Would you marry a gay couple...

[Neo Deist]

So anything your wife says she heard your friend say or saw him/ her doing, you dismiss as hearsay, until you can confirm it directly? After all, your wife ":hasa tendency to embellish a story," so why should you just take her at her word?

Yes.

I listen to her story like a good husband should, I nod my head a few times as if I am genuinely interested, and as soon as she is done gossiping, I go back to the ball game on TV.

 

[Etritonakin]

The separation of church and state would not make a difference -unless you are saying that you can perform marriages as only a representative of the state in one instance (without mention of God, etc.), and as a minister of God in another instance. Marriages are not always religious, but a minister should be.

As a minister and representative of the God of the bible, it would certainly be against biblical teaching to perform such a marriage -and those seeking a non-religious marriage would not likely go to a religious minister.

What people do is none of my business, and I would not judge or condemn any -or treat them badly or with disrespect -but if I were a minister, I would personally be extremely careful what I supported or promoted as a representative of God.

There may be a separation of church and state, but God's laws are not to be altered by man. God, his ministers and his church should be likeminded -with God in authority.

There is some consideration to be given to those affected by present imperfections in the creation -such as true intersexuals (application of the law was to be based on the initially-intended state of distinct males and females) -but it would be incorrect to simply assume that homosexuality is due to intersexuality and so perform homosexual marriages.

Obeying God's laws often have to do with going against natural tendency -so simple attraction is also not a valid reason. Homosexual acts and same-sex attraction need not have anything to do with intersexuality.

 

[Berserk]

Neo Deist, consider these two points:
(1) You, an ordained Christian minister, reject the claim that disciples chosen and trained by Jesus would just make up all the miracle stories?
(2) You reject eyewitness testimony as hearsay even though:
(a) It is often the basis of legal convictions, when corroborating evidence is lacking.
(b) More importantly, like everyone else, you daily and routinely accept as fact reports that you get second-hand.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Jehovah's people are to be "clean"...morally, spiritually and physically. There are no exceptions because God makes the rules.

Can we take the fact that the Watch Tower actively protects child molesters as a sign that it (and by extension God) considers child molesting a morally, spiritually and physically clean activity?

 

[JoStories]

I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama. Knowing that...

I was recently asked if I would ever marry a gay couple. My answer was, YES. The person that asked me that was taken back by my lack of hesitation in my answer. They could not believe what they just heard.

After they recovered from the initial shock, they asked "why?" This was my answer:

In this country, there is a separation of Church and State. The government (State) can't dictate to the Church how it is to be run, what to believe, or who can serve in a clergy-capacity. By the same token, the Church can't dictate the law to the government, regardless of what the issues might be.

I went on to explain that not everyone in this country is a Christian, so why should everyone be subject to Christian "law?" The US Constitution grants rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else, and that includes being married.

That person was speechless. I added that I personally do not agree with a gay lifestyle, but it is not my place to discriminate or judge. To each their own in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At that point they tried to make some type of come back and the best they could was to mutter something about children seeing two guys kissing in public. While I understand the confusion that might cause in a child, I actually can't recall a time that I have seen that happen. If it does, I will deal with it in my own way with regard to my children.

The last thing they mentioned was how gay men would be sexually abusive to children. I stopped them right there and explained that there is a HUGE difference between being gay and being a pedophile. People can be gay and have no attraction to children what-so-ever.

They walked off.

It was their loss. And what a refreshing outlook. Well said. An excellent post.

 

[JoStories]

Can I ask what is "Christian" about a gay marriage? Can they not get "married" in a non-religious ceremony? Civil ceremonies do not involve sanctioning something God would never recognize.

Perhaps the two people who happen to be gay are also Christian. You don't speak for God. What you post here as well as below is your belief, which you're entitled to. But it does not mean that that is truly what God would agree with or no.

God would never "yoke" together a same sex couple. Marriage mates must be "male and female".
I believe that your logic is sadly flawed and distorted by the world's attitude, not God's. The laws of the land do not override the laws of God. When did he change his mind about homosexuality? Sexual sin is sexual sin...no matter what the gender is.

