"[T]he position of the United Church of Christ is that homosexuality is not a sin"

[glockmail]

Got Virgil on the ropes now... :lol:

Here's the scenario- you're a preacher in a Christian church in po-dunk Maine or Massachusetts and a couple comes in and asks you to marry them. They know you as a devout Christian who taught them both about the Bible. They tell you that they are both virgins and they are obviously in love and all that and they want a nice church wedding. Oh, and their parents are all big time ACLU trial lawyers, so can afford the biggest and the best.

One big problem though- they're both men. Gay as all hell!

So what the hell do you do? If you say yes you're basically condoning homosexuality. In fact you'd be enabling it. No question you'll be Lucifer's boyfriend in the afterlife for a long, long time. If you refuse, you'll have your sorry ass dragged through court, the church will go bankrupt, not to mention all the vicious crap that goes with publicly dissing homosexuality.

Come on maineman- tell us what you'd do.

His answer? "[T]he position of the United Church of Christ is that homosexuality is not a sin..." http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=436660&postcount=27

[Insein]

My position has always been homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions and receive all the benefits that the government gives married couples through law. It just makes sense.

However, marriage is a religious sacrament. It should be the Church's sole discretion as to whether or not they will allow them to celebrate their civil union as a marriage. There shall be no law created to infringe upon the rights of religous freedom. If a religion doesn't acknowledge a civil union as a marriage in the Church's eye, then you have to respect that religion's decision. People trying to force religions to conform to laws that contradict their basic beliefs is against the first ammendment's freedom of religious persecution.

[PostmodernProphet]

It just makes sense.

it did not make sense to the gays in Massachussets......it was a civil union law that they took to court and had declared unconstitutional as being a "seperate but equal" provision......

[Insein]

As long as they get equal tax rights and privileges by law then what is the difference? Marriage is a religious institution recognized by government. Not the other way around. Government can not force a church to acknowledge a civil union.

I think these people hurt themselves when they are arguing semantics.

[glockmail]

As long as they get equal tax rights and privileges by law then what is the difference? Marriage is a religious institution recognized by government. Not the other way around. Government can not force a church to acknowledge a civil union.

I think these people hurt themselves when they are arguing semantics.Obviously their agenda isn't equal rights, but to tear down traditional marriage.

[Insein]

Obviously their agenda isn't equal rights, but to tear down traditional marriage.

Could be the case for some. For those that just want to be with their partner, government should allow civil unions.

[PostmodernProphet]

Could be the case for some. For those that just want to be with their partner, government should allow civil unions.

/shrugs.....you don't need civil unions just to "be with their partner".....a durable power of attorney for health care and a will can solve those problems just as easily......

[Insein]

/shrugs.....you don't need civil unions just to "be with their partner".....a durable power of attorney for health care and a will can solve those problems just as easily......

Yes, its a work around. But why should they have to work around it when its really not that big a deal. Married couples can file jointly. Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly. Ends the argument. The semantics are what is dragging this out. People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control.

[PostmodernProphet]

Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly.
why not allow two single people who share an apartment to file jointly, then....or BFF, even if they live across town from each other.....the purpose of marriage isn't to save taxes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control.

lol....the people looking to control you are the ones demanding that society change to accommodate their choices.....I say enough is enough....I used to be willing to tolerate them, now I say fuck 'em......

[darin]

why not allow two single people who share an apartment to file jointly, then....or BFF, even if they live across town from each other.....the purpose of marriage isn't to save taxes.....

...or groups of people and/or animals.

Married folk have benefits because society SHOULD encourage men and women to form families. Homos as couples have NOTHING to offer society but increased rates of suicide, domestic violence and infection.

:(


We should offer benefits, however, to homos who enter a treatment program and complete it no longer being 'inclined' to have sex with others of their gender.

[Missileman]

We should offer benefits, however, to homos who enter a treatment program and complete it no longer being 'inclined' to have sex with others of their gender.

They're still waiting for Santa to bring such a program down the chimney.

[glockmail]

Yes, its a work around. But why should they have to work around it when its really not that big a deal. Married couples can file jointly. Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly. Ends the argument. The semantics are what is dragging this out. People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control. Why make a big deal and change the laws for all of society?

