Rick Warren On Homosexuality

[stemelbow]

After reading some other articles on this whole diversity struggle, it is pretty clear to me that those wanting their "rights" will pursue these things in the US Courts and the freedom of religion be damned.  In thinking about it, should the battle go the way I fear it will go, I will likely leave the church out of disgust for the GBLT political action pac.  It is clear to me that since the birth of the church certain groups have systematically conspired to deprive the church of religious freedom, and I can not bear to watch it.

 

I have to ask if gay marriage becomes the law of the land for each state, how would that deprive the Church of religious freedom?  I cannot see that connection at all.  The church afterall, in theory at least, can deny marrying gays through it's clergy, or the Church can still preach that homosexual activity is against the laws of God. 

[wenglund]

It is the only answer I can give. While may disagree with any/all of your beliefs. I don't get to vote on your beliefs.

 

Whose beliefs and conscience do you get to vote on?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What good has become evil ...?

 

Traditional marriage

 

...and what evil has become good?

 

Homosexual behaviors and relationships, as now sanctioned and normalized by the state.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Whose beliefs and conscience do you get to vote on?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No ones but my own. Just like you are the only one whom gets to vote on your beliefs and conscience. ANYTHING else is unrighteous dominion.

[stemelbow]

Traditional marriage

 

 

 

 

Homosexual behaviors and relationships, as now sanctioned and normalized by the state.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So in what way has traditional marriage become evil?  Is it because of abuse, infidelity type of things?  Man ruling unrighteously over his wife? 

 

Is sanctioning and normalizing of state governments that which defines good? 

 

This is very confusing thinking to me.  I think one could just as easily suggest that it's evil to restrict secular rights to people merely because you find their consenting sexual behavior deplorable.  But oh well.  it appears we disagree fundamentally on this issue.

[wenglund]

I have to ask if gay marriage becomes the law of the land for each state, how would that deprive the Church of religious freedom?  I cannot see that connection at all.  The church afterall, in theory at least, can deny marrying gays through it's clergy, or the Church can still preach that homosexual activity is against the laws of God. 

 

For starters, religious freedoms are being denied not only in negating the right of businesses to refuse services to people as they chose, but also negating the right of businesses to refuse services to events as they chose. Cases of Catholic adoptions and a flower shop in Washington come to mind.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Traditional marriage

 

Homosexual behaviors and relationships, as now sanctioned and normalized by the state.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

With about 97% of all people marrying at some point in their lives. "Traditional" marriage is the norm.

 

So now you want the State to regulate what you do between the covers of your own bed. Are we going to a policeman in every bedroom?

[stemelbow]

For starters, religious freedoms are being denied not only in negating the right of businesses to refuse services to people as they chose, but also negating the right of businesses to refuse services to events as they chose. Cases of Catholic adoptions and a flower shop in Washington come to mind.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

So businesses run by religious folks can't discriminate against people based on race, religion, sexual orientation because of gay marriage? 

[wenglund]

No ones but my own. Just like you are the only one whom gets to vote on your beliefs and conscience. ANYTHING else is unrighteous dominion.

 

If that holds true for everyone, or in other words if everyone gets to vote according to their own personal beliefs and consciences, then logically and by virtue of the Constitution, the beliefs and consciences of the majority may become codified absent tyranny of the majority. Within certain limits, the majority can constitutionally and rightly impose its beliefs and conscience on others. Sorry!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

For starters, religious freedoms are being denied not only in negating the right of businesses to refuse services to people as they chose, but also negating the right of businesses to refuse services to events as they chose. Cases of Catholic adoptions and a flower shop in Washington come to mind.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So you favor a business being able to refuse to sell their product/service to a black person. The Catholics took public money to provide a service then refused to grant gay adoptions. They can still refuse gay adoptions they just can't take public money to do it. We're under no obligation to fund religion.

[stemelbow]

So you favor a business being able to refuse to sell their product/service to a black person. The Catholics took public money to provide a service then refused to grant gay adoptions. They can still refuse gay adoptions they just can't take public money to do it. We're under no obligation to fund religion.

 

thesometimesaint,

 

Each time each of us respond to the same post I find your response much better than mine.  Just saying.  Good job. 

