apparently Ree and Hobbs (and others) have committed a mortal sin

[crashhelmet]

I believe there is a separation of Church and State, or rather I believe that there must be a separation. There are far too many faiths and beliefs to allow the State to make laws reflecting it or be influenced by it. Inalienable Rights would then be abused.

Marriage has become a government institution. With that, my opinion is that if they're married it's not sex out of wedlock. It's sex that's expected between spouses, and therefore not sinful. Some would argue that marriage is a religious institution, but if that were the case, then they'd need to dispute every marriage performed by someone outside of the Church. That includes JoPs, ship captains, and the Elvis impersonators in Vegas. Some could take it further and dispute all marriages performed by religious officials from different denominations or faiths.

God's Will for me and everyone else is two things. Live the lifestyle that God wishes of us and to love and support our fellow human beings. Not to spread hatred or condemn those that sin.

"Let he without sin cast the first stone." - John 8:7
"...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." - Matthew 22:39
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - Matthew 7:12(?)

CH

[BigGiant]

Of course, if you don't care about having a sacramental marriage, then don't get married in the Church.

Exactly. I guess I wasn't too clear on my motives. I do not believe in making churches condone same sex marriage. They have the right to decide what is and is not allowed within their confines. I just like to question folks on their own beliefs, regardless of what the church preaches. (admittedly because I mostly believe that folks don't actually agree with a lot of what their faith preaches)

As for your question about carrying out God's will, God also said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So again, who are we to start crying out "stone them!" for a sin of lust when that's something everybody struggles with?

This I struggle with...there are many instances in the bible where man is carrying out god's will....the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Either way, thank you for this debate. I hope I didn't offend at all, as that is not my intent. I always enjoy good discourse, whether I agree or not.

Kudos!

[BigGiant]

Also, I would say: Since it is okay for a husband and wife to have sex even if one is infertile, it would be okay for two men or two women to have sex, as long as it is an act of love.

The law of syllogism: If A>B, and B>C, then A>C....So if a man and a woman can have sex in wedlock as an act of love, then an man and a man can have sex in wedlock as an act of love.

[crashhelmet]

Exactly. I guess I wasn't too clear on my motives. I do not believe in making churches condone same sex marriage. They have the right to decide what is and is not allowed within their confines. I just like to question folks on their own beliefs, regardless of what the church preaches. (admittedly because I mostly believe that folks don't actually agree with a lot of what their faith preaches)





This I struggle with...there are many instances in the bible where man is carrying out god's will....the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

The problem with this is many people forget that the Bible is a history book among many others. What the Laws once were, are no longer. Those Laws changed form the Old Testament tot he New Testament. It would be like trying to punish someone for committing what was considered a crime 200 years ago but not today.

Either way, thank you for this debate. I hope I didn't offend at all, as that is not my intent. I always enjoy good discourse, whether I agree or not.

Kudos!

There is nothing offensive about intelligent, thought out questions.

CH

[BigGiant]

I agree with this:

What the Laws once were, are no longer.

Is it not possible that the laws governing gay marriage or homosexual activity are out dated?

IMO, that is the case.

[Kheldarson]

It is possible. The problem is, they haven't been changed. It is due for discussion again, but the Catholic Church is the biggest bureaucracy in the world. It takes centuries to change dogma, partly because you have to have a majority agreement of all the bishops of the world. And considering there's 195 alone in the US...

[BigGiant]

Khel- regardless of what the church thinks..and regardless of how long it take for them to change their dogma....

Isn't it up to the individual to decide what they believe is right and wrong?

Is that not what Jesus preached- Forget what the establishment deems to be correct, follow your heart!

To me, my heart says that as long as two people are in love, their gender doesn't matter in the least...

Anyway, I have to get to bed for the night...I'll check in sometime tomorrow to continue the conversation.

'night all!

[crashhelmet]

I agree with this:



Is it not possible that the laws governing gay marriage or homosexual activity are out dated?

IMO, that is the case.

the laws governing Gay marriage may change. As Khel said, it will take time. But as I said, when it comes to being outside of marriage, homosexual intercourse is viewed no differently than heterosexual intercourse. They're both sinful acts of lust.

CH

[smileyeagle1021]

My take is that the difference between permitting it between man and woman and not with a same sex couple comes down to one thing. Marriage. If the couple was one of the lucky ones that were able to marry in California, Mass, or where ever, then it's a gray area and a matter of semantics.

And what about two men in Utah who have a religious ceremony but are unable to get a legal document to back it?
Would you consider that sex out of wedlock?

[Hobbs]

And what about two men in Utah who have a religious ceremony but are unable to get a legal document to back it?
Would you consider that sex out of wedlock?

Like he said, you're arguing semantics now. Technically, in the eyes of a Church, if the marriage is conducted by the Church, it has been accepted as a holy union. In legal terms, however, I suppose it would be out of wedlock. Depends on who's authority you respect more, I guess.

[crashhelmet]

And what about two men in Utah who have a religious ceremony but are unable to get a legal document to back it?
Would you consider that sex out of wedlock?

If it's a real or legitimate religious ceremony, then I wouldn't see it that way. If it's some dude that paid $20 on the internet somewhere to become "ordained" for the sole purpose of being able to perform that ceremony, then I personally wouldn't acknowledge the wedding. To me, that is not what marriage should be about.

CH

[BigGiant]

Are you saying that marriage is religious in nature?


Because history would show that is not the case at all.

It wasn't until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings.

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin.

The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived.

The French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic church.

Eventually, marriage before some magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.

[crashhelmet]

Smiley mentioned it being a part of a religious ceremony and not a legal one. Therefore, in his case it would be a religious vow. If you're going to make one, then have the ceremony be worthy of the vow that you're making.

Without taking this further down the tangent, or off onto another, too many marriages are shams to begin with. They're acts of convenience instead of acts of dedication to one another. Marriage requires love. Real, honest, and true love. Not infatuation or lust. it also requires sacrifice and compromise. Too many couples call it quits without putting the needed effort into it. Sorry, but I don't see the effort or dedication in a simple promise of monogamy between a couple. Can an unmarried couple have that love and dedication? Sure. But let's see if they can make it through 7-10 years first before an exception is made.

CH

[HYHYBT]

It takes centuries to change dogma, partly because you have to have a majority agreement of all the bishops of the world.

If I understand rightly, that's the smaller part of it, the larger one being that they pretty much only make people bishops if they agree with all the rules as they are. So anyone who lets on that they'd want to change something doesn't get the job.

[Hobbs]

If I understand rightly, that's the smaller part of it, the larger one being that they pretty much only make people bishops if they agree with all the rules as they are. So anyone who lets on that they'd want to change something doesn't get the job.

If that was true, John Paul II would have never become Cardinal, much less the Pope.