</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So - If a MAN can love a WOMAN
then why can’t:
A MAN love a MAN
A WOMAN love a WOMAN
A MAN love a SHEEP
A WOMAN love a ( ______) fill in the blank yourself – this could get interesting. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Traditional marriage=between 2 consenting adults.
Homosexual marriage=between 2 consenting adults.

How do you make the association between homosexuality and bestiality?

Just a few points I want to touch on.

Cardinal,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Adam and Eve had their own set of problems, and I guess for your argument, they had zero choice over whether they would be gay or not! I guess we are lucky they felt loving toward one another.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I wasn't asking this because of their sexuality, I was asking because I question, who is to say if God feels that two people are married? Because of a man's law? Because a human created a marital ceremony? According to your line of thinking, a marriage is simply after you exchange vows before God. If Adam & Eve didn't do this, then they weren't married, according to your line of thinking.

Also, where did Cain get his wife? Nothing is recorded anywhere. He was banished to a foreign land & all of a sudden he had a wife. I don't remember Abraham & Sarah exchanging vows either, maybe, but it's not recorded anywhere so we really don't know. So if there's so much we don't know from the OT, then how do we know that God didn't bless a union between a w/w or m/m?

Bob hit on a very interesting subject that I myself had done some research on. He stated:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Rewrite? Not necessarily, although it's been done thousands of times already. Which Bible do you read, Cardinal? The original? Or do you read a later translation? Are you sure, absolutely sure, that it has been interpreted correctly?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not trying to rewrite the Bible as you would suggest. But I do feel that from translation to translation, some words were mistranslated, giving a whole different meaning than what was originally meant. It even states in the Bible that scripture is meant to be studied & reviewed. Have you done that or do you just take it for what it says w/o looking into the context in which it was written & to whom most of the NT letters were speaking to?

You also said:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I guess some are going to rewrite their own Bible to suit their own needs. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It has always been this way since the beginning of time. I can remember when people were using the Bible to promote slavery, stop women from being in ministry, and that ole' "hood" clan promoting segragation. Half the time they would use scripture as their basis for their argument, quote scripture to support their stance. Did that make it right? Obviously no.

Let me also ask you, Do you feel that women belong in the home taking care of the children, keeping their mouths quiet in the church while the men do all the preaching? This was the OT law too. But then we have the account of Mary Magdalene being one of Jesus' biggest followers and btw, she, Mary, his mother and John, the beloved disciple were the only ones at his crucifixion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do think that children are innocent, and what we teach them is of all importance. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have to disagree with the statement that children are born innocent. We are all born sinners, children included. It is part of human nature. What we teach them, I agree, is very important and my parents taught my sister about God since she could walk & talk, guiding her every step. She was baptized as a disciple of Christ since she was a baby. You seem to think that she was "taught" how to be gay when she was just a little girl and I don't see how that could be when no one in our family is gay & other members of the family frowned upon her when she acknowledged it to all of us. I didn't even understand it myself when she first told me & I prayed for God to take that cup from her. But I believe God showed me that there is more there than meets the eye and thus, sent me on a journey to look for answers that I couldn't find by just "blatantly" quoting scripture.

I truly believe that unless you've walked in my sister's shoes or others similar to her situation, you cannot honestly say that what these two women feel for each other isn't love & that it's prompted by Satan.

Golly, I never said that your sister was not in love, or guided by Satan!

In my church, we don't rewrite the Bible, but read it and reflect and relate it to our lives. You take home what you will, surely some get less out of it than others. Some don't agree with it. But if you go to this church and have followed its rules, then you ought to abide by them.


The churches that I have visited in my little life all seem to be this way. Catholic churches, church at college (which was predominantly Catholic, but called non-denominational), and several varieties of Protestant churches, plus a Tabernacle. They don't ask if you are gay or a different faith, but if you become a member you can bet that they will want you to follow their basic rules! Usually those rules are obtained from their "Bible", whatever "version" that may be.


