Same sex marriage in Protestant churches

[Publisher]

The Episcopals will perform same sex marriages in a state that has found it legal. Outside of those states they will do ‘blessings’.

There is another fringe church called the "metropolitan church’. They have even said that Jesus would have approved of pedophilia. They will perform marriages under the same circumstances as the Episcopals.

However… when it comes to the Episcopal church you need to further investigate. The Episcopal church is severely fractured in America… many have left the headship of the Episcopals and call themselves Anglican.

There are some churches who won’t perform marriages but take a liberal stand on homosexuality. The Evangelical Lutherans, the Methodists, some liberal Presbyterians. It’s important to distinguish between the liberal and conservative branches of these denominations.

I forgot, the Church of Christ will also do same sex marriages again, if the state allows.

My church will never perform this kind of sinful union. Not ever.

I have some friends…who happen to be Friends…that attend the Metropolitan Community Church…I seriously doubt they approve of pedophilia…equal consent between adults they do accept…but the victimization of children…that’s extreemly doubful…where are you getting your official information on this?

 

[newprestonpete]

You are incorrect, the cultural definition of marriage is a man and woman, however there is no federal definition that says so. Instead the Feds have decided it is a state issue. I live in state that has legal gay marriage, we’re the only one for 1000 miles and when it went through the entire state was up in arms. You know what’s changed sense? Not a thing. There’s no noticeably larger gay presence, no gay pride rally’s, god hasn’t sent locust to eat the crops. Please elaborate on how gay marriage being legal will effect you as an individual?
Or even society as a whole.

You are incorrect. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as between one man and one woman. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
This administration has chosen not to uphold that law

 

[ltwin]

There are some churches who won’t perform marriages but take a liberal stand on homosexuality. The Evangelical Lutherans, the Methodists, some liberal Presbyterians. It’s important to distinguish between the liberal and conservative branches of these denominations.

The United Methodists are really divided over the homosexual issue, more than most mainline churches. They do have a strong pro-gay lobby, but they have not been able to get any official pro-gay statements passed. The good thing going for the Methodists is that they are an international body. The USA church is shrinking, but the United Methodist Church in Africa is growing, and they are conservative. This African voice is frustrating the agenda of the more liberal American church.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Publisher,

Here you go. Make sure you notice the copyright. I never lie.

wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Notice the language and the age of those involved.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher,

Here you go. Make sure you notice the copyright. I never lie.

wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Notice the language and the age of those involved.

Ahh…yes…but I don’t think they’re talking of pedophilia…do you? The centurians servant was a “younger man”…and the words used in the story could carry on a sexual relationship…but no where does the story indicate pedophilia is involved…the article never claims Jesus approved of pedophilia.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Ahh…yes…but I don’t think they’re talking of pedophilia…do you? The centurians servant was a “younger man”…and the words used in the story could carry on a sexual relationship…but no where does the story indicate pedophilia is involved…the article never claims Jesus approved of pedophilia.

I think that your explanation is possible. But… if you watch the progression of these things, even the people who wrote the article talk about the young age of these people and the young age for marriage in those times. I believe that is accurate. The problem is that, this argument is often used by people to support less than healthy age related relationships. I’ve heard this kind of thing used to justify all manner of things. I’ll bet you have as well.

These are the same people who have decided that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. It gets ridiculous after awhile especially when these people know full well that scripture in both the Old and New Testament forbids homosexual relationships. To imply that Jesus would not have disapproved of such a relationship creates the idea they want to put out.

To couch these arguments in discrimination is just wrong. We don’t get to choose what part of the scripture we like and will obey and which parts we won’t.

 

[Publisher]

I think that your explanation is possible. But… if you watch the progression of these things, even the people who wrote the article talk about the young age of these people and the young age for marriage in those times. I believe that is accurate. The problem is that, this argument is often used by people to support less than healthy age related relationships. I’ve heard this kind of thing used to justify all manner of things. I’ll bet you have as well.

These are the same people who have decided that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. It gets ridiculous after awhile especially when these people know full well that scripture in both the Old and New Testament forbids homosexual relationships. To imply that Jesus would not have disapproved of such a relationship creates the idea they want to put out.

To couch these arguments in discrimination is just wrong. We don’t get to choose what part of the scripture we like and will obey and which parts we won’t.

