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
2117 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1448 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1430 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1469 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1395 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1326 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1411 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1349 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1349 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1312 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1312 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
673 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1450 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1450 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1301 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1301 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1378 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1378 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1197 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1197 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1470 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1369 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1423 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1436 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1436 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1267 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1267 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1217 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1323 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1354 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1249 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1353 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1322 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1261 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1376 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1325 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1325 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1287 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1290 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1178 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1301 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1282 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1382 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1275 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
1371 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
1269 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1223 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1435 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
1236 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1388 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
650 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1226 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1293 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1394 Views
It's not sanctioning anything
- 12/08/2010 09:25:44 PM
1325 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1215 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1327 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1382 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1355 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
644 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1127 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
644 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1127 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
612 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1171 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1191 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1415 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1234 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
1287 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
1272 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
1271 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1326 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1154 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1186 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1212 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1227 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
1324 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1276 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1383 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1215 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
710 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
690 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
690 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1299 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1267 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1147 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1659 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1489 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1489 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
568 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1093 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1293 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1286 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1413 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1301 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1242 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1261 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1192 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1280 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1092 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1261 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1405 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
1043 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1364 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1332 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1223 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1273 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1297 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
713 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
670 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1476 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1418 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1348 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1172 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1343 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
656 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
681 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1337 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1575 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1216 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1419 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
1271 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1194 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1293 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1272 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1263 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1263 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1480 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1335 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1266 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1268 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1162 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1258 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1373 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
707 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1385 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1299 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1078 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
552 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1182 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1342 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*