Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[99percentatheism]

keithprosser3

I am not a Christian so I am free to place the black mark where I think it belongs.

Is that sensible? Ethical? Honest?

If I say that I agree that Darwinian evolution is real, but I agree that creationists are right about the age of the earth isn't there an odd inconsistency with that view?

It must be different for a thoughtful Christian, but I am not in a position to tell a Christian who has no objections to gay marriage how to reconcile their personal conscience with orthodox Christian teaching.

But you are in a position to agree with what aligns well with the Biblical record and what doesn't? Gay culture is antithetical to the Christian life. Especially in terms of marriage and sexuality.

You can say "I don't have a dog in that hunt, but gay life is not affirmed anywhere in the Bible and the conservaitve view is right on that.

That would just be being honest wouldn't it?

I made 'where I'm coming from' very clear in my post.

Umm, not really. If you are going to wade in on the discussion in this thread, you need to recognize the nature of the discussion through the New Testament record. Where, there is no such thing as support or encouragement of gay behavior. Including same sex Same gender) marriage.

[keithprosser3]

Surely you are not accusing me of dishonesty for saying

"I agree - gay marriage is against orthodox Christian teaching, The question is whether that is black mark against gay marriage or against Christianity."

It says 'atheist' under my name on the left, so I am not flying false colours.

I think this is a problem that requires Christians to examine their conscience and the reasons for their Christianity. My dog in the hunt is that I want to live in a society where the rules are based on fairness and reason, not on what is and what is not permitted according to the letter of the Bible.

[KCKID]

Surely you are not accusing me of dishonesty for saying

"I agree - gay marriage is against orthodox Christian teaching, The question is whether that is black mark against gay marriage or against Christianity."

However, remarriage is not against orthodox Christian teaching, even though the very Bible Christians claim to uphold forbids it. Blatant double standards and hypocrisy are certainly black marks against Christianity.

It says 'atheist' under my name on the left, so I am not flying false colours.

I think this is a problem that requires Christians to examine their conscience and the reasons for their Christianity. My dog in the hunt is that I want to live in a society where the rules are based on fairness and reason, not on what is and what is not permitted according to the letter of the Bible.

I agree and so do an increasing number of Christians who have examined their conscience on this topic anyway.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1124 by 99percentatheism]

I'm a believer in Jesus but in no way approve in the tyranny of the God spoken of in the Old Testament. Nor should you. I believe in 'love your neighbor' as advised by Jesus even though that can be difficult to do at times. So yes, I DO have a problem equating Jesus with God (who commanded that your neighbor as in 'foreigner' should be killed) even though you and others appear to blindly accept this. Feel free to call me a non-Christian if you wish, 99percent. I can handle it. I don't require the protection of the mods even though I do, obviously, understand why they would initiate such a policy with the majority of people on the forum in mind.

Let me say this: you and many other Christians are basing your entire argument regarding the issue of gays and gay marriage on sheer ignorance or denial of the facts. You believe that everyone is heterosexual. Wrong! The FACTS are that human sexuality is a very complex issue and has NOTHING to do with 'sin'. You and others really DO appear to believe that homosexuals are no more than deviant heterosexuals. It's unbelievable in this day and age once all of the facts are examined that such ignorance still abounds among 'Church' people. Furthermore, you exacerbate this blatant ignorance by quoting texts (usually that have little or NOTHING to do with the topic anyway) from ancient people, people that didn't know the difference between epilepsy and demon possession or that the earth really orbits the sun and not the reverse.

In other words, it's the ignorance of yourself and others that is the main issue here. It's quite alarming that you claim to actually give lectures or seminars or talks on this topic while you remain ignorant of the facts. Such ignorance that results in the demeaning and the demonizing of others should not be catered to and I fear that your listeners are being so affected. And THAT is MY Christian perspective on this issue.

