The Pope on 'Gay Marriage.'

[Nautilus]

True... if they DID care whether 'the churches' allowed it, they wouldn't want to get married in the first place!

It's GOD who doesn't allow it btw...

Clearly you arent understanding the post. Homosexuals dont care at all about the religious parts of marriage. They only want the legal and federal benefits. So christianity can stay secure in knowing they wont be forced to marry homosexuals in their churches unless they so choose. So once again, since nothing about this actually affects Christians...why does the majority of us care?

 

[Indubitably]

I'm curious, is there any other topic that interests you?

 

[Newluke]

Clearly you arent understanding the post. Homosexuals dont care at all about the religious parts of marriage. They only want the legal and federal benefits. So christianity can stay secure in knowing they wont be forced to marry homosexuals in their churches unless they so choose. So once again, since nothing about this actually affects Christians...why does the majority of us care?

Nope, clearly you do not understand what marriage is in the first place, namely the sacred bond between a MALE and a FEMALE. In that context it doesn't matter if you value 'the religious parts of marriage' or not: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; that's all that matters.

 

[Nautilus]

I'm curious, is there any other topic that interests you?

Plenty...most of which would also outcast me on this site ironically...

 

[Nautilus]

Nope, clearly you do not understand what marriage is in the first place, namely the sacred bond between a MALE and a FEMALE. In that context it doesn't matter if you value 'the religious parts of marriage' or not: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; that's all that matters.

So secular institutions such as the government should be forced to bend their knees and subjugate it citizens, based on the bible?

 

[Newluke]

So secular institutions such as the government should be forced to bend their knees and subjugate it citizens, based on the bible?

YAY, he finally got it!

Philippians 2: 9-11
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Amen.

 

[raf]

Catholic priests cannot represent the universal church by definition, or any church for that matter, since catholicism is heresy. The 'church' of rome has practically facilitated child abuse, so it has always been interesting for pedophiles to become priests. Child abuse in the catholic 'church' is institutionalized, in houses of worship, seminaries, (boarding) schools, etc. It is however rare within protestant churches.
That doesn't mean I can't still agree with the pope on 'gay marriage, though; heck... most muslims would agree with him too.

Pretty much everything youre saying is based on people's opinions, and probably your own bias, and things that has happened in the past that doesnt happen as much now. Priests are always being kicked out of churches for being pedophiles. Also what youre mentioning everyone does not just Catholics to trying to blame everything on one group of people just hides all the abuse the other groups experience.

 

[raf]

Nope, clearly you do not understand what marriage is in the first place, namely the sacred bond between a MALE and a FEMALE. In that context it doesn't matter if you value 'the religious parts of marriage' or not: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; that's all that matters.

I always hear that Adam and Steve termed used over and over. Also im pretty sure most gays only want to get married for tax benefits and other things they dont care about a religious motive. Theyre not ruining the Christian religion if theyre going to hell than they can thats your own opinion but to twist things to get your own way and try to force a theocracy goes against the founding of the country.

 

[Newluke]

Pretty much everything youre saying is based on people's opinions, and probably your own bias, and things that has happened in the past that doesnt happen as much now. Priests are always being kicked out of churches for being pedophiles. Also what youre mentioning everyone does not just Catholics to trying to blame everything on one group of people just hides all the abuse the other groups experience.

No offense but are you a catholic yourself? You won't believe the stories that have come out the last couple of months about child abuse in the roman catholic 'church.' Priests and other clergy are seldomly punished for their offenses though. And I see no reason why a conservative 'church' as the 'church' of Rome would do away with one of her treasured traditions all of a sudden. And NO, statistically speaking the child abuse is MUCH more rampant in the catholic 'church,' so I'm certainly not trying to stigmatize just ONE group. Child abuse is rare in the protestant churches, because we don't facilitate it, end of story.

 

[Newluke]

I always hear that Adam and Steve termed used over and over. Also im pretty sure most gays only want to get married for tax benefits and other things they dont care about a religious motive. Theyre not ruining the Christian religion if theyre going to hell than they can thats your own opinion but to twist things to get your own way and try to force a theocracy goes against the founding of the country.

Just calling it 'marriage' doesn't make it a marriage, because marriage was never MEANT to be a union between two people of the same sex. It doesn't matter here if go to church for a blessing or not, a married couple should ALWAYS be a MALE and a FEMALE, that's how it was meant to be. Anything else is 'an abomination unto the Lord' and hence very offensive to christians.

 

[Nautilus]

YAY, he finally got it!

Philippians 2: 9-11
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Amen.

Ok I guess you arent noticing that nowhere in that verse does it say to force people too...