The law states that you and those who are religious do not have the right to dictate what the word marriage means and how it is defined by that law. These things that you believe God would approve of or disapprove of are your beliefs. They may or may not be true or realistic. They certainly do not coincide with what I believe God wants for me. Where does that leave us? At an impasse. You believe your ideals, I do not. And until God speaks for God's self, either of us could be correct.

 

[JoStories]

It is a sacrifice on their part because they recognize that you cannot be a practicing homosexual and a Christian too. You can be one or the other, so you have to choose. Those who want their cake and eat it too are fooling themselves. You cannot be both.

Once again, many people who happen to be gay are also Christian. Whether that is something you see as wrong per how you view or understand God is between you and God. You do not pass judgment nor tell another couple that what they believe is wrong. I belong to a Unity church near me which is refreshing as any and all faiths can join and any and all race, gender, creed and sexual orientation is not only welcomed by known to be loved by God. Are you really willing to say you speak for God or truly know the mind of God? No man knows the mind of God (1st Corinthians 2; 11).

 

[JoStories]

Then their view is not really Christian...it is a compromise with the world....and we know who rules this world. (1 John 5:10)

No one rules the world and imo, your views are the height of hubris. God is the only one who can pass judgment on anyone. It is not up to you. You certainly don't seem to express the views of one who lives and breathes the word of God.

 

[savagewind]

Can we take the fact that the Watch Tower actively protects child molesters as a sign that it (and by extension God) considers child molesting a morally, spiritually and physically clean activity?

Right, except they passively protect child molesters. They teach to leave it to Jehovah to fix. So, when the child, who was hurt, grows up and realizes the Watchtower truth that it is to leave it to Jehovah to judge he will know that either Jehovah does not care or that there is no Jehovah.
The governing body is different than the Pope. The Catholic Church will pander to known pedophiles but the Jehovah's Witnesses will have them disfellowshipped if found out with convincing evidence. That is where their problem lies. Apparently, they never believe a child. Matthew 19:14

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Right, except they passively protect child molesters. They teach to leave it to Jehovah to fix. So, when the child, who was hurt, grows up and realizes the Watchtower truth that it is to leave it to Jehovah to judge he will know that either Jehovah does not care or that there is no Jehovah.
The governing body is different than the Pope. The Catholic Church will pander to known pedophiles but the Jehovah's Witnesses will have them disfellowshipped if found out with convincing evidence. That is where their problem lies. Apparently, they never believe a child. Matthew 19:14

Actually, the Watchtower has been using the First Amendment to shield itself from investigation into child abuse claims by secular legal authorities:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jehovahs-witness-child-sex-abuse_n_6705852.html

https://www.revealnews.org/article/...1st-amendment-to-hide-child-sex-abuse-claims/

... so "actively protects" applies here

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll see your Matthew 19:26 and raise you Matthew 19:12.

So you're saying that a man shouldn't always cleave to a wife?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(2) You reject eyewitness testimony as hearsay even though:
(a) It is often the basis of legal convictions, when corroborating evidence is lacking.
(b) More importantly, like everyone else, you daily and routinely accept as fact reports that you get second-hand.

I'm a race marshal (among other things). When I see a rule violation during a race, there's a form I have to fill out right away. Except for what's needed to do our jobs during the race, I'm not allowed to talk to other marshals about the incident.

If I wait an hour or two to write down what I saw, or if I chat with other marshalls about what happened (possibly causing my recollection to change), my report will get thrown out as unreliable and the driver who broke the rule won't be penalized.

Why should the question of whether Jesus was divine have a lower bar to clear than a pass under yellow does?

 

[savagewind]

Actually, the Watchtower has been using the First Amendment to shield itself from investigation into child abuse claims by secular legal authorities:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jehovahs-witness-child-sex-abuse_n_6705852.html

https://www.revealnews.org/article/...1st-amendment-to-hide-child-sex-abuse-claims/

... so "actively protects" applies here

Yes, but they are actively protecting their reputation not the child abusers. Their reputation is everything to them and their reputation stands on a literal obeisance to the written word. So they do what they do to protect their imagined standing with Jehovah, not for promoting pedophilia.

 

[McBell]

The separation of church and state would not make a difference -unless you are saying that you can perform marriages as only a representative of the state in one instance (without mention of God, etc.), and as a minister of God in another instance. Marriages are not always religious, but a minister should be.