[Insein]

Same reason that blacks or women couldn't vote at one point. They had a work around right? Women would bug there husbands enough and blacks... well I guess they didn't. Guess we shouldn't have changed the laws for the rest of society there either.

All assholes with agendas aside, gays are people. We don't have to agree with their lifestyle. We don't have to like what they do. We do have to treat them as people though. If they want to join together in a civil union then so be it. Its all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL.

[PostmodernProphet]

Same reason that blacks or women couldn't vote at one point. They had a work around right? Women would bug there husbands enough and blacks... well I guess they didn't. Guess we shouldn't have changed the laws for the rest of society there either.

????....sorry, but that's pretty lame....you acknowledge that blacks didn't have a "work around" and come up with a pretty shallow claim that women did....then try to call it a parallel with gays being legally able to enforce things like hospital visitation and inheritance (two of the biggest complaints advocates raise regarding marriage)....in truth, the only other two I have ever heard raised are health insurance benefits and taxes and unmarried couples living together equally get neither.........


If they want to join together in a civil union then so be it. Its all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL.

/shrugs....you keep saying that, but that isn't the argument....the current debate is regarding marriage, not civil unions.......

[Insein]

????....sorry, but that's pretty lame....you acknowledge that blacks didn't have a "work around" and come up with a pretty shallow claim that women did....then try to call it a parallel with gays being legally able to enforce things like hospital visitation and inheritance (two of the biggest complaints advocates raise regarding marriage)....in truth, the only other two I have ever heard raised are health insurance benefits and taxes and unmarried couples living together equally get neither.........



/shrugs....you keep saying that, but that isn't the argument....the current debate is regarding marriage, not civil unions.......

As far as I (as in my personal opinion) believe, Marriage is for religion. I know government has marriages but I don't think they should. Marriage is a religious union by the various religions. What we need is to clarify what a government "marriage" is. Make a government "marriage" equal for both hetero and homo sexuals and be done with it.

What I don't agree with from the gay community and it's activists is trying to force religion to acknowledge their union as a "marriage." Again, semantics. Call it a government "marriage" if you want but clearly acknowledge that its by the government that recognizes your union and not the religion of your choosing.

That is my point with this whole mess that people seem to be missing. Gay couples that want to join through the government just like hetero couples should have equal rights. No more, no less. But they can't do it in a Religion's house of worship unless that religion lets them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Gay couples that want to join through the government just like hetero couples should have equal rights.

First of all, my apologies....I thought you were arguing in favor of gay marriage, which is why I took you to task.....

secondly, in response to the above statement, I simply ask "why?".....I am in favor of allowing people to engage in whatever abnormal relationship they might choose.....but why should the government or anyone else be compelled to recognize that abnormal choice?......we are moving beyond doing whatever "in the privacy of the bedroom" and into compelling society at large to change in response to that choice....

[crin63]

As far as I'm concerned the GLB community needs to just get back in the closet and close the door. No civil unions or marriages.

As far as pastors having to perform marriages, thats not the case at my church. My pastor only performs marriages and funerals if he wants too. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall seeing the performing of marriages or funerals as a pastors duties in the Bible. They can, but I don't recall a requirement.

In my opinion the UCC and other apostate churches have adopted that position because there is money and political power to be had.

[Insein]

First of all, my apologies....I thought you were arguing in favor of gay marriage, which is why I took you to task.....

secondly, in response to the above statement, I simply ask "why?".....I am in favor of allowing people to engage in whatever abnormal relationship they might choose.....but why should the government or anyone else be compelled to recognize that abnormal choice?......we are moving beyond doing whatever "in the privacy of the bedroom" and into compelling society at large to change in response to that choice....

Taxes. If there are benefits that certain hetero couples receive over gay couples, then it makes sense to allow the equality there. My ultimate end all would be to eliminate income tax so that this wouldn't matter, but until that time, that is my opinion. Its not something I'm going to be crying from the rooftops and demanding. Just my opinion on the subject.

[PostmodernProphet]

Taxes. If there are benefits that certain hetero couples receive over gay couples, then it makes sense to allow the equality there.

there are no tax benefits for "couples", as we stated earlier.....there are only tax benefits for married people.....different sex persons living together do not qualify, same sex persons living together do not qualify.....they are treated equally.....