(adding in; In referance to plumbs post)
Now I am not asking you what version or interpretation you hold on your "Bible", so lay off. OK? If you want to get fresh this thread will get closed. I have not said I have condemnation or judgements of gays. I believe that the rights for civil equality is theirs. But the rights of the churches do not need to bow down to the marriage of two men and two women if they wish to keep their "rules".

At this point in time, my church is being pressured by a couple people and being loved in our church (as Jesus said to love one another- not in any sexual way mind you)- and in doing so is making precedence to change what we in our faith have held as uniquely sacred.

Loving a man if you are a man is considered "disgusting" and other referances which say No to gay marriage in church. (from the Bible, as quoted earlier in this thread- from Lev.)

If you can find any interpretation which shows support for this form of marriage in any Bible, lets hear it PLEASE. I haven't read everything in it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

adding in: I am not talking about the ancients marriage rites. I think that is an interesting topic for a new thread though...talking about our right as a church to follow our rules, not change them due to the legislative changes/potential changes. There is a seperation of church and state, but we deal with this issue anyhow, as a church.

You asked about women and jobs, and I think that women are getting the choices that they want and need at least where I live. They are ministers, and doctors and lawyers, CEO's, business owners, and SAHMs/ or Moms that want to work too. I have not a thing against any of it. I am not against people who are gay, that is their personal choice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ June 11, 2004, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]</small>

Never meant to "attack" you per say, Cardinal, if that's how you feel, I was just responding to some things you said. Sorry for offending you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> I'm honestly being sincere in my efforts.

I just asked the question about Adam & Eve's marriage and all that because I was trying to make a point. People seem to want to not allow gays to marry in a church for all the reasons you have mentioned, following the Bible, etc. but when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves. So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?

And anyone reading, please don't think that I believe all those in 2nd or subsequent marriages are living in sin, that is definitely not what I am saying. Don't slam me w/the 2x4's!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> (adding in; In referance to plumbs post)
Now I am not asking you what version or interpretation you hold on your "Bible", so lay off. OK? If you want to get fresh this thread will get closed. I have not said I have condemnation or judgements of gays. I believe that the rights for civil equality is theirs. But the rights of the churches do not need to bow down to the marriage of two men and two women if they wish to keep their "rules".
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, if people politely disagree with you, you intend to just stop talking, is that your point, Cardinal?

I have not been rude or "fresh". When I asked which version of the Bible you read, I was trying to point out that WE ALL READ from Bible's that have been interpreted throughout history. None of us read from the original manuscript. So when you started spouting off about "some people wanting to re-write the Bible to fit their needs", I was trying to point out that that is not a new phenomena.

Don't threaten me with shutting down a thread, simply because I ask difficult questions of you. I have not been rude, or impolite, in any of my responses.

As to being judgemental, I didn't mention anyone by name. But when we start referring to others as "sinners", then we are, in fact, being judgemental, are we not?

As I originally stated, we should all worry more about identifying the sin in our OWN lives, and dealing with it, before we ever start trying to identify all the ways OTHERS sin.

Bob

Plumb Bob, let me be clear. I have talked with you in the past here. And I do not like you. I think that you are arrogant. So, if you dislike my methods, then the feeling is mutual. You can write what you will but I have nothing to say to you at all.

A couple thoughts.
First, I believe being gay or straight is mostly about how you are born. Yes there are many bi-sexual people who can choose and environment plays a role, but I am straight and find the idea of kissing a guy as big a turn off as kissing a rat. However, some gay friends have told me the same thing about how they feel about kissing a woman. All I know is that if my mind were in a woman’s body I would be a lesbian.

Second, I think we need to remember that there is a separation of church and state. Churches, mosques, etc. can independently decide the issue of gay marriage. The government should not and is not involved. But I feel that if the state is going to recognize marriage it should not discriminate between gays, straights, blacks, Catholics or anyone else.

Personally I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business and there should be marriages recognized by the church and the government should give civil unions that provide the legal rights to gays or straight couples. Separate the issues so that the issue of government approval (which has real economic benefits) does not get caught up in the religious issue.

