Gay people need the church.  Try to make a friend of a gay person.  It’s the Christian way, isn’t it?

Dan Valdes

Every time this issue has come to a vote in individual states, the ammendment has passed.  In terms of a mere democratic process, the will of the public is clear.

Without a Marriage Protection Amendment at the Federal level, it will only take one case, in one court, in one state to mandate gay marriage for all the other states.  Why?  Because the ‘full faith and credit clause’ of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) requires each state to honor another state’s laws.

Question:  Which induces more government power?
A) Legislation passed by elected representatives of the people or
B) a national mandate from a handful of appointed state judges?

-True.  At the very same time, it is not the role of the church to condone sinful and destructive behavior.  In Romans Chapter 1, Paul places as much responsibility on the church as he does people who knowingly engage in sinful behavior. (Romans 1:22-31, 32) In other words, the church that condones (any) sinful behavior is a church that is neglecting it’s duty and is (itself) sinning.

Dan also stated “Try to make a friend of a gay person.  It’s the Christian way, isn’t it?”

-Yes. Yet again (as the church), a friendship that does not care enough to, in love, speak the truth is no friendship at all.  (1 Corinthians 13:6 , Romans 13:13) As with any other destructive behavior (substance abuse for example), it is not a friend who remains silent while his friend damages his body and spirit.

It is interesting to note that, had the Senate voted on the Federal ammendment they way their states continue to vote on this issue, the Federal ammendment would have passed with an 80% vote.

Marriage is one man and one woman under the laws that already exst and have been upheld by the courts. We do not need a constitutional amendment.

ANSWER: Congressional pay raises. (Ammendment 27)

We (the ERLC) are of the mind that if congressional pay raises are important enough include in the Constitution, so is marriage.

The law should be changed so they can be married by the justices of the peace.

I personally cannot become really motivated about stopping gay marriage when the church did little or nothing when my marriage was falling apart and my plea’s to the church and prayers to God for restoration were fruitless.

If my SBC church believes marriage is Holy, I certainly did not see it in the lack of effort presented in saving my marriage. 

Want my support for a marriage amendment?  Get busy in putting MY marriage back together.  Show me that you really support the family, not just with your words, but with your very efforts in putting my family back together.

Yes you may vote for the candidates who are “pro-family” and yes you may get a few years without the dreaded Gays and Lesbians being able to get married, you and your gay countrymen may even go your entire life without it, but they will strike it from the books one day and you will be viewed as just another genderist(or some other word they will make up) in some history book somewhere. So look at other issues in the people you elect, and ask yourself if these politicians really care about your values and religion or just your vote.

Why not have a legal union offered by the state that would be required of everyone who wants to be treated legally as “united” or whatever the politically correct term would be ?

MT

I heard the same arguments in the ‘60s, against integration, in the ‘70s, against interracial marriage. 

Well Lisa, you seem to have overlooked a small detail; the Constitution of The United States of America. Under that small, overlooked document, which establishes the rule of law in the aforementioned United States of America, there is NO provision for YOUR morality to override anyone’s right to the pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, Lisa, YOUR determination, and YOUR arrogation of what their legal rights should be, IS bigotry, IS politics, and IS a form of Christian dominionism.

YOUR morality is no different than the christianists that supported slavery, or opposed interracial marriage; they too had a plethora of biblical references to mask their bigotry.

History is filled with those who used religion as a convenient sheild for dark and unholy motives. Is this nation truly free, or is freedom exclusive to those who agree with your views?

You say god instituted marriage - I say where’s your proof? (you’ll need to start with proving a god actually exists).

You say “there is nothing to debate or argue” but here you are.. debating and arguing.

Your so-called “undeniable truth” is simply a statement of faith - it is not based on logic.

I’m sure you mean well but it’s time for people who share your beliefs to really examine how they arrived at their current position. How can a belief system based upon a hotchpotch of stories written by ignorant men in unsophisticated times really have any credibility?

Thanks for your work and GOD BLESS

helen

According to the SBC [or at least part of it], homosexuals don’t even exist! http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314166|CHID611100|CIID2036152,00.html

[part 2, 2nd paragraph] “First and foremost, a homosexual person simply does not exist. Homosexuality should be considered as an adjective—a behavior—and not as a noun or label defining a person. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, one of the foremost experts on the causes of homosexuality as a sexual disorder and founder of NARTH, National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, states, “There is no such thing as a homosexual person. We are all heterosexuals.”

Somebody should explain that ‘denial’ is not just a river in Africa!!!

You ask for respect yet you openly show disrespect for non believers by saying you’ll pray for us - you don’t show respect to vegetarians by offering them a piece of meat.

Seriously, Maureen, what ‘beliefs’ would YOU advocate fighting for, that would not denigrate someone else’s rights? 

When was the Christian [or any other] religion granted copyright on the term ‘marriage’? Remember; this is CIVIL marriage; the kind conducted at city hall, or at the Chapel of the Everwailing Elvis, in ‘Vegas. Sanctity? Riiight!

I have asked this question several times on this and other forums. To date, NOBODY has responded.

If you believe that civil law should be written in accordance with Biblical law, why bother with the peripherals? Go to nimero uno: The ‘prime directive’ in Christianity! Why has NOT A SINGLE “CHRISTIAN” answered this simple, straightforeward question?

More marriages are being destroyed by No Fault Divorce and do-nothing churches than will ever be destroyed by allowing Same Sex Marriage.

I am in no way in favor of same sex marriage.  However, I believe the intense focus on that issue has distracted the church (SBC and others) from the very real crisis that is occurring in the church.

The Barna research indicates that divorce rates are really no different in the church compared to outside the church and the SBC seems to have one of the highest if not THE highest divorce rate of any church body.

more to follow

Yet, when I went to my SBC church for help with my marriage.  I couldn’t find it.  I could find sign up sheets for petitions regarding the defense of marriage act or similar efforts.

Where is the effort to strengthen what existing marriages mean, by getting rid of no-fault divorces, calling on churches to lovingly confront members who are unfaithful, using the process described in Matthew 18. 

Too many think of that as a process to ex-communicate a member, but the way I read it, it is far from that.  The idea of the process is to entice the member back into fellowship.

Perhaps too many are beating other sinners over the heads with 20# King James study Bibles, instead of offering them the hope of real joy in Christ.

As was mentioned above, the former homosexual who cited that it was love and grace that won him out of that life, not judgmental attitude.

I must say that while I haven’t agreed with many (most) of your posts to ERLC.com articles, you just said something I applaud you for clarifying:

“This is not a Baptist view...”

Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing this out! There are many who’ve attempted to put the SBC (and ERLC) under that ‘reconstructionist/theonomy’ banner and it just has no bearing in fact.

Thank you for stating that this is NOT a Baptist view.  :-)

Considering Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, and the second paragraph of the sixth article of the American constitution in the light of Deuteronomy 28, do you think that a theonomic amendment might help? otherwise consider II Kings 17.