Reply

Cast Your Vote:

    • Yes -- Votes: 36
    • No -- Votes: 8
~*Julie Blue Eyes*~ 1 child; Nunya, CA, United States 6193 posts
status 16th Mar '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Sofia's Mummy♥:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Sofia's ... [snip!] ... have premarital sex, even murder, and as long as I accept The Lord Jesus Christ as my saviour I will still go to heaven'."</blockquote>



I don't think one sin is "worse" than another, necessarily, but the New Testament specifically says that the, "sexual immoral and effeminate shall not inherit the kingdom of God". That tells me that, unless you've repented of those things, you are not saved. A true Christian will be RADICALLY transformed after being indwelt by The Holy Spirit. Being saved WILL change you and if those changes don't happen, you aren't saved.



Most Christian churches do not preach repentance. They preach what everyone likes to hear and that is that Jesus died for our sins, so no change in behavior is warranted. That's a lie and it is misleading millions of Christians. Jesus even warns that if you only preach it and don't follow it, that He will literally turn from you saying, "I NEVER knew you.". He will reject people, even those who profess Him as Lord. Keep in mind that Satan was saved...before HE rejected the sovereignty of God and was then made an outcast...along with a third of angels, who also rejected God, basically siding with Satan.



The path and gate are narrow and FEW will find it. To me, "few" means "not many".



I take that seriously. Plus, the reason I don't attend a church and have only ever been, once in my life, is because I come across far to many "seeker sensitive" churches who ONLY teach that "God is love". God IS live, but He is also vengeful and jealous. Many people don't like that fact, so they reject that and Him, in the process.

human making in progress 2 kids; Port Orchard, Washington 7986 posts
16th Mar '13
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Sofia's Mummy♥:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting ... [snip!] ... nice to think, as Christians, that we can do whatever we'd like, because "Jesus covered that", but that is just not the case."


see, from christian to christian, I completely agree with everything said here. and your next post too. my religion and my understanding agrees with everything you said. I dont go to a church that says that you can sin and sin and sin and its okay, but you have to change your behavior, and that being a christian and going to heaven does not mean just going to church, or only praying before you eat, it means connecting with the community and serving them, tithing, praying multiple times a day, not when it is convenient and not only when it becomes routine or to ask something, read the bible daily, reflect on it, and connect with others and find fellowship. Even maybe connect so far with your community as to do church planting. my husband is studying to become a pastor, to do church planting, we spend on average 20 hours a week volunteering at the church and with the church.



However, I am not just a christian, that does not define my whole identity. I am also an American, and a human being.
And my strong American ethics which I do believe correlates with the constitution, say that no bible should rule the land, no god, and no religion. So that people may have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
To deny someone the same right that another person has, based on one's religious views, clearly goes against the constitution and why it was written in the first place. Would I like other people to come around to seeing things my way?? Sure. But if God wanted to make it so easy, as to have humans make laws that correlate with what he says, then that defeats the purpose of working with the community and serving the community to make it happen. It would literally take the work out of it.
So according to the constitution as it was written, and why it was written, when one person has a set of basic rights, another is entitled to those same basic rights, regardless of majority or minority religious views or beliefs. To do otherwise, by definition, would be discrimination.
And that leads us back to the civil rights issue.
and to address the, 'call it civil unions, dont call it marriage'.
Separate but equal is NOT equal.
if women and men had the same set of rights.
Under the men's rights, its clearly called 'rights'.
Under the women's rights, its stated as, 'privileges'.
now, say that they would be ENTITLED to the same 'rights'/'privileges', but they were called something else.
Would that be constitutional?
Its not much different then what you are asking. I understand your reasons behind it, but when a couple does not get married by a church that goes through the process of purifying their marriage, and bringing them together under the name of God, you are not changing the meaning of marriage, you are not redefining marriage under the name of God, (for which people claim marriage is meant for and why homosexuals should be excluded), and you are not hurting anyone else's marriage.