[PeteZa]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

I presume you are referring to laws in the US, though I know Canada, the UK, and a few other countries are adapting laws which basically make Biblical exposition on the subject of gay marriage illegal. I call them Atheist Sharia Laws which make everything outside of their belief system illegal and punishable by mockery, verbal debasement and soon arrest. The First Amendment was established in order to not have the new colonies become like England who had a state established religion, and was to protect people to freely worship as they wished--which at the time was mostly a Puritan-type Christianity, but if applied across the board would have to protect someone who wanted to paint themselves blue and worship Pikes Peak. It did do that for quite some time as we became a melting pot of religious beliefs from Mormonism to Catholicism and a long list of isms in between. The tables have been turned as the State has been allowed (By The People) to decide that if anything remotely religious is in or too close to something "Government Operated" that it is an endorsement and the Government just cant do that. One of the consequences of that is that the "atheist" or "free-thinkers" have successfully foisted upon the government the idea that reality only exists outside "anything religious" and got endorsements from our Legal System. And I wish to emphasize that we have a "Legal System" and not a "Justice System.," though they should be the same thing it is not the way our system operates in the USA. Our systems are fueled by lawyers, money, and self-serving judges.

But, to the question, such an affirmation will be considered illogical. Maybe not because it comes from the Bible, but just because it does not meet Government sanctioned reality. The laws have already turned against religious freedom in America, although mostly against Christianity and, interestingly, least against Islam. Accepting a pre-sanctioned reality means I don't have to waste my time thinking about or through any subject. I just accept the status quo.

[NoisForm]

I haven't read the entire 100+ pages of this topic, so this may have been covered, but...

As you are free to interpret your own religion any way you wish, most of this post doesn't interest me. But the following statements, I find troubling. Since hate crimes were important enough for you to include as the subtitle of this topic, let's take a look;

Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational...

...charging a Christian with hate for being honest about that Christian marriage is immutably man and woman . . . is itself a hate crime.

I wonder, where did you get the idea that a 'hate crime' somehow covers/forbids accusations of hate, bigotry, or being irrational? ...or any strictly verbal act for that matter? Cutting out the unnecessary bits, you claim it should be, "a criminal act...to accuse". Have you ever actually bothered to look up what a hate crime is?

From the Department of Justice (my emphasis); "...creates a new federal criminal law which criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon)..."

and Cornell U. Law; "...willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—..."

These describe what hate crimes actually are - they involve bodily injury, not name calling. Those types of acts would be covered under slander or defamation assuming the acts fit the criteria.

In your mind, it seems you would like to criminalize verbal criticism, condemnation, insults, etc. - putting it on par with actually physically injuring or killing a person. While you seem to fail to realize that this would effectively shut down (or at least, shut up) the church organizations you're so fond of along with every one else, I am surprised, even if you're ignorant of that point, that you would support the complete elimination of the First Amendment for any reason. You're suggestion would do just that.

[keithprosser3]

I know Canada, the UK, and a few other countries are adapting laws which basically make Biblical exposition on the subject of gay marriage illegal.

That needs a citation, at least in the case of the UK.

I'm not usually a fan of governments, but UK lawmakers have bent over backwards to get this right. Under current proposals secular same sex marriages will be fully legal. Religious same sex marriages are illegal by default. Religious organisations must take the positive step 'opting-in' to perform legal marriages. The Church of England continues to be governed by canon law on this matter which makes same-sex by that church illegal, and there is no 'opt-in' for the Church of England.
citation.

I think that is fair and reasonable, if not somewhat biased towards religious considerations.

[99percentatheism]

Surely you are not accusing me of dishonesty for saying

"I agree - gay marriage is against orthodox Christian teaching, The question is whether that is black mark against gay marriage or against Christianity."

It says 'atheist' under my name on the left, so I am not flying false colours.

I think this is a problem that requires Christians to examine their conscience and the reasons for their Christianity. My dog in the hunt is that I want to live in a society where the rules are based on fairness and reason, not on what is and what is not permitted according to the letter of the Bible.

