Republicans are divided over gay marriage

Republicans are hesitant to make an issue over President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, both because they aren’t sure what position is the winner politically and, more importantly, because the party itself is divided over the issue.  From The Washington Post:

Some top Republicans described a growing divide within the GOP, with most of the party’s elected leaders in step with the social conservative base by publicly opposing same-sex marriage but softening their tone to avoid alienating the moderate middle.

Some of Romney’s biggest financial backers — including Lewis M. Eisenberg, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, and hedge fund managers Paul Singer and Daniel S. Loeb — have become public advocates for gay marriage, as have other Romney supporters, including former vice president Dick Cheney and former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

Behind the scenes, influential donors and top strategists are counseling Republican candidates to avoid hot rhetoric or stigmatizing gay people, fearing a potential backlash from voters, who, polling suggests, are fast growing more open to gay marriage.

Steve Schmidt, a strategist for John McCain’s 2008 campaign as well as Bush’s campaigns, said Obama’s announcement Wednesday drew attention to “deep division” within the GOP on the issue.

“This really spotlights a fissure in the Republican Party between the southern evangelical wing of the party — where they don’t mind government intrusion into the bedroom and into individuals’ private space — and the limited-government side of the party,” Schmidt said. “Looking back at this from 50 years in the future, people who are on the wrong side of this issue aren’t going to stand very well in history’s light.”

via GOP treads lightly on gay marriage issue – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    “…where they don’t mind government intrusion into the bedroom and into individuals’ private space…”

    I’m a North Carolinian who voted for the same sex marriage ban. I don’t much care what my neighbor does in his or her bedroom and I certainly don’t want the government in mine. But I remain an unapologetic advocate of keeping the government out of my dictionary.

  • Pete

    “…where they don’t mind government intrusion into the bedroom and into individuals’ private space…”

    I’m a North Carolinian who voted for the same sex marriage ban. I don’t much care what my neighbor does in his or her bedroom and I certainly don’t want the government in mine. But I remain an unapologetic advocate of keeping the government out of my dictionary.

  • Michael B.

    Does anybody not think it’s only a matter of time until gay marriage is legalized?

  • Michael B.

    Does anybody not think it’s only a matter of time until gay marriage is legalized?

  • Tom Hering

    But I remain an unapologetic advocate of keeping the government out of my dictionary.

    Next thing you know, the government will try to change the meaning of the word “clear” from “not polluted” to “less polluted.” Or the meaning of the word “torture” from “inflicting pain” to “causing organ failure.” I’m serious. It could happen.

  • Tom Hering

    But I remain an unapologetic advocate of keeping the government out of my dictionary.

    Next thing you know, the government will try to change the meaning of the word “clear” from “not polluted” to “less polluted.” Or the meaning of the word “torture” from “inflicting pain” to “causing organ failure.” I’m serious. It could happen.

  • mikeb

    Michael B. @ 2

    Yes.

    Somehow in our representative democracy the people tend do get what they want. So far, a majority of voters in a majority of the states have said they don’t want gay marriage. That could change but not so soon I think.

  • mikeb

    Michael B. @ 2

    Yes.

    Somehow in our representative democracy the people tend do get what they want. So far, a majority of voters in a majority of the states have said they don’t want gay marriage. That could change but not so soon I think.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Michael B.

    Trends suggest that it is a matter of time. I’m looking forward to seeing what these numbers look like after the election.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Michael B.

    Trends suggest that it is a matter of time. I’m looking forward to seeing what these numbers look like after the election.

  • SAL

    Maranatha.
    Until then,
    Kýrie, eléison.

  • SAL

    Maranatha.
    Until then,
    Kýrie, eléison.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Does anybody not think it’s only a matter of time until Square Circles are legalized?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Does anybody not think it’s only a matter of time until Square Circles are legalized?

  • SKPeterson

    Mike @ 7 – the patriarchal oppression of minorities by the principles of geometry will be overcome!

  • SKPeterson

    Mike @ 7 – the patriarchal oppression of minorities by the principles of geometry will be overcome!

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    Given the mixed emotions out there, I think the best bet for the right is to succinctly stress our position on same-sex marriage and then turn back to the economy. It doesn’t look like SSM is going to be the coup Obama expected, but there’s no point stirring up trouble in our own ranks.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    Given the mixed emotions out there, I think the best bet for the right is to succinctly stress our position on same-sex marriage and then turn back to the economy. It doesn’t look like SSM is going to be the coup Obama expected, but there’s no point stirring up trouble in our own ranks.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Politically speaking, it is probably best if the republican candidates remained silent at this time, unless they are running a relatively safe area. Saying that I am pretty sure the media will not allow them to remain silent.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Politically speaking, it is probably best if the republican candidates remained silent at this time, unless they are running a relatively safe area. Saying that I am pretty sure the media will not allow them to remain silent.

  • Dan Kempin

    I love election cycles. It is so fascinating how each side tries to manipulate the debate of the other. Just when the Republicans had rediscovered “It’s about the economy, stupid,” suddenly they are baited to make gay marriage the issue. I’m surprised at the lack of message discipline on the Republican side.

  • Dan Kempin

    I love election cycles. It is so fascinating how each side tries to manipulate the debate of the other. Just when the Republicans had rediscovered “It’s about the economy, stupid,” suddenly they are baited to make gay marriage the issue. I’m surprised at the lack of message discipline on the Republican side.

  • formerly just steve

    #10 is correct. Unfortunately, the mainstream media not only gets to push the story, they get to frame the argument.

