God Loves Homosexuals

[Publisher]

Okay. Then let’s leave out Scripture and religion for a moment.

You said you hold homosexuals to the same standard as married straight couples.

The problem here is that ssm is still illegal in this country (with one exception).

Even from a secular persepective, it is not possible for two same sex people to be married. How can you hold them to the same standard as straights?

Has your denomination completely bypassed secular law?

Friends recognize same sex “unions” when they petition the Meeting to bring their relationship under the care of the Meeting. The couple typically requests the Meeting recongnize their intention to join in marriage in two consecutive monthy meetings A committee for clearness is formed to see if there is any impediment why two people cannot be joined in marriage…the same process we use when opposite sex couples wish to “formalize” their relationship and enter into “marriage after the manner of Friends”.

The Meeting as a body signs the “marriage certificate” when the couple “marries one another” in the sight of God and in the presence of Friends. Gay people are held to the same “ethic” as straight people.

The same words are recited by gay people as straight people in the Meeting for Worship for Marriage.

In those states and countries that do not at this time allow same sex unions, the process is the same. Friends seek to honor secular law, but we will follow a “higher law” if need be.

 

[buffalo]

Friends recognize same sex “unions” when they petition the Meeting to bring their relationship under the care of the Meeting. The couple typically requests the Meeting recongnize their intention to join in marriage in two consecutive monthy meetings A committee for clearness is formed to see if there is any impediment why two people cannot be joined in marriage…the same process we use when opposite sex couples wish to “formalize” their relationship and enter into “marriage after the manner of Friends”.

The Meeting as a body signs the “marriage certificate” when the couple “marries one another” in the sight of God and in the presence of Friends. Gay people are held to the same “ethic” as straight people.

The same words are recited by gay people as straight people in the Meeting for Worship for Marriage.

In those states and countries that do not at this time allow same sex unions, the process is the same. Friends seek to honor secular law, but we will follow a “higher law” if need be.

No one stood up and declared that as an impediment they are not male and female?

 

[Publisher]

No one stood up and declared that as an impediment they are not male and female?

My meeting went through a process that took about three years of discussion, prayer and “waiting on the Lord” before we decided that the “sense of the Meeting” was that same sex unions be accepted under the “care of the Meeting” and permission granted for those Friends who wished to petition the Meeting to do so.

When a couple wishes to “marry after the manner of Friends”, they petition the Meeting at two consecutive monthy meetings for business. A committee is formed and the couple is interviewed over a period of time to prayerfully consider their commitment to one another. If after this period of time the committee agrees that the couple has no impediment against them to marry, permission is granted and a Meeting for Worship for marriage is scheduled.

 

[buffalo]

My meeting went through a process that took about three years of discussion, prayer and “waiting on the Lord” before we decided that the “sense of the Meeting” was that same sex unions be accepted under the “care of the Meeting” and permission granted for those Friends who wished to petition the Meeting to do so.

When a couple wishes to “marry after the manner of Friends”, they petition the Meeting at two consecutive monthy meetings for business. A committee is formed and the couple is interviewed over a period of time to prayerfully consider their commitment to one another. If after this period of time the committee agrees that the couple has no impediment against them to marry, permission is granted and a Meeting for Worship for marriage is scheduled.

So the committee does not consider the fact that they cannot consumate their marriage to be an impediment?

 

[hasikelee]

Who a person chooses to have a relationship with, which gender, has no effect on you…that some couples may have a more stable economic life isn’t agreeable to you…I don’t see your point.

My point is you are being deliberately obtuse by claiming personal choices do not effect other people.

That’s far from the truth and it’s hurting your argument.

 

[Publisher]

So the committee does not consider the fact that they cannot consumate their marriage to be an impediment?

No. I would think our definitions of “consumate” are different.

 

[Publisher]

My point is you are being deliberately obtuse by claiming personal choices do not effect other people.

That’s far from the truth and it’s hurting your argument.

My “arguement” isn’t “hurt”…I realize I have no hope of changing your mind…just as you have none in changing mine…

We affect our world around us with the choices we make…same sex couples have no greater or lesser impact upon those around them than do straight couples do…in many if not most cases a very insignificant degree IMO, since on the average about 1-2% of gay people even want to “marry”.

The lesbian couple in my Meeting who are raising their two children in a stable loving home does impact society, but in a very positive way.

 

[buffalo]

No. I would think our definitions of “consumate” are different.

Then our definition of marriage is different.

What is the Friends definition of marriage.

 

[Publisher]

Philedelphia Yearly Meeting

"From its beginning, the Religious Society of Friends has stressed the conviction that marriage is a binding relationship entered into in the presence of God and of witnessing Friends. Before this public commitment is made on the day of the wedding, the proposed marriage must have received the approval of the monthly meeting, given after careful consideration by an appointed committee.

The wedding itself is a meeting for worship, held after the manner of Friends, within which the marriage takes place. The bridal couple enter the meeting and take their places at the front of the room. In giving themselves to each other, they eliminate the custom of the bride being given away by her father. No third person pronounces them man and wife because Friends believe that God alone can create such a union and give it significance. Neither a bridal party nor an exchange of rings is necessary to Friends’ procedure, although both have become customary today."