Everybody bases their "opinions" on their worldview. It's a fantasy to believe that anyone can "judge" something through the mind of another person. Or I guess that is what psychology says its practioners can do. But anyone that takes the time to look at the real world knows that even psychology is nothing more than opinionated people trying to assert their will uber alles.

A Christian, in the sense of the definition of the New Testament perspective, makes a decidely strong effort to not live as they did before they were a Christian. Even non-biblical history describes that. Acording to the men that described the faith delivered only once to thr saints (Christians), there is expected to be a change of behavior in a Christian once the declaration is made of a person being under new management (so to speak).

What gay culture demands, is that the world and its ways can take precedence over God. If you have read the gay activists here and their demands, is that Christians must follow the worldly morality of gay culture. A culture that is antithetical to Christian theology.

Now, nowhere, have I demanded that secularists follow a Christian path to their lives. And without doubt I have made the stance that LGBT's exist in an other-worldy place far outside of the Church. Why? Because LGBT culture does not accept Christian reality. It demands that Christians either become like LGBT's or shut up completely OR face socialo and legal actions against them.

THIS THREAD is about the ethical position that Christians that reject LGBT culture and "Queer Theory" are not doing anything wrong AND in fact, should be supported for doing what is right.

Now if you take the inconsistent logic and ethical stance of posters like KCKID and his "two wrongs make a right" ideology, you now have a wholesale "anything goes" replacing the Evangel.

Any honest person that says they ahve read the New Testament AND understand what they have read, should wholeheartedly agree that the "anti gay" stance of Christians that follow orthodoxy are the honest people in this matter. LGBT's can do their thing anyway they want to, but, when they claim to have sanction to ply homosexuality in The Church, it is only right for historiclally siund Christians to oppose them and their different Gospel.

I haven't a care in the world about atheists and people that want to invent new religions as long as they do not attack us. Seriously I don't. They have made their choice and that's that and their eternity is set by God. I only have to endure them for a very short time frame. And most of the time, that is quite easy.

The point of this thread is that anyone that is honest about Christian history in and outside of the New Testament . . . should at least acknowledge that rejecting unrepentant people that engage in homosexuality, and Christians that reject the spread and celebration of gay sex in a Christian context . . . are not guilty of bigotry or hate, or any other kind of hate crime . . . but are only in keeping with the sound theology, ethics and honesty in the New Testament.

[99percentatheism]

I know Canada, the UK, and a few other countries are adapting laws which basically make Biblical exposition on the subject of gay marriage illegal.

That needs a citation, at least in the case of the UK.

I'm not usually a fan of governments, but UK lawmakers have bent over backwards to get this right. Under current proposals secular same sex marriages will be fully legal. Religious same sex marriages are illegal by default. Religious organisations must take the positive step 'opting-in' to perform legal marriages. The Church of England continues to be governed by canon law on this matter which makes same-sex by that church illegal, and there is no 'opt-in' for the Church of England.
citation.

I think that is fair and reasonable, if not somewhat biased towards religious considerations.

This Act may be cited as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013.

2.PurposesThe purposes of this Act are—

(1)to address the history and persistent, widespread pattern of discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity by private sector employers and local, State, and Federal Government employers;

(2)to provide an explicit, comprehensive Federal prohibition against employment discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity, including meaningful and effective remedies for any such discrimination;

(3)to invoke congressional powers, including the powers to enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to prohibit employment discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity; and

(4)to reinforce the Nation's commitment to fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace consistent with the fundamental right of religious freedom.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s815/text

Now how does a Christian business, that sends products from state to state, not get sued under ENDA for keeping to the Christian truth that homosexual behavior is sin? AND sends literature and books (for sale) that says that very thing from state to state.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID
[Replying to post 1124 by 99percentatheism]

I'm a believer in Jesus but in no way approve in the tyranny of the God spoken of in the Old Testament. Nor should you.

