Churches are very much about belief (note, state churches should be excluded from everything I say here). If a church believes that homosexuality is a sinful way of being, not to mention having gay sex, then it makes no sense to ask them to sanction that behaviour in their rituals. Much like you would not expect a synagogue's kitchen to boil meat in milk.
More importantly. Any homosexual couple wishing to belong to particular branch of the religion represented by such a church would be expected to hold roughly the same views and would not want to get married to someone of the same sex and have happy, sinful sex sanctioned by ritual (yes, I am simplifying).
And as long as the religious ritual of the particular church does not have any effect on legal status and what you get to call it, that should not matter.
The point is that many individuals are married in spite of their sins, yet homosexuality is condemned and refused on such a higher level. The church would sooner marry to murderers than two homosexuals.
Yes, but there is not a ritual specifically sanctioning those "sins", as a religious marriage would do.
The bible doesn't say it's a sin for gays to marry. It says it's a sin to perform homosexual acts. Two homosexuals marrying is no different then two con artists marrying and teaming up. It's an extreme example but it still holds.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Gay Marriage
- 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
2058 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1391 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1383 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1412 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1341 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1270 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1346 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1295 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1295 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1262 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1262 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
640 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1399 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1399 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1252 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1252 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1321 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1321 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1145 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1145 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1402 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1309 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1359 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1378 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1378 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1209 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1209 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1163 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1268 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1303 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1190 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1296 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1260 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1207 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1320 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1262 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1262 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1220 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1235 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1128 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1247 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1228 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1323 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1222 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
1309 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
1218 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1169 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1379 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
- 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
1178 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1323 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
615 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1167 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1241 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1330 Views
It's not sanctioning anything
- 12/08/2010 09:25:44 PM
1269 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1156 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1267 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1324 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1278 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
617 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1074 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
617 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1074 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
582 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1113 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1139 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1353 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1169 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
- 12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
1226 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
- 12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
1222 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
- 12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
1210 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1269 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1097 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1126 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1153 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1162 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
- 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
1273 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1219 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1321 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1162 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
680 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
660 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
660 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1242 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1203 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1088 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1599 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1429 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1429 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
535 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1036 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1236 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1221 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1351 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1240 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1176 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1204 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1133 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1221 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1040 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1206 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1345 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
988 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1311 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1264 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1178 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1203 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1246 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
674 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
635 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1418 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1359 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1287 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1115 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1288 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
623 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
644 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1270 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1518 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1153 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1353 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
- 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
1212 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1139 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1232 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1212 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1203 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1203 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1422 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1255 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1200 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1204 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1099 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1204 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1312 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
675 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1325 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1227 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1026 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
519 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1126 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1280 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*