And to make statements that could cause unjust discrimination toward gay and lesbian men and women is also wrong…If my “explanation” is possible…why claim that MCC endorses “pedophilia”? Seems to not serve truth by such a statement…IMO…as I have said before…it must be the “Quaker” in me.

 

[seeker57]

And to make statements that could cause unjust discrimination toward gay and lesbian men and women is also wrong…If my “explanation” is possible…why claim that MCC endorses “pedophilia”? Seems to not serve truth by such a statement…IMO…as I have said before…it must be the “Quaker” in me.

If I were ever forced to be a Christian, I would want to be a Friend.

Thanks, Publisher. Your responses are always well thought out and considerate.

Peace,

Seeker.

 

[Hunter24]

You are incorrect. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as between one man and one woman. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
This administration has chosen not to uphold that law

I was incorrect, I knew certain parts of the legislation had been ruled unconstitutional but I did not know which.

 

[JonNC]

They are not hijacking anything. Christianity does not own marriage, and while it is perfectly fine for a religion to approve of one type of marriage over another, it is very wrong for a religion to go out and tell other people what they can and can’t do, or worse, change the law so that people can’t do things against a religions morals whether they follow it or not. The concept of marriage has been around alot longer than christianity, Christianity has no right to say what is or isn’t marriage outside its own adherents. What’s even worse is that you are trying to change the law to force your morals on others. That’s called Theocracy and I hope there’s none here crazy enough to ever advocate that.

This is why I’m a Libritarian not a republican, so many Christians try to stuff their beliefs down others throats. A ban on gay marriage would probably be the most unconstitutional law ever passed (because prohibition was written in to the constitution). It goes against what the united states stands for. I’m not gay, and I’m not telling you that you half to like gay marriage, I’m just pointing out how wrong this is. Every time Sharia law comes up in the US everyone has a fit. Well how is this any different? Religious law. The only reason you like that idea is because it’s your religion.

If we are going to impose a secular legal claim to marriage, which seems to be your position, then we must do it under the 1st amendment. That is, Congress shall make no law regarding the establsihment of religion. Marriage, whether one calls it a sacrament or a rite, is historically a religious practice, and if we are going to use the term “separation of Church and state” then the government imposing or supporting marriage is a violation the 1st amendment. The best thing government can do regarding marriage is get out of the marriage business altogether.

Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

The best thing government can do regarding marriage is get out of the marriage business altogether.

Jon

I absolutely agree. Marriage, like Baptism, should be the perogative of the Church. Government can satisfy itself with birth certificates and whatever form of partnership arrangement they feel is necessary for tax purposes and other government uses. Leaving Marriage as a joint Church/Government action exposes priests and pastors to civil rights violations in the future…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Itwin,

Isn’t the same thing going on with the Episcopalians - USA pro homosexual behavior vs African pro Bible churches?

God bless

The United Methodists are really divided over the homosexual issue, more than most mainline churches. They do have a strong pro-gay lobby, but they have not been able to get any official pro-gay statements passed. The good thing going for the Methodists is that they are an international body. The USA church is shrinking, but the United Methodist Church in Africa is growing, and they are conservative. This African voice is frustrating the agenda of the more liberal American church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Publisher,

I do not qutie know what you mean by ‘unjust discrimination’.

Both government and (at least most) churches do discriminate in who can get married! For example, siblings can not marry one another, children can not marry their parents, there is no valid marriage between certrain degrees of kindred, and each state adds to this list as they see best. So, if two siblings want to get married - and are told that this is not possible - this can be called discrimination - but, such discrimination is appropriate.

Homosexual behavior is comdemned by the Catholic Church. This same Church also condemns adultery and fornication (carnal acts done with people of the opposite sex). This too is discrimination - but, only in the sense that every law encourages some behavior while discouraging other behaviors. Maybe an argument can be made that jail discriminates against some people (law breakers) and not other people (law upholders).