Mrs. Sherwood TTC since Jun 2013; 16 kids; Mesa, Arizona 3391 posts
16th Mar '13

I am also very religious. I am LDS. I do not drink or smoke (because my religion prohibits it), I tithe 10% of our income, and I attend Church weekly. However, MY religious beliefs should not impact the beliefs of others. Calling a union between a same-sex couple a marriage does not take away from my marriage at all. Everyone should be entitled to marry the person they love - that doesn't change the definition of my marriage, it only changes the definition of theirs.



It is a civil rights issue, and marriage has been redefined many times. My own religion redefined marriage (in my personal beliefs) shortly after our Church was established. Marriage as a whole is constantly redefined, and everyone should have the same right, regardless of who they choose to love.

~*Julie Blue Eyes*~ 1 child; Nunya, CA, United States 6193 posts
status 16th Mar '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting human making in progress:</b>" see, from christian to christian, I completely agree with everything said here. and your next post too. ... [snip!] ... people claim marriage is meant for and why homosexuals should be excluded), and you are not hurting anyone else's marriage. "</blockquote>




See, I DO agree with you. I mean, everything you said, I agree with. I'm not for living in some theocracy where there is no freedom. I'm also not saying that everyone deserves the same rights. They absolutely do. The place that I am coming from is a place of compromise.



To those who hold marriage sacred (and many still do), they see same sex marriage as a perversion of marriage. Speaking about the government only, I feel they should not involve themselves in anything religious. I know that people would argue that marriage ISN'T relugious and for many, that is also true. So, when it comes to government, a civil union would...or SHOULD...offer the same benefits to every person within a union, gay or straight. I'm just proposing a compromise. I not a bigot. Not afraid of gays and absolutely love to death, the few that I know.



It's weird though, because I have had this very same conversation with 2 of the 3 gay people that I know well, and both men seemed intrigued by this idea. How can it be perceived as "not equal", when I am saying that it should and could be the exact same for everyone.



I take 2 different stances on this subject because I don't equate a contract with the government comparable to a promise to God.



On a side note: Your response in this thread was easy to read, clear, concise and not at all defensive...and I appreciate that.

Mrs. Sherwood TTC since Jun 2013; 16 kids; Mesa, Arizona 3391 posts
16th Mar '13
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting human making in progress:</b>" see, from christian to christian, ... [snip!] ... a side note: Your response in this thread was easy to read, clear, concise and not at all defensive...and I appreciate that."


So, is it just the word marriage, in a legal sense, that you think should be changed for everyone? Do you believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry religiously, if they find a pastor who is willing to do so? I'm just wondering. :)



Having a legal civil union for everyone who wants one - gay or straight - is an interesting concept. However, I do appreciate that my marriage is legally recognized as such, and not as a civil union. I believe others, regardless of sexual preference, should have the same right as well. Honestly, I would dislike it if my marriage suddenly became a civil union in the eyes of the law, but that's just me of course. :)

~*Julie Blue Eyes*~ 1 child; Nunya, CA, United States 6193 posts
status 16th Mar '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mrs. Sherwood:</b>" So, is it just the word marriage, in a legal sense, that you think should be changed for everyone? Do ... [snip!] ... I would dislike it if my marriage suddenly became a civil union in the eyes of the law, but that's just me of course. :)"</blockquote>



I believe that anyone should be allowed a religious ceremony, if they choose. If a church will marry a gay couple, they should be able to. On the flip side, I also feel that a church shouldn't HAVE to marry anyone, if that's what they choose.



...and I wouldn't mind if my marriage was changed to a civil union in the eyes of the government. No offense taken if they were to change that. The government, spiritually, has nothing to do with my marriage. I completely separate the two, easily.



How I feel personally (my convictions) do not need to be honored my the government or anyone else.



I'm just trying to figure out how to make the most people happy.



Another thing that someone said in this thread is that civil unions do not offer the same benefits of a marriage. If that is the case, I COMPLETELY disagree with that. They should, without a doubt.

