The Good Book and Gay Marriage

To : MSEBZDC01 : good book my foot., Did you read the Book?

Right Bo!!!

Ok so why are you debating im not religous i dont see the point if there really is a higher being i highly doubt that they would actually care what we do and also i dont care if gays marry as long as they dont call it marriage the meaning of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc and its over 700years old you cant just change a word thats been around that long make up a new word

good book my foot.,

Last comment of the night. I am a lawyer and a Christian and believe that gay marriage is blessed by law and the love of God. My practice is at least 50% domestic relations. I see so much ugly that is based in heterosexual relationships. I know they are not inherently sanctified, but at the same time the law is wholly constructed upon them. I have gay friends that have been together for 25 years and have incredibly strong family support systems, children, grandchildren, but these folks are not part of the State system. I am sure if gays and lesbians were included in the statutes I would see just as much ugliness when those relationships dissolve, but they aren't. Why not?

The only relationship I see between my practice and my faith is that if we spent more time preaching family love, forgiveness and inclusion . . . then we might find less divison and hatred.

You aren't going to hell if love a gay or lesbian. I really don't get it. How can so many people be so small while professing so much faith.

I would like to commend both of these gentlemen for their reasoned and respectful debate regarding this issue. I learned a great deal from both of them as I read their well articulated points of view. And I believe that, given the difficult nature of this debate, their civility toward each other is more than admirable.

The issue in this debate that bothers me the most is the contention that God did not make homosexuals. How can that be so? It seems to me that people who would deny homosexuals the same right to ???pursue happiness??? that straight Americans have, ease their consciences by holding that being a homosexual is a ???choice???; a life-style decision. We now know that this is not the case, and it???s clear that Dr. Duke is aware of that fact. None of the homosexuals that I know felt that it was a great thing when they realized they were gay. I have a friend who, even when he was a very young child, dreamt of growing up and becoming a father. He was devastated to discover that he was gay. Now he is a father, and a wonderful one ??? and am I to believe that God did not make him as he is? That his sexual orientation is just some kind of evil proclivity? Or worse a depraved decision? Are we to condemn homosexuals to living their lives without a loving life-partner? Are we to deny them the right that the rest of us have, and that I cherish every day of my life? The central point is that God made us all, did He not? And some of us are homosexuals. Not by choice. This is a biological fact.

To compare homosexuality to pedophilia or alcoholism is, well, a terrible insult and hardly Christian behavior. Alcoholism and pedophilia are psychological illnesses. Homosexuality is not. It cannot be ???cured???. Even more insulting is the notion that if we allow gay people to marry, it is the same as allowing polygamy or permitting someone to marry a chicken. A human being is not a chicken. And I believe that most people are capable of counting to two. Loving a human being and committing to another in a loving bond is one of the most wonderful experiences life has to offer. Would God make someone to come into the world and then deny him or her that wonderful experience because that person is born gay? Why? I do not pretend to comprehend all the ways of God, but I cannot believe that He could be capricious.

I personally don't believe that same-sex marriage will lead to pologamy. Pologamy would be a legal nightmare as far as taxes, benefits and other such things. I wouldn't be as opposed to pologamy as long as it was mutual (both parties in the original marriage agree and also applied to women being allowed to have more than one husband) and you only were able to count one spouse (the first one until s/he died or divorced) on tax papers and such. Also if you were able to provide for the second spouse as much as you were able to provide for the first (life insurance policies, adequate health insurance for spouse(s) and any children from those unions).
Gay marriage doesn't have those issues. And I am for gay marriage from a legal standpoint. I would be AGAINST gays suing institutions like the Catholic Church for the right to be married in the church. Separation of Church and State also applies to separation of State and Church.

What meaning is that? Marriage has evolved over thousands of years. It's meaning and basis is not the same now that it was a couple of thousand years ago or even a century ago.

While I find both arguments creditable, I am struggling with the evidence they are both referring to. I would have found either argument more more convincing if they had used more detail in their references to biblical literature. I would like to inform myself on this issue. While I believe that both of these men are well educated biblical scholars, I have a personal relationship with Jesus/God and must work with Jesus/God on my understanding of the holy word as God the father intends me to understand it. As to my current understanding based on my person understanding of scripture I tend to fall on the side of love, mercy, and acceptance. When judgment comes I will not be judged by the sins of my brother, but I know I will be judged by how I treat my brother. This being the case for me, I will always side with love, mercy, and acceptance. I will allow God the declared right to judge others. I do agree, that the church will look at their opposition to same sex marriage with the dread they look at their opposition to the earth at the center of the universe, a round planet, slavery, and a list to long to continue. Finally, I believe we need to recognize that their are two different marriages in our country, one civilly and one religious. The church and the government recognize this. As an example to this knowledge, no civil authority I know of requires premarital counseling to see if you are ready to marry, yet many churches require such an arraignment. To further this claim the constitution requires a separation of church and state. Therefore a civil marriage must not and cannot have the same definition as a religious marriage. So, I understand if your specific church doesn't want to marry gay couples fine. I do not understand the civil argument to prevent such marriages from happening.

While I find both arguments creditable, I am struggling with the evidence they are both referring to. I would have found either argument more more convincing if they had used more detail in their references to biblical literature. I would like to inform myself on this issue. While I believe that both of these men are well educated biblical scholars, I have a personal relationship with Jesus/God and must work with Jesus/God on my understanding of the holy word as God the father intends me to understand it. As to my current understanding based on my person understanding of scripture I tend to fall on the side of love, mercy, and acceptance. When judgment comes I will not be judged by the sins of my brother, but I know I will be judged by how I treat my brother. This being the case for me, I will always side with love, mercy, and acceptance. I will allow God the declared right to judge others. I do agree, that the church will look at their opposition to same sex marriage with the dread they look at their opposition to the earth at the center of the universe, a round planet, slavery, and a list to long to continue. Finally, I believe we need to recognize that their are two different marriages in our country, one civilly and one religious. The church and the government recognize this. As an example to this knowledge, no civil authority I know of requires premarital counseling to see if you are ready to marry, yet many churches require such an arraignment. To further this claim the constitution requires a separation of church and state. Therefore a civil marriage must not and cannot have the same definition as a religious marriage. So, I understand if your specific church doesn't want to marry gay couples fine. I do not understand the civil argument to prevent such marriages from happening.

Duke's organization "addresses how Christianity should be applied to life" and he states explicitly that "it is impossible for me to accept same-sex marriage, which legitimizes a sinful behavior." I think this entire debate pretty much ignores the bigger question of whether we should all have to apply Christianity, let alone a fundamentalist/orthodox version of it, to our lives as Americans. Rejecting Jesus as your saviour is also sinful behavior according to the doctrine of many Christian denominations and if Duke thinks that permitting gay people to obtain a marriage license from the state (a civil government institution) should be banned based on his belief that it is contrary to biblical doctrine and permitting it legitimizes sinful behavior he must also believe that anything else that legitimizes sinful behavior (including not being Christian) should also be banned. Nobody is demanding that he accept, perform or otherwise support SSM - he can abhor it to his heart's delight, but his personal opinion based on his understanding of the bible should not be applicable to civil law. The state issues marriage licenses, it does not perform or otherwise comment on religious sacraments of marriage. In short, when it comes to marriage licensed by the state, what the bible says is not and should not be applicable.