tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post737546773822164376..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Obama uses Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to justify same sex marriagePeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-23640451040791736712012-05-11T05:51:58.294-07:002012-05-11T05:51:58.294-07:00you're right slicer. there is a massive miscon...you're right slicer. there is a massive misconception in the church that suddenly gay people will be married at the altar. same sex marriage as proposed by the current reforms is for state marriage only, same sex couples will not be able to have their marriage in the church. however, civil partnerships can be accompanied with church ceremonies in churches that choose to host these, and that's where it becomes a confusion because people think that suddenly gay unions will be endorsed by the church when actually if the legislation goes through it won't make any difference to the number or style of same sex unions that happen within a church building, in fact quite the contrary because non-christians would probably opt for state marriage. it is more likely to be committed christian couples who opt for civil partnerships so that they can have the ceremony in a church.lesbihonestyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05526326400655576888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-37222285597986469012012-05-11T05:04:16.122-07:002012-05-11T05:04:16.122-07:00I don't consider the above to be necessarily a...I don't consider the above to be necessarily at odds with my previous comment. At present at least, the legislation being considered is in a state context, not in a Church context. If folk want a Christian marriage in a church, conducted by clergy, they have to accept what the Christian Church's understanding is of Christian marriage (no other grouping is better placed to define it). I was responding to objections to the definition of marriage by society atlarge. Whilst we are entitled, (and arguably should) attempt to influence that, I'm not at all convinced we should be seeking to impose a Christian definition on those who don't subscribe to the faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-87433847172402479272012-05-11T00:21:11.122-07:002012-05-11T00:21:11.122-07:00Generally I wonder if the atheist/unbeliever is mi...Generally I wonder if the atheist/unbeliever is missing out all the theological arguments the Bible gives for marriage, and so they are left (like Obama seems to be in his recent speech), floundering to work out what is wrong with "gay marriage". By "marriage" I am talking about marriages conducted in a Christian church. <br /><br />There are creational aspects in Genesis that show God made a woman for Adam, clearly, and the Fall shows how things got changed in terms of a man and womans relationship. The Apostle Paul (not an Apostle by his own choosing, but by Christ's choice) builds on this in the New Testament, explaining how a man and woman in marriage is a symbol, or "type", of Christ Jesus with His Bride (the Church), and that when you have sex with someone you become "one flesh" with them...intercourse is not just rubbing bits or you against bits of another person...it matters in the Spirit. And Christians are called to be holy, even though we are saved out of all sorts of backgrounds and lifestyles in the mercy of God.<br /><br />Since the 60's we have heard of "free love", and slowly we have got used to fornication and adultery without comment, it has become seen as normal hetrosexual behaviour (and gay behaviour actually, as there is a recognised propensity amongst gays to swop partners regularly in the club scene). But the debate on gay life long faithfull marriage draws us back to the issue of what the Bible says clearly,- not vaugely,- that sex is for marriage between one man and one woman and gives reasons why. Free love is not taught in the Bible, the cost is marriage for life. <br /><br />I have to wonder why, if you are a non-beliver, would you want to get married in a Christian Church? Tokenism? But they are trying to force the Christian Church to bow down to athiest rules then. If they want to demand to married in a Christian Church, and tread over all our doctrine, it looks like Gay activists are going to have to do some serious Bible study to argue against Paul's assertions and the creational order revealed in Genesis, and later in the Pentatuch.<br /><br />Hetrosexualism is the new sin (sic) in the Cultural Marxist book of politically correct positions, as it were.marriage for sheep shaggers too!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261382397786100546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-65576099724462813752012-05-10T16:39:47.230-07:002012-05-10T16:39:47.230-07:00Without getting too explicit, are you REALLY propo...Without getting too explicit, are you REALLY proposing that marriage is defined by who puts what bits where? I imagine many heterosexual couples might run aground or at least feel that this wasn't something that they 'signed up to' when they were married. There's enough debate, even amongst Christians, about words like "submit" - what you're invoking opens up a whole can of worms...