it will go away. That has been tried, it was not acceptable to the LBGT community. Many have infiltrated the schools and now want "children" (some starting with kindergarden) taught about homosexual sex. That is evil. I don't believe children should be taught about sex until they are emotionally mature to understand (that is an individual basis, usually when they start asking more detailed questions).

Pain is universal. These people that you claim "suffer" so much, do so, as a result of their life's choices. I can tell you that drug addicts and alcoholics suffer and go thru intense pain of their own. Like LGBT, they have a choice, their decisions will either punish the families or make them proud. Only through pain do we grow as humans.

I am not "judging" anyone (i choose to call evil, evil). I do not have that authority. I pray that when LGBTs are kneeling (as every person will) in front of the Lord on judgement day, that He will be merciful and forgiving of their sins (as I hope He will be for mine). The Lord is just, and we will be punished according to our sins (mine are just as bad as anyone else's) Pretending that an addict not controlling themselves is 'good', does not help anyone, just like pretending LBGT actions are 'good'. You seem to think the lifestyle is good. I think that it is deceptive. You seem to think encouraging others to join this lifestyle is acceptable; can you imagine what people would say if someone was teaching children that being an alcoholic is 'good'?

LBGT people have the same Bill of Rights that I have, it is their choices that limit them. They want the law changed to give them additional rights (they could marry either sex).

Activists homosexuals do scare me. They do not admit that what they are doing rips families apart. They do not admit to deceiving others in their quests for partners or to gain 'trust' in employment. They will not admit they support a lewd and perverse community. They will not control their public displays of lewdness. Why don't those that claim LGBT is so loving and honorable denounce these demonstrations of lewdness? Any of these hurt families, communities, and society as a whole; eventually, if not checked, the corruption will infiltrate all aspects of life. It will be equal misery for all, good job!

 

[eagleseven]

Activists homosexuals do scare me. They do not admit that what they are doing rips families apart. They do not admit to deceiving others in their quests for partners or to gain 'trust' in employment. They will not admit they support a lewd and perverse community. They will not control their public displays of lewdness. Why don't those that claim LGBT is so loving and honorable denounce these demonstrations of lewdness? Any of these hurt families, communities, and society as a whole; eventually, if not checked, the corruption will infiltrate all aspects of life. It will be equal misery for all, good job!

What a scary, scary world you live in.

 

[Madeline]

logical4U, I know of not one instance in which anyone has suggested teaching kindergartners about homosexuality (or heterosexuality). I think you are confused. There has been some effort made to assure that older kids (middle school, high school) are treated respectfully if they are GLBT.

As for GLBT people "infiltrating schools"; are you suggesting that such people cannot be good, even great teachers? Because I can assure you, you are wrong there...,but it is something I only happen to know because I have GLBT friends who are teachers and are fantabulous at it. I have never known a single teacher in my entire life who displayed his or her personal life in the classroom...have you?

 

[logical4u]

So, logical4U, if I understand you...you fear people will treat marriage as less respectable if same sex marriage is not resisted. Exactly how do you see this playing out? Will people stop addressing one another and "Mr and Mrs"? Will there be confusion at family reunions as to whether newly-weds should be celebrated?

How exactly do you think this lack of respect will show itself? And if some small loss of respect does happen (and I don't concede that it will)...doesn't that help you just a bit to grasp what it must be like for the same sex couple who is denied even a modicum of respect for their marriage?

Seems to me, compassion dictates you not take your satisfaction at someone else's expense, especially when doing so causes such grief.

Currently, if a couple is married, they are welcomed into two families. They have children (for the most part) and build a family of their own. When the families that they have joined die, they have their own family to carry on traditions and take care of them. Why would you celebrate a LGBT marriage? It adds nothing (in resources) to the families, and drains resources as they age.

The lack of respect will come the same way people hired under quotas were treated: they are one of "those" situations, it is "that" kind of marriage.

People would have more respect for LGBT legal contracts, that do not imply there is one of each sex. No deceit, just a sincere statement that binds a person legally to support another.

When an addict does not have their preferred substance, they are in a state of grief. Are you suggesting that the rest of us should be forced to support their habit (lifestyle)? True compassion is honest, it is not appeasement. You don't tell someone they can have a unicorn because they are 'suffering' because they don't have one. If you give them their substance, isn't it at the expense of another? At what point do you say: your choices are causing everyone around you 'grief' and 'pain'?

I have no satisfaction from someone else's 'grief'. I have learned that the Lord will guide you: if you make good choices you are blessed (there will still be pain and suffering, but the blessings will make it easier), if you make bad choices, you are miserable. I will not pretend that life offers anything else. I am not envious, I do not seek to ruin what someone else has built. I am straight forward, and will not manipulate the truth to control others. They must live with their choices, as I live with mine.

 

[logical4u]

Why is sooo important for GLBT to use the term "marriage"?

Because, historically speaking, wholesome families are built around the institution of marriage. Legalizing gay marriage allows LGBT people to formally build the same familial units that have been the backbone of our civilization.

Why do you want to keep LGBT people on the fringes of society?

---

There are plenty of heterosexual atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. Do you think they should be banned from marriage too?

LGBT lifestyle is based on deceit. Why do you want to legalize deceit? Why do you want to call two people that can not make children natrally from their 'joining' a family? They are not, they are just a poor substitute of the real thing.

 

[logical4u]

Your house is PRIVATE property. The NJ church had a side business, renting out a PUBLIC accommodation. Kinda sorta like the difference between who you must serve at your dinner table vs. who you must serve in your restaurant.

Great avoid.

So you feel the GLBT community is engaged in some conspiracy and that their stated goals are not what they really want. They are not seeking respect or tolerance. They actually want something else.

So tell us, logical4U, what is this something else?

You answer my question first.

 

[Madeline]

Where is the deceit, logical4U? Wouldn't it be more deceitful to force people to hide their personal lives?

 

[Madeline]

Great avoid.

So you feel the GLBT community is engaged in some conspiracy and that their stated goals are not what they really want. They are not seeking respect or tolerance. They actually want something else.

So tell us, logical4U, what is this something else?

You answer my question first.

Okay. What is your question?