If gays marry, churches could suffer

[evmori 11]

John-in-KC,

Excellent post! Thanks, brother.

 

DanKroh,

The only thing I can think of is it's his opinion. And opinions are neither right or wrong!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh 11]

Barry says: "I would suggest you check all data yourself before you give studies much weight."

 

Excellent advise. I always read the original paper for a study before I give it any credence. My undergraduate training involved rigorous critical analysis of scientific methods, which I also had to apply when completing my doctoral thesis.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

What tactics have I employed that are the same as Kmiec's?

 

Let's take a look at your public school list. Not all schools on that list are public schools but you led folks to believe the list was accurate even though you know it isn't.

 

No Ed, now YOU'RE lying.

 

It has always had this:

NOTE: these lists were generated by computer and corrected by hand, so a few of the charters listed may actually be private schools or groups.

Please send us any corrections, additions, or deletions.

 

Plus, I've actually asked you for corrections, which you never bothered to give.

 

 

Misleading information posted as fact!

 

Nope, stop lying Ed.

 

And let us not forget those membership numbers you posted but had absolutely no proof were accurate yet you posted them as though their were accurate.

 

No, you're lying again Ed. I showed people exactly where I got the numbers (bsa-discrimination.org), plus I was the first to post here a link to what the BSA's official numbers finally were.

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Mr Kroh,

 

First, to make sure we agree in terms, the Law I speak of is that which in in the OT. Talmud does not count.

 

God has a standard, and it's absolute obedience to all the Law.

 

One, and only One, kept that standard: God in the flesh, Christ Jesus.

 

My trying to claim any salvation by my own merits will result in my Judgment and Damnation by God. NO MAN now walking Earth keeps the Law.

 

God provided the way out: Christ, his suffering, death, and resurrection. Being able to believe in Jesus Christ as the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Savior for me is what will give me hope when I leave this earth.

 

In the meantime, do I try to live as God would have me live? Yes. He helps me with that task, through the power and love of the Holy Spirit. Right now, I'd rather suspect He'd be as happy if I get off my posterior and start exercising again as in keeping the dietary laws. After all, why are they there? A sacrifice by man? No. A health code in an era where refrigeration just did not exist? Yes.

 

Go in peace.

 

Campcrafter: Very long story, but I got to LC-MS by way of LCA, and even was on the call committee for an ELCA pastor to the inter-lutheran parish in Frankfurt, FRG (Trinity).

[Eagledad 2777]

>>So I guess these federal benefits not available in civil unions are irrelevant and unimportant:

[evmori 11]

It's your list Merlyn. You only point in not editing it was you wanted to inflate the numbers in your favor. I pointed out, as did others, there were errors but you refuse to do the leg work to correct it.

 

And you source was questioned on the membership numbers & you never listed it. Yeah the data came from an anti-BSA site so one would expect them to be slanted against the BSA. I'd bet you did no research before you posted those numbers.

 

I don't lie Merlyn. Nor do I post figures as fact without verifying the source as valid.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

It's your list Merlyn. You only point in not editing it was you wanted to inflate the numbers in your favor. I pointed out, as did others, there were errors but you refuse to do the leg work to correct it.

 

Stop lying, Ed. I've always said it isn't a perfect list, and you lied when you claimed that I "led folks to believe the list was accurate" when there's a disclaimer that the list is NOT 100% accurate on the very page.

 

And you source was questioned on the membership numbers & you never listed it.

 

Stop lying, Ed, I gave the link to www.bsa-discrimination.org in my very first post on the subject.

[DanKroh 11]

John-in-KC says: "First, to make sure we agree in terms, the Law I speak of is that which in in the OT. Talmud does not count."

 

Well, I was speaking of Leviticus, which is the OT, not the Talmud.

 

I'm having a hard time following the point of the rest of your post as it reads more like a sermon than a discussion. So I'm not really sure if you answered my question or not about whether modern Christians pick and choose what from Leviticus they follow as law. But I won't press you any further.

[DanKroh 11]

Barry says: "I also said most folks don't have a problem with civil unions."

 

No, the folks who have a problem with civil unions are the ones who realize that they are NOT equivalent to marriage. This isn't about legitimizing their lifestyle, this is about the fact that civil unions do not get them the same rights and benefits as a marriage. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government (thus NO federal benefits), or by any other state than the one in which they are registered (so couples who move or even travel out of state could find themselves in trouble). So that's like saying to someone who wants to eat prime rib, well, you can't have that, but we don't have a problem giving you a hamburger.