<br /><br />I come back to my original point - the created order is arguably the model rather than a human construct (democracy) for what is good (or very good). Democracy was not installed as part of the created order - it's a pretty modern addition. Freedom of choice was there from the start. It was also reiterated in Jesus' conversation with the rich young ruler, with Nicodemus, with the woman at the well, with the calling of the first disciples, with the woman caught in adultery... Even with Paul in Romans, folk are allowed to pursue their wishes to live in a way which is contrary to God's desire. Freedom of choice is clearly a priority to God, as He is revealed in both OT & NT. Indeed, if we accept Plantinga's argument on this issue (shanemuk's disparaging dismissal notwithstanding ;-)), it's the best understanding we have of the presence of moral evil in the created order.<br /><br />Can you find a single instance in the NT where Jesus required folk to jump through hoops before He accepted them? Sure, after they accepted him, or when they were contemplating following him, He pointed out the cost, but He never advocated compulsion to behave in a certain manner. And at what stage in his ministry/his disciples' discipleship did He suggest they be salt and light? After they'd recognised who He was doctrinally? No. After they were exemplary models in their personal lives? No. After they had sorted out their treatment of women and slaves? No.<br /><br />To be clear, my reading of the NT leaves it difficult for me to support an active homosexuality (however nice I would like to be towards friends and strangers), but that is a different matter from legislating against choice between consenting adults.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40884979864055028942012-05-10T09:09:56.984-07:002012-05-10T09:09:56.984-07:00One of the main problems is how a same sex marriag...One of the main problems is how a same sex marriage law would be framed without at the same time changing the nature of heterosexual marriage.<br /><br />The definitions of consummation and adultery are the most problematic as they are crucial in dissolution, inheritance etc.<br /><br />If marriage is to be fully equal then the definitions must be the same, but because of the anatomical differences(!) they can clearly not be.<br /><br />This will effectively decouple sex from marriage which will change the nature of heterosexual marriage profoundly.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-9628397146888976692012-05-10T08:55:31.883-07:002012-05-10T08:55:31.883-07:00yes CPs may provide the same rights, but as Obama ...yes CPs may provide the same rights, but as Obama is trying to say- the issue goes beyond simply 'rights'. Does anyone get married simply for the rights they gain? Did you marry your wife simply to have legal rights as a couple, or did you marry her also because marriage is a special recognition of your love, and for the official status of that? <br /><br />And as the point has been made so many times... 'marriage' is already being redefined through sham marriages, marriages that last mere hours etc. so many people would argue that gay marriage won't make any impact upon straight marriages, and i still fail to see what this impact is actually supposed to look like in reality. <br /><br />i am open to having my views changed but i have not yet found an argument that convinces me, or even almost convinces me, that letting same sex couples use the sacred word 'marriage' will have any impact on heterosexual marriage.lesbihonestyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05526326400655576888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-34990086589107751262012-05-10T08:23:48.286-07:002012-05-10T08:23:48.286-07:00The hallmark of democracy is the rule of law for t...The hallmark of democracy is the rule of law for the common good. And every law limits someone's choice.<br /><br />You cannot grant liberties to one group without restricting the liberties of another.<br /><br />Same sex couples already have civil partnerships which grant them all the rights of married couples. <br /><br />Let's leave it there rather than redefining marriage for everybody else. It is not one size fits all.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-67151590845857996962012-05-10T08:14:13.926-07:002012-05-10T08:14:13.926-07:00How are we to be salt tho'? By compelling or p...How are we to be salt tho'? By compelling or persuading? Are we really supposed to compel others to adopt the characteristics of NaCl? There is an issue of what's perceived to be good for society, but for good or ill it's by democratic means that we set our legislation. Setting aside whether or not government have a mandate on this one issue(in the absence of a referendum), is there a better way? One man's theocracy is another's dictatorship. Surely a hallmark of the created order is freedom to choose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-23804882676306822872012-05-10T07:47:55.200-07:002012-05-10T07:47:55.200-07:00"You are the salt of the earth. But if the sa..."You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."Jonathan Paul Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17411416299211965851noreply@blogger.com