The term discrimination has taken on a lot of extra baggage - most immediately think of some type of illegal discrimination. But, there are legitimate and valid reasons to discriminate. For example: a US employer discriminates against an illegal alien by not hiring him - because to do so would break the law. A bank employer discriminates against a convicted thief because of the real potential for mischief if he were to work around money. State boards of nursing discriminate against those who want to be nurses yet have a psychiatric Personality Disorder because of the real potential for abusing patients. The list really does go on - but the bottom line is that ultimately St. Paul tells us that those who break moral laws are not admitted into Heaven. (1Cor 6)

God bless

And to make statements that could cause unjust discrimination toward gay and lesbian men and women is also wrong…If my “explanation” is possible…why claim that MCC endorses “pedophilia”? Seems to not serve truth by such a statement…IMO…as I have said before…it must be the “Quaker” in me.

 

[Publisher]

Hi Publisher,

I do not qutie know what you mean by ‘unjust discrimination’.

Both government and (at least most) churches do discriminate in who can get married! For example, siblings can not marry one another, children can not marry their parents, there is no valid marriage between certrain degrees of kindred, and each state adds to this list as they see best. So, if two siblings want to get married - and are told that this is not possible - this can be called discrimination - but, such discrimination is appropriate.

Homosexual behavior is comdemned by the Catholic Church. This same Church also condemns adultery and fornication (carnal acts done with people of the opposite sex). This too is discrimination - but, only in the sense that every law encourages some behavior while discouraging other behaviors. Maybe an argument can be made that jail discriminates against some people (law breakers) and not other people (law upholders).

The term discrimination has taken on a lot of extra baggage - most immediately think of some type of illegal discrimination. But, there are legitimate and valid reasons to discriminate. For example: a US employer discriminates against an illegal alien by not hiring him - because to do so would break the law. A bank employer discriminates against a convicted thief because of the real potential for mischief if he were to work around money. State boards of nursing discriminate against those who want to be nurses yet have a psychiatric Personality Disorder because of the real potential for abusing patients. The list really does go on - but the bottom line is that ultimately St. Paul tells us that those who break moral laws are not admitted into Heaven. (1Cor 6)

God bless

Friend, no matter how one feels about same sex marriage and gay and lesbian people as a whole…making less than accurate statements concerning some churches that minister to the GLBTQ community and state they approve and even teach Jesus endorses pedophilia…is plain wrong to do so…when from what I was able to gleen fromt he article the other friend provided was offering an explanation as to the possible inferences the Centurian who’s servant is healed by Christ could have the connotation of being a deeper relationship than first suspected…Jesus doesn’t address the relationship but heals the servant just the same…

I understand our government and society discriminates on things they address…we all discriminate in one way or another…I am not addressing discrimination in your meaning…but why put forth statements that may foster violence and hate by making none too accurate statements about gay and lesbian people…a topic alread volitale…if you feel that such statements are perfectly acceptable to make concerning one’s neighbor…not much I can say to disuade you on that matter.

Truth concerning others does matter to me…it’s a “Quaker” thing I am coming to realize not necessarily shared by other Christian traditions.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

You honestly have me confused on this.

The Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuals - it comdemns their homesexual behavior - and this is a very important distinction. The New Testament (following the example of the Old) really does draw lines and condemns certain behaviors and openly warns others not to participate in them.

While there have been misstatements prevously made - but, honestly, there have been - at least in my opinon, far more accurate statements presented. Any chruch that preaches Christ Crucified and claims to minister to to the GLBT(Q?) community can not endorse the very behavior that is viewed as sinful. Not to do so would simply be misrepresenting the message of the Gospel - there really are rules to follow! Have Faith in Christ and show this by following His Commandments. Note in John 8 we find the story of the woman caught in adultery. Christ does not condemn her - and His actions could be seen as protecting her from the mob that had formed to stone her. When the mob disbursed Chirst told her to modify her behavior and ‘Sin no more’.

Now, there is a certain level of creativity that just seems to see homosexual behavior on every NT page. Curing of the Centurion’s servant in Matthew 8 is such an example. Apparently, one is left to wonder how families even were allowed to exist with so many pracitcing homosexuals around. I think that a legitimate criticism of such an interpretation is that there is nothing to support it but wishful thinking based on an agenda.

Christ calls out in the Gospels for repentance and a change in behavior - as identified in the Beatitudes (Matt 5) Homosexual behavior has been uniformly condemned in the Old Testament - and this can not be ignored. It also can not be re-written or re-interpreted to mean that good is evil and evil is good (Isaiah 5) which is what seems to be happened in our own day.

I think you really need to address the behavior that has been identifed as sinful.