  • formerly just steve

    #10 is correct. Unfortunately, the mainstream media not only gets to push the story, they get to frame the argument.

  • Pete

    @7&8
    George Orwell was all over this thing, wasn’t he?

  • Pete

    @7&8
    George Orwell was all over this thing, wasn’t he?

  • DonS

    Well, the MSM certainly loves to point out what it regards as dissension in Republican ranks, while essentially ignoring rifts in the Democratic party. Sure, there are two different viewpoints among Republicans — more libertarian-oriented ones favor allowing the issue to take a natural political course, essentially letting the people decide without court interference, while more socially conservative ones want a federal policy prohibiting federal recognition of gay marriage, recognizing that allowing each state to decide ultimately won’t work because of the Full Faith & Credit Clause. It’s a real and healthy debate.

    But, make no mistake, the Democrats are in the same divisive quandary. African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, for example, because of their faith roots. Hispanics are as well, though somewhat less so. Prop. 8 passed in California because of these two Democratic voting constituencies. Gay marriage is a wealthy urban white folks issue, as is the case with most gay rights issues, and environmental issues. Traditional minority groups do not appreciate gays’ assertions that their minority status should be regarded as equivalent. Democrats don’t really want their constituencies dwelling on this fact — that wealthy urban whites are driving their party policies — for too long, and the media tends to abet them in this.

  • DonS

    Well, the MSM certainly loves to point out what it regards as dissension in Republican ranks, while essentially ignoring rifts in the Democratic party. Sure, there are two different viewpoints among Republicans — more libertarian-oriented ones favor allowing the issue to take a natural political course, essentially letting the people decide without court interference, while more socially conservative ones want a federal policy prohibiting federal recognition of gay marriage, recognizing that allowing each state to decide ultimately won’t work because of the Full Faith & Credit Clause. It’s a real and healthy debate.

    But, make no mistake, the Democrats are in the same divisive quandary. African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, for example, because of their faith roots. Hispanics are as well, though somewhat less so. Prop. 8 passed in California because of these two Democratic voting constituencies. Gay marriage is a wealthy urban white folks issue, as is the case with most gay rights issues, and environmental issues. Traditional minority groups do not appreciate gays’ assertions that their minority status should be regarded as equivalent. Democrats don’t really want their constituencies dwelling on this fact — that wealthy urban whites are driving their party policies — for too long, and the media tends to abet them in this.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Redefine π as 3 to make it easier for students.

    It as SKP points out, geometry is discriminating by insisting on the old way of defining π as which renders 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 …

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Redefine π as 3 to make it easier for students.

    It as SKP points out, geometry is discriminating by insisting on the old way of defining π as which renders 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 …

  • fws

    I think the republicans are being too timid.

    The polls in NC said that it would be a close vote. It was a rout.

    It seems clear that what is happening is that people are timid to express their real feelings about this to anyone. Then they express their feelings only when they can do so anonymously in the voting booth.

    The same would have happened with black voting rights and racial integration and interracial marriage had it been put to a referendum back in the 70′s and before. Not to even hint that racial prejudices are in aaaany way similar here mind you.

  • fws

    I think the republicans are being too timid.

    The polls in NC said that it would be a close vote. It was a rout.

    It seems clear that what is happening is that people are timid to express their real feelings about this to anyone. Then they express their feelings only when they can do so anonymously in the voting booth.

    The same would have happened with black voting rights and racial integration and interracial marriage had it been put to a referendum back in the 70′s and before. Not to even hint that racial prejudices are in aaaany way similar here mind you.

  • fws

    Pete

    The government redefined marriage as soon as they started defining it this way

    married= buying a piece of paper called a marriage license.

    That is YOUR definition of marriage Pete? The Bibles?
    If you dont have that piece of paper, then by the government’s definition, you are not married.

    That piece of paper then is the very essence of marriage as it pertains to the governments involvement. Essence here in the technical philosophical aristotelian meaning as “without which, it is not”. Another definition….

    You agree with this Pete??!!

  • fws

    Pete

    The government redefined marriage as soon as they started defining it this way

    married= buying a piece of paper called a marriage license.

    That is YOUR definition of marriage Pete? The Bibles?
    If you dont have that piece of paper, then by the government’s definition, you are not married.

    That piece of paper then is the very essence of marriage as it pertains to the governments involvement. Essence here in the technical philosophical aristotelian meaning as “without which, it is not”. Another definition….

    You agree with this Pete??!!

  • fws

    Pete @ 1:

    My opinion:

    Married men and women, in the eyes of God, are married whether they have that piece of paper or not.

    Gay men and women are not married in the same sense, whether they have that piece of paper or not.

    Conclusion: It is a waste of time, money, energy, etc, to not let the government let all citizens buy that piece of paper with the same sort of rules needed as there are to buy any other kinda license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.

    It is nothing to do with dictionary definitions or biblical definitions or any other kinda definition other than the bureaucratic and eyeglazingly mundane ones…

  • fws

    Pete @ 1:

    My opinion:

    Married men and women, in the eyes of God, are married whether they have that piece of paper or not.

    Gay men and women are not married in the same sense, whether they have that piece of paper or not.

    Conclusion: It is a waste of time, money, energy, etc, to not let the government let all citizens buy that piece of paper with the same sort of rules needed as there are to buy any other kinda license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.

    It is nothing to do with dictionary definitions or biblical definitions or any other kinda definition other than the bureaucratic and eyeglazingly mundane ones…

  • fws

    Pete

    The government changes the qualifications for who is or is not to receive a license for whatever all the time. The term “driver” is as old as the OT.

    “attorney” is the world oldest profession. To qualify for that license to BE one, one had to be a male. Until the radicals in Iowa changed all that.
    And without that license you were not an attorney. ditto doctors, dentists, etc etc etc etc
    In fact, it is a crime to say “I am an attorney ” without that piece of paper.

    There is not one case where this really changes the substance of anything. As Romney points out, Corporations are persons the governments definition. He is right.

    What a silly sort of thing to fight with the government or others about.

  • fws

    Pete

    The government changes the qualifications for who is or is not to receive a license for whatever all the time. The term “driver” is as old as the OT.

    “attorney” is the world oldest profession. To qualify for that license to BE one, one had to be a male. Until the radicals in Iowa changed all that.
    And without that license you were not an attorney. ditto doctors, dentists, etc etc etc etc
    In fact, it is a crime to say “I am an attorney ” without that piece of paper.

    There is not one case where this really changes the substance of anything. As Romney points out, Corporations are persons the governments definition. He is right.

    What a silly sort of thing to fight with the government or others about.

  • fws

    next thing you know, people will be trying to nuance and change what qualifies someone as a biggot.

  • fws

    next thing you know, people will be trying to nuance and change what qualifies someone as a biggot.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    So, SSM is a war between bigots on one side, and perverts on the other side. No middle ground, apparently.

    Back when the sexual revolution started, the “stupid piece of paper” was an object of derision. Now it’s the Holy Grail.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    So, SSM is a war between bigots on one side, and perverts on the other side. No middle ground, apparently.

    Back when the sexual revolution started, the “stupid piece of paper” was an object of derision. Now it’s the Holy Grail.

  • fws

    mike w @21

    a word from one of the haves to all the have-nots. Nice touch.

    That word pervert made the point. Thanks.

    it was a holy grail for interracial couples prior to 197o. Interracial couples were imprisoned in virginia without it. It was a holy grail to all black couples prior to around 1880. prior to 1860 or so, it was the bill of sale that “divorced” one from one’s spouse that mattered.

    marriage is defined, by the goverment, as one who has purchased a piece of paper. Without it you are not.
    No one here accepts that definition do they?

  • fws

    mike w @21

    a word from one of the haves to all the have-nots. Nice touch.

    That word pervert made the point. Thanks.

    it was a holy grail for interracial couples prior to 197o. Interracial couples were imprisoned in virginia without it. It was a holy grail to all black couples prior to around 1880. prior to 1860 or so, it was the bill of sale that “divorced” one from one’s spouse that mattered.

    marriage is defined, by the goverment, as one who has purchased a piece of paper. Without it you are not.
    No one here accepts that definition do they?

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #15
    But the Bible does define pi as being three: (I Kings 7:23).

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #15
    But the Bible does define pi as being three: (I Kings 7:23).

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    You make a good point, Frank.
    Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with rights. Rights don’t need to be licensed to be exercised.

    The issuance of a license implies that the government has some legitimate interest (or at least thinks it does) in the thing being licensed. I wonder if the government will someday decide it has a legitimate interest in licensing squares to be circles?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    You make a good point, Frank.
    Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with rights. Rights don’t need to be licensed to be exercised.

    The issuance of a license implies that the government has some legitimate interest (or at least thinks it does) in the thing being licensed. I wonder if the government will someday decide it has a legitimate interest in licensing squares to be circles?

  • Grace

    fws
    You cannot make people pretend, as in, “The Emperor without clothes” – it’s the same thing. Homosexual marriage is a façade, masked in a lie, you’ve fooled no one, it’s sin. Marriage for homosexuals will not erase the sin, nor will it hide it from God Almighty.

    Below Martin Luther

    Martin Luther, commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:

    “Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”
    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)

    Same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:

    The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”
    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • Grace

    fws
    You cannot make people pretend, as in, “The Emperor without clothes” – it’s the same thing. Homosexual marriage is a façade, masked in a lie, you’ve fooled no one, it’s sin. Marriage for homosexuals will not erase the sin, nor will it hide it from God Almighty.

    Below Martin Luther

    Martin Luther, commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:

    “Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”
    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)

    Same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:

    The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”
    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • Pete

    fws @ multiple

    I’m frantically searching for the “Give You a Dope Slap” emoticon. You’ve unloaded truckloads of syllables on this thing. Here’s my take. This thing is all about validation. I mean, there’s nothing currently to prevent me from setting up shop with my homosexual partner and playing the entire “married” game right up to the point that they call the roll and find out that one of the requisite genders (for this to qualify as an actual marriage) isn’t present. It’s all about the LGBT crowd wanting to shed the asterisk.
    And the next person who analogues this issue with slavery is going to set me looking for the “Punch You in the Nose” emoticon.

  • Pete

    fws @ multiple

    I’m frantically searching for the “Give You a Dope Slap” emoticon. You’ve unloaded truckloads of syllables on this thing. Here’s my take. This thing is all about validation. I mean, there’s nothing currently to prevent me from setting up shop with my homosexual partner and playing the entire “married” game right up to the point that they call the roll and find out that one of the requisite genders (for this to qualify as an actual marriage) isn’t present. It’s all about the LGBT crowd wanting to shed the asterisk.
    And the next person who analogues this issue with slavery is going to set me looking for the “Punch You in the Nose” emoticon.

  • Pete

    I meant “analogizes”.

  • Pete

    I meant “analogizes”.

  • Grace

    Pete,

    I agree TOTALLY with your comment:

    “And the next person who analogues this issue with slavery is going to set me looking for the “Punch You in the Nose” emoticon.”

    It’s :twisted: (twisted)

  • Grace

    Pete,

    I agree TOTALLY with your comment:

    “And the next person who analogues this issue with slavery is going to set me looking for the “Punch You in the Nose” emoticon.”

    It’s :twisted: (twisted)

  • SKPeterson

    I call an immediate halt and cessation to the overwrought and ill-thought use of emoticons on this blog. Think of the children!

  • SKPeterson

    I call an immediate halt and cessation to the overwrought and ill-thought use of emoticons on this blog. Think of the children!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m with SK (@29)! Say what you will about the way the MSM covers SSM, or how FWS writes MSS on the topic; at least they don’t write à la SMS!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m with SK (@29)! Say what you will about the way the MSM covers SSM, or how FWS writes MSS on the topic; at least they don’t write à la SMS!

  • Grace

    SKP

    You might, and so might others, consider the context of these threads ;) when you get a chance.

  • Grace

    SKP

    You might, and so might others, consider the context of these threads ;) when you get a chance.

  • Jonathan

    I’m eating this up

  • Jonathan

    I’m eating this up

  • Jon

  • Jon

  • Dan Kempin

    I like Jon’s take at #32. I wish I would have thought to say that sooner.

  • Dan Kempin

    I like Jon’s take at #32. I wish I would have thought to say that sooner.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The only thing I am going to add is this…

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The only thing I am going to add is this…

  • fws

    Lets review

    1)Children are better off being raised with both their biological parents. ban divorce and ALL adoptions. Gays can adopt. So “saving marriage” is not about that.

    2) The government sanctions marriage for the divorced. Jesus says this is adultery. So it’s not about not having the govt condoning and norming sin. They already do that.

    3) The Large Catechism: Your marriage is protected is protected by commanding others to get married as well. How? Your neighbor is given his ration (portion) of sex so he is less likely to be tempted to get soma yours. So it is not about that.

    4)Your marriage will be saved by not letting queers have one? It will take more than that. Try marriage counseling. Ahem. Nope. Not about that either.

    5) The govt redefined marriage as soon as it started issuing licenses. Got one? married! Don’t? Not! So it ain’t ’bout no stinkin dicshunary defunishun.

    5) so besides hearing the proponents of gay marriage be referred to as sodomites and perverts, and the fact that there are no practical reasons at all presented for forbidding it, … aside from that… we are shocked and offended that people assume we are bigots for opposing it… um…. why?

    4)

  • fws

    Lets review

    1)Children are better off being raised with both their biological parents. ban divorce and ALL adoptions. Gays can adopt. So “saving marriage” is not about that.

    2) The government sanctions marriage for the divorced. Jesus says this is adultery. So it’s not about not having the govt condoning and norming sin. They already do that.

    3) The Large Catechism: Your marriage is protected is protected by commanding others to get married as well. How? Your neighbor is given his ration (portion) of sex so he is less likely to be tempted to get soma yours. So it is not about that.

    4)Your marriage will be saved by not letting queers have one? It will take more than that. Try marriage counseling. Ahem. Nope. Not about that either.

    5) The govt redefined marriage as soon as it started issuing licenses. Got one? married! Don’t? Not! So it ain’t ’bout no stinkin dicshunary defunishun.

    5) so besides hearing the proponents of gay marriage be referred to as sodomites and perverts, and the fact that there are no practical reasons at all presented for forbidding it, … aside from that… we are shocked and offended that people assume we are bigots for opposing it… um…. why?

    4)

  • fws

    Grace:

    Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matt. 19:9). The word in Greek for immorality is porneia from which we get the word pornography. Sexual immorality, i.e., adultery, is a grounds for divorce according to Jesus.

    Porneia is usually translated as “fornication” in the Bible.

    I dont want to hear from you on this topic until you are able to biblically justify the many people who are living in a sinful lifestyle without repenting of it by departing that lifestyle. Calvary Chapel is full of em.

  • fws

    Grace:

    Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matt. 19:9). The word in Greek for immorality is porneia from which we get the word pornography. Sexual immorality, i.e., adultery, is a grounds for divorce according to Jesus.

    Porneia is usually translated as “fornication” in the Bible.

    I dont want to hear from you on this topic until you are able to biblically justify the many people who are living in a sinful lifestyle without repenting of it by departing that lifestyle. Calvary Chapel is full of em.

  • fws

    I am guessing that no one here will directly address any of my points in post 35. I am going to yield the floor here now and not hog space like I did on the other related thread.

    It would be nice to hear some arguments refuting my points in post 35 and not just dismissing them while I am on vacation from this topic.

    thanks.

  • fws

    I am guessing that no one here will directly address any of my points in post 35. I am going to yield the floor here now and not hog space like I did on the other related thread.

    It would be nice to hear some arguments refuting my points in post 35 and not just dismissing them while I am on vacation from this topic.

    thanks.

  • Grace

    fws @36

    “I dont want to hear from you on this topic until you are able to biblically justify the many people who are living in a sinful lifestyle without repenting of it by departing that lifestyle. Calvary Chapel is full of em.”

    I don’t justify sin fws. I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel who is living as you say. There maybe many, but I am not acquainted with them, are you? Since you live in Brazil, do you travel to the churches in Southern CA, and check them out, or do you send scouts out to interview the congregants?

  • Grace

    fws @36

    “I dont want to hear from you on this topic until you are able to biblically justify the many people who are living in a sinful lifestyle without repenting of it by departing that lifestyle. Calvary Chapel is full of em.”

    I don’t justify sin fws. I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel who is living as you say. There maybe many, but I am not acquainted with them, are you? Since you live in Brazil, do you travel to the churches in Southern CA, and check them out, or do you send scouts out to interview the congregants?

  • fws

    grace @ 38

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

  • fws

    grace @ 38

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

  • Grace

    “Conclusion: It is a waste of time, money, energy, etc, to not let the government let all citizens buy that piece of paper with the same sort of rules needed as there are to buy any other kinda license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.”

    REGARDING “that piece of paper”

    The most dangerous part of this “buy that piece of paper” idea is; you cannot buy away sin, there is no piece of paper that gives anyone Eternal Salvation when they sin willfully, unrepentant, and further beg that their sin be legalized, (same sex marriage)

    Comparing it to “license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.” further illustrates my point, it’s not the same, HOWEVER it has no special value to YOU, as you compare these licenses to a marriage license. That speaks loud and clear – All you’re doing is competing with the REAL DEAL, and that is a man and a woman marrying, you can’t make it work, it’s against nature. Unless of course you bring up the point of animals – they do try male to male, and female to female, but then they are animals, they act like animals as well.

    At the same time thousands become infected with HIV/AIDS, while the homosexuals prance about in Homosexual pride parade’s.

  • Grace

    “Conclusion: It is a waste of time, money, energy, etc, to not let the government let all citizens buy that piece of paper with the same sort of rules needed as there are to buy any other kinda license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.”

    REGARDING “that piece of paper”

    The most dangerous part of this “buy that piece of paper” idea is; you cannot buy away sin, there is no piece of paper that gives anyone Eternal Salvation when they sin willfully, unrepentant, and further beg that their sin be legalized, (same sex marriage)

    Comparing it to “license, hunting, fishing, business, drivers. It’s exactly the same deal.” further illustrates my point, it’s not the same, HOWEVER it has no special value to YOU, as you compare these licenses to a marriage license. That speaks loud and clear – All you’re doing is competing with the REAL DEAL, and that is a man and a woman marrying, you can’t make it work, it’s against nature. Unless of course you bring up the point of animals – they do try male to male, and female to female, but then they are animals, they act like animals as well.

    At the same time thousands become infected with HIV/AIDS, while the homosexuals prance about in Homosexual pride parade’s.

  • Grace

    fws @ 39

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

    If course you don’t – You don’t understand the truth, if you did, you would study the Word of God, understand what it says in Romans 1, and stop playing The Emperor without clothes routine. Instead you accuse me of being untruthful, which is the only way YOU believe you can JUSTIFY your ACCUSATION. :lol:

  • Grace

    fws @ 39

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

    If course you don’t – You don’t understand the truth, if you did, you would study the Word of God, understand what it says in Romans 1, and stop playing The Emperor without clothes routine. Instead you accuse me of being untruthful, which is the only way YOU believe you can JUSTIFY your ACCUSATION. :lol:

  • Grace

    39 fws May 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    grace @ 38

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

    You made up a quote I never posted. Again here it is again:

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    Are you unable to quote me, INSTEAD of making up a quote? You did that on purpose. How honest is that?

  • Grace

    39 fws May 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    grace @ 38

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    I don’t believe you are telling the truth Grace.

    You made up a quote I never posted. Again here it is again:

    I don’t know anyone at Calvary Chapel [who is divorced and remarried and a member in good standing at ay Calvary Chapel].

    Are you unable to quote me, INSTEAD of making up a quote? You did that on purpose. How honest is that?

  • fws

    Grace:

    whatever.

  • fws

    Grace:

    whatever.

  • fws

    grace

    you belong to a church full of persons who are divorced and remarried, sometimes more than once! and so by Jesus’ definition, are living in the open and unrepentant sin of adultery.

    I dont want to hear from you till you justify why you belong to a group that defiantly and openly approves of such things.

    I dont believe that you dont know of any such persons in calvary chapel. You are not being honest with us here Grace

  • fws

    grace

    you belong to a church full of persons who are divorced and remarried, sometimes more than once! and so by Jesus’ definition, are living in the open and unrepentant sin of adultery.

    I dont want to hear from you till you justify why you belong to a group that defiantly and openly approves of such things.

    I dont believe that you dont know of any such persons in calvary chapel. You are not being honest with us here Grace

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @23

    Fail.

    That is not a prescriptive definition.

    It is just an approximate description. People still describe things with approximate dimensions for easy and simplicity. Duh.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @23

    Fail.

    That is not a prescriptive definition.

    It is just an approximate description. People still describe things with approximate dimensions for easy and simplicity. Duh.

  • Grace

    fws @ 43

    “whatever.”

    No, it isn’t “whatever” it’s dishonest on your part. You made up the quote to suit yourself.

  • Grace

    fws @ 43

    “whatever.”

    No, it isn’t “whatever” it’s dishonest on your part. You made up the quote to suit yourself.

  • Pete

    tODD @30
    Slow down for us Luddites – what’s MSS? More Stupid Stuff?

  • Pete

    tODD @30
    Slow down for us Luddites – what’s MSS? More Stupid Stuff?

  • Grace

    fws

    You’re up against the wall on this discussion, that’s why you’re trying to make me out to be dishonest, by stateing:

    “I dont believe that you dont know of any such persons in calvary chapel. You are not being honest with us here Grace.”

    Who care if you believe me. You don’t believe Saint Paul in Romans 1.

    I bet you didn’t read my post earlier regarding Martin Luther, his statements regarding Genesis same sex relationships. Post 25. Maybe I should post it again?

    This thread isn’t about divorce, it’s about Homosexual marriage, you’re doing a bait and switch.

  • Grace

    fws

    You’re up against the wall on this discussion, that’s why you’re trying to make me out to be dishonest, by stateing:

    “I dont believe that you dont know of any such persons in calvary chapel. You are not being honest with us here Grace.”

    Who care if you believe me. You don’t believe Saint Paul in Romans 1.

    I bet you didn’t read my post earlier regarding Martin Luther, his statements regarding Genesis same sex relationships. Post 25. Maybe I should post it again?

    This thread isn’t about divorce, it’s about Homosexual marriage, you’re doing a bait and switch.

  • DonS

    Frank @ 44:

    you belong to a church full of persons who are divorced and remarried, sometimes more than once! and so by Jesus’ definition, are living in the open and unrepentant sin of adultery.

    Hmmm. A church full of sinners. And you don’t belong to such a church, Frank? Where are you going with this line of argument, and the specific reference to Grace’s particular church, as if it were somehow different than every other church in respect of being full of sinners?

  • DonS

    Frank @ 44:

    you belong to a church full of persons who are divorced and remarried, sometimes more than once! and so by Jesus’ definition, are living in the open and unrepentant sin of adultery.

    Hmmm. A church full of sinners. And you don’t belong to such a church, Frank? Where are you going with this line of argument, and the specific reference to Grace’s particular church, as if it were somehow different than every other church in respect of being full of sinners?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Pi does equal 3, to the nearest unit of measurement.
    Besides, if the Bible wanted to be really exact about the value of pi, it would be a whole lot thicker book. a whole lot thicker…

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Pi does equal 3, to the nearest unit of measurement.
    Besides, if the Bible wanted to be really exact about the value of pi, it would be a whole lot thicker book. a whole lot thicker…

  • fws

    don s

    you know perfectly well where I am going with it.
    you are not telling the divorced who remarry that repentence looks like leaving their second marriage.
    why not?

  • fws

    don s

    you know perfectly well where I am going with it.
    you are not telling the divorced who remarry that repentence looks like leaving their second marriage.
    why not?

  • fws

    mike @50

    “alot ” thicker.

    cant you be more precise? bigger than a breadbox?

  • fws

    mike @50

    “alot ” thicker.

    cant you be more precise? bigger than a breadbox?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Pete (@47), actually, Luddites should know that abbreviation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Pete (@47), actually, Luddites should know that abbreviation.

  • Grace

    fws,

    Here it is again for your reading pleasure

    25 Grace May 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    fws
    You cannot make people pretend, as in, “The Emperor without clothes” – it’s the same thing. Homosexual marriage is a façade, masked in a lie, you’ve fooled no one, it’s sin. Marriage for homosexuals will not erase the sin, nor will it hide it from God Almighty.

    Below Martin Luther

    Martin Luther, commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:

    “Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”

    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)

    Same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:

    “The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”

    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • Grace

    fws,

    Here it is again for your reading pleasure

    25 Grace May 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    fws
    You cannot make people pretend, as in, “The Emperor without clothes” – it’s the same thing. Homosexual marriage is a façade, masked in a lie, you’ve fooled no one, it’s sin. Marriage for homosexuals will not erase the sin, nor will it hide it from God Almighty.

    Below Martin Luther

    Martin Luther, commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:

    “Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”

    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)

    Same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:

    “The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”

    (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)

  • DonS

    Frank @ 51: I was mostly interested in your calling out a specific church, ascertaining whether you were separating that church from others or making a broader point. I will assume, taking a charitable construction, and based on the tenor of your reply, that your comment means that you were making a broader point, and were not about specifically impugning Grace’s church.

    Otherwise, I’m sitting this one out. Been there, done that.

  • DonS

    Frank @ 51: I was mostly interested in your calling out a specific church, ascertaining whether you were separating that church from others or making a broader point. I will assume, taking a charitable construction, and based on the tenor of your reply, that your comment means that you were making a broader point, and were not about specifically impugning Grace’s church.

    Otherwise, I’m sitting this one out. Been there, done that.

  • fws

    don @ 49

    Look . I am saying there are some strong parallels in the situation of a divorced person who Jesus says is committing adultery by remarriage and gay people.

    and I am saying there seems to be a double standard in the way your church treats these two situations.

    I think we need to let divorced persons get remarried. it would be a hazard to society to not permit it.

  • fws

    don @ 49

    Look . I am saying there are some strong parallels in the situation of a divorced person who Jesus says is committing adultery by remarriage and gay people.

    and I am saying there seems to be a double standard in the way your church treats these two situations.

    I think we need to let divorced persons get remarried. it would be a hazard to society to not permit it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@56), “I think we need to let divorced persons get remarried.”

    “We” who?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@56), “I think we need to let divorced persons get remarried.”

    “We” who?

  • Pete

    tODD (@53)

    Thanx. Maybe the best advice I’ve gotten today was shortly after I boarded the plane in St. Louis – something we should all take to heart. A voice came from the front of the plane exhorting us to “please turn off all electronic devices.”

  • Pete

    tODD (@53)

    Thanx. Maybe the best advice I’ve gotten today was shortly after I boarded the plane in St. Louis – something we should all take to heart. A voice came from the front of the plane exhorting us to “please turn off all electronic devices.”

  • Grace

    There is no “we” to it. Those who have broken their marriage vows, and comitted adultery have no connection to homosexuals. To make that connection is ignorant.