Separation of church and state is very important. I don't know how many are born gay. I don't know if the facts are clear, but sure as the Pope is a Catholic, there are people who are gay, and how they got that way is not my concern either. Although it is interesting.

I just would like to see my church stay together on this decision, and that the laws of the Bible be upheld as we have always been at least trying to do. To marry gay people in my church would be against it. I don't want my children to see it. I think marriage of gay people should be called a different name than what my marriage is to my husband - as a man and wife. I believe in keeping what we have intact at our church. The marriage of a man and a woman is unique.

Nowhere in the Bible are you going to find the encouragement of gayness, I think. Or someone here at MB would have come up with that passage I think.

The last thing that I was thinking is this. When you enter into a church, and you like this church, you wish to become a member. Now if you dislike the carpets, the color of the wallpaper, or something, you can change it. But when you dislike what your Bible reads, then you can't change that.

I think that you will need to change your belief, or change your church! But should not expect others to alter their belief because of your lifestyle wishes.

Cardinal-Although I fundamentally disagree with you on the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, I agree that each church should decide for itself and if you do not like that decision then find a new church. If the church wants to allow people to divorce and you disagree find one that agrees with you. If the church allows gays, blacks, men, ten year olds, monkeys, women or whatever to be ministers and you disagree then find a new one. Personally I feel that we should support loving couples who are loyal and committed regardless of gender or race. Unless we go the route of totalitarianism, gay people are going to commit to each other and they will have families. In the interest of recognizing of promoting healthy families, including the children of gay couples (whether adopted, step children, sperm donated or whatever) I believe we as a society should recognize those commitments and families and provide them with the same economic benefits that I as a straight person enjoy by spending $60 at the county for a marriage license. I personally do not care what you call it, as long as we do not discriminate against two consenting, competent adults who want to enter into a long term loving relationship or discriminate against the kids of gay people.

You fundamentally disagree with me, but you pretty much stated what I said with a few additions of race and monkeys..? Ok, whatever.

StandingTogether:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my opinion...yes! Yes, it is exactly the same thing, but shhhh.... let's just not talk about that k?

The point you make is crystal clear to me.

*sigh* - this topic always get me fired up.

Where I fundamentally disagree is that, while I believe churches should have the right to discriminate, I think that such discrimination is wrong.

I personally wish that all churches would marry gay people and divorced people because they can form loving long term families just as I as a straight non-divorced person.

To me it is like I think it is dumb that the Catholic faith does not allow women ministers or that it took most (all?) Christian churches so long to abandon their racism against blacks and interracial marriage (which they justified based on the Bible).

The Bible can be used by anyone to prove almost any point. Pro-gay people can point out that the Jesus was not explicitly anti-gay and that the New Testament’s message is not anti-gay and that the prohibitions against gays in the Old Testament of the same moral significance of eating pork or shellfish. For example, although I may be wrong, the Bible does not condemn slavery. There are places in the Bible that could be read to support slavery. For example, “When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.” (Exod. 21:20-21).

Jesus and Paul also did not condemn slavery and used its metaphors to make points. The views in the Bible on slavery were products of their time in which slavery was part of the fabric of society. Does that mean we should repeal the 13th amendment to the Constitution and allow slavery?

I believe a church or any person should have the right to be a racist, try to change the law to have slavery, or what ever other belief that I adamantly oppose. But just because I respect each religion’s freedom to make its own rules, does mean I agree with those rules or think that they are promoting a healthy, pro-child, pro-family society. I dream of a world in which gays are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

I dream of a world in which ________ are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> OT, yet timeless.

You know what, the church that I attend is the most relaxed, non-judgemental church that there is around. I believe that God will always be in attendance at the services if we are always trying to honor him and not ourselves and our selfish desires. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Plumb Bob, let me be clear. I have talked with you in the past here. And I do not like you. I think that you are arrogant. So, if you dislike my methods, then the feeling is mutual. You can write what you will but I have nothing to say to you at all. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I believe that God will always be in attendance at the services if we are always trying to honor him and not ourselves and our selfish desires. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good point, Cardinal.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by robby13:
<strong> I dream of a world in which ________ are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> OT, yet timeless. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yup! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I wonder whether it's wise to comment on this thread. I'm not a Biblical scholar; I'm not even a Christian.

