What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[OtherCheek]

President Obama will possibly clarify his stance on the same-sex marriage issue today. At least he will probably be asked to.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-in-interview/

What is REALLY at issue for people here on Tweb on both sides of the debate? Is it all about real actual rights? Is it just about rights to use the term and not so much about real rights?

If it's about real rights, then what real rights are now missing? I don't want to deny actual rights to any law abiding person.

If it's about kidnapping the term "Marriage" mostly and not about real rights, then I have a real problem with that.

I believe the term "Marriage" should be preserved to avoid confusion for parents and children. It muddles the genders, and I think preserving gender identity is helped by preserving the meaning of words and terms such as "Marriage." Call it something else: "Civil Union" or "Homogeny" but don't call it "matrimony" or "marriage."

Thoughts?

[Jaecp]

Its about rights.

There are any number of horror stories about gay people being denied access to a loved one or other business, but that isn't so much the issue, not really. Gay = wrong, therefor its being opposed on sectarian grounds for secular law

[Vivian]

President Obama will possibly clarify his stance on the same-sex marriage issue today. At least he will probably be asked to.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-in-interview/

What is REALLY at issue for people here on Tweb on both sides of the debate? Is it all about real actual rights? Is it just about rights to use the term and not so much about real rights?

If it's about real rights, then what real rights are now missing? I don't want to deny actual rights to any law abiding person.

If it's about kidnapping the term "Marriage" mostly and not about real rights, then I have a real problem with that.

I believe the term "Marriage" should be preserved to avoid confusion for parents and children. It muddles the genders, and I think preserving gender identity is helped by preserving the meaning of words and terms such as "Marriage." Call it something else: "Civil Union" or "Homogeny" but don't call it "matrimony" or "marriage."

Thoughts?

Gosh, I might even campaign for Obama! Way to go, way to not succumb to fear but look at what is right here right now.

When I heard I shared with my daughter that if Jesus were here and asked about same sex marriage, He would reach over and take one of his male followers into has arms, kiss him, look him in the eye and tell him how much he loved him. And then he would turn to the modern day Pharisees and say, "Some would call that a sin. But they are mistaken, they do not know what sin is.'

Everyone will agree methinks, that sin is treating others in an unloving way, being hurtful to another. And so homosexuality was condemned thousands of years ago, because the act of homosexuality was aggression, rape, bringing harm to others.

Today there is no harm done to others simply because of a homosexual relationship. No harm. The sin is condemning those who chose to love.

Pretty ridiculous, would you not say? To condemn love claiming to do so in the Name of Christ? And then to bully, persecute those who love, also claiming to do so in the Name of Christ?

I want to scream it from the mountain tops! It is time to bring down the ignorant teachings of orthodoxy which reflect little if nothing of God. Hallelu-Yah!

The issue, OC, is ignorance. Those not having a personal knowledge or intimacy with God, those who do not experience God, claiming that they know what God wants. Claiming that they know what sin is, that they can speak for God, even persecute others for God.

It is the Pharisees all over again.

It is good to see this finally being brought out into the open. Praise God!



Vivian (Sheryl)

[Cow Poke]

When I heard I shared with my daughter that if Jesus were here and asked about same sex marriage, He would reach over and take one of his male followers into has arms, kiss him, look him in the eye and tell him how much he loved him. And then he would turn to the modern day Pharisees and say, "Some would call that a sin. But they are mistaken, they do not know what sin is.'
Vivian (Sheryl)

wow

[Darth Executor]

Gosh, I might even campaign for Obama! Way to go, way to not succumb to fear but look at what is right here right now.

When I heard I shared with my daughter that if Jesus were here and asked about same sex marriage, He would reach over and take one of his male followers into has arms, kiss him, look him in the eye and tell him how much he loved him. And then he would turn to the modern day Pharisees and say, "Some would call that a sin. But they are mistaken, they do not know what sin is.'

I have fantasies where Jesus makes me look awesome and really sticks it to my enemies, only in mine He draws a green ethereal bow like Nightwolf from Mortal Kombat and drills them full of arrows.

Everyone will agree methinks, that sin is treating others in an unloving way, being hurtful to another.

Sin is disobeying God. I doubt you'd get even half the Christians on this board to agree with your definition.