    There is only one way one may obtain a divorce and that is, adultery. They then have a Biblical divorce, which entitles the one who has been the victim to marry again.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    Matthew 19:9

    Let’s look at this closer. Why can’t people obtain a divorce for gossip, lying? Why is it only sexual sin? Perhaps this sheds a new light on sin, and why sexual sin is a reason for Biblical divorce.

    From this point we have to ask ourselves, because sexual sin is such a horrible sin, it is held above all others for the reason of divorce, and another chance to remarry, then what? Is this just another sin like gossip? Of course not, there is nothing to suggest in the Word of God that one can divorce for gossip, lying, stealing or other sins, ONLY fornication/adultery –

    Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    1 Corinthians 6:18

  • Grace

    There is no “we” to it. Those who have broken their marriage vows, and comitted adultery have no connection to homosexuals. To make that connection is ignorant.

    There is only one way one may obtain a divorce and that is, adultery. They then have a Biblical divorce, which entitles the one who has been the victim to marry again.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    Matthew 19:9

    Let’s look at this closer. Why can’t people obtain a divorce for gossip, lying? Why is it only sexual sin? Perhaps this sheds a new light on sin, and why sexual sin is a reason for Biblical divorce.

    From this point we have to ask ourselves, because sexual sin is such a horrible sin, it is held above all others for the reason of divorce, and another chance to remarry, then what? Is this just another sin like gossip? Of course not, there is nothing to suggest in the Word of God that one can divorce for gossip, lying, stealing or other sins, ONLY fornication/adultery –

    Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    1 Corinthians 6:18

  • John C

    It is just a matter of time , Frank.
    The vast majority of people b/n the ages of 18 and 34 support marriage equality.
    To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw — Wisdom is wasted on the elderly.

  • John C

    It is just a matter of time , Frank.
    The vast majority of people b/n the ages of 18 and 34 support marriage equality.
    To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw — Wisdom is wasted on the elderly.

  • Michael B.

    “This thread isn’t about divorce, it’s about Homosexual marriage, you’re doing a bait and switch.”

    But fws may have a point here. While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.

    (There are exceptions to this rule. I know of one church that says if a couple gets divorced, one or both of them will be excommunicated. But they are the exception. Most churches completely accommodate divorce and remarriage. )

  • Michael B.

    “This thread isn’t about divorce, it’s about Homosexual marriage, you’re doing a bait and switch.”

    But fws may have a point here. While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.

    (There are exceptions to this rule. I know of one church that says if a couple gets divorced, one or both of them will be excommunicated. But they are the exception. Most churches completely accommodate divorce and remarriage. )

  • Grace

    Michael @ 61

    YOU WROTE: “But fws may have a point here. While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.

    I’m not picking and choosing anything, I stated the Scripture earlier regarding divorce. The “standard” is God’s, HE is the one who made it all clear. Mixing this all together as a religious malt, suits the homosexuals. That’s how they have trapped themselves from day one.

    Michael I gave the only reason, stated in the Bible by which one can remarry. You’re right, some churches and denominations turn a blind eye to divorce. It’s wrong.

    A man or woman who leaves their spouse and then marries another, perhaps being involved while being married? The Bible is clear that they are comitting adultery – be it during their former marriage, and then marrying another individual, they continue to commit adultery.

    Marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with same sex. Homosexual marriages are counterfeit, just an imitation of what is genuine.

    God made clear in Romans 1 what same sex relationships are: then add homosexual marriages, it’s all counterfeit, just an imitation of what is genuine. Saint Paul warns they are given over to a REPROBATE mind. That’s why we see homosexuals blinded, unable or unwilling to turn from sin and depend upon the LORD.

  • Grace

    Michael @ 61

    YOU WROTE: “But fws may have a point here. While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.

    I’m not picking and choosing anything, I stated the Scripture earlier regarding divorce. The “standard” is God’s, HE is the one who made it all clear. Mixing this all together as a religious malt, suits the homosexuals. That’s how they have trapped themselves from day one.

    Michael I gave the only reason, stated in the Bible by which one can remarry. You’re right, some churches and denominations turn a blind eye to divorce. It’s wrong.

    A man or woman who leaves their spouse and then marries another, perhaps being involved while being married? The Bible is clear that they are comitting adultery – be it during their former marriage, and then marrying another individual, they continue to commit adultery.

    Marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with same sex. Homosexual marriages are counterfeit, just an imitation of what is genuine.

    God made clear in Romans 1 what same sex relationships are: then add homosexual marriages, it’s all counterfeit, just an imitation of what is genuine. Saint Paul warns they are given over to a REPROBATE mind. That’s why we see homosexuals blinded, unable or unwilling to turn from sin and depend upon the LORD.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It is just a matter of time , Frank.
    The vast majority of people b/n the ages of 18 and 34 support marriage equality.”

    The vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 34 will not have even have 50% of the kids. The religious and minorities have the most kids. Liberal whites very few. The more educated and more radical they are, the fewer kids they have. So, their future is not the future.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It is just a matter of time , Frank.
    The vast majority of people b/n the ages of 18 and 34 support marriage equality.”

    The vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 34 will not have even have 50% of the kids. The religious and minorities have the most kids. Liberal whites very few. The more educated and more radical they are, the fewer kids they have. So, their future is not the future.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.”

    Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns divorce under most if not all circumstances. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to obey. If I were a queer, I would ask “By which standard do you condemn my homosexual marriage, but bless men who have left their wives and married another woman?”.”

    Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    and the difference between romney and bho is WHAT?!!!
    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    and the difference between romney and bho is WHAT?!!!
    Carol-CS

  • Grace

    C-Christian Soldier @ 66

    YOUR QUESTION: – - “and the difference between romney and bho is WHAT?!!!”

    If you know, why don’t you post it? – OR, is it because you don’t know?

  • Grace

    C-Christian Soldier @ 66

    YOUR QUESTION: – - “and the difference between romney and bho is WHAT?!!!”

    If you know, why don’t you post it? – OR, is it because you don’t know?

  • fws

    sg @ 65

    Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.

    sg, this WOULD be a logical falacy if it read this way: A is wrong and prohibited, B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should be prohibited but there is no problem with B being not prohibited.

    It is the second proposition that is generally accepted today among christians. I am questioning, indeed , the logic of it. A and B should be treated the same way.

    If that were so, gays and divorced singles would be in exactly the same boat.

    They would be forbidden to become remarried and the church would demand a life of celebacy of them. If they remarried they would be considered not christian until they repented in the form of putting aside their second wife or husband so exiting their “sinful lifestyle”.

    This used to be the case all here must agree. But things have changed haven’t they. My question is why for the divorced and not for gays?

  • fws

    sg @ 65

    Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.

    sg, this WOULD be a logical falacy if it read this way: A is wrong and prohibited, B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should be prohibited but there is no problem with B being not prohibited.

    It is the second proposition that is generally accepted today among christians. I am questioning, indeed , the logic of it. A and B should be treated the same way.

    If that were so, gays and divorced singles would be in exactly the same boat.

    They would be forbidden to become remarried and the church would demand a life of celebacy of them. If they remarried they would be considered not christian until they repented in the form of putting aside their second wife or husband so exiting their “sinful lifestyle”.

    This used to be the case all here must agree. But things have changed haven’t they. My question is why for the divorced and not for gays?

  • fws

    Sg @ 65

    Logical:

    A (gay) is wrong and therefore prohibited. B (remarriage) is wrong and therefore prohibited or should be.

    or

    A is wrong and is therefore prohibited and B is wrong and therefore…. not prohibited.

    This is the situation we seem to have adapted to today. And it is a change from only about 50 years ago or so….

    what are your thoughts on this SG?

  • fws

    Sg @ 65

    Logical:

    A (gay) is wrong and therefore prohibited. B (remarriage) is wrong and therefore prohibited or should be.

    or

    A is wrong and is therefore prohibited and B is wrong and therefore…. not prohibited.

    This is the situation we seem to have adapted to today. And it is a change from only about 50 years ago or so….

    what are your thoughts on this SG?

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.”

    The conclusion is: Therefore A should not be prohibited OR B SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. You can’t just cherry pick Bible verses you want to obey, and then claim someone else is less Biblical than you because they choose different dishes at the smorgasbord. Again, what standard do you appeal to to choose which Bible verses you’re going to obey?

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “Oh, there has to be a name for this fallacy. A is wrong and prohibited. B is wrong and not prohibited. Therefore A should not be prohibited.”

    The conclusion is: Therefore A should not be prohibited OR B SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. You can’t just cherry pick Bible verses you want to obey, and then claim someone else is less Biblical than you because they choose different dishes at the smorgasbord. Again, what standard do you appeal to to choose which Bible verses you’re going to obey?

  • fws

    Todd @ 58

    Prior to around 1950, as far as I can tell, “we” LCMS and WELS Lutherans would excommunicate those who divorced and remarried (outside of the two “biblical” exceptions of adultery and abandonment).

    Then that changed. It seems that now “we” completely accomodate the remarriages of any and all divorced persons.

    I agree that this change was right to make, even though we seem, at first glance, to have the clear words of Christ himself in Matt 19.

    What do you make of that change that was made Todd? Why would we not or should we not make a similar accomodation to gays for exactly the same reasons?

  • fws

    Todd @ 58

    Prior to around 1950, as far as I can tell, “we” LCMS and WELS Lutherans would excommunicate those who divorced and remarried (outside of the two “biblical” exceptions of adultery and abandonment).

    Then that changed. It seems that now “we” completely accomodate the remarriages of any and all divorced persons.

    I agree that this change was right to make, even though we seem, at first glance, to have the clear words of Christ himself in Matt 19.

    What do you make of that change that was made Todd? Why would we not or should we not make a similar accomodation to gays for exactly the same reasons?

  • Grace

    fws,

    Why change what is in God’s Word. I posted Luthers statement twice, you grapple with that one, unable to come to terms with the sin of same sex sexual relations.

    Then you state: “What do you make of that change that was made Todd? Why would we not or should we not make a similar accomodation to gays for exactly the same reasons?”

    The Bible doesn’t make accomodations for homosexuals, you know that, the church has no right to change anything to accomodate those who insist on homosexual sexual relationships.

  • Grace

    fws,

    Why change what is in God’s Word. I posted Luthers statement twice, you grapple with that one, unable to come to terms with the sin of same sex sexual relations.

    Then you state: “What do you make of that change that was made Todd? Why would we not or should we not make a similar accomodation to gays for exactly the same reasons?”

    The Bible doesn’t make accomodations for homosexuals, you know that, the church has no right to change anything to accomodate those who insist on homosexual sexual relationships.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “gays and divorced singles would be in exactly the same boat.”

    They are in the same boat. Now, they can repent…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “gays and divorced singles would be in exactly the same boat.”

    They are in the same boat. Now, they can repent…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X