As a minister and representative of the God of the bible, it would certainly be against biblical teaching to perform such a marriage -and those seeking a non-religious marriage would not likely go to a religious minister.

What people do is none of my business, and I would not judge or condemn any -or treat them badly or with disrespect -but if I were a minister, I would personally be extremely careful what I supported or promoted as a representative of God.

There may be a separation of church and state, but God's laws are not to be altered by man. God, his ministers and his church should be likeminded -with God in authority.

There is some consideration to be given to those affected by present imperfections in the creation -such as true intersexuals (application of the law was to be based on the initially-intended state of distinct males and females) -but it would be incorrect to simply assume that homosexuality is due to intersexuality and so perform homosexual marriages.

Obeying God's laws often have to do with going against natural tendency -so simple attraction is also not a valid reason. Homosexual acts and same-sex attraction need not have anything to do with intersexuality.

so much for "give unto Caesar..."

 

[Thanda]

The Catholic Church will pander to known pedophiles but the Jehovah's Witnesses will have them disfellowshipped if found out with convincing evidence. That is where their problem lies. Apparently, they never believe a child. Matthew 19:14

Oh, so you would like them to disfellowship people on someone's word with no evidence. Is that generally how you view justice and due process.

And what does looking for evidence have to do with the scripture you quoted?

 

[Thanda]

I'm a race marshal (among other things). When I see a rule violation during a race, there's a form I have to fill out right away. Except for what's needed to do our jobs during the race, I'm not allowed to talk to other marshals about the incident.

If I wait an hour or two to write down what I saw, or if I chat with other marshalls about what happened (possibly causing my recollection to change), my report will get thrown out as unreliable and the driver who broke the rule won't be penalized.xh

Why should the question of whether Jesus was divine have a lower bar to clear than a pass under yellow does?

Because it is unlikely that people would mistake whether or not Jesus raised someone (actually three) from the dead. They are either making it up or it happened: there could be no "changing of recollection".

 

[savagewind]

Oh, so you would like them to disfellowship people on someone's word with no evidence. Is that generally how you view justice and due process.

And what does looking for evidence have to do with the scripture you quoted?

The scripture has to do with the child's word being trustworthy. It is better for a spiritual man to suffer a little (if he had done nothing wrong) in comparison to the child who if she really was assaulted would be suffering a lot. Matthew 18:10
Can you see that they always put the two witness rule ahead of Matthew 18:10?
1 Peter 2:20

 

[Thanda]

The scripture has to do with the child's word being trustworthy. It is better for a spiritual man to suffer a little (if he had done nothing wrong) in comparison to the child who if she really was assaulted would be suffering a lot. Matthew 18:10
Can you see that they always put the two witness rule ahead of Matthew 18:10?
1 Peter 2:20

Okay, tell me, how did you figure out that the scripture was about trusting a child's word? If I remember correctly Jesus had been quite busy that day and when children wanted to interact with them Jesus told them not to deny the children to come to him. He made no statement about how truthful children are (and we all know children can and often do lie or tell less than the truth). He certainly did not give a dictate for people to base important decisions solely on what children tell them.

Any accusation by a child about abuse should be treated with the utmost seriousness. The seriousness requires those in charge to investigate the matter thoroughly - it does not require them convict without corroborating evidence.

 

[savagewind]

Okay, tell me, how did you figure out that the scripture was about trusting a child's word? If I remember correctly Jesus had been quite busy that day and when children wanted to interact with them Jesus told them not to deny the children to come to him. He made no statement about how truthful children are (and we all know children can and often do lie or tell less than the truth). He certainly did not give a dictate for people to base important decisions solely on what children tell them.

Any accusation by a child about abuse should be treated with the utmost seriousness. The seriousness requires those in charge to investigate the matter thoroughly - it does not require them convict without corroborating evidence.

I am able to glean wisdom from scripture. I guess it is because I am free.

Convict? Did you even read 1 Peter 2:20?

Do you understand that religious dogma will have the CHILD endure instead of the MAN?

 

[savagewind]

Anyway, we are off topic so I might as well go further off and say haha every time I read the title of this thread I think that I would not be married to two other women. Is it even legal?