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

For the best well-balanced assessment on this topic, everyone should read the answers from the Christian Bible Reference organization.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

This is actually an excellent summary. It does not come out pro- or anti-, just lays out the facts. Nice.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Regarding gays and marriage in the church -- MOST gays don't care what the church says, and aren't interested in getting any sort of religious blessing of their unions. There are some, however, who are religious, and there are some churches (though I understand a lot of people in this forum would question whether they should consider themselves "Christian") who bless same-sex couples. Just wanted to point that out, since several of you keep saying, "Gays don't want to get married in the church anyway," .... Just reminding you that it's not true of ALL gays .... most, yes, but not all.

The point stands, however, that "marriage" as a secular vehicle for civil status (i.e. tax, inheritance, and medical rights) is COMPLETELY different from "marriage" from a religious view. I know Christians keep trying to say that "marriage" is a God-given institution, but that's just not true. If you conservative Christians refuse to allow gays to marry, then we need to throw out the term.

Here's what I suggest:

Churches should not be allowed to "marry" anyone -- they can only bestow "matrimony" on a couple. And the church can decide what rules it would like to make. For example, only a man and a woman, or a man and as many women as he can afford, or a man and a woman who have never been divorced, or whatever the church wants to say. But that religious ceremony has absolutely ZERO standing in the secular world. It does not grant any heredity rights or tax status or anything.

If a couple wishes to be seen as a couple in the eyes of the state, they must get a civil union from the state. The state has its rules: consenting adults, age of accountancy, yada yada yada, and this civil union has absolutely nothing to do with God.

So, some couples will get both. They'll get a civil union from the state, and they'll get a holy matrimony from the church, and it will be much like what many marriages look like today. Some couples will choose to go with just the state marriage. For example, any non-religious couple. (You conservatives think God can't deal with gays getting married, but he's perfectly fine with atheists getting married? Really?) And there may be some couples (I know of some) who would get the "holy matrimony" but not the civil union. For example, an older couple, where one or both may have certain benefits that would be lost if they were married, but they want to be recognized by God, and friends and family, as a couple.

If you want to live in a country where religion dictates law, move to Iraq. As long as you live in the US, you're going to have to deal with people doing things that you consider a sin.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Oh, I also wanted to mention, concerning child sexual abuse in the Catholic church:

I used to say what many of you are saying, that it's unfair to label the Catholic church with that. But seriously, it is a problem in the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. I don't know if RCCs in other countries have it as bad, but as I meet Roman Catholics, I am hard-pressed to find more than 1 or 2 who have not had some instance of abuse, if not themselves, then they know it happened in their church. It is a serious problem, and the Vatican, which was once one of the wealthiest political units in the world, is almost bankrupt now from paying out settlements trying to keep it quiet.

I don't know why it seems to be a bigger problem in the RCC than in other churches. Yes, there are religious leaders in every denomination who sin, some in big ways, but I don't know any other denomination who has such a wide-spread problem -- the numbers I've seen show as much as 10-20% of its clergy have been pedophiles. That's WAY higher than any other denomination. Whether there's something about Catholicism that twists its priests into monsters, or whether these men are monsters first, and seek the priesthood as a vehicle for their depravity, I cannot say. But it is absolutely a problem uniquely rampant in the Catholic Church in the U.S.

Of course, this absolutely does NOT mean that any Catholic priest is by default a pedophile. That's obviously untrue. But it is higher than the church wants to admit, which is part of the problem.

 

[Newluke]

Ok I guess you arent noticing that nowhere in that verse does it say to force people too...

Not a question of force, if you read the whole passage it's just the logical thing to do. Anything else would be foolishness. Just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Btw I've had enough of your nitpicking comments, so you're on ignore. I still love you in Christ, though.

 

[Newluke]

...If you want to live in a country where religion dictates law, move to Iraq. As long as you live in the US, you're going to have to deal with people doing things that you consider a sin.

Well put, though most of what you say is just wrong. It doesn't matter how you want to call a 'union' between two people of the same sex, it's still a sin. God intended MALE and FEMALE to be together; heck, just look how that works in nature. Ofcourse: if you live in the US you have to deal with people promoting their liberal agenda, but the ideal situation would still be that 'HIS will be done,' as we pray in 'The Lord's Prayer.
The american intervention in Iraq has caused the muslims to hate the christian's even more. There used to be a big minority of christians in Iraq, but most of them were forced to flee. They are persecuted, tortures, killed. Islamic law, or 'sharia' is not predominant in Iraq, so maybe you used a bad example there. Not that I'm a fan of muhammed, but America is doing a great job secularizing the country, like they are doing a great job at it in the rest of the world.

 

[quakerzen]

Nope, clearly you do not understand what marriage is in the first place, namely the sacred bond between a MALE and a FEMALE. In that context it doesn't matter if you value 'the religious parts of marriage' or not: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; that's all that matters.