[Jeff]

As far as I'm concerned the GLB community needs to just get back in the closet and close the door. No civil unions or marriages.

As far as pastors having to perform marriages, thats not the case at my church. My pastor only performs marriages and funerals if he wants too. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall seeing the performing of marriages or funerals as a pastors duties in the Bible. They can, but I don't recall a requirement.

In my opinion the UCC and other apostate churches have adopted that position because there is money and political power to be had.

Crin I spoke to a preacher last night and he explained to me although you have to live by the laws of the land you also have to use common sense , it clearly states in the bible gay sex is a sin, so according to him he would never even think of marrying a gay couple.

He also went on to talk about these supposed preachers that will and will also change the way they think for money, he says this is why the fall of mankind is coming.

I asked him if he could be sued for not marring a gay couple, he said yes absolutely but also explained as a preacher he preaches the word of god not the state , and explained to me that any real preacher knows they may get ridiculed , sued, hurt or even killed , but they are still to stand for what is in the bible.

[Insein]

there are no tax benefits for "couples", as we stated earlier.....there are only tax benefits for married people.....different sex persons living together do not qualify, same sex persons living together do not qualify.....they are treated equally.....

Hetero "Couples" have the option of being "married" by the state. Gay "couples" do not. Therefore, hetero couples have the opportunity to get a tax benefit that gay couples are not able to.

Point is, marriage by the state is available which it shouldn't be. Since it is though, gay couples should have the same right to join as a hetero couple.

[PostmodernProphet]

Hetero "Couples" have the option of being "married" by the state. Gay "couples" do not. Therefore, hetero couples have the opportunity to get a tax benefit that gay couples are not able to.

Point is, marriage by the state is available which it shouldn't be. Since it is though, gay couples should have the same right to join as a hetero couple.

they do get the same right....they are the equal of a hetero-couple who is not married, they are not the equal of a married couple....they cannot be and should not be the equal of a married couple.....if you have to change the definition of "marriage" to include them, why do you not change the definition of marriage to include the couple living together?.......

[glockmail]

Same reason that blacks or women .... But blacks and women are born black or female, gays not so much.

[Kathianne]

But blacks and women are born black or female, gays not so much.

Not necessarily. I know it's YOUR BELIEF, which believe it or not, doesn't make it so.

[glockmail]

Not necessarily. I know it's YOUR BELIEF, which believe it or not, doesn't make it so.Perhaps you didn't notice that I've left some wiggle room, meaning some percentage of gays choose their lifestyle. No one chooses to be black or female. So until they can be legally differentiated that way...

[PostmodernProphet]

one does not choose to be homosexual, but one does choose to engage in homosexual relationships......just as one does not choose to be an alcoholic, but one chooses to drink......there is no parallel for race or gender.....

[emmett]

Homosexuality is not a choice to me....it is a freak of human nature. We were obviously designed to breed like all life. Homos can not breed therefore two homos are freaks of creation. Simple really.

[GW in Ohio]

Got Virgil on the ropes now... :lol:

Here's the scenario- you're a preacher in a Christian church in po-dunk Maine or Massachusetts and a couple comes in and asks you to marry them. They know you as a devout Christian who taught them both about the Bible. They tell you that they are both virgins and they are obviously in love and all that and they want a nice church wedding. Oh, and their parents are all big time ACLU trial lawyers, so can afford the biggest and the best.

One big problem though- they're both men. Gay as all hell!

So what the hell do you do? If you say yes you're basically condoning homosexuality. In fact you'd be enabling it. No question you'll be Lucifer's boyfriend in the afterlife for a long, long time. If you refuse, you'll have your sorry ass dragged through court, the church will go bankrupt, not to mention all the vicious crap that goes with publicly dissing homosexuality.

Come on maineman- tell us what you'd do.

His answer? "[T]he position of the United Church of Christ is that homosexuality is not a sin..." http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=436660&postcount=27

So Glockie...

You actually believe that if marry a same-sex couple...


No question you'll be Lucifer's boyfriend in the afterlife for a long, long time.

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

[glockmail]

So Glockie...

You actually believe that if [a preacher marries] a same-sex couple... [he'll go to hell].. .

What part of my post didn't you understand, Einstein?