[thesometimesaint]

If that holds true for everyone, or in other words if everyone gets to vote according to their own personal beliefs and consciences, then logically and by virtue of the Constitution, the beliefs and consciences of the majority may become codified absent tyranny of the majority. Within certain limits, the majority can constitutionally and rightly impose its beliefs and conscience on others. Sorry!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

In this country you don't have a vote on my morals. Exactly what the Founders feared that the majority would use the laws to punish beliefs. The LDS should be especially concerned with that because of our history with polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

thesometimesaint,

 

Each time each of us respond to the same post I find your response much better than mine.  Just saying.  Good job. 

 

I don't know about that. I think it is that great minds think alike.

[wenglund]

With about 97% of all people marrying at some point in their lives. "Traditional" marriage is the norm.

 

Oh, good. No worries then. LOL

 

So now you want the State to regulate what you do between the covers of your own bed. Are we going to a policeman in every bedroom?

 

No. And, no. There is a huge difference between not sanctioning, and policing. It may help you to learn the critical difference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

I wonder if there is a way to label marriage for SS couples differently.  A "union" perhaps or what else, just to get the people that are against, to bug off.  Not meant to be rude, just something to get the two groups talking and working on a solution.  I think the SS couples just want something legal, in order to have those rights that married people have, as far as maybe visits in the hospital, or insurance or so many other things.  What are some other names besides marriage that will work....united, merged, harmonized, amalgamated....

 

If you have the time, the letter below is from someone I don't know, but stumbled across on Yahoo.com when someone asks why gay people want to get married.  Interesting take......

 

 

Being bisexual, I insist on our desire for legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but I can only despise the stupidity and hypocrisy of same-sex religious marriage advocates.

Religious marriage is not a right, and I'm tired of the phony "equal rights" argument.

Its advocates can't justify gay "marriage" any other way—civil benefits of unions can be and ARE granted to same-sex partners in SOME states, obviating the need for gay "marriage"—so they just declare religious marriage a right, end of discussion.

The biased media try to influence the debate, likewise by declaring gay marriage, like abortion, a "right"—abortion "rights," the gay marriage "right".

Those who sanctimoniously call those opposed to gay marriage hateful should get off their high horse.

Religious "marriage" is by definition between a man and a woman.

Redefining marriage to suit the fancy of a bunch of drama queens does not change its nature.

I think the relationship I have with my love of 3+ years is HIGHER than any religious marriage, but it's not marriage, and homosexuals who can't feel validated without having a wedding are pitiful indeed.

The gay community is NOT demanding that they be allowed to marry in YOUR church. (Just try to get married in an Orthodox Church if either one of you is not a member.) Some of them may be religious, but for the most part the homosexual community only wants the same LEGAL protections that a civil union provides to you. Not a true religious marriage, but all the visitation benefits, etc.

Quite simply, how anyone views their unions is their choice.

Those who say the institution of religious marriage isn't harmed by gay marriage are wrong.

Gay "marriage" is to religious "marriage" what drag is to womanhood.
And that's fine as a burlesque.

But turning either into a sacred right, an entitlement, is just the grotesque narcissism of our enervated, media-addled, sloth-disguised-as-tolerance, "Me! Now!" generation.

But to say that homosexual civil unions cheapen religious marriage is ridiculous; the 50+% divorce rate cheapens marriage!

Huge numbers of heterosexuals cheating on their spouses cheapens marriage!

Even Desperate Housewives cheapens marriage.

In general, marriage is ALREADY cheap.

(Even Ronald Reagan was divorced.)

Apparently, John McCain admitted to cheating on his (disabled) first wife, divorcing her, and getting married to his current wife within one month.

For a VERY interesting story on this and “the sanctity of marriage”, do the following Google search: "John McCain" + divorce

For those unfamiliar with the process, the local Courthouse views divorce as little more than a failed, albeit emotional, partnership: a pair of business partners who can no longer see eye to eye.

How deep, meaningful, and spiritual, eh?

And the view that marriage is a sacred thing ordained by God clearly is not, and should not be, shared by your government. It is a personal opinion, not a fact.

Furthermore, it is NOT obvious to many of us how two men or two women committing their lives to each other legally affects ANYONE else or their civil union.


In like measure to your objections to gay CIVIL UNIONS, you should see the money in your pocket as cheapened.

It was or will undoubtedly be used at some point in a drug deal or to buy a gun that may end up killing innocent men, women and children in our streets.

Did you know that you are LIKELY to be carrying dollar bills with traces of cocaine or other drugs on them?

But, I hear no cry that this "destroys the very concept" of money!