God also made it so Cain and Abel had to mate with their sisters. Do you want us to start that, too?

 

[HeavenlyWarrior]

God also made it so Cain and Abel had to mate with their sisters. Do you want us to start that, too?

Now that's a thought for further discussion! But as to the "Adam and Steve" bit, apparently it was alright for them to marry up until about the 14th Century when more conservative views went into place. So, it can't be said that it 'never' existed in the Christian churches as apparently they were alright with Adam and Steve marrying up until that time.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

It doesn't matter how you want to call a 'union' between two people of the same sex, it's still a sin.

I'm not saying it isn't.

Rejecting Jesus is a sin, too. But in the US, rejecting Jesus is the right of every American. Therefore, so is being gay, or fornicating, or any other of a number of sins where the only victim is the "consenting adults." Laws in the US are not based on what is sin, but on protecting the rights of others. Murder is illegal not because killing is a sin, but because it takes away the right of the victim for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

heck, just look how that works in nature.

Actually, homosexual behavior has been seen in many animal species. And even putting that aside, I don't think we want to use animal behavior as a guide for human behavior.

 

[HeavenlyWarrior]

The point stands, however, that "marriage" as a secular vehicle for civil status (i.e. tax, inheritance, and medical rights) is COMPLETELY different from "marriage" from a religious view. I know Christians keep trying to say that "marriage" is a God-given institution, but that's just not true. If you conservative Christians refuse to allow gays to marry, then we need to throw out the term.

Realistically speaking, a marriage cannot be legally performed in a church institution unless the people being married first obtain a Marriage License that is issued by the state. Therefore, without that license handed to the priest, minister or pastor to perform the marriage (which they later sign) it would be one where obviously legal benefits could not be obtained and I doubt seriously that any Christian church would just want to marry anyone who just walks up to them without a state-issued marriage license. The point being that even religious institutions go by and have to obey secular law in the matter of marriage. Of course many people do not marry in a church, they may choose to be married simply by a Justice of the Peace however, they still need a marriage license for that also.

Churches might be able to perform "ceremonies" without the states' permission, perhaps, but without the state license to be able to legally marry someone those being married could surely not claim legal benefits later on and would not be recognized by the state as a legal marriage other than just what they might term a 'common law marriage' where two people simply live together for a certain amount of time and then are considered 'married'. But I have not personally heard of people going to a church and requesting a "Common Law Marriage" ceremony and it being approved by a church official who does not see a marriage license. As to how they might obtain benefits legally that way I do not know and I have yet to see a "legal" marriage performed without the state's authorization where the two people would be able to obtain legal benefits and same rights as those who marry with a state-issued marriage license can. But I am not a lawyer therefore cannot discuss the law in these matters or in any of these discussions.

If you want to live in a country where religion dictates law, move to Iraq. As long as you live in the US, you're going to have to deal with people doing things that you consider a sin.

Well people including those in religious institutions have to obey the laws of the land where marriage is concerned. In the more than half a dozen states where same-sex marriage is now legal and both partners can obtain a marriage license to marry it then becomes a legal right to their marrying. Religious folks may be chagrined over this fact but the fact remains that a majority of people in those states that voted to allow same-sex marriage could not have all been Gay or Lesbian. They had to have had SIGNIFICANT help and support from Heterosexuals or Straight people too or their law allowing Same-Sex Marriage would not have ever passed and become law.

I think in those states, and inevitably in other states to follow, those voting for same-sex marriage that is, Heterosexual voters and supporters (now reaching a little over 50% in the nation) may be coming to terms finally that even though they may not personally wish for it to happen from a strictly religious point of view, from a purely legalistic standpoint they understand that the law can and does allow for such marriages in the states that approved it and it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court that has taken up that case will rule. If it upholds that such marriages are in fact legal in the more than half a dozen states that now allow it then those thousands of marriages will be enshrined and will obviously remain legal. If they strike down those laws then it will perhaps effectively invalidate those marriages and perhaps the hope those people had in staying together in a committed LEGAL relationship with legal benefits and protections like others do.

And let's not forget that these same-sex oriented folks also work and pay their taxes and vote like any other American citizen therefore are obviously entitled to reap the benefits that all other Straight couples are given since they are not seeking "Special Rights". Special rights would be something that Heterosexuals (Straight people) do not currently have and that Homosexual folks would want to however obtain. But since Straight people DO have the right to obtain benefits from marriage they are therefore not "Special" rights for same-sex oriented people but rather EQUAL rights so that they too can be able to obtain what they would be legally entitled to for parity. That is their argument. And I am not here discussing whether I am personally pro or con this situation but merely discussing it from my own point of view from what I have heard and learned about this matter.