 

[hasikelee]

My “arguement” isn’t “hurt”…I realize I have no hope of changing your mind…just as you have none in changing mine…

We affect our world around us with the choices we make…same sex couples have no greater or lesser impact upon those around them than do straight couples do…in many if not most cases a very insignificant degree IMO, since on the average about 1-2% of gay people even want to “marry”.

The lesbian couple in my Meeting who are raising their two children in a stable loving home does impact society, but in a very positive way.

Your argument receives a hit in the credibility department because you attempt to state that individual choices do not effect others.

I am not attempting to change anyone’s mind on this thread. I just had to call it as I saw it because it was such a far out statement.

I mean, that’s leftover psychological development from adolescence. Remember, when young teens believe only they and their happiness exists, and they can’t possibly understand or empathize with anyone else in the world or realize their connection in the world?

 

[Publisher]

Your argument receives a hit in the credibility department because you attempt to state that individual choices do not effect others.

I am not attempting to change anyone’s mind on this thread. I just had to call it as I saw it because it was such a far out statement.

I mean, that’s leftover psychological development from adolescence. Remember, when young teens believe only they and their happiness exists, and they can’t possibly understand or empathize with anyone else in the world or realize their connection in the world?

We’ll just disagree.

 

[hasikelee]

We’ll just disagree.

Hmmm It’s funny how you’re sure you disagree with me when I never stated my position on the topic.

But I accept your graceful ending and will float back to lurk status.

 

[buffalo]

We’ll just disagree.

It is illogical to disagree just to disagree. It is not an acceptable position to take.

 

[hasikelee]

It is illogical to disagree just to disagree. It is not an acceptable position to take.

Now, buffalo, remember that illogical is not a logical word.

 

[buffalo]

Now, buffalo, remember that illogical is not a logical word.

There are no absolutes, absolutely.

 

[hasikelee]

There are no absolutes, absolutely.

And irregardless of that… Okay, I’ll stop now.

 

[Valke2]

Your argument receives a hit in the credibility department because you attempt to state that individual choices do not effect others.

I am not attempting to change anyone’s mind on this thread. I just had to call it as I saw it because it was such a far out statement.

I mean, that’s leftover psychological development from adolescence. Remember, when young teens believe only they and their happiness exists, and they can’t possibly understand or empathize with anyone else in the world or realize their connection in the world?

You are taking issue with a response to the idea that agreeing to commit adultry is as morally sound as agreeing to accept gay marriage. Clearly, when one commits adultry, they are intentionally engaging in an action that will harm a person that they have a legal and moral obligation to. This is not the case with two single gay adults who want to be toghether and legally recognized as a family unit.

 

[fix]

You are taking issue with a response to the idea that agreeing to commit adultry is as morally sound as agreeing to accept gay marriage. Clearly, when one commits adultry, they are intentionally engaging in an action that will harm a person that they have a legal and moral obligation to.

I do not know that is clear. I mean from what I read in this thread subjective sincerity is enough to determine what is good or evil.

What if the spouse consents to the other commiting adultery? Would that be ok?

This is not the case with two single gay adults who want to be toghether and legally recognized as a family unit.

Does consent make something good and helpful to society?

 

[Booklover]

You are taking issue with a response to the idea that agreeing to commit adultry is as morally sound as agreeing to accept gay marriage. Clearly, when one commits adultry, they are intentionally engaging in an action that will harm a person that they have a legal and moral obligation to. This is not the case with two single gay adults who want to be toghether and legally recognized as a family unit.

They have no right to be recognized as a family unit because same sex “marriage” is not marriage!

“As a “basic human right”, the right to marriage stems from human nature, and thus its existence precedes both Church and State. Nevertheless, that same human nature which gives rise to this “basic human right” also requires that marriage be the union of man and woman since the cooperation of both is recquired in accomplishing the **primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children. **The civil “marriage” of two individuals of the same sex is not based on human nature. Therefore, it is not marriage, so there is no “basic human right” to same-sex marriage.” From “Defending a Higher Law” by the TFP Committee on American Issues

The book can be purchased here.

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

The lesbian couple in my Meeting who are raising their two children in a stable loving home does impact society, but in a very positive way.

Nonsense! Those children will probably turn into neurotics!

“Homosexual love” is neither conjugal love nor can it stay on the level of love of friendship without erotic connotations. Hence, homosexuality undermines the family and social life.

The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the condition that gives rise to the family. Homosexuality undermines marriage by seeking to usurp its rights: Conjugal relations are only possible between a man and woman.

Likewise, friendship is the mortar of social life and the foundation of social concord. Without friendship, it is impossible to avoid social discord, which opens the gates to chaos and anarchy. Since homosexuality is focused on sexual intercourse, it thereby destroys the possibility of true friendship between people of the same sex, turning friends into objects of desire or competitors in the market of passions. This destroys friendship which makes social life safe and amenable.

By weakening the family and friendship in society, the homosexual offensive destroys the foundation of society and leads it into disintegration and anarchy.

This reality is obfuscated by the homosexual movement’s use of words like “love” and “tolerance”. From “Defending a Higher Law” from the TFP committee on American Issues.

Vickie