And so homosexuality was condemned thousands of years ago, because the act of homosexuality was aggression, rape, bringing harm to others.

The same was true of much heterosexual sex, but a rape distinction was made in that case and one could have been made in the case of homosexual sex as well.

[Cow Poke]

Everyone will agree methinks, that sin is treating others in an unloving way, being hurtful to another.

Do you think Jesus sinned when he drove the money changers out of the Temple, knocking over their tables, or when he called people snakes or whited tombs?

[Vivian]

I have fantasies where Jesus makes me look awesome and really sticks it to my enemies, only in mine he draws a green ethereal bow like Nightwolf from Mortal Kombat and drills them full of arrows.



Sin is disobeying God. I doubt you'd get even half the Christians on this board to agree with your definition.

Hi Darth Executor,

Sin being equated with disobeying God is an archaic understanding, given to the children of Israel. It is the thinking of the Old Covenant. With the New Covenant, the Law is to be written on our heart, we being guided by Christ within to love. No longer is an exterior Law needed for those who love and abide in Christ.

Only those who do not love need a Law and need to be concerned about obeying and disobeying. Those who love have the Law written on their heart and fall under the same distinction that Paul described. After speaking about sexual immorality he then said, 'For me, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.'

Those who abide in Christ know that homosexuality in itself is not a sin. But it is a sin to treat others unlovingly, unkindly - whether one is in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual one. Those who treat others unkindly still need a Law, but even that Law in today's world no longer speaks against homosexuality.

It is time to move beyond an experience limited to words written 2000 years ago, it is time to step out of a relationship with a dead Christ, and move into a relationship with the living Christ.

The living Christ does not condemn homosexuality. It's condemnation comes from guidance given 2000 years ago, which some of us cling to instead of engaging to an intimate relationship with the living Christ right here and right now. Such clinging to the Law for a humanity of the past is idolatry.

Shalom!

[Cerebrum123]

Gosh, I might even campaign for Obama! Way to go, way to not succumb to fear but look at what is right here right now.

When I heard I shared with my daughter that if Jesus were here and asked about same sex marriage, He would reach over and take one of his male followers into has arms, kiss him, look him in the eye and tell him how much he loved him. And then he would turn to the modern day Pharisees and say, "Some would call that a sin. But they are mistaken, they do not know what sin is.'

Everyone will agree methinks, that sin is treating others in an unloving way, being hurtful to another. And so homosexuality was condemned thousands of years ago, because the act of homosexuality was aggression, rape, bringing harm to others.

Today there is no harm done to others simply because of a homosexual relationship. No harm. The sin is condemning those who chose to love.

Pretty ridiculous, would you not say? To condemn love claiming to do so in the Name of Christ? And then to bully, persecute those who love, also claiming to do so in the Name of Christ?

I want to scream it from the mountain tops! It is time to bring down the ignorant teachings of orthodoxy which reflect little if nothing of God. Hallelu-Yah!

The issue, OC, is ignorance. Those not having a personal knowledge or intimacy with God, those who do not experience God, claiming that they know what God wants. Claiming that they know what sin is, that they can speak for God, even persecute others for God.

It is the Pharisees all over again.

It is good to see this finally being brought out into the open. Praise God!



Vivian (Sheryl)

Hi Darth Executor,

Sin being equated with disobeying God is an archaic understanding, given to the children of Israel. It is the thinking of the Old Covenant. With the New Covenant, the Law is to be written on our heart, we being guided by Christ within to love. No longer is an exterior Law needed for those who love and abide in Christ.

Only those who do not love need a Law and need to be concerned about obeying and disobeying. Those who love have the Law written on their heart and fall under the same distinction that Paul described. After speaking about sexual immorality he then said, 'For me, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.'

Those who abide in Christ know that homosexuality in itself is not a sin. But it is a sin to treat others unlovingly, unkindly - whether one is in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual one. Those who treat others unkindly still need a Law, but even that Law in today's world no longer speaks against homosexuality.

It is time to move beyond an experience limited to words written 2000 years ago, it is time to step out of a relationship with a dead Christ, and move into a relationship with the living Christ.

The living Christ does not condemn homosexuality. It's condemnation comes from guidance given 2000 years ago, which some of us cling to instead of engaging to an intimate relationship with the living Christ right here and right now. Such clinging to the Law for a humanity of the past is idolatry.