I am very familiar with the kind of cafeteria religion you espouse. I, on the other hand, do not impart the haughtiness you do, in picking and choosing what portion of Bibilcal truth you'll reject.

The disturbing stuff is true. That means all the good stuff is true too.

I believe in 'love your neighbor' as advised by Jesus even though that can be difficult to do at times.

I realize fully what your kind of love entails. Too bad so many people are destroyed by lascivious licentiousness. But same ol' same ol' comes to mind. As a person sows, so shall they reap.

So yes, I DO have a problem equating Jesus with God (who commanded that your neighbor as in 'foreigner' should be killed) even though you and others appear to blindly accept this.

Blindly? It is your declaration that it is your side that puts on the blinders. I on the other hand, take the whole truth of scripture in context. I guess Jesus does indeed cure blindness still. I can see well.

Feel free to call me a non-Christian if you wish, 99percent. I can handle it. I don't require the protection of the mods even though I do, obviously, understand why they would initiate such a policy with the majority of people on the forum in mind.

I'llm obey their rules here on this site. Send me a private email and I'll send you my offsite email and I'll tell you just what I think you and your new religion.

Let me say this: you and many other Christians are basing your entire argument regarding the issue of gays and gay marriage on sheer ignorance or denial of the facts.

I have dismantled your argument here over and over again. No matter how many times you make this claim, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

You believe that everyone is heterosexual. Wrong! The FACTS are that human sexuality is a very complex issue and has NOTHING to do with 'sin'.

Sex acts are choices between human beings. Unless of course YOU demand that people are just base animals that cannot make choices. Are you demanding that?

You and others really DO appear to believe that homosexuals are no more than deviant heterosexuals.

Homosexual acts are most definately deviant behavior. Unless of course same gender sexual behavior can be equated to normal sexuality. Which it cannot. In your moral view, thoughts are the same as funcition. That's an anything goes theology. Of course.

In that kind of theology, 1 + 1 = whatever someone feeeeeeellllllllllssssss it does. They just have to say they love thier answer.

It's unbelievable in this day and age once all of the facts are examined that such ignorance still abounds among 'Church' people.

My children as are many others from our Church are honors students. In secular school by the way. Our leadership are very educated people.

In this day and age we know what day and age it is.

Where up is down and wrong is right. We choose morality and truth over political correctness. That IS what The Church has done since Jesus founded it.

Furthermore, you exacerbate this blatant ignorance by quoting texts (usually that have little or NOTHING to do with the topic anyway) from ancient people, people that didn't know the difference between epilepsy and demon possession or that the earth really orbits the sun and not the reverse.

Prove any of that urban legend please.

In other words, it's the ignorance of yourself and others that is the main issue here.

Oh really. You are claiming that a rectum is the place for sperm? That a woman wearing a rubber phallus and attempting some kind of coitus with another woman is "normal" sexuality???? That hundreds of sex partners a year is acceptable Christian life? That radical feminism is ain any way comaptible with Christian truth?

KID, you are free to peddle your style of religion anywhere you want to, but once you claim a Biblical position to do so, you will be faced with opposition for introducing another gospel and demanding it replace the true one.

It's quite alarming that you claim to actually give lectures or seminars or talks on this topic while you remain ignorant of the facts.

My "facts" about gay behavior is perfectly accurate. Ignorance is no where to be found in my positions. I have not invented new theology OR new biology and physiology. I have presented absolute facts and you have presented emotionalism to drive your anything goes because I love it positions with.

At least you have avoided the two wrongs making a right demand here. This time anyway.

Such ignorance that results in the demeaning and the demonizing of others should not be catered to and I fear that your listeners are being so affected. And THAT is MY Christian perspective on this issue.

Demeaning others would be to demand that LGBT activism now takes power and authority over Christian truth. You prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that our fears are very rational.