I am, as far as I know, the only person on MB who's been in a same-sex union.

So.

What to say?

Mmmmmm.

In the end, cardinal, it strikes me that your conflict is between what you've seen and experienced, and the higher authority that you read in the Bible.

That's a tough, tough choice and thought process, and one that I've been through. I don't envy you having to go through it, though I've found that a careful consideration of these things -- the struggle -- can be very beneficial.

Some things you might want to think about are what's good for the two people involved, what's good for any children who are involved, what's good for society as a whole.... and who might be harmed in all the scenarios you're thinking about.

It doesn't resolve the conflict necessarily. But the more aspects of it you hold in your heart when you meditate and pray about it, the more easily answers may come.

I understand what you're saying, Cardinal. What most gays are looking for, in essence, is not necessarily being married in a church specifically per say, just the right to marry like anyone else & receive the benefits that go along with that, for instance, being able to make decisions for the children of their partner or being able to be put on health insurance, things like that. I think I pretty much agree with others that just because it becomes law, doesn't mean that a church has to abide by it. A minister has the right to say if he/she wants to marry a gay couple. Same as a priest has a right to say whether or not he will marry two people, one being Catholic & the other not. In order to marry in a Catholic church, the children have to be raised Catholic and the non-Catholic has to covert, at least, that's what happened to a man in our church. So they chose to have their ceremony somewhere else.

As far as the Bible "encouraging gayness" as you put it, no, I haven't found any, however, there is no record in the Bible of the universe being created, dinosaurs existing, cavemen, and so on. Stuff that has been proven to exist but it wasn't recorded in the Bible. Of course, I'm not done reading the whole entire thing though.

I didn't mean to imply that you condemn gays but the words "personal choice" somehow get to me because I don't believe that anyone would "choose" to be gay with all the condemnation in general that goes along with it. I do agree with you that if a church makes a decision, and someone belongs to that church, if they don't agree with the policies then they should find another church that will fit in with their belief system. Just makes common sense to me. Otherwise, you'd in essence be a "hypocrite" pretending to follow their guidelines yet practicing your own.

DP <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

<small>[ June 12, 2004, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]</small>

Thanks Just J and Standing for your responses. It is something to think about in an ever progressive world that we live in. Something about the issue is needing to get talked about and to simply accept situations, due to a docile and caring community is just not going to help us. We need to understand the perplexing problems that enter in to a set belief system. One that has never closed its doors to anyone. However it has stood on good ground which supports the ideas and feelings of a community which reads out of the Bible.

I know the arguments about interpretation, and that the Bible may not have mentioned about the dinosaurs (how could we miss that in Genesis), but I do think that the Bible is the written history of people, not of prehistoric. However if you took geology, or science study of the earth, the general sequence of events are correct, and in that time (of a couple paragraphs) those things happened , albeit with the notion of geological time added, I think we can kind of see that God's minute might be a little quicker than our minute....But this is digressing.

I think God does care about all of the people, as we as parents love our children (or should). A parent cares about the future of the children, wants them to live healthy and well. A parent would like to see their children be able to make mistakes and build on their abilities to fix them. Our resources are support systems, like churches, schools, meeting groups and parents teaching.

If you feel like what you are doing is a sin, then it is upon your shoulders to seek the better way to do or not to do what you are doing. If you feel that your doing what is right and good, then there is no questions left.

I cant deny what I have read and believe. I believe that marriage in my church is between a man and a woman. I think it would be wrong to use that church as a place to make the civil laws become realities for this church.


Here is a question. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> What if Noah picked gay animals to board the SSNoahsArk?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> For that matter what if Adam and Eve (prototypes, were gay?)...I really believe that if it were what we were meant to be, then it would be written as least as many times as we find a married man and woman in the Bible.

All I can say is thank God people have affinity for the opposite sex!