 

If you want a fairly comprehensive list of the things a civil union will not give a couple that a marriage will, here is a summary:

http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf

 

And I don't feel that I'm trying to devalue the source of your moral and religious beliefs. I just feel that it should not be used to determine government policy or as an excuse to write discrimination into the Constitution. Your church doesn't want to perform same-sex marriages? Fine. They shouldn't have to. No one should be forced to do something they feel is morally wrong. No one. But don't, as you put it, ram it down the throats of everyone else, either.

 

You then want to use the "slippery slope" argument. Well, I can't say we've seen a rise in "abnormal groups" pushing for marriage rights here in Massachusetts in the last two years. No fire and brimstone raining from the sky. No cats and dogs living together. Just people who love each other going about their lives as married couples.

 

So here's my proposed solution. Make "marriage" a solely religious sacrament, like baptism and communion. It holds no legal recognition, and forms no legally binding contract. If a couple wants to have their relationship recognized by the government, they must file for a civil union, which carries all the legal/goverment benefits that a marriage contract currently covers, but is available to any consenting couple, no matter what their gender. That way, you have two separate entities. The civil union is the one recognized by law, and the marriage is recognized by religion.

[funscout 11]

I have 2 cats and a dog living together at my house. They are all male, but have each been neutered, so I don't have to worry about any "hanky panky."

 

I've always wondered how people can say an animal is gay. All the dogs that I've been around will "go for" any animal male or female, and sometimes they even get amorous towards the leg of a human - ugh! Are there really some animals who ONLY seek out the same sex ALL the time? I just assumed that since they are ANIMALS, and not human, they can't control their desires and they act on them even when an appropriate partner is not available. Who out there has actually seen a strictly "gay" animal?

[DanKroh 11]

funscout asks: "Who out there has actually seen a strictly "gay" animal? "

 

Well, there have been two swans on the Boston Common who have been acting as partners since they were hatched. They make nests, lay eggs, and display all the normal behavior of a mated pair. Except the eggs never hatch because they are never fertilized. The swans are both female.

 

The Central Park Zoo has a pair of male penguins who were living together and simulating egg incubation with a rock in their nest. However, the couple has since broken up.

 

In both cases, we are not talking about animals that are displaying transient sexual interest in animals of the same gender. These are animals who are acting as mated pairs, even when animals of the opposite gender are available as potential mating partners.

 

But homosexual behavior in animals doesn't just happen in captivity (which is, by it's nature, an artificial circumstance), it's just easier to observe there. Homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species both in the wild and in captivity, including (fairly recently) rams in the wild in Oregon, where an estimated 8% of the males only show interest in other males.

 

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Hunt 11]

"So here's my proposed solution. Make "marriage" a solely religious sacrament, like baptism and communion. It holds no legal recognition, and forms no legally binding contract. If a couple wants to have their relationship recognized by the government, they must file for a civil union, which carries all the legal/goverment benefits that a marriage contract currently covers, but is available to any consenting couple, no matter what their gender. That way, you have two separate entities. The civil union is the one recognized by law, and the marriage is recognized by religion."

 

This idea will never fly, because it makes too much sense. Conservatives should like it because it gets the government out of our private lives, and liberals should like it because it increases personal freedom and choice. Why do I think that neither group would support it?

[funscout 11]

Dan Kroh, thanks for the answer. I still wonder, though... In the case of the swans and penguins you mentioned, are they acting out sexually, or are they just "roommates" trying to raise their "children" together? In other words, are these animals trying to have sex with each other, or are they just showing the ritual mating signs? Could they be mentally impaired, instead of gay? Who knows?

 

Hunt, I'm a conservative Christian and I would go for your idea. Marriage is a sacrament between a committed man and woman, period. If other people want to have "unions" and the government is willing to condone it, then I'm not going to try to stop that. I still believe the practice of homosexuality is wrong, but I don't have a problem with them receiving the same government benefits that I do. Just don't call it marriage, when it's not, in the eyes of God. Like you said, it's probably too simple an idea for the government to agree on!

[John-in-KC 311]

Mr Kroh,

 

I believe our conversation within this thread has reached a culmination. I believe some of the signal I tried to send was lost for the fact we are typing messages vice talking in person.

 

I would urge you to sit down with the Pastor of a local church and ask about how Law convicts and how Gospel forgives, and how Christians are to live in love.

 

The Law points out our sin. The Gospel show us forgiveness, and how to live in love.

[stlscouter 10]

Merlyn-

So by posting a disclaimer at the end of a post in small print absolves you of checking facts?

 

And you will therefore stand 100% behind your membership and attendance figures for ALL of the organizations you do support (ACLU, Scouting for ALL, Fireside Theatre, et al), and you will vouch for the truthfulness of the criminal background checks those groups do? And each of those groups is completely transparent in each and every money transaction? I think I'll pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.