I'm SURE money has meaning to all of you, now doesn't it?

Feel free to send me your money if you feel that I've destroyed the concept of it for you.

EDIT: Oh, so you're downgrading me because I'm speaking my mind? The truth of the matter is, the whole thing is way blown out of proportion by the media and religious homosexuals who want to get married in a church. Churches will probably not recognize same-sex religious marriage simply because it's in the Bible (ugh) that homosexuality is considered a sin.   

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, good. No worries then. LOL

 

No. And, no. There is a huge difference between not sanctioning, and policing. It may help you to learn the critical difference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I didn't say I didn't worry. The family is under increasing stress these days for a variety of reasons. But SSM isn't one of them.

 

ANY law that is unenforceable is moot.

[stemelbow]

I wonder if there is a way to label marriage for SS couples differently.  A "union" perhaps or what else, just to get the people that are against, to bug off.  Not meant to be rude, just something to get the two groups talking and working on a solution.  I think the SS couples just want something legal, in order to have those rights that married people have, as far as maybe visits in the hospital, or insurance or so many other things.  What are some other names besides marriage that will work....united, merged, harmonized, amalgamated....

 

If you have the time, the letter below is from someone I don't know, but stumbled across on Yahoo.com when someone asks why gay people want to get married.  Interesting take......

 

 

Being bisexual, I insist on our desire for legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but I can only despise the stupidity and hypocrisy of same-sex religious marriage advocates.

Religious marriage is not a right, and I'm tired of the phony "equal rights" argument.

Its advocates can't justify gay "marriage" any other way—civil benefits of unions can be and ARE granted to same-sex partners in SOME states, obviating the need for gay "marriage"—so they just declare religious marriage a right, end of discussion.

The biased media try to influence the debate, likewise by declaring gay marriage, like abortion, a "right"—abortion "rights," the gay marriage "right".

Those who sanctimoniously call those opposed to gay marriage hateful should get off their high horse.

Religious "marriage" is by definition between a man and a woman.

Redefining marriage to suit the fancy of a bunch of drama queens does not change its nature.

I think the relationship I have with my love of 3+ years is HIGHER than any religious marriage, but it's not marriage, and homosexuals who can't feel validated without having a wedding are pitiful indeed.

The gay community is NOT demanding that they be allowed to marry in YOUR church. (Just try to get married in an Orthodox Church if either one of you is not a member.) Some of them may be religious, but for the most part the homosexual community only wants the same LEGAL protections that a civil union provides to you. Not a true religious marriage, but all the visitation benefits, etc.

Quite simply, how anyone views their unions is their choice.

Those who say the institution of religious marriage isn't harmed by gay marriage are wrong.

Gay "marriage" is to religious "marriage" what drag is to womanhood.

And that's fine as a burlesque.

But turning either into a sacred right, an entitlement, is just the grotesque narcissism of our enervated, media-addled, sloth-disguised-as-tolerance, "Me! Now!" generation.

But to say that homosexual civil unions cheapen religious marriage is ridiculous; the 50+% divorce rate cheapens marriage!

Huge numbers of heterosexuals cheating on their spouses cheapens marriage!

Even Desperate Housewives cheapens marriage.

In general, marriage is ALREADY cheap.

(Even Ronald Reagan was divorced.)

Apparently, John McCain admitted to cheating on his (disabled) first wife, divorcing her, and getting married to his current wife within one month.

For a VERY interesting story on this and “the sanctity of marriage”, do the following Google search: "John McCain" + divorce

For those unfamiliar with the process, the local Courthouse views divorce as little more than a failed, albeit emotional, partnership: a pair of business partners who can no longer see eye to eye.

How deep, meaningful, and spiritual, eh?

And the view that marriage is a sacred thing ordained by God clearly is not, and should not be, shared by your government. It is a personal opinion, not a fact.

Furthermore, it is NOT obvious to many of us how two men or two women committing their lives to each other legally affects ANYONE else or their civil union.

In like measure to your objections to gay CIVIL UNIONS, you should see the money in your pocket as cheapened.

It was or will undoubtedly be used at some point in a drug deal or to buy a gun that may end up killing innocent men, women and children in our streets.

Did you know that you are LIKELY to be carrying dollar bills with traces of cocaine or other drugs on them?

But, I hear no cry that this "destroys the very concept" of money!

I'm SURE money has meaning to all of you, now doesn't it?

Feel free to send me your money if you feel that I've destroyed the concept of it for you.

EDIT: Oh, so you're downgrading me because I'm speaking my mind? The truth of the matter is, the whole thing is way blown out of proportion by the media and religious homosexuals who want to get married in a church. Churches will probably not recognize same-sex religious marriage simply because it's in the Bible (ugh) that homosexuality is considered a sin.   

 

Unfortunately for this point, marriage is not owned or participated in by the religious only.  Same sex marriage is more about equality in the eyes of the law then it is about being acceptable by religion.  Some people will fight certain religions on this point and may gain significant headway, but I see this as separate from the actual debate of legal same sex marriage. 

[wenglund]

So you favor a business being able to refuse to sell their product/service to a black person.

 

I am against imposing on businesses my beliefs about who they should or shouldn't serve. What about you?

 

I am also against imposing on businesses my beliefs about what events they should or shouldn't serve. Are you in favor of a business being able to refuse to cater a Klu Klux Klan rally?

 

The Catholics took public money to provide a service then refused to grant gay adoptions. They can still refuse gay adoptions they just can't take public money to do it. We're under no obligation to fund religion.

 

First of all, charitable tax status isn't the same as taking public money. Second,  the charitable tax status is in relation to the adoption services, and not the religion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 10, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I didn't say I didn't worry.

 

I was being facetious.

 

The family is under increasing stress these days for a variety of reasons.

 

That is putting it mildly, in my opinion.

 

But SSM isn't one of them.

 

So you say. I disagree. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

thesometimesaint, on 10 Dec 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

So you favor a business being able to refuse to sell their product/service to a black person.

 

I am against imposing on business my beliefs about who they should or shouldn't serve. What about you?

 

Uh...not based on the color of someone's skin.  I think there are reasonable things out there that a business can/should consider as to whether they should refuse or not.  The color of the skin is not one of those.  One may be whether to cater a KKK rally, or a porn shows party or something. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by stemelbow

[wenglund]

Uh...not based on the color of someone's skin.  I think there are reasonable things out there that a business can/should consider as to whether they should refuse or not.  The color of the skin is not one of those.  One may be whether to cater a KKK rally, or a porn shows party or something. 

 

Which side of your line of reasonableness do religious freedoms rest in terms of businesses serving people or events?

 

Since business is a two-way transaction, does your line of reasonableness apply equally to consumers? In other words, are there some business people or businesses you believe that consumers should be forced to patronage based on skin color or otherwise?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Which side of your line of reasonableness do religious freedoms rest in terms of businesses serving people or events?

I request that you be a little more descriptive in what you mean by religious freedoms. I suppose if someone claims their religion suggests that they refuse service to a jewish person because he is jewish, well that's a problem.

 

Since business is a two-way transaction, does your line of reasonableness apply equally to consumers? In other words, are there some business people or businesses you believe that consumers should be forced to patronage based on skin color or otherwise?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What? I have no idea why anyone should be forced to patronize certain businesses.

[go_utes01]

Yet, you are fine with forcing businesses to serve certain people? Interesting. Why not just let the marketplace take care of this? If you don't want to patronize what you consider a prejudicial establishment, don't patronize it. If enough people are like minded the business will either change its practices out go out of business. Or, some other entrepreneurial individual will see a hole in the market to fill.

[go_utes01]

Oops. Duplicate.

Edited December 10, 2013 by go_utes01

[Robert F. Smith]

The prophets of God have clearly defined what sexual immorality is. If you don't know, just go to www.lds.org to find out. As for when life begins, it should be asked- why are we messing around with God's sacred laws of procreation and making a mockery of Him? We all know that sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage between man and woman and that sexual reproduction is a gift given to man to multiply and replenish the earth. Are we relly going to throw God under the bus and mock Him?

Preaching particular points of view is fine with me, and it is constitutionally protected speech and free exercise of religion.  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in this country, and the Vartican in particular, preach a certain point of view, while the Southern Baptist Convention has another particular point of view.  Still other groups, such as Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, and various Muslim groups preach their views.  All of it fully legal to do.  People are free to adopt any of those or other views and to convert to a particular religion, or indeed to no religion, if they so desire.

 

None of this seems to be apparent to you, Rob , and you harangue anybody who will listen (read) as though they are completely ignorant and engaged in mockery of God -- all of which is protected speech and part of your right to free exercise of religion.

 

However, you did not bother to answer any of my questions.  Why?