God bless, Friend,

Friend, no matter how one feels about same sex marriage and gay and lesbian people as a whole…making less than accurate statements concerning some churches that minister to the GLBTQ community and state they approve and even teach Jesus endorses pedophilia…is plain wrong to do so…when from what I was able to gleen fromt he article the other friend provided was offering an explanation as to the possible inferences the Centurian who’s servant is healed by Christ could have the connotation of being a deeper relationship than first suspected…Jesus doesn’t address the relationship but heals the servant just the same…

I understand our government and society discriminates on things they address…we all discriminate in one way or another…I am not addressing discrimination in your meaning…but why put forth statements that may foster violence and hate by making none too accurate statements about gay and lesbian people…a topic alread volitale…if you feel that such statements are perfectly acceptable to make concerning one’s neighbor…not much I can say to disuade you on that matter.

Truth concerning others does matter to me…it’s a “Quaker” thing I am coming to realize not necessarily shared by other Christian traditions.

 

[Publisher]

Hi, Publisher,

You honestly have me confused on this.

The Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuals - it comdemns their homesexual behavior - and this is a very important distinction. The New Testament (following the example of the Old) really does draw lines and condemns certain behaviors and openly warns others not to participate in them.

While there have been misstatements prevously made - but, honestly, there have been - at least in my opinon, far more accurate statements presented. Any chruch that preaches Christ Crucified and claims to minister to to the GLBT(Q?) community can not endorse the very behavior that is viewed as sinful. Not to do so would simply be misrepresenting the message of the Gospel - there really are rules to follow! Have Faith in Christ and show this by following His Commandments. Note in John 8 we find the story of the woman caught in adultery. Christ does not condemn her - and His actions could be seen as protecting her from the mob that had formed to stone her. When the mob disbursed Chirst told her to modify her behavior and ‘Sin no more’.

Now, there is a certain level of creativity that just seems to see homosexual behavior on every NT page. Curing of the Centurion’s servant in Matthew 8 is such an example. Apparently, one is left to wonder how families even were allowed to exist with so many pracitcing homosexuals around. I think that a legitimate criticism of such an interpretation is that there is nothing to support it but wishful thinking based on an agenda.

Christ calls out in the Gospels for repentance and a change in behavior - as identified in the Beatitudes (Matt 5) Homosexual behavior has been uniformly condemned in the Old Testament - and this can not be ignored. It also can not be re-written or re-interpreted to mean that good is evil and evil is good (Isaiah 5) which is what seems to be happened in our own day.

I think you really need to address the behavior that has been identifed as sinful.

God bless, Friend,

While the behavior can be addressed in honesty…we do not need to make false statements concerning behavior and beliefs which inflame and may cause violence against others…truth is what matters…truth in our portrayal of those we disagree with…as I said…it’s a “Quaker” thing…I am realizing is not shared by other faith communities…if such statements as has been made concerning MCC’s stance on pedophilia do not bother you…not much I can say to change your mind. i do not believe it is right to do so…and it is my Quaker leanings I believe which forms my beliefs on the matter…I’m finding that is not necessarily shared by other Christians of various faith communities…

 

[Hunter24]

If we are going to impose a secular legal claim to marriage, which seems to be your position, then we must do it under the 1st amendment. That is, Congress shall make no law regarding the establsihment of religion. Marriage, whether one calls it a sacrament or a rite, is historically a religious practice, and if we are going to use the term “separation of Church and state” then the government imposing or supporting marriage is a violation the 1st amendment. The best thing government can do regarding marriage is get out of the marriage business altogether.

Jon

I agree compleately. We live in a world with so may problems there is alot more important things for our government to be doing.

 

[Hunter24]

Where is the “Like” button? Hahaha

 

[JonNC]

I agree compleately. We live in a world with so may problems there is alot more important things for our government to be doing.

Agreed, except that the government could do a lot better job of the things its supposed to do, if it stopped doing all of thr things it has no mandate to do.

Jon

 

[Hunter24]

Agreed, except that the government could do a lot better job of the things its supposed to do, if it stopped doing all of thr things it has no mandate to do.

Jon

Just think, 150 years ago the congress of 1862 Passed dozens of bills including the Homestead Act and the Land Grant university act. Not to mention the civil war was going on. Now our politicians are lucky to pass half that.