ATTENTION: This is a religious thread and many may be offended by the opinions expressed in this thread. You have been warned.
This is a very sensitive subject and it causes many a severe case of heartburn. How can the sanctity of marriage be protected by the Church? And how can we create a healthy balance between the Gay community and the Church in regards to marriage? We can't but our state governments can......
A comment left here by a regular hit me like a thunderbolt. If the state gets out of the marriage business and relinquishes that right to Church, we could solve this huge issue. I am not ready to believe that the Gay community is pushing Gay marriage solely to attack the Church. I simply do not believe that is the Gay community's motivation.
The religious aspects of homosexuality is very clear, if you believe and follow the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says what is says. It does not say however that you are supposed to hate the Gay community. It does not say that you have to rebuke the Gay community. Leviticus is the old law and many so called Christians do not follow the laws of Leviticus. But very few of these laws dictates abomination.
Other verses is the Old and New Bible are more vague on homosexuality. But the fundamental argument is there. The age old prejudices against homosexuals still exist and they are not going away. But we could argue that the total separation of Church and State could solve this very explosive issue.
If the states dictate that they will not perform marriages but instead perform civil unions that carries the same legal status, in regards to medical law issues and tax issues, then the term marriage could eliminated from the state code. Leave the TERM marriage to the Church and the Church only. Marriage is a bond between Man, Woman and GOD. If this change could take place it would solve the issues between the Gay community and the Church.
NOW for the controversial part; if this is not good enough for the Gay community and if their true motivation is to be married in a Church setting, then we would now know that the Gay community's motivation is not to be treated equally by allowing civil unions performed by the State. It would prove that the mainstream motivation behind Gay marriage is to break down religious tradition, thus a clear attack on the organized Church.
Another part to this is the states would have to also protect the Church from lawsuits if they deny access to marriage to homosexual couples. The Church must be able to set their own rules and be protected.
I do not go to Church, I have my own Church in my Bible. The Bible is a letter from GOD to you, a personal communication between you and GOD. Many interpret the Bible in many ways and Church has provided a structure for us to follow. The mainstream organized Christian Church does not represent the Christian community. Folks like Pat Robinson and other people of his ilk are about as Christian as my pit bull dog. We as Christians have been forced to worry about certain social issues that distracts us from the true meaning and essence of Christianity.
Arguments like how old the Earth is a prime example of the misguided approach of the modern day organized Christian Church. Christianity has no business in politics, the two are 100% incapable. As the end times grow near the Church must change direction. We must pull ourselves away from the political mainstream and adopt true Christan values before Jesus judges us all.
If the true motivation of the Gay community is to attack the Church directly then we all must fight. But we all must decide if that fight is a distraction thus only digging your grave closer to hell fire. Hate in any way form or fashion is not Christian. But allowing our Church to be destroyed by outside forces is not an option.
This concept of separating marriage from the state is a concept that we all must explore. If Christians want to be left alone to worship and witness then we must find solutions to the social issues that are destroying us. I encourage all Christians to write your representatives and state senators and demand that the state separate itself from marriage and thus truly separating the state from the Church.
In conversation with Bim, he allowed as there are so many religious organizations that already 'cater', as in recruit, to homosexuals. Episcopalians, Presbers, Disc of Christ, Community/Metropolitan non-denoms and the Universalists & Jews.
His defense of sacrament was wordy , complete and complex. But ... it makes sense. Since churches, et al would enjoy extra-legal status, their idiology would be exempt from public scrutiny as long as they didn't employ staff in furtherance of public policy. As long as religious orgs. stay within their reigious charters and history of dogma they are free of public policy, even in either furtherance or obstruction from the pulpit.
There are sufficient alternatives to address the ubiquitous range of beliefs and belief systems, freeing religion from attack except from competing idioligies & within the framework of idiologies --- i.e. from the pulpit. Getting out on the street with placards in a picket line or advocacy of a boycott would NOT be 'from the pulpit'.
Gays may marry within a religion, or not! They may register a contract in civil union, or NOT! The structure is already in use in France & Germany. We already use the dissolution methodology they pioneered. We are half-way there.
With contracts that ensure wealth and progeny in the relationships, recognized in medical, legal, social and financial circles and with marriage as a separate sacrament within the community of spiritualism and religion - we enjoy the best each world has to offer and avoid the relational pitfalls of hatred and division we've seen lately.
Nothing is ever complete in it's espousal, nor is it defensible to those who bear egregious levels of angst or hatred toward homosexuality. To community in general, it's not a panacea, but forms the framework of a working compromise.
Posted by: Old Scout | April 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM