E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
The National Cathedral is seen after a crane collapsed from the building in Washington Sept. 7, 2011.
Same-sex weddings may now be celebrated at the Washington National Cathedral, making the church that holds presidential inaugural prayer services one of the first Episcopal congregations to use a rite adapted from an existing blessing ceremony approved last summer.
“Washington National Cathedral has a long history of advancing equality for people of all faiths and perspectives,” the Very Rev. Gary Hall, dean of Washington National Cathedral, said in a news release Wednesday.
"For more than 30 years, the Episcopal Church has prayed and studied to discern the evidence of God’s blessing in the lives of same-sex couples," he added. "We enthusiastically affirm each person as a beloved child of God — and doing so means including the full participation of gays and lesbians in the life of this spiritual home for the nation.”
The 106-year-old cathedral draws hundreds of thousands of visitors, hosting presidential inaugural services, including for Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Barack Obama, and funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.
The diocese covers the district and four counties in Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal. The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, decided in December to allow an expansion of the Christian marriage sacrament. Hall, who has been an ordained minister for more than 35 years, ultimately led the cathedral’s decision and adaptation of the same-sex rite. He told The Associated Press he began performing same-sex blessings in 1990 when he served at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif.
“I consider it a great honor to lead this Cathedral as it takes another historic step toward greater equality—and I am pleased that this step follows the results made clear in this past November’s election, when three states voted to allow same-sex marriage,” Hall said in the news release.
Weddings at the cathedral will be conducted as Christian marriages, so at least one person in the couple must have been baptized. According to the news release, only couples directly affiliated with the life of the cathedral as members of the congregation, alumni, volunteers, donors or those judged by the dean to have played an exceptional role in the life of the nation are eligible to be married at the cathedral.
It will likely be six months to a year before the first gay marriages are performed at the cathedral due to its busy schedule and its pre-marital counseling requirement, the AP said.
At its General Convention last summer, the U.S. Episcopal Church became the biggest church in the United States to approve a provisional rite for blessing gay unions.
The Episcopal Church is an independent U.S.-based church affiliated with the worldwide Anglican Communion. The church has about 2 million members, most in the United States.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. Illinois and Rhode Island are also set to take up bills to possibly join them, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases on gay marriage in March.
But Hall told the AP he sees marriage as a human issue, not a political issue.
"It is my hope and prayer that, if all of us open ourselves to the fullness and diversity of our nation’s many voices, we will learn to walk together in a new way as we listen for God’s call to us to be faithful to each other and to God,” Hall said in the news release.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Just because the Washington National Cathedral is going to perform same sex marriage ceremonies still doesn't make it right, just saying.
Does too!!
Same Sex unions maybe but not marriage that is reserved for a man and a woman, Period.
The opposition to gay marriage is literally dying of old age.
Bart, why do you need to call same sex unions marriage? Are you just trying to legitimize it in your mind? It's not the same so get over it.
Because marriage is defined by law, not religion, and in WA gay people can get married. So get over it.
This is another great day for America. A day when our nation's Capitol stands behind equal marriage rights or ALL Americans. Its about time.
If you don't like gays or lesbians getting married, that's fine. Yo don't have to like it, accept it, tolerate it, support it, but I would get used to it. The words "We the People" apply to all Americans, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS will make it so it's legal in the entire United States.
"Marriage" doesn't belong specifically to religion. Countries have used that term to define civil unions for centuries.
In fact, Christianity didn't even insert itself into the marriage process until the 12th century.
"Marriage" survived the controversial inclusion of slaves, convicts, and inter-racial couples. It will survive the inclusion of gay couples.
What does slaves, convicts and inter-racial couples have to do with this unless they were of the same sex?
Maybe it doesn't - but the LAW does!
Ozzie,
And just because you don't think it's right, that doesn't make it wrong. Let's try this. Can you actually prove to us why/how same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed?
Your mere opinion doesn't mean jack all. Show us, how you can make a case for unequal treatment under the law.
ozzieyo1-7277359
Marriage is a civil right.. and at one time in this country, inter racial marriages were forbidden until Loving Vs Virginia - April 10, 1967 US Supreme Court Ruling. It declared Virginia's law un-constitutional. This will be a catalyst when the Supreme Court RULES that gay marriage is legal in the entire United States.
Wiki Etymology (below) tells what the word was created for so why can't people use some other terminalology to describe same sex unions is all i'm saying. Let's not confuse the two.
Churches and denominations are constantly changing their stance on gays in the church and gay marriage, but rest assured that God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ has not and will not.
Ozzie,
You didn't answer my question...
What is your legal case for banning same sex marriage.
Imnotlost,
No one gives a @!$%# what you think Jesus and/or God want. That's totally irrelevant. It's like some of you are five years old, know you're losing the fight, and say "Well not in myyyyyy world".
You go on believing that and go leave the rest to us adults.
You do realize that your etymology doesn't actually preclude same-sex marriage, right? No where in there does it say that it must have one of each.
You can provide a wife to a wife and a husband to a husband.
It can be used either way.
It may not be the same in your religion's definitiion, but it is in mine.
My belief system defines marriage as two consenting adult parties choosing to share the Goddess's Gift of Pleasure only with each other. We call that marriage, and any two consenting adults can make that vow to the Goddess.
We have sects for the lesbians (the Dianics) and sects for the gays ( The Minoan Brotherhood) and our priests and priestesses can marry either so long as both parties consent. The government's refusal to acknowledge their vows before the Goddess infringes on our 1st Amendment right to practice our religion as we so choose. Therefore, while same-sex marriage might not be right in your worldview we live in a secular society and even Jesus himself says one should follow the laws of the country you're in.
Oh, and worship of the Great Mother predates worship of Jesus (Christianity) by quite a bit, so our definition would be the older one. So Bart was right when he said 'Christianity didn't even insert itself into the marriage process until the 12th century.'
Sarah, I'm not saying same sex unions should be allowed under law but what I am saying is it is not a Marriage. Call it what you want to but it is not a marriage period!
The church is supposed to offer compassion and genuine spiritual help to those troubled with same sex attraction. The Church was never meant to condone same sex relationships or condone same sex marriage. The scripture is quite clear on that and to say otherwise is only a twisting what scripture says. To truly love someone who is troubled with same sex attraction means not to condemn them but to help them. This real love must not be compromised by allowing them to remain unchanged in their addiction. A person can be forgiven for their same sex addiction and still have difficulty with same sex attraction. God is helping all sincere believers to remove things that are not pleasing in our lives, and that removal is a process. There must be grace given for that process of healing to occur in the Church. That love and grace does not give license to pursuing same sex relationships, however.
The situation that really needs to change within the Church is that it has so compromised in its beliefs that it no longer has the relationship with God or the spiritual power that is necessary to deal with the real spiritual needs that people with addictions have. Sadly, a major portion of the church has only offered condemnation for addictions, not help. Another major portion has also failed by compromising and just saying it is fine to pursue a gay lifestyle. Both are seriously in error. The Church must return to God so that it can be a channel of the love and help that people truly need.
That said, what will be taking place in our National Cathedral with gay marriage is not right. We are defying the righteous design of God for how we are to relate to each other and to Him by redefining what marriage is. God is extremely merciful, but we must not test that mercy. Let us take the recent shaking of the earth under our Capital, that toppled some of the steeples of our National Cathedral, as a wake-up call in our ignoring of the ways of righteousness that God has set in place for us as a people. The sooner we turn back to Him, the sooner we will experience His healing Presence in our land. How long will we continue to ignore His ways and deny our need for Him?
Amanda, I showed where and what the word was derived from just accept it and call it something different than marriage. what does it matter what it is called to you as long as the rights are the same under the law?
Can't believe Christian churches are NOT following what Jesus Christ said.
Ozzie,
Right, but marriage comes with 1,000+ benefits and interstate recognition, whereas unions don't. So the only way for their to be equality is for it to be marriage.
So why not marriage??? Make your case, or admit YOU may not believe it's a marriage, but legally and in the eyes of the state, it IS. Right now, you're trying to define EVERYONE'S relationships by your personal opinion. A bit egotistical, don't you think?
Show us how LEGALLY you own the term marriage and why you can deny it, and therefore its benefits, to others.
Due to the separation of church and state issue there can be no 'national' Cathedral, Mosque or Temple. Nor can there be organized Chaplin led prayers in Congress
God is extremely specific when he said 'thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is a detestable thing'.
However, God said nothing about two women lying together. So lesbians are okay but gays are not?
Your God has a double standard.
Oh, and while we're on the whole 'God doesn't change his mind' thing:
And where a man takes his brother’s wife, it is something abhorrent. It is the nakedness of his brother that he has laid bare. They should become childless. Leviticus 20: 21
But then a book later he changes his mind:
In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man’s outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her and he must take her as his wife and perform marriage with her. Deuteronomy 25: 5-6
And I showed you that your own use of etymology allows for same-sex marriages!
Sarah, egotistical? no just saying the word already has a definition and when state elect to allow same sex unions they need to call it something else and give those individuals the same rights if they want to. It really doesn't matter to me.
Ozzie,
The word has had NUMEROUS definitions throughout history. We only redefined it to limit it to one man/one woman, in DOMA. So why does YOUR chosen definition, which excludes certain citizens from receiving rights and benefits based on their gender, be the LEGAL definition?
Make a case, since this is denying legal rights to people, simply saying, "That's how I want it defined" doesn't cut it. Why SHOULD it be defined that way???
That's the basis of the Westboro Baptist Church's position. 'We love everybody. We love you enough to tell gays and lesbians what they are doing is wrong.'
Yeah, but they sure got a funny way of expressing that 'love'...
ok, as a christian I have to say this....Old testament...is old testament...Not the New ...How can you "love your neighbor" or love God if you don't give your fellow man or woman equal rights? Under the Constitution of our own country we all have the RIGHT to the "pursuit of happiness"a right to believe what they want and live their lives as they see fit...How can you come in the name of God and not love your neighbor or better yet love your enemies as Jesus did and commanded us as to do as well. If you see gays as unclean or gross or anything else...then treat them like lepers, outcasts...the same people jesus preach too, loved and still loves..stop being foolish people we are all on this planet together each deserving love and respect .....
Why should we change what we call it because YOU don't like it? And you forget--while you trace the word back to its Latin root, Latin had to come from somewhere...
First, because we live in America, a secular country, and practically everyone here speaks English. Given the fuss people are currently kicking about people speaking other languages within our borders, what our priests and priestesses call our marriage ceremony would be neither accepted nor understood.
Secondly, rights are NOT the same. Did we learn nothing from history? Separate but equal is not equal.
Sarah i'm out of here but to answer your question it just is! I Suppose we'll let the SCOTUS decide and we all know which way they lean so congratulations! Even though it's wrong.
In other words......"I don't hate fags, it's my imaginary friend who hates fags".
That's why you bible-thumping homophobes use coercive, harmful and discredited "ex-gay therapy" on the gay people you claim to care for, because it's your job to enforce your imaginary friend's hate.
To all of you on this issue. Who cares? I don't. This has gone on way to long. If two people are happy together no matter if it a man and woman cool, man and man cool woman and woman cool. Who cares? Its time to get out of others business. Its time to drop all this crap. If gay people marry why should it be anyone business but their own. Gays don't care if a man and woman get married. So why should a man and woman care if Gays get married. Here again is religion being used to control people.
Anything to NOT have to admit that you can't answer the question, and that your beliefs aren't relevant to the rest of us, huh?
Just another thing that's a personal opinion. Seriously, egotistical was right on the money.
"ok, as a christian I have to say this....Old testament...is old testament...Not the New ...How can you "love your neighbor" or love God if you don't give your fellow man or woman equal rights?"
The Old Testament spoke clearly on morality but did not yet have the full answer to how to live that way. Through the blood sacrifice of animals, people who followed the Old Testament could be forgiven but were never free from guilty feelings or from their addictions. The good news is the under the new covenant found in the New Testament (the blood of Jesus), it is now possible to be totally forgiven, free of guilt over incidents and actions of the past. With this forgiveness, also comes the ability, through the Holy Spirit who comes to dwell within anyone who truly turns in faith to Jesus as their rescuing savior, to break the power of the addictions that held us prisoner in the past. True Christian love will pursue this reality in helping people. It will not passively allow people to be held in a miserable prison within themselves. True Christian love will not allow people to believe false Christian doctrines that deceive them into thinking they are spiritually ok and allowed to actively continue in lifestyles that are not right before God. The New Testament did not redefine morality. It warns that the result of ignoring God's love and His solution in Jesus will be eternal separation from the God who is love in a place called hell. True Christian love will not stand back and allow people to continue in this path. There is a choice and a real solution. Inner prison doors can be opened and captives can go free. That is why the gospel is called the Good News.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Okay.
Now, the Catholic Church (and the Vatican)'s position has been against abortion against birth control, against homosexuality. In 2009 there was an earthquake that the Vatican felt from 50 miles away from the epicenter. So was that God warning the Vatican that His directives to love one another an not judge or condemn others was not being followed?
Last year six of the seismologists who had failed to accurately predict how bad that earthquake was going to be were sentenced to jail for six years for their 'inaccurate, contradictory' prediction. Barely a week later, there was an earthquake. Should that have been interpreted as a sign God was displeased with the judgement against the seismologists and they should be released?
Religion is crazy. I think we are all missing the point: why would you even want to get married in a cathedral?!
Sarah and EngEsq @ 1.14 & 1.15: So you disagree with me and then make a matter of fact statement like you are the final authority. Who died and left you in charge?
BTW Esq, right back atcha.
I have never wanted to inherit a kingdom, I have too much of a problem just managing my own life.
So going by the above passage:
1) two people who love each other but there is no priest to marry them wouldn't get in (fornicators)
2) people who bow down before effigies of saints and effigies of Jesus wouldn't get in (idolators)
3) guys who are afflicted with an excess of estrogen due to a biophysical hormonal imbalance wouldn't get in even though God made them that way (effeminate)
4) Someone who stole some bread to feed a starving child wouldn't get in (thief) and someone who looks at their neighbor's new car and thinks "I want a new car' and asks for a raise so they can get that new car wouldn't get in (covetous)
5) Someone who says they are God's chosen Messenger here on earth and takes money from those who believe him wouldn't get in (swindler)?
But a molested child wouldn't get in because they were raped/had sexual relations outside marriage (adultery and fornication)? Or if they were molested by someone of the same gender (homosexuality)? Or if the molested child spoke out against the person who molested them, cursing at their molester, would not get in (reviler)?
Corinthians was a letter written by Paul to the Church in Corinth. These are not Jesus' words but rather one apostle's interpretation of what he heard from Jesus's actual disciples and as such is subject to error.
In fact the whole Bible is subject to error, because it wasn't codified and put together as the Bible until the 3rd century CE. A group of Christian Elders called the Nicene Council got together all 8000 scrolls of Christian teachings known at the time and picked out what they liked, put it in a book and called it the Bible. The stuff they didn't like was labeled the Forbidden Books and squirreled away never to be seen again (presently said to be hidden in the Vatican's sealed archives somewhere. If the Word of God belongs to everyone, why are parts of it forbidden to you by your Church? What is missing, what have you not seen?
I do believe that in measured ways, God still speaks to a nation. Our Capital has had an abnormal frequency of events in the last few years that point to something unusual. The earth has shaken, the city has been shut down by record snowfall and the Nation's birthday could not be celebrated because of a massive power outage due to a storm. However, we can never assign all that takes place in the world to acts of God. There are natural systems that come into play. Also, much of what we see happening can have spiritual origins that are satanic and demonic. Jesus, himself, rebuked the wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee and He was not rebuking His own Father in doing this. Jesus said that the devil comes to steal and kill and destroy. Satan loves to bring suffering, loss and death. God is the opposite and His mercy is almost unimaginably patient with our unrighteousness. The term "Acts of God" is terribly misused, and should really take these other factors into account.
When a people decide that they no longer need the true God, they unknowingly submit themselves to a new spiritual dimension and unawaredly welcome in new spiritual activity over them. This ruler is the opposite of the One they rejected. This ruler is viciously cruel and delights in suffering. We wonder why so many crazy things are happening in the nation and in the world. It is because, in our rebellion against what is good, we have allowed a new ruler in the door.
I actually believe that a shaking is coming to the Catholic Church in a very good way. I think that there is going to be a new Pentecost sweeping through the Catholic Church - perhaps as a result of their willingness to speak up for the ways of God's righteousness when few others had the courage to do so. Perhaps it will be just because of the goodness of God in His grace. God is good all of the time. You've got to get to know Him!
Imnotlost,
The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. It's not a disagreement, it's a fact. Your concept of "God Almighty" is irrelevant to this conversation.
Probably because approximately 70% of all homosexuals consider themselves Christians, EngEsq:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights
Arg, erin. Confounding the issue with facts!
I know, I was just amusing myself with a flippant post. I tend to get riled up on these discussion boards against religion because I see all the bad of it on here, and very little of the good that it has.
Lost,
I'm not the final authority. In this country the constitution is regarding what is legal. I'm merely parroting it, and the ultimate legal implications of it.
OK, you know what? We're not talking about law here, the subject is church and religion. But there's no point in discussing religion with gays and lesbians so let's just stop it.
Sounds like you want the Episcopal church to comply with the theology of your bigoted cult.
Imnotlost,
Are you Episcopal??? If not, your concept of "God Almighty" is STILL irrelevant. If so, change churches. Unless you're the be all end all of say so in that church, you're acting like a spoiled brat.
They don't have to check with you and your opinions, before they decide how to run their church.
I see you missed that 70% of homosexuals identify as Christian.
odd how people want to control others, how they live and love and proclaim to know and love God. Fools, people who have little or no control over their own lives and they seek to control the rest of world. Would rather wish for the deaths of others in judgement and yet run from the judgement of others, stand high and mighty as the ground crumbles under their feet. Fools, ignoring the "laws of the land" wanting no responsibility in allowing true freedom for all, the same fools who think upholding the law is controling those who they hate...Fools, the same Fools who made God in their own image and then killed him since they couldn't control him and stopped him just for telling the truth. the Pharisees and Scribes are alive and well....
Hard for me to believe since majority of homosexuals say vile and hateful things about Jesus Christ. Describing things tied to Jesus Christ, like Christianity, as a cult is one example.
The word "marriage" is derived from the word "matrimony" as used in Holy Matrimony.
The etymology has already been discussed ad nauseum, it does not preclude same-sex unions.
You do realize that most of us here are not homosexual, or Christian, right?
Jo Ann,
And if "Christians" didn't make up the majority of those fighting to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law, what do you think they would have to say about them???
I find it humorous that "Christians" can run around, judging and denying rights, and than when they get called out on it, or their reputation suffers because of it, they scream, "Oh you're hateful".
Apply the "but for" test in regards to deciding who is/isn't a bigot. But for the rhetoric used against my fellow citizens, I would have nothing to say to and/or about those people. They use their religions as weapons to harm and attack my fellow citizens and people I care about. So yes, I will take every opportunity I have to stand up to them and point their fallacies out.
What is their "but for"??? But for someone's private and personal sexuality that harms them in no way???
Yes, they are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to our acceptance or swallowing of their opinions. There's a difference between being tolerant and being passive. I can tolerate their beliefs, I don't have to be passive in the face of their using those beliefs against my country's fundamental tenants and citizens.
But the Bible says there was only God in the beginning, that he made everything there is. He made the angels, of which Satan was one. Satan rebelled against God (if God knows everything that is and is to be, then He really should have seen that coming) and God threw him out of heaven (for what, being what He made Satan to be?) and created the fiery pit for Satan to live in.
The Bible says God is all-powerful and all knowing, that nothing happens without His say-so. So God is allowing Satan to bring suffering, loss, and death--and thus such things are Acts of God too.
You say your "god" gives us free will but then you take it away from these people in his name. Seems like BS to me. Why don't we all just worry about ourselves and how we live our own lives instead of trying to dictate how others live theirs.
allswell, I'm not talking about anyone here on this board. I'm talking about homosexuals in general.
And you know the majority of homosexuals?
Must be a busy lady.
I think you've confused criticism of bigoted cults like yours with criticism of Christianity in general.
The gay-friendly Episcopal church is a case in point.......they simply don't share your hateful views or your bigoted interpretation of the bible.
Jim Jones was Christian. There's no way you could NOT describe his commune at Jamestown as not being a cult. Or Joseph Kony of the LRA, who says he wants to carve out for himself and his followers a land where the Ten Commandments would be the law of the land...and brainwashes children into fighting for him and child wives to be his brides. You can't NOT call that a cult either.
Westboro Baptist is coming pretty close to it since most of the people in the 'church' are related to Fred Phelps.
...and Harold Camping, who predicted the end of the world last year in May, then again in October, and now is a hermit and refusing to give back his followers' money....
Dan-1018744 banned for death wishing.
Thank you skrekk for proving my point.
Joann,
So you're entitled to Skrekk's acceptance, passivity and approval, regardless of what he thinks of your beliefs? You're entitled to have everyone blow sunshine up your ass, no matter what ridiculous beliefs you try to impose on our legislature?
You're entitled to your beliefs, you're NOT entitled to the rest of us smiling and agreeing to them. I suggest you either keep them out of our laws, or grow a thicker skin.
Why God created an angel (Satan) that He knew would eventually turn against Him, is a very honest question. Satan's rebellion apparently occurred before or right after the creation of man. He was there in the Garden of Eden, even at the same time that God walked there in the cool of the evening, in unbroken fellowship with the man and the woman. God had clearly given Adam and Eve warning to not partake in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They knew it was against His will for them. Satan used the serpent to deceive Eve in the garden. Eve gave in to his lies and Adam also followed in disobedience and they fell from innocence. Their fellowship with God was broken. God still loved them, however, and His plan of restoration was referred to right after their wrong decision was made. In the first chapters of Genesis, He promised that a seed of the woman (Jesus) would crush the head of the deceiver for them. He also provided skins to cover their nakedness (the first reference to a blood sacrifice to atone for sin, provide forgiveness, and cover over the sin of a person with God's remedy).
Even though God actually walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, and even though the devil was there as well, God still allowed choice. He did not control them in their choice. There cannot be a true setting for love without the element of choice. He warned them strongly, but gave them freedom to love Him and obey His words. Their fall cost God the Father dearly. In love, He engaged His redemptive plan that would ultimately bring His only Son into this world, through a woman, to die a cruel death on the cross. He shed His own blood, because no other blood on earth was pure to atone for the sin of the human race. Jesus blood will cover over the sin of any man or woman who believes in God's love, His sacrificial solution on the cross, and who desires to return to that place of fellowship and love once enjoyed before disobedience interrupted it. We have all sinned in falling short of God's infallible love and purity of character. We hate, envy, covet...the list goes on and we cannot rehabilitate our own selves in order not to be that way. Our fallen nature is just that - fallen.
We have a choice again. We can choose to believe that God still wants us to come back and know His love. We must realize that His ways truly are pure and right and totally founded in love. We need to believe in the act of love that God did for us when we were not even wanting Him anymore. We can make the decision to believe and choose. We can choose to want right over wrong and light over darkness. It is all about a choice. With whom do we want to be? Loving God is a choice and always has been. When you make that choice, you will experience the reality of becoming new inside - back in fellowship with the One who's love for you was even willing to die for you. He has done all he can do and He won't violate the choice we have. It is a choice to believe that the God who made us is right in His ways and perfectly loves us. His amazing grace has made a way back into the fellowship of His love through the giving of His Son. Our choice is all that separates.
Hi Skrekk: Was wondering where you were.
Re: your post @ 1.47. I don't purport to be a theology expert nor an advisor to churches, but like millions of others I wonder why a church or an entire denomination would embrace homosexuality at the same time they crack open their Bible to get God's guidance when in that very Bible homosexuality is forbidden. Please don't mention civil rights, we're on the subject of homosexuals and religion here.
Sarah, I'm not trying to impose anything on our legislature. You are the one doing it. You want legislature to change. I'm happy with the legislature the United States has in place for the past decades.
Jo Ann-666954
So in other words, you support legislation that prevents equal marriage rights even though those Americans pay taxes. When did the US Constitution say "We the People" unless you are gay? Hate to break this to you, but DOMA will soon be struck down by SCOTUS as will all state laws as well. Then what? Will you still support the 'legislation' then, or will you seek to change it based on your christian beliefs?
I'm glad we live in a nation where SCOTUS is very clear on the separation of religious bigotry from our secular laws.
Religious bigotry? Please grow up.
Just like the Southern Baptist cult once thought their bible-babble supported slavery and opposed mixed-race marriage, apparently your bigoted cult opposes homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Fortunately for gays and blacks there are more enlightened denominations to choose from.
JoAnn,
You're happy with legislation that discriminates against people for no legal reason??? Wow. That's cool.
Yea I guess they were ok with a Constitution that declared some people to be 3/5ths of a person and laws that made owning another human being legal. I mean why change any laws. According to people such as Jo Ann, to change any law is to then impose your will on everyone else. LMFAO. Logic fail, Jo Ann. Oh well, looks like you are going to have to get over it. Because same sex marriage will eventually be legal across the board.
Well that's funny, cause the majority of homosexuals I know (and I've worked in theatre, all stereotypes applied) don't hate Christianity or Jesus.
Oh joy. Now the LBGT groups can claim that the whole country supports them. Before this thread is through I bet that will claimed.
There was already a vine of a thousand comments on this topic, mostly against gays. What a 'sporting' arguer you must be..
Every time there is an article in the news about gays there is a vine with many comments. So what's your point?
on discussions like this, "everything and anything" is claimed by at least one person. so what's YOUR point arguesfor sports? lol.
I believe I made my point with my first statement. Pay attention.
I was paying attention. your "point" was a subtle dig at lbgt groups, but since any large discussion produces all kinds of statements made by all kinds of people, your point is silly and worthless. :)
generalizations about "lgbt groups" (or any groups for that matter) in these kinds of discussions are silly. its a random collection of posts from random people, proving nothing really. :)
I believe I'll make a point.. that 53% of America supports gay marriage. It is legal in 9 states with 6 more expected to come in 2013, and the US Supreme Court could easily make it legal everywhere. Even some of my staunches republicans friends all agree, gay marriage will be REALITY.
That would be statistically, 53% of America supports gay marriage. It has been said over and over that 75% of statistics are made up or distorted to support one's view.
Argues,
Well, what the LGBT community should be telling you, is that it doesn't matter whatsoever if the majority of the country is on "their side". They neither need, nor want, nor care about the personal opinions of those who choose not to support them.
Let me respectfully disagree with you here and say that they don't support gay marriage; the majority of Americans support EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL. I know many people who voted for same-gender marriage rights who don't support gay marriage but they supported that those who do should have EQUAL RIGHTS as the rest of us per our Constitution.
The majority of Americans now support gay marriage in numerous polls
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/justices-consider-same-sex-marriage-cases-for-docket.html?_r=0
There are more sources out there, but clearly a plurality of America now supports it. I did see other polls indicating that the majority support equal rights for all as well, so your comment is spot on too.
As has been pointed out countless times by the GLBT community, this issue is really about equal rights, it's not really on anything to do the church. It's a legal, state, or our government's business. So this is a formality at best. The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, has taken upon himself to follow suit, as many churches have done. He is changing his church to meet the times.
How individual members will feel about this, in the end will be between themselves and their Maker.The prevailing belief is mounting, that if you don't get with the times, you will be left behind the times.As a very vocal group, this minority will continue to seek acceptance from every quarter they enter, until they finally win total acceptance, equality in all things and not one dissenter remains to protest.
Then again, there is nothing wrong with differing views, progress comes in fits and starts.A nation that all believed in identical beliefs would be quite chilling. In fact, reminds me of China, or Stalin in Russia murdering 50 million Christians, Islam in Pakistan.....
The rights of others to have the freedom to believe differently is something we should all respect.This isn't the Dark Ages. Though we may passionately plead our cause, bullying and ridiculing another's different feelings is never warranted.We can respect the differences we each are born with, while working to appreciate the commonalities as well. It should prove interesting to see who are the first couples chosen for this honored place in this historical church.
Sometimes the greatest moments in history are noticed by few, while others scripted so the whole world can view
Most excellent post!
I've never had a problem with those disagreeing or agreeing with gay marriage. Individual belief is individual belief and we should respect that. However, since I've never seen how gay marriage hurts anyone and how I do believe that a gay couple should be able to have the same legal rights, I accept the concept. Is it a lifestyle I would choose for myself, no. But I believe others have the right to do so.
As an aside, we could end a lot of this controversy by simply designating "marriage" as the legal part and require ALL couples to get "married" in a court house or town hall, and "matrimony" as the religious part, optional for any legal standing. Churches could perform matrimony services for gay couples, or not, as their beliefs warrant.
Beth, no one chooses the "homosexual lifestyle" -- it chooses the person.
BTW, what is a "homosexual lifestyle"?
Uh, Beth, that is ALREADY the way it is legally in this country: "marriage" is the civil contract, while "holy matrimony" is the religious rite. For the sake of convenience, it has already been combined for those who wish to have a religious ceremony, because the officiant is registered as an agent of the government to perform such marriages -- which is why they end with the words "By the power vested in me by the state of [whatever], I now pronounce you..." "Holy matrimony" has NO legal standing in this country; one must obtain a civil marriage license in order to be legally recognized as married.
Furthermore, are not now required to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
That should read "Furthermore, churches are not now required to perform marriages for same-sex couples".
Erin,
You have just made my point ... EXACTLY. I am on the side of gay marriage. Which I made quite clear. Yet you still feel the need to attack.
And you wonder why people don't support you more. Sigh.
That's the way it already works in the US - "marriage" is a legal contract, "holy matrimony" is a completely irrelevant religious rite. Just ask any divorced and remarried Catholic, or ask any atheist.
The state simply doesn't give a crap about the rituals of your cult.
The one thing we could do better is to prohibit any marriage from being formalized in a church and require all marriages to be formalized in a government office, like France does. That would eliminate any confusion about who controls the contract of marriage.
Beth, how did I "attack" you? I merely explained to you that marriage in this country is and has always been a civil matter, which you seemed to confuse with the religious rite of matrimony.
And you wonder why people have to constantly explain things to you. *SIGH*
Overly sensitive much? Feeling inadequate much?
I've advocated exactly that in many previous posts on this subject.
I sincerely hope SCOTUS issues a sweeping decsion on gay marriage later this year and strikes down not only California's, but all state ammendments banning gay marriage. Won't NOM be sorry that they stuck their noses into California's business.
This is blasphemous. I count this as one of many things like this that is an assault on the Christian faith. The cathedral is a monument itself to Christianity. This is akin to "legalizing" eating pork in a mosque, calling the mosque a national mosque, then having those that want to have the right to desecrate that religion on a public stage.
how is this "assaulting" christian faith? "Assault" implies a force used by an outsider, which this isn't.
I see you edited your comment.
I guess you'll just have to suffer the ill effects of freedom. :)
How is giving the same rights you enjoy to others considered to be blasphemous? If anything, denying people the same civil rights you enjoy is considered to be blasphemous.
I wouldn't vote for those rights to cross the "church versus state" boundary. Infer what you want but this has to do with preempting religious rights (the sanctity of a Christian church) by those that may not even be Christian. I don't need to disclose what my religion is or isn't - just think about how this came to be and the process itself should be a problem for anyone that sees the need for division between public affairs and those affairs of a particular religion.
And some will say, undoubtedly, that Christianity agrees with same sex marriage. No, it doesn't. That is the view held by a very small few within the Christian faith and wouldn't stand the test of a vote from Christians generally.
How about remembering that a civil union does not require a church? And that the gay community interested in same sex marriage has always relied on the argument that marriage is uniquely a religious matter? That alone should prevent this from happening unless, of course, there is a greater agenda here.
Neither does marriage. I was married on a lake beach, non-religious ceremony. I'm married because I got the state to sanction it; no religion required.
What??? I have never heard any such argument from the pro-rights side.
Put on your tin foil hat and go listen to fox "news".
Marty,
Well except that the CHURCH ITSELF is making this decree, not the government. If the church wasn't okay with it, they couldn't be forced to perform them. They are. Get over it.
Wrong. Despite its congressional designation as a "national house of prayer," the Cathedral is still an Episcopalian Church, and I see no reason why they can't use it however they see fit. Its official name is the "Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul."
Sarah, you get over it. There is no one forcing anything on this church EXCEPT the gay community. This is a nationally designated house of prayer, a venue for many constitutionally derived services. "Un-designate" it, then you're comments hold weight.
Do you desicrate our flag? The government doesn't own them all, so why not do that, too? I mean, it's your right.
I know, right?
It's just like how divorce and remarriage are an assault on Catholicism, and how mixed-race marriage is an assault on Southern Baptists.
Just an FYI, Marty, not all Christians share your bigotry. The Episcopal church in particular is gay friendly, and the National Cathedral is an Episcopal church. Why should they be forced to comply with your bigoted theology and sharia laws?
Marty, it is not a "nationally designated house of prayer;" it is designated as a house of prayer by the Episcopal Church. The US cannot "nationally designate" ANY church or other house of prayer; that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Give it up guy.They'd rather @!$%# on everything than acknowledge any error
So the church officials are lying, they really don't want to perform these ceremonies, and they're only doing so because there's an army of rabid, gay folk carrying pitchforks and attempting to beat down their door?
Yes or no, did the the church make this decision?
Why don't you worry about yourself, and allow non-related entities to make their own choices??? I promise you, if they need "Super Marty" to come to their defense, they'll let you know.
To clear things up ... from the National Park Service site (http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc5.htm)
And from Time.com's travel site (http://www.time.com/time/travel/cityguide/article/0,31489,1852610_1852670_1852638,00.html)
Things like this make me proud to be Episcopalian.
"If a man liies with a man as he would with a woman, he has committed an Abomination." Levitcus 20:13 Thy Word O YAHWEH is Forever Settled in Heaven. Psalm 119:89 "JESUS Christ, The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever." Hebrews 13:8 HE Came to Fulfill The Law NOT Abolish It. Glory Be To YAHWEH and YAHSHUA (JESUS) Forever. Sin is Still Sin, No Matter What Sinful Man Says or Does.
These Old Testament rules were swept away with Jesus.
try again.
"If you do not return by the stroke of midnight, yea shall be forsaken." Cinderella 14:34
"Behold, upon truth forsaken his nose doth grow." Pinocchio 5:12
If IGNORANT CHRISTIANS actually read all of Leviticus and followed everything it said they would all be murders and criminals. Leviticus is like one of the Horror Stories from the Bible detailing how to kill and torture people for even minor offenses. Do you see these SO-CALLED christians bringing up other things from Leviticus that everyone should be doing? Hell no because they know they would be ridiculed for being stupid and insane. So why should anyone follow ANYTHING from the official Horror Book of the Bible called Leviticus?
BTW, if any of you so-called christians have eaten shellfish, shrimp or any seafood that doesn have fins andscaled you have SINNED against god.
If you are wearing cotten underwear and a chirt containing any amount of polyester you have SINNED against god.
If you have eaten bacon or any pig product or even touched it like a football made out of pig skin you have SINNED against god.
So where are the SO-CALLED christians rising up trying to force people to avoid these things like they are gay marriage? They aren't doing it because they know it WOULD BE STUPID as the bible has so many stupid things in it and they pick and choose what they want to follow.
Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
Another one I don't think the SO-CALLED christians are following either because they know it is STUPID and would get them thrown in jail for life or put to death themselves.
Funny how they conveniently forget that divorce isn't allowed in the Bible either...yet they partake rather frequently.
It all makes sense now.
Gay marriage & marijuana being legalized on the same day.
*************
Leviticus 20:13- "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."
We were just interpreting it wrong.
Since Leviticus and no other place in the bible say anything about WOMEN laying with WOMEN being wrong I guess that means lesbians don't have anything to worry about it and they can get married in any church.
Then again the bible was written by men for men to keep women in their place and men in power over them.
Hey Allan,
If you read your bible from genesis to apocalypsis you'll see how a society its religion just evolved in a few thousand years, if you take in consideration that a lot of those rules and regulations were taken from another cultures all around, part of these originals are from the Hammurabi code.
In other words, get current with the times, unless you like to live in a desert area with 100's BC technology, LOL...
"Romans 1 26-27
"That is why God abandoned them to their evil desires, even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with woman burned with lust for other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."
PRAISE GOD!
=======================================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read This:
"www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html"
and get back to me and explain how these "MEN" knew the future and predicted these prophecies 900 years before they came true.
==============================================================
Walter, you are wrong. :D That passage says absolutely NOTHING ABOUT WOMEN WITH WOMEN. If you look at the ORIGINAL version of the verses and not the bastardized translations that have come out in recent years. Like the one you quoted.
The King James Version of the bible which is the most common version makes NO MENTION OF " instead indulged in sex with each other." when talking about women. That is from a bastardized translation created to fit a certain religious agenda and not the true meaning.
The original versions said "women did change the natural use" which in historical context is not women on women but usually means that women had sex in a different manner with men that was prescribed. IE. Oral or different positions. So the reference you made has nothing to do with women on women sex. You had to find a bastardized translation of the bible to fit what you are saying. Another form of lying.
Again I have to ask these questions.
Is god real?
Is religion something a man made up to control other men?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21......."Kill your disobedient children."
PRAISE GOD!
It should be noted that Paul was almost as prudish as St Augustine when it came to his definitions of "normal" (which is the correct translation of what you want to claim is "natural"). Using the exact, original words used by Paul, a man who didn't cut his hair was "unnatural".
I have a Bible that was published in 1961 and it says 'If a man lies with a man as with a woman, it is a detestable thing.' It has to have been changed somewhere along the way to 'Abomination.'
Walter:
Romans was a letter written by Paul to the Church in Corinth. These are not Jesus' words but rather one apostle's interpretation of what he heard from Jesus's actual disciples and as such is subject to error.
In fact the whole Bible is subject to error, because it wasn't codified and put together as the Bible until the 3rd century CE. A group of Christian Elders called the Nicene Council got together all 8000 scrolls of Christian teachings known at the time and picked out what they liked, put it in a book and called it the Bible. The stuff they didn't like was labeled the Forbidden Books and squirreled away never to be seen again (presently said to be hidden in the Vatican's sealed archives somewhere. If the Word of God belongs to everyone, why are parts of it forbidden to you by your Church? What is missing, what have you not seen?
When white churches opened their doors to African Americans, there was the same outcry from bigots: How could they do that???!!
They can do that because Jesus told us to love thy neighbor and not judge.
And because they were decent people.
HALLELUJAH!!!! Before you judge, look in the mirror and start there. That should take some time. Then, if you have time, judge others.
I see claims on here that say, "give everyone the same rights" for marriage, but that isn't what they really want. Do you really want a man/woman to be able to "marry" child or a multitude of partners? Why not, they say they are "in love". Why can't a person marry a horse? Where does it end? If EVERYONE is supposed to have infinate rights nothing can be outlawed. Careful what you wish for...
Why is it when the anti-marriage people can't think of any LOGICAL response they always go to marrying animals and kids? I mean how silly do you have to be to go there? Children and animals cannot give CONSENT like ADULTS so your example is totally irrelevant.
I don't see people asking for INFINITE rights, I see them asking for EQUAL rights.
I have no problem "wishing for" equal rights. Its the american thing to do. :)
An animal cannot consent. A child is a victim and cannot consent. The government has a compelling interest in not having polygamous marriages (although these interests could be addressed).
Lastly, why would gay marriage lead to a guy marrying more than one woman?? That is more like a straight marriage writ large.
So, okay, let's limit it to just adults, (though most of the arguements for gay marriage say everyone should be free to do whatever). Should a person be able to be married to multiple people? Should they be able to marry their brother/sister? Again, if everyone should be free to do what they want because they want to do it, where does it end?
Before we answer these questions, you have to actually show that this is a real possibility if same sex marriage is legal. So please tell us, what proof do you have that gay marriage would lead to this? Why doesn't straight marriage lead to these things? The only difference between straight and gay marriage is the gender of a contracting party, so what's inherent in changing that gender that would lead to the REPEAL OF THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS banning incest and polygamy.
But really, the answer is the same as the answer to "Why doesn't straight marriage lead to this". If you can answer that, you've got your answer.
mandy: is there an "official" list of the "official" arguments for gay marriage? lol. The legal challenges to gay marriage bans are based on equal rights and the constitution, so i'm not sure which "arguments" you are referring to?
The legal argument made is that if two straight adults are allowed to get married, so should two gay adults. It has nothing to do with incest or polygamy. why aren't incest and polygamy legal now? it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
again, the argument is not that "everyone should be free to do what they want", so why do you keep hauling that argument out?
False. The arguments are well established in equal treatment under the law, and that marriage is deemed a civil right by the courts.
Government has compelling interest in reducing abuse (almost all polygamous situations are young girls forced into these situations), and the courts are incapable of dealing with the dissolution of such situations. Resolve the legal issues in the case of death/divorce, and reduce the abuse inherent to these relationships and we can talk.
Why would gay marriage lead to a brother and sister marrying any more than a straight marriage? Secondly, incestuous relationships have a very good chance of resulting in genetic deformity. Lastly, these relationships are almost always caused by sever abuse, resulting in a serious concern that there is no true consent.
Again, more nonsense brought up by those without a logical reason for opposing gay marriage. There are valid, proven medical reasons for not allowing a brother and sister to get married. The incidence of physical and mental deformities is very high because of genetics caused by inbreeding. You can easily see that by looking at Europe in the middle ages and before where only royalty could marry royalty. The amount of mental and physical deformities among the royals was exceedingly high. They would either kill those babies or lock them away from view for life. It's GENETICS and I know among the evangelicals science is the bogeyman.
As to multiple people getting married I could care less. If 5 women and men want to get married to one guy or girl then have at it. There is no medical reason why they shouldn't. Hell, there are thousands of poly households in the US anyway. The only reason it's probably not legal is because of religious reasons, again an invalid reason for most things, or because it might be a nightmare for the IRS.
Just because you were raised to think every icky thing is normal doesn't change the truth of it.The logical esponse is give an inch take a mile.The civil rights are that gays don't have to hide.Using semantics to validate what is known to be fallacy makes it worse.
The ego never ends, does it. Just because you think that gay = icky is the truth, doesn't make it the truth for the rest of us. I think the real problem here is the incredible egotism of the anti-equality people.
pained, the true american, lovingly grants gays the right to exist..as second class citizens of course. As long as those uppity gays know their place, he's happy. How lame and pathetic.
Once again, all you talk about is personal opinions as if they were the universal truth.
Get help for your narcissism.
When I get on my horse's back I "INFORM" her that I want a ride, and she doesn't buck me off she "CONSENTS" to let me ride. WHY IS THAT NOT "INFORMED CONSENT"???
===================================================================
I have a neighbor that want's to marry his "HORSE" who is female and of age in human years but not horse years, and was wondering if that will be legal after SCOTUS rules later next year.
And also wants to marry his "DOG" who is male and considered a minor in dog "AND" human years.
And also wants to marry his one of his "EWES" who is sterile, due to a failure of normal ovarian follicle development, and considered a minor in human years but of age in sheep years.
He was wondering if he can knock all this out with 1 ceremony or does this have to be done separately and everything will be on the up and up (legal) after SCOTUS rules later this year.
He also has a first cousin (female and of age) that he is considering proposing to.
But all of the above having given consent.
Could someone from the gay community please lend some insight, he is really going through an identity crisis and needs help soon.
There is a "CHICKEN" issue involving both an minor "ROOSTER" and a "OF AGE HEN" that may come into play soon, does anyone have some advice here.
oh yes and can the above CHICKENS get married also., WILL THE SCOTUS RULING COVER THERE UPCOMING DIVORCE SO MY COUSIN CAN MARRY THE HEN OR NOT.
He wants his employer to cover any up coming "VET BILLS"
Go ahead and @!$%# your goat I guess that is all you cons dream about.
Sarah-do you know what happens to you when you die? Do you have any proof of your answer?
Just curious.
Walter_P_Oreilly
Is it a law that you have to give consent in a marriage contract anyway?
Have ya'll not heard of a "SHOT GUN WEDDING"
Not a lot of consent at those I don't think, are they all "ILLEGAL"?
Will SCOTUS deem the "man and woman" stuff unconstitutional.?
Yes, actually, they are. And they can be annulled as "under duress".
walter, yes, a true "shotgun wedding", like ANY coerced contract, is illegal and unenforceable. "Abstract: It is nearly universally accepted, both in law and in morals, that agreements entered into
under coercion are not binding. Thus you are not obligated to keep, and the law will not enforce, a
contract you undertake to save your life at gunpoint"
will scotus declare "man and woman only" marriage unconstitutional? who knows. Eventually I think yes, but they haven't called me to ask my opinion yet. :)
Funny how you bigots use the exact same bogus arguments you used to argue against mixed-race marriage. You'd think the fact that you lost on that issue using those arguments would make you realize that they're irrelevant and ineffective, yet you keep recycling the same moronic nonsense.
Here's a comparison:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
Walter_P_Oreilly
Will SCOTUS deem the "man and woman" stuff unconstitutional.?
They will have too, then what all person's not related of age stuff.
What logical reason can you give to not include animals, your saying no one can love their pet?
Would in be OK for fido to be my "DOMESTIC PARTNER" so I can Have the VET BILLS PAID.
Walter, are you purposefully playing the role of the idiot to get a reaction, or do you really not get it?
Your obsession with marrying animals is rather disturbing, given its lack of relation with the discussion at hand.
It is to bad lack of instinct doesn't cause one to perish,we'd have none of this then.Like the fact that individual homosexuality perishes at every birth for each individual.Except for,once again usurping nature,by rolling every aspect of natural heterosexual life into homosexual life. Those of you like Sarah,eng esq,skrekk and the like,I'm sorry daddy grew up to wnt to be a woman.It shouldn't be societies' problem
That was a masterpiece of incoherency, pained.
He needs to replace his space bar.
And too bad bigotry doesn't cause one to perish.
My dad is still happily married to my mom. Going on 46 years. I'm happily married to my wife going on 10 years.
I'm sorry that your daddy didn't teach you to be tolerant; and I'm really sorry that you must refrain to childish insults when we kick the crap out of you in logical and legal arguments which support equal rights.
Walter:
Does the horse have a social security number and can sign the marriage license? or any of the other animals you mentioned?
Now the first cousin thing--well, so long as both are over the age of consent if one is a minor, the parents agree/consent and ones municipality allows for it by law, yes they can though they are biologically advised against having children because genetic defects can be magnified in the offspring of those too closely related.
Regardless of what the Bible says, there is that pesky little part of the US Constitution regarding separation of church and state. There are a number of people in both parties that have chosen to disregard this amendment and are forging full speed ahead with their religious rants and pointy fingers. Really people, this is the 21st century. In life, there is no room for all the hate coming from so-called "religious" folks. Hate and blame are the main reasons our country is so divided. Who does it hurt if 2 loving people of the same sex get married? How does this effect your life? Why do you even care?
You are right that a lot of people are putting out hate, but not everyone who disagrees with someone hates them. Part of the problem with our current society is the blind disregard by most everyone for the ability to disagree with someone without hate even entering into it. People are too quick to assume that all disagreement is driven by hate. I absolutely disagree with gay marriage, but that DOES NOT mean that I hate gays; it means that I think it is wrong. I AM still allowed to think something is wrong, right?
Yes you are allowed but when you try to use your religion and belief to force others who don't believe as you do to follow what you believe then YOU ARE WRONG. Keep your religion in your house and in your church as the bible tells you and don't FORCE it on others.
Mandy, I think subjecting children to religion is wrong. However, you have your rights, and as such I don't try to ban the brainwashing of children by well meaning parents. See how that works?
It wouldn't effect me if 3 or 4 people all got 'married' to each other or if they included livestock, but that don't make any of it right.
Sandy - I'm not supposed to "force" my beliefs on you, but it's okay for you to "force" yours on me. Just saying...
Mandy, are you forced to think gay marriage is right? Are you forced to be in a gay marriage? Attend one? No, the only thing being "forced" onto you is that they exist.
mandy: how does allowing gay marriage for OTHERS "force" anything on you? As far as we can tell, nothing changes for you at all.
Mandy, you are twisting words as many do when they don't have anything to use to refute what was said. You are free to believe what you want but when you use your belief to force others to be second class citizens then you are wrong.
How does allowing gay people to get married hurt you or your belief? Come on give me an answer to that. How does it HURT YOU? And don't give this nonsense from the bible as a justification. Give me a VALID reason backed up by PROVEN LOGIC as to how allowing gay marriage hurts YOU.
If I get a real answer or ANY answer I will be surprised.
i've never heard a useful answer to how gay marriage supporters are "forcing" anything on anyone else, and I doubt I'll hear it today either.
Mandy, you are advocating the denial of rights to a group of citizens of this country based on your own beliefs -- that is bigotry, and that is wrong.
Who is advocating for denying any of YOUR rights?
Which makes me wonder why we have a national cathedral
If you think you deserve special legal rights and privileges and that gays should be treated as 2nd-class citizens who are denied those rights, it means you do hate gays and you're a greedy bigot.
It's also rather clear that you want to use our secular government to enforce your sharia laws, and that you want to violate the 1st Amendment rights of Episcopalians.
The "National Cathedral" is a name, not a title. It's like "First National Bank."
In some respects this isn't surprising. The American Episcopalian Hierarchy abandoned following Jesus many years ago. If they had any decency, they would admit they are a non-Christian organization.
And unless they repent and return to Christ, these blind guides are destined for hell along with those who's sins they endorse.
Rev Larry Robinson
And for you antagonists- this has NOTHING to do with govt. It's about the internal structure of the Body of Christ and our commandments from Jesus since the first century. That includes what actions we in the Body of Christ take towards those who claim to be part of us yet engage in willful rebellion against Christ.
No true Scottsman.
what isn't true?
i'm curious, I think I missed your answer to me in the prior thread..do you support gay marriage, or do you support totalitarian government control of marriage? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
What I said to you was that I oppose ANY govt involvement in marriage.
The States have authority under the Constitution to issue civil contracts between individuals in whatever form or manner they choose. That includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, and anyone else the govt wants to issue contract licenses to.
I want the term marriage which is religious and was incorporated into this country as a religious institution removed from all government laws.
Its not unreasonable to argue that government should not be involved in marriage, but that's an alternate universe larry.
nice try to avoid the question. :)
right here..right now..gov't IS involved in marriage. Do you support extending legal, secular marriage rights to gays so that more people have more freedom..or do you support a more totalitarian gov't involvement in marriage that restricts freedom of some?
which one? please don't try to evade this time.
would you vote for gay marriage rights, today, if you were at the polls? yes or no. Its a simple question with a simple answer. If you dare. :)
your question is a logical fallacy
I oppose ALL GOVT INVOLVEMENT IN MARRIAGE.
Marriage is a religious term and can NEVER be applied to other than the marriage of a man and a woman. No Major religious faith in the world recognizes any other kind of marriage.
Even in the Episcopalian Church, it is only in America and England that this is allowed. The vast majority of world wide Espiscopalians do not and refuse to sanction agreement with the US churches whom they consider apostates.
this has NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS. Individuals already have the capacity whether in civil unions or other partnership contracts to cover all legal issues.
This is about a portion of the homosexual element along with others antagonistic to religious faith engaged in a campaign to force through govt, religious faiths to acknowledge their perversions as "normal" and equivalent to real marriage.
So, when homosexual marriage was on the ballot in CA I voted without hesitation to legitimize their perversion.
my question is NOT a logical fallacy. Its the real world. People are voting on gay marriage rights as currently in our laws, not as they would like the government framework to be.
If I read your response correctly, I'm glad you voted for more freedom.
That is, if he wrote it correctly...
And you fail again. Marriage predates religious involvement as a secular institute.
Sorry larry, I was at a meeting. No true Scotsman is a logical argument that applies to your original post.
sorry Vermontguy- I was in the midst of a financial transaction-
I voted against legitimatizing homosexual marriage.
wrong Allswell- Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve
EngEsq- there were no "true Scotsman" arguments postulated in my statements that drew your charge.
Cite your specific charge
Wrong, Larry--no evidence outside your religious text supports the existence of Eden, Adam, or Eve. The earliest proven character from the Bible is Abraham.
Wow, that is both hilarious and scary that a grown man believes that. We have substantial proof we evolved. There was no garden of eden. Further, even if your faerie tales were real, we live in a secular nation.
Well, you've just put to lie your claim that yours is a religious concern since you voted against the civil rights of your fellow Americans.
Now had you voted against anyone being allowed to legally marry, that would have supported your earlier assertion that you want government out of the marriage business. But instead all you did was vote against the legal rights of the people you hate, while you yourself enjoy being legally married.
Looks like you're just another greedy bigot, and a very dishonest person.
No true Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
You and others have stated that christianity, no major religion, etc. accepts gay marriage. Present example. Response is they are not "real" christians. Ergo the fallacy.
NO I didn't. Nothing prohibits people from forming legal partnerships for the legal control of assets and beneficiary agreements.
CA has Civil Union licensed contracts already in place.
Nor Shrekk do I hate anyone nor have I ever hated anyone. I follow my obedience to Christ which supercedes anything of Govt when Govt tries to require disobedience to God.
No EngEsq- either you misconstrued my statements or my wording allowed you to distort my views.
the fact of Christian ban on homosexual marriage is not merely a Christian doctrine. I was noting that in addition to Christianity, all major religious faiths ban homosexual marriage.
I was not equating other religious faiths with or within Christianity
That is not a logical fallacy.
Edie Windsor disagrees, as does the Department of Justice and numerous federal courts.
And the CA supreme court found those to be unconstitutional, unequal in fact, and an expression of unlawful bias. Civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't recognized by the feds, between states, or internationally.
You're simply a greedy bigot who thinks he deserves special rights and privileges while other Americans are treated as 2nd-class citizens.
Allswell, we have the statement of the person who created Adam and Eve in the person of Jesus who is God.
So either Jesus is God and creator and says that Adam and Eve were real people, or He was a lunatic or a liar.
I accept Jesus at His word which is why He is my Lord and Savior.
So Shrekk, the fact that I have openly stated that States are authorized under the Constitution to issue civil contracts between individuals including heterosexuals, homosexuals, and who ever they wish means I'm a bigot? Only in your own bigoted mind and those who share in your bigotry
It's only you bigoted Southern Baptists and Mormons who ban same-sex marriage, not all of "Christianity." The bigoted cult you belong to is the same one which also banned mixed-race marriage.
Reform and Conservative Jews certainly don't share your bigotry or your hate, nor do Buddhists and many other non-Abrahamic faiths.
The civil contract is the one we call "marriage". That's the one you think you deserve access to, but you voted for gays to be denied access to that civil, secular contract.
You're no better than the racist Southern Baptists of Virginia who thought mixed-race couples should be denied the civil contract of marriage.
1) Chistians don't accept gay marriage.
2) Episcopalians accept gay marriage.
3) Episcopalians are not real christians.
The VERY definition of the no true scotsman fallacy. I know logic alludes you, but I cannot make this more clear without drawing diagrams.
Or he plain doesn't exist, since no evidence of this Jesus character exists outside--again--the Bible and related religious texts. Despite being under the Romans (who had fairly stringent registration requirements), no record exists of his life or death.
So once again, you rely on fiction to try and claim fact, and it doesn't work. Welcome to reality, leave your fairy tales at home.
elude, not allude
Eng,
I really enjoy a good venn diagram. Can you use one of those?
Too nerdy???
I did not realize that Jesus was in attendance at that first garden party. I though all that happened back in god's wild and crazy bachelor days, you know, before he decided to settle down and have a family by impregnating another mans wife.
Ah, good times, good times.
Never too nerdy Sarah. Never. :)
Smear santorum on our values and we're what-supposed to celebrate it?Sickening
your "values" are denying rights to others? how lame and pathetic. Try iran. :)
The santorum from you is lame and icky and pathetic
well, THAT's a mature response. lol. How does it feel to be unamerican and deny rights to others? :)
Blasphemy! Gay mirage!
Walter_P_Oreilly
When I get on my horse's back I "INFORM" her that I want a ride, and she doesn't buck me off she "CONSENTS" to let me ride. WHY IS THAT NOT "INFORMED CONSENT"???
===================================================================
I have a neighbor that want's to marry his "HORSE" who is female and of age in human years but not horse years, and was wondering if that will be legal after SCOTUS rules later next year.
And also wants to marry his "DOG" who is male and considered a minor in dog "AND" human years.
And also wants to marry his one of his "EWES" who is sterile, due to a failure of normal ovarian follicle development, and considered a minor in human years but of age in sheep years.
He was wondering if he can knock all this out with 1 ceremony or does this have to be done separately and everything will be on the up and up (legal) after SCOTUS rules later this year.
He also has a first cousin (female and of age) that he is considering proposing to.
But all of the above having given consent.
Could someone from the gay community please lend some insight, he is really going through an identity crisis and needs help soon.
i'm not from the gay community, i just wanted to point out that your questions are stupid and have been answered many times. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand why none of this applies to animals. :)
Logic and critical reasoning are not things people like the original poster have the ability to do, vermontguy. His entire post is logical fallacy of the worst kind and something I would expect from a child and not from a reasonable adult.
yeah, I know, walter is a "legend in his own mind" who cuts and pastes the same nonsense over and over. His questions are incredibly stupid and obvious to anyone with any intelligence, why he keeps posting them and making himself look dull is an interesting question.
why can you have your way, and my cousin can't have his way
Is his love for his horse, dog and sheep offending you in any way?
Are you harmed in any way if the above relationships take place?
Walter,
When the horse can tell your cousin that he/she wishes to have a sexual relationship with him/her than so be it. I assume that this horse is not Mr. Ed so therefor consent can't be given. If consent can't be given than these sexual acts toward the horse are abusive.
This really is simply, Walter. Are you having trouble still?
Using your ridiculous arguments, implied consent is not legally admissible for sexual activities, particularly when there is no way to articulate the consent. Animals do not speak. Just because you can get on a horse's back without being thrown off does not mean it consents to you being there; it simply means it either doesn't care or doesn't want to bother. It is also a superfluous argument for this reason: most horses are broken before they can be ridden. It is the equivalent of a slave relationship.
still as clueless as ever about the legal basis for marriage I see, walter. lol.
but rest assured that God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ has not and will not.
The only way that's going to work is if we all pretend there really is a God.
Walter_P_Oreillybanned for comment spamming.
Amen!
And Halleluia! LOL
But he's already back (probably learned from JesusIsMyDog/YouCantHandleTheTruth); he's using the name Walter P O'Rielly now.
Walter_P_Oreilly
When I get on my horse's back I "INFORM" her that I want a ride, and she doesn't buck me off she "CONSENTS" to let me ride. WHY IS THAT NOT "INFORMED CONSENT"???
===================================================================
I have a neighbor that want's to marry his "HORSE" who is female and of age in human years but not horse years, and was wondering if that will be legal after SCOTUS rules later next year.
And also wants to marry his "DOG" who is male and considered a minor in dog "AND" human years.
And also wants to marry his one of his "EWES" who is sterile, due to a failure of normal ovarian follicle development, and considered a minor in human years but of age in sheep years.
He was wondering if he can knock all this out with 1 ceremony or does this have to be done separately and everything will be on the up and up (legal) after SCOTUS rules later this year.
He also has a first cousin (female and of age) that he is considering proposing to.
But all of the above having given consent.
Could someone from the gay community please lend some insight, he is really going through an identity crisis and needs help soon.
#10.13 - Wed Jan 9, 2013 1:18 PM EST
Walter_P_Oreilly
There is a "CHICKEN" issue involving both an minor "ROOSTER" and a "OF AGE HEN" that may come into play soon, does anyone have some advice here.
oh yes and can the above CHICKENS get married also., WILL THE SCOTUS RULING COVER THERE UPCOMING DIVORCE SO MY COUSIN CAN MARRY THE HEN OR NOT.
He wants his employer to cover any up coming "VET BILLS"
Ignorance must be bliss, huh Walter?
Stop comment spamming, Walter.
People like Walter is what is wrong with the country.
why walters insists on making himself look stupid by endlessly posting this inane drivel is an interesting question only his psychiatrist knows for sure. :)
no more insane than the suggestion that homosexual behavior is not a perversion.
since "perversion" is a subjective term that changes over time, your statement is wrong. People used to think that black men and white women having sex was perversion too...do you agree? yes or not. :)
My definitions are not my own and not subjective. They are those of God.
God has NEVER stated that mixed race marriages are a perversion.
I obviously don't agree with mixed race marriage being a perversion since I'm married to a black/hispanic woman
You mean the god that nobody can agree on exactly what all he says? The god defined in a book with hundreds of different translations saying different things? That god?
I'm afraid that definition then is your own and entirely subjective.
14th amendment does not work here because homosexuality is not a sex or gender
i'll wait for actual legal experts to argue and rule on it, rather than believing an anonymous internet posters who doesn't even understand the idea of consent. :)
Walter,
Years from now you and those like you will be looked at in the same way that those who opposed women's rights or those who fought against the rights of the African American community are looked at today. My children will ask "How were people so dumb and misinformed back then?"..."Why were people so heartless?".
The good news is that the generations below us are far more tolerant and educated on these subjects than some of us today. Thankfully justice and fairness seems to win the day....eventually.
I think you just answered your own question since a denial of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional discrimination based on the relative gender of one's spouse, not on their sexual orientation per se.
No wonder you bigots are losing in all the court cases.
Scalia has already chimed in that the 14th amendment cannot be applied to gender discrimination or sexual choices.
Walter_P_Oreilly
Walter_P_Oreilly
Will SCOTUS deem the "man and woman" stuff unconstitutional.?
They will have too, then what all person's not related of age stuff.
What logical reason can you give to not include animals, your saying no one can love their pet?
Would in be OK for fido to be my "DOMESTIC PARTNER" so I can Have the VET BILLS PAID.
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DENY MY COUSIN'S RIGHTS WHILE SAYING WERE DENYING YOURS.
Larry,
Discrimination against the homosexual community will soon be found unconstitutional. Your view will be proven incorrect (at least in the court of law).
The great thing about America is that we all can have our own opinions. The best thing about America is that baseless discrimination against groups is always taken care of...eventually. Fairness will win the day Larry and you'll be on the wrong side of history...in my opinion.
larry: no doubt scalia agrees with walter. yawn. How will the other judges rule?
Scalia will have Thomas and Alito and hopefully also Roberts and Kennedy.
Scalia will also make the argument that nothing prohibited the people of CA from amending their Constitution and thus the Court actions are illegal.
Yep, he's been on the losing side of all those cases, like Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas. That's what it means to be the author of the dissent in a court ruling......it means you lost because your legal reasoning was flawed, wrong, and unconvincing. It means the majority thinks that you're a dumb bigot.
No surprise since Scalia is a Christofascist just like you are, Larry. No surprise that both of you bigots are on the wrong side of history and on the losing side in court.
And just an FYI, Kennedy authored the two key gay rights precedents. That means you've already lost on this issue, big time.
That means you've already lost on this issue, big time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK but I"ll accept that, because I am on the winning side judgment day.
===================================================
Cool......my gay daughter can now have the same civil rights you and I already enjoy, and your imaginary friend can torture her after she's dead and her brain and nervous system no longer function.
Sounds like a fair trade.
the Episcopal Church has gone to Hell !!
The church is just beginning to wake up, Crackerjack.
Sick, abomination, sin. The leader of this building is apostate.
Seems like the leader of that building is doing exactly what his religion requires.
Either that or you mistakenly think the Episcopal church is as bigoted as your own.
The American Episcopalian Hierarchy abandoned following Jesus many years ago. If they had any decency, they would admit they are a non-Christian organization.
And unless they repent and return to Christ, these blind guides are destined for hell along with those who's sins they endorse.
Rev Larry Robinson
And for you antagonists- this has NOTHING to do with govt. It's about the internal structure of the Body of Christ and our commandments from Jesus since the first century. That includes what actions we in the Body of Christ take towards those who claim to be part of us yet engage in willful rebellion against Christ.
Larry,
Jesus would want homosexuals treated in the same way as everyone else. He wouldn't ask the children of God to deliver his punishments here on earth but, rather, would ask that we not judge and allow God to pass these punishments for the sins on earth. He simply asked that we love thy brother as we'd have them love us.
Jesus did call us to love people, but to never condone their sins. Jesus rebuked sin and commands all who follow Him to do likewise, especially those of us in ministry. Even the prostitute, Jesus told her to go and SIN NO MORE.
There is no difference in condemning homosexual behavior as Jesus did along with adultery, rape, murder, theft and other sins.
Larry,
But it's not your job to uphold, back, or push laws into place that punish a group that you believe are sinning. God asked that you save such judgement for Him.
You are only to love thy neighbor regardless of their sin.
Sounds like Larry wants the Episcopal church to conform its theology to the bigoted Southern Baptist theology.
This will all be over in July after the Supreme court rules that this discrimination against the homosexual community is unconstitutional. And...America, justice, and fairness win and the Republicans will lose again. Republicans find themselves on the wrong side on almost every social issue....will they learn?
You can never be on the wrong side of anything by standing against moral perversion.
Scalia has already chimed in that the 14th amendment cannot be applied to gender discrimination or sexual choices.
Bastardize everything.To tke the omission of mentioning homosexuality in our nations documents as carte blanche acceptance of it is ludicrous at best
Scalia is an idiot. He didn't even utilize his legal argument correctly. His only good opinions are regarding contract law where his biases don't cloud his ability to reason.
Secondly, morals are subjective. I find your positions morally reprehensible. Thankfully we don't legislate morality.
Larry,
However, you'll always be wrong siding with bigotry and discrimination. Remember...it's not your job to pass punishment (not allowing gays to marry). God asked that you love all of your brothers no matter the sin and to allow Him to pass judgements to those who have sinned.
Jesus did call us to love people, but to never condone their sins. Jesus rebuked sin and commands all who follow Him to do likewise, especially those of us in ministry. Even the prostitute, Jesus told her to go and SIN NO MORE.
There is no difference in condemning homosexual behavior as Jesus did along with adultery, rape, murder, theft and other sins.
Larry,
But it's not your job to uphold, back, or push laws into place that punish a group that you believe are sinning. God asked that you save such judgement for Him.
You are only to love thy neighbor regardless of their sin.
You're citing as authoritative the bigoted nutball who authored the dissent in Romer and in Lawrence?
Do you even understand what it means to have authored the dissent? It means your side lost.
Well good thing there's eight other Justices, huh? Although you can probably count Uncle Thomas out, too.
Our country really is going to hell on a sled.
Don't worry, Jebus can tell if you've been naughty or nice!
yeah, more freedom? that's crazy talk!
Empirically our nation is much better off now than the average of it's existence. We've been much worse of economically (during the depression). We've been in worse debt (as percentage of GDP after WWII). We used to have slavery, women were property, we committed genocide on natives, we enjoined war as aggressors, we interned our own citizens, we denied people the ability to vote, we segregated, violence is at all time lows...
If this is hell, then it ain't too bad.
How the @!$%# can we go to hell on a sled??? Isn't it hot there?
How did I miss that... good point.
@imnotlost - and he is slowly but surely getting the word out! Thanks!
Besides since when does the church "own" marriage?
So for all of you folks of faith that claim you own marriage at what point in the above process was the church involved? Now if you are refering to HOLY MATRIMONY that is another subject entirely and only applies to those who are of faith. Oh and just because you are of faith and I am not does not make you right; it makes you different. You are perfectly entitled to your "opinion" as am I. However when your "opinion" affects my civil liberties and quality of life then we need to act.
Skip religion altogether.To take a meaning,long understood by anyone to have a DENOTATION with a certain meaning and change that for the sake of an outre lifestyle smacks of all the absurd loopholes lawyers and bill clinton found[the meaning of 'is'].I think sarah and some others have devoted their education to the law.So disturbing
So traditional "denotation" trump rights. Glad to know where you are coming from.
You are using the fact that it was not written down to refuse to acknowledge 'gay marriage' as not only tacit approval[har har] by the constitution,but to interpret it legally as meaning the approval
No pained, I'm using the 14th amendment, and the arguments of Loving v Virginia. Most of our rights are not strictly enumerated. And all which are are refined and given scope through subsequent case law.
It is such a shame that a so called Church of God would go against God's word. The bible does say that people will be decieved, even by the church. Call it what you what but when the good Lord comes, this so called same sex marriage will not be honored according to the bible. Regardless of your belief and wanting to ignore God, it is HIS inherent word, not mine. Well stated Larry Robinson.
SoCal,
God also asked that you not pass judgement on others and allow God to do so.
Nobody likes losing.
Christians are called by Christ to judge contrary to the disinformation spread by those who don't know Him or His word.
Jesus NEVER forbid judgment. In fact, He did quite the contrary. Christians have a moral duty to judge.
The Matthew quote is often misused by atheists, but not usually by those who claim to be pastors and should know better.
Which Jesus told you never to judge? Not the Jesus who is God in the Flesh, who died and rose on the 3rd day. He never made any statements barring judgment by believers. In fact just the opposite.
In Matthew 7, Jesus does not forbid judgment, but warns to judge with righteous judgment by stating to be careful how you judge because we will by judged by the same standard. As believers filled with the presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16)
This is confirmed by His statements in the books of John and Luke.
Jesus said in John 7:24 “Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance (superficially and by appearances); but judge fairly and righteously.” (Amplified Bible)
In Luke 12:57 Jesus said “And why do you not judge what is just and personally decide what is right?”
Echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:2,3 “Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? So if you’re going to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging insignificant cases? Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention things in this life?”
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 3,4
Luke 6:37
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
Luke 6:31
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
See Larry...the Bible contradicts itself now doesn't it? I for one think the Bible is just a story book with great lessons. The Bible can be used to enforce radical and discriminatory views as yours or used for good and fairness. If there is a God I'd think he would be more appreciative to those who loved and treated all as I and most would want to be treated rather than if I was cold and heartless toward specific groups.
It must suck to devote your entire life to something that isn't real.
EngEsq
It must suck to devote your entire life to something that isn't real.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What do you devote your life to?
nothing you say
====================================
Vipp you are quoting out of context. We are not to judge by our own standards, but by God's righteousness.
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged Matthew 7:1,2 (the same message from the Sermon on the Mount).
Except for some recent liberal revisionists, no serious commentary suggests that Christians are forbidden from Judging. That would make the other commands from Jesus to judge be a contradiction and they aren't .
http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=7&contentID=2840&commInfo=6&topic=Matthew&ar=Mat_7_1
Judging: The Christian's Duty
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/judging.html
One of the best known and most misunderstood and misapplied Scriptures is "Judge not" (Matthew 7:1). Let us examine the entire passage:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).
Read this again carefully. Notice that it is addressed to a hypocrite!-not to those who sincerely want to discern whether a teacher or teaching is true or false to God's Word. And instead of being a prohibition against honest judgment, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. In fact, the last statement of this Scripture commands sincere judgment-"Then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." If we take a verse or a part of a verse out of its setting, we can make the Word of God appear to teach the very opposite of what it really does teach. And those who do this cannot escape the judgment of God for twisting His Word (2 Peter 3:16). Let this be a warning to us never again to take a text of Scripture out of its context.
Many who piously quote, "Judge not," out of its context, in order to defend that which is false to God's Word, do not see their own inconsistency in thus judging those who would obey God's Word about judging that which is untrue to the Bible. It is tragic that so much that is anti-Scriptural has undeservedly found shelter behind a misuse of the Scripture just quoted. The reason the professed church of Christ is today honeycombed and paralyzed by satanic Modernism is because Christians have not obeyed the commands of God's Word to judge and put away and separate from false teachers and false teaching when they first appeared in their midst. Physical health is maintained by separation from disease germs. Spiritual health is maintained by separation from germs of false doctrine. The greatest peril of our day is not too much judging, but too little judging of spiritual falsehood.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Introduction/judge.htm
They rush back with, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." (Matthew 7:1) This common occurrence has provoked me to Biblical study and research on the subject of judging. My intention is to prove that Christians not only may, but must judge. First, I will demonstrate that it is impossible not to judge, and second, that the Bible commands believers to judge.
The fact that it is impossible not to judge must be seen by examining everyday activities. All people judge and could no more avoid it than they could avoid breathing. Judging as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary is: "To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character." Some examples of judging are: telling someone he is a great person, choosing friends, deciding what church to attend, saying Hitler was a bad man, choosing to walk or to run, or picking what to have for dinner.
All people must make choices, and every choice is a judgment. Even by choosing not to judge, one is making a judgment; one is simply judging that it is wrong to judge. Therefore, if you do not judge, you judge, and if you do judge, you judge. Judging is an inevitable part of human life. For instance, one must judge whom to marry or whether to marry. Judging is a necessity! I challenge anyone to try to go one day without judging. It is impossible; the very attempt is in itself a judgment.
After hearing the above argument, some will respond, "That is just logic; show me Bible verses to prove this." It is easy to find Scriptures that command Christians to pass judgment. Six times, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul instructs believers to judge, and twice he rebukes them for not judging. "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Corinthians 2:15)
So, if someone is truly saved he has the responsibility to judge good and evil. Later, in chapter 6 verse 3, Paul questions the Corinthians, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?" The apostle reasons that because God considers Christians able to judge angels, the same believers are also qualified to judge people, who are lower than the angels.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/judgenot.htm
In three words, blunt and absolute, Jesus commanded us, "Do not judge" (Matt. 7:1). But did he really mean that we should never judge others? He goes on to suggest that it's not the act of judging but the attitude with which we do it that God is most concerned about—"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged" (7:2).
There are other Scriptures that either cloud or shed light on the issue. Paul told the Christians in Rome not to judge one another (Rom. 14:13) but taught the Corinthians that they were to judge sinful believers and leave people outside the church to God (1 Cor. 5:12-13). James said he who judges his brother speaks against the law (4:11) but also implied that our judgments of others must be done with mercy (2:12-13).
Common sense suggests that if no one ever judged other people, there would be no real human community. In a sinful world, no community can exist for long where nobody is ever held accountable: no teacher would grade a student's performance; no citizen would sit on a jury or call a failed leader to account. And, when you come to think of it, nobody would ever forgive anyone for wrongs he had done; we only forgive people for what we blame them, and we blame them only after we have judged them.
I would suggest that, in our day and age, we need more—not less—judgment. Modern Americans suffer from a fear of judging. Passing judgment on the behavior of fellow human beings is considered an act of medieval, undemocratic intolerance.
Why? Because, our culture tells us, we are all flawed people, and people with flaws have no right to judge other people's flaws. Furthermore, modern Americans do not believe that there are objective standards by which to judge. And where there are no standards, there is nothing by which to measure behavior.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/october1/29.70.html
We are not acting as "final" judge. Nothing in our judgment sends someone to hell. We are proclaiming and exercising the judgment that Christ has empowered us to carry out.'
And certainly if we care about our souls, we should want someone to judge that our actions are separating us from God. That is the true caring, not the superficial that you are suggesting.
I've devoted my life to my family, my community, and making this world a better place than when I entered it.
You are, apparently, devoted to a faerie tale, and oppressing people.
I think I have a much better life.
Walter, it seems like you're a typical Christian and have reregistered after being banned.
Looks like your morals are rather poor.
Rereg troll reported.
Great way to give yourself credibility, Walter...not.
Walter O'rielly banned, re-reg of banned user Walter_P_Oreilly.
Bart Conner
These Old Testament rules were swept away with Jesus.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No they weren't.
Now it's high time you come out of your spiritual coma and "REPENT and "OBEY" God before it's too late.
PRAISE GOD!
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses or
writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain until it's purpose is achieved.
=======================================================================
Walter,
Are you ok with stoning your wife then? Ok with selling our daughters?
So sad for you that Leviticus was not "god's laws". It was the Jewish Social Code.
All,
So Jews have specific laws from God? Stoning and child trafficking? What a God, huh?
I'm just glad that Walter supports Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
I hope he follows it to the letter.
Vipp
All,
So Jews have specific laws from God? Stoning and child trafficking? What a God, huh?
#25.3 - Wed Jan 9, 2013 2:44 PM EST
skrekk
I'm just glad that Walter supports Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
I hope he follows it to the letter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes I will
This isn't referring to young children. Just notice, it says the person is a 'glutton and a drunkard,' so it is referring to a young adult who is old enough to drink. Also notice that the son was not put to death until he was brought to trial before “the older men of his city.”
This was done in Bible times as a last resort to someone who was repeatedly wicked & is an example of how important it is to discipline (lovingly, of course) children. An undisciplined child has no boundaries & becomes selfish at the expense of other people. In fact, usually he/she does not fit in well with society & cannot interact well with other people. On the other hand, a child that is lovingly disciplined is confident & social. Children need boundaries & this is explained to them.
========================================================================
Walter, it's good to hear that you'll stone your disobedient children to death, but only after they're old enough.
Even better to hear that you won't take responsibility for killing them yourself but you'll have someone else do it for you. Isn't that like hiring a contract killer?
skrekk
Walter, it's good to hear that you'll stone your disobedient children to death, but only after they're old enough.
Even better to hear that you won't take responsibility for killing them yourself but you'll have someone else do it for you. Isn't that like hiring a contract killer?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Listen to yourself, you can make no case spiritually, economically, constitutionally so I guess it's back to the closet for you.
============================================================
The Law of Moses doesn't apply to Christians. That's why it is not necessary to use it in confronting the sin of homosexual behavior.
Jesus Himself condemned ALL sexual immorality which includes homosexual behavior.
Jesus affirmed in Matthew 19 that when He created Adam and Eve, He established marriage as consisting of a man and a woman. He addressed specifically that sexual sins including homosexuality defiles you in Matthew 15:18-20
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
Fornication as defined by the law of Mose that Jesus gave to him, and the Noahidic Law that He gave Noah was any sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman.
this teaching that was given to the apostles was formalized at the Jerusalem Council by the Apostles
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well Acts 15:24-29
He affirms as the Risen Lord and as God in the book of Revelation that no sexual immoral person (again the word pornea in greek, fornication in English) shall enter heaven
I am the First and the Last. I am the beginning and the end. Those who wash their clothes clean are happy (who are washed by the blood of the Lamb). They will have the right to go into the city through the gates. They will have the right to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Outside the city are the dogs. They are people who follow witchcraft and those who do sex sins and those who kill other people and those who worship false gods and those who like lies and tell them.
“I am Jesus. I have sent My angel to you with these words to the churches. I am the beginning of David and of his family. I am the bright Morning Star.” Revelation 22:13-16
You do realize that pornea and fornici both relate to prostitution, right?
So many mistranslations, so little time...
From what I've heard your Jesus never mentioned gays at all, but he was really fond of his friend John.
Sounds like your Jesus was in the closet.
Jesus, the bastard son of mary, and foundation for one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind, has no meaning in a rational society. Please feel free to keep your imaginary friend, but do not force the rest of us to acknowledge him. Religion is nothing but a way to keep some, ahem, ignorant peasants under control.
I'm glad to see that larry acknowledges that he's a christo-fascist totalitarianist by voting to impose government restrictions on people's rights to marry.
he's always whining about the democratic communists, but he doesn't mind voting against freedom when it suits his opinions. What a hypocrite. lol.
Allswell- you are wrong. As a theologian I will be happy to demonstrate that your definition is nonsense
illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV
As defined during the time of Jesus and to this day by orthodox Judaism
All of these fell under the definition of fornication
"...against [a man] having union with his mother."
"...against [a man] having union with his sister."
"...against [a man] having union with the wife of his father."
"...against [a man] having union with another man's wife."
"...against [a man] copulating with a beast."
"...against a woman copulating with a beast."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with a male."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father's brother."
"...against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union. [That is, petting by persons whose marriage would be illicit.]"
Well Jeff- I'm not forcing you in any way to acknowledge Him; but you will when you die.
Larry,
Do you believe that we should be able to sell our daughters? Stone our wives if they commit adultery?
Larry:
If I am wrong, then rest assured I will give him the finger, kick him in the privates, and demand answers for what he and his followers have done.
Does this mean we can throw out the 10 Commandments? Of course, the law of Moses doesn't apply to our secular law either.
Jesus made a lot of crazy claims. "I'm the son of god" and all that nonsense. No reason to actually take it face value though.
Not even a little!
It's hard to do anything when one is dead, except stay dead.
Arrrrgh...mother@!$%#ing NV glitches. Lost my entire post.
To sum up: read the bloody context and original language.
A) The sentence, when translated, is missing key words that determine its meaning. Replacing "as with" with "in the" completely changes the sentence.
B) 18:21 and 20:2 speak specifically of the worship of Molech, which included a practice of leaving one's seed inside the temple priestess...or priest. This was believed to give them immortality. Molech's worship was common in Egypt (the land they came from) and Caanan (the land they entered).