Shalom!

[Vivian]

Do you think Jesus sinned when he drove the money changers out of the Temple, knocking over their tables, or when he called people snakes or whited tombs?

That event occurring 2000 years ago has nothing to do with the persecution and bullying today of those who chose to love.

If one has a relationship with the living Christ, his understanding and knowledge of God extends far beyond events that occurred 2000 years ago.

This is why the Pharisees could not recognize Christ when he stood right before him. All they had to discern with were biblical stories of the past.

Do you want to be limited as they were in only knowing about the Christ of the past, or do you want to know the Living Christ, know how he is appearing and working in the world today?

Shalom!

edited to add:

Without a relationship with the Living Christ today, such events that occurred 2000 years ago are misunderstood.

Enough said, methinks. I wanted to share my elation. There are a few here who join with me.

[Cerebrum123]

Vivian, the Pharisees had sufficient knowledge to accept Christ, but they wouldn't do so because they didn't want to, not because the Bible was insufficient.

John 5:46
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

See, Moses wrote about Jesus, and they STILL didn't believe, also Jesus was supporting of this law as well.

Matthew 15:4
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

Was that "unloving", and "un-Christian" of Jesus to uphold that law?

[Darth Executor]

Hi Darth Executor,

Sin being equated with disobeying God is an archaic understanding, given to the children of Israel. It is the thinking of the Old Covenant. With the New Covenant, the Law is to be written on our heart, we being guided by Christ within to love. No longer is an exterior Law needed for those who love and abide in Christ.

"the law is to be written on our heart" says nothing about what the law is.

Only those who do not love need a Law and need to be concerned about obeying and disobeying. Those who love have the Law written on their heart and fall under the same distinction that Paul described.

You are inaccurately (if not dishonestly) stating faleshood. Nowhere does Paul say a select group of people have the Law written on their heart. He says everybody does, to make the point that they do not need the given Law to know what is right and wrong. The point is not that there is some sort of difference between the given Law and what is written on their hearts. Quite the opposite, Paul makes this point to state the two are one and the same and not having access to the given law is no excuse because the law is also written in their heart.

After speaking about sexual immorality he then said, 'For me, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.'

That is a quotation of a point he rebuts. The KJV does not use quotation marks so it's easy to miss the point for people who don't pay attention to the surrounding context.

Those who abide in Christ know that homosexuality in itself is not a sin.

Homosexuality is not a sin, in itself or otherwise. Gay sex is.

But it is a sin to treat others unlovingly, unkindly - whether one is in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual one. Those who treat others unkindly still need a Law, but even that Law in today's world no longer speaks against homosexuality.

To tell people that sin is not sin isn't love. Why are you trying to force people to violate their conscience?

It is time to move beyond an experience limited to words written 2000 years ago, it is time to step out of a relationship with a dead Christ, and move into a relationship with the living Christ.

The relationship is that of a lord and a slave. The lord commands, the slave obeys. It's not some sentimental BS you conjure up to serve your inclinations.

The living Christ does not condemn homosexuality. It's condemnation comes from guidance given 2000 years ago, which some of us cling to instead of engaging to an intimate relationship with the living Christ right here and right now. Such clinging to the Law for a humanity of the past is idolatry.

Intimate relationships as you know them are a product of the modern era and projecting them onto a 2000 year old text is a sign of considerable ignorance.

[Cow Poke]

You're probably new to the lovely and gracious Viv.

[Cow Poke]

That event occurring 2000 years ago has nothing to do with the persecution and bullying today of those who chose to love.

You hurt my feelings, you SINNER!

[Cerebrum123]

You're probably new to the lovely and gracious Viv.

Yes, quite.

[OtherCheek]

The issue, OC, is ignorance. Those not having a personal knowledge or intimacy with God, those who do not experience God, claiming that they know what God wants. Claiming that they know what sin is, that they can speak for God, even persecute others for God.

It is the Pharisees all over again.
It is good to see this finally being brought out into the open. Praise God!

Vivian (Sheryl)

So, it's not really about rights, then. It's more about validating a particular behavior? Then we should talk about gay validation instead of gay rights when it comes to this issue.