. Way, MA, United States 73791 posts
16th Mar '13

Of course it's a civil rights issue. The laughable thing about Christians is they act like it has anything to do with the "sanctity" of marriage, but you don't see them coming out in hordes to vote to make marriages illegal for straight non religious couples. Or to make divorce illegal. But making gay marriage illegal is super important.

FroggysMommy 1 child; Golden, Colorado 26150 posts
16th Mar '13
Quoting
human making in progress 2 kids; Port Orchard, Washington 7986 posts
16th Mar '13
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting human making in progress:</b>" see, from christian to christian, ... [snip!] ... a side note: Your response in this thread was easy to read, clear, concise and not at all defensive...and I appreciate that."


This was funny, because I was going on 3 hours of sleep for 48 hours. after this, I got my son to sleep and passed the f*ck out. I screwed myself over with homework/finals, but man that felt nice. lol.



I know LGBT who feel that civil unions are good and a comprimise.
but sometimes, theres just something different about the way its said.
for years upon years, people have taken pride in being able to say they are 'married'. They are 'husband and wife'.
To have every right under the law as married people is nice. if all civil unions actually offered that anyway (they dont-I cant recall it now, but when I was in highschool I did my senior project on this, I researched each right, benefits, etc. by state and while it looks to be the same, its only similar, not a mirrage of rights.)
but that still takes away just what your arguing for-the name.
try to tell yourself your DH and you are civil unioned. it doesnt sound as meaningful as married, the reasoning is not necessarily because of religious background. it doesnt hold the same level of commitment as viewed by society.
Growing up, I didnt go to church, I didnt want anything to have to do with a church or religion (funny that I should marry a man who would end up becoming a pastor. lol) but if you were to tell me that when I found someone to love, I couldnt marry them, I would be civil unioned to them, it would feel like a slap in the face. and I do know this, because I have thought this over.
growing up I have always found more attraction to women, so I mainly dated women. I found this outcome as a very serious topic, that I would more than likely go through it. My husband was one of the only exceptions to the only women rule I held, couple years later I got involved with the church, and each year I get more and more involved. but my point being is that I was in this position coming to terms with the fact that I may never actually get married, though I may get civil unioned.
For those of us who grew up with both parents who never got divorced, the thought that you cant get married, have a marriage such as theirs, is hard to swallow.
sometimes its just the names we give our rights, that give it meaning and value to society, and therefore, meaning and value when viewing those with these named rights.
if segregation was still in place today, but the black american boys and girls, women and men were no longer being targeted, and say that a portion of them were okay with it (in the states that have civil unions and gay marriage, more and more are taking their civil marriage a step further, getting married, showing that the majority of those committed in civil unions would rather a marriage) would it still be equal?

Mrs. Sherwood TTC since Jun 2013; 16 kids; Mesa, Arizona 3391 posts
16th Mar '13
Quoting human making in progress:" This was funny, because I was going on 3 hours of sleep for 48 hours. after this, I got my son to sleep ... [snip!] ... getting married, showing that the majority of those committed in civil unions would rather a marriage) would it still be equal?"


I agree. It may be small, but being able to say I'm legally married means something to me. Our religious marriage means more to DH & I than our legal marriage, and regardless of what the government calls it we would still refer to ourselves as "married". However everyone has the right to be able to say "I am married to the person I love", be it religiously or legally.

Tarynosaurus Rex San Antonio, Texas 1271 posts
18th Mar '13
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Emmy&Jazzy:</b>" What the f**k. Ok he may have not died defending ... [snip!] ... True, the government isn't giving the same bennies to gay couples, but they should not have to redefine marriage in order to."


So you're cool with marriage being redefined SEVERAL times to what it is now but you're not okay with it being redefined to include gay couples? You are aware that if marriage had never been redefined then you would be considered your husband's property, he would legally be allowed to rape you, and your father could sell you for 50 goats, right? So tell me again about why it's wrong to redefine marriage?