Bible Discussion: Sample Sermon "talking Points" For Marriage Sunday

Sample Sermon "talking Points" For Marriage Sunday
Posts: 18

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Gary Dorman
2004-07-11 21:34:52 EST
Somebody sent me this in email...Do these people not realize what bigots
they are?



Marriage - the most basic creation of God to sustain humanity -
has been undermined by the homosexual agenda.

Yet at the same time, social science research has uncovered a large and
growing body of evidence that marriage has significant benefits for
husbands and wives, and for their children. Put simply,
families headed by married husbands and wives are:

happier
healthier
more prosperous

than people in other types of households.

Given the clear social benefits of marriage, and the threats now facing it,
it is important to ask,what can we as the church do to protect marriage
from being rendered irrelevant

To answer that question, we must first address a more fundamental one:

I. What is Marriage For?

Marriage is an institution created by God. That is a historical fact shown
in Genesis 2:18-24:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make
a helper suitable for
him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
field and all the birds of
the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and
whatever the man
called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all
the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he
was sleeping, he took
one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
and he brought
her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
his wife, and they will
become one flesh.
(NIV)

Because it was included as a part of the original creation, it is clear
that God's fundamental intention for marriage applies to all human beings.

However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has special
meanings for the people of God.

A. Theological Meanings of Marriage

1. Reflecting the Nature of God

There is only one God, but that God exists as three persons--Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in that they all
possess the same divine nature; yet they differ in roles and personality.

This combination of "sameness" and "difference" also characterizes
humanity. Indeed, it may be this combination that reflects "the image of
God" (Gen. 1:26). In Genesis 2, Adam names the animals, but they are not
"suitable" companions for him, because they are not the same as him--they
are not human.

To create a "suitable partner" for Adam, God takes a part of Adam's body to
fashion one the same as Adam--another human being. Yet the person God
creates is also different from Adam--a woman, not a man. The human race is
incomplete without both male and female. Yet when they unite during the
marriage act to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), their oneness--despite
their difference--reflects the oneness of God, despite the plurality of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. Symbolism of Marriage
a. Old Testament
In the Old Testament, the covenant of marriage serves as a metaphor for the
relationship between God and the people of Israel.
The worship of other gods (idolatry) is viewed as the equivalent of
adultery, with Israel as the unfaithful spouse. (see Jeremiah 3:6, 8)
b. New Testament
In the New Testament, marriage is seen as a metaphor of the relationship
between Christ and the
Church. (Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 19:7-9).

3. Marriage advances God's purpose in salvation
a. Old Testament
In the Old Testament, God's desire to live in community with humankind
(those who bear his image, yet are different from him) is manifest in his
relationship with the nation of Israel. Yet the nation is the outgrowth of
the 12 tribes, which are the outgrowth of extended patriarchal families,
which are the fruit of marriage and procreation. Thus, marriage is the seed
for the community of God's people on earth.
b. New Testament
In the New Testament, loyalty to the biological family of nation and tribe
is largely supplanted by loyalty to the family of Christ--that is, the
universal church. However, marriage, family, and home retain important
roles in the spread of God's kingdom through evangelism. This role is
fulfilled in the witness of the silent and submissive wife, in the
teaching of children, and in the service to the church offered by couples
such as Priscilla and Aquila (1 Corinthians 16:19).

B. Universal Purposes of Marriage
While marriage has certain specific meanings, both symbolic and functional,
within the order of salvation, it also has some broader purposes that are
rooted in the order of creation itself.

Therefore, these purposes apply to all marriages, even those of unbelievers
or of other faiths. These purposes must therefore lie at the heart of our
civil laws defining and regulating marriage.


1. Companionship
Psychologists say that human beings have a fundamental need for "stable
primary bondings" with other people. Yet that merely confirms the Genesis
account, in which God says simply, "It is not good for the man to be
alone" (Genesis 2:18). It is to provide "a helper suitable for him" that
God creates the woman. And the two becoming "one flesh" is in part a
spiritual event reflecting the emotional bonding of the two.
However, there is danger in assuming that companionship alone defines the
purpose of marriage.

Homosexual activists argue that this is the case, and that therefore same-
sex pairings that provide a desired companion are beneficial. Yet this
same Genesis passage that speaks of the man's need for companionship (Gen.
2:18-24) also clearly shows God filling that need with another person who
is like the man, yet also different. She is someone who, by being of the
opposite sex, serves to complement the man, not merely mirror him. Marriage
unites opposites, each of whom has what the other lacks, and only in this
way does it resolve the incompleteness that each feels when alone.

The homosexuals engaging in acts of sexual union are demonic and lustful in
nature, rather than honoring God.

Furthermore, if one focuses exclusively on companionship as the purpose of
marriage, the homosexual might as well be in love with his image in a
mirror, since his "partner" is not "different."


2. Regulating sexual behavior
In one sense, regulations to limit sexual behavior outside of marriage--
whether by religious teachings, social taboos, or civil laws--can be seen
as attempts to protect the institution of marriage. The uniqueness and
permanence of marriage, and the exclusiveness and trust necessary
for its success, are all threatened by homosexual activity.

However, in another sense, marriage itself can be seen as an institution
that serves the purpose of regulating sexual activity by channeling and
containing it within specific boundaries. To do so is essential, because
even the most private homosexual acts can have destructive public
consequences (see1 Corinthians 6:12-20).

To cite only the most obvious example, homosexuality results in the spread
of AIDS, which has spread to infect innocent children and heterosexuals
through blood transfusions and possibly insect bites.

Anthropologist Frank Beach has written, "There is not, and can never have
been, a true society without sexual rules." Yet the U. S. Supreme Court
seems to have endorsed exactly that nightmarish vision in its June 2003
decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.

As with the purpose of companionship, the purpose of marriage in regulating
sexual behavior is particularly distorted--or denied outright--by the
homosexual movement. Although a few so-called "conservative" homosexuals
speak of the benefits of same-sex civil marriage in "civilizing" the
behavior of homosexuals and taming their promiscuity, this is naive in the
extreme.

An abundance of research shows that homosexual men are particularly
promiscuous, making provision for casual sex partners on the side even if
they are in a "long-term partnership." And no homosexual activist group has
ever said that they will call on homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of
marriage if they are granted the right to legally marry.

Therefore, if same-sex couples are granted that "right," we can expect the
following:

Very few homosexuals will actually be willing to accept the esponsibilities
of marriage.

Most of those homosexuals will marry for the financial benefits they can
gain at the expense of taxpayers and will continue to have relationships
that are neither permanent nor sexually faithful and monogamous.

Rather than changing the behavior of homosexuals, this radical social
experiment will further undermine society's conception of marriage and thus
weaken the institution, and confuse our children.

3. Procreation and Child-Rearing
That reproduction of the human race is one of the central purposes of
marriage is clear from God's mandate to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it.
For the human race to "be fruitful and increase in number," it was clearly
necessary that man and woman come together in a procreative act.

Throughout church history there have been disagreements, however, about
whether procreation is an absolutely essential purpose of marriage. Some
married couples are unable to bear children because of infertility, and
some because of age. We concede that in the past the Church has been
inconsiderate of "Barrenness." Through artificial or natural family
planning, some couples simply choose not to have children. Yet almost no
one ever questions that such couples are legitimately married.

This has led some to dismiss procreation as a central purpose of marriage
at all. Homosexual activists are particularly fond of this argument, for
the obvious reason that same-sex couples are inherently incapable of
reproducing.

But barring same-sex couples from marrying, while allowing infertile
opposite-sex couples to do so, is not a contradiction. A couple that
doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth
control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be
infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment
may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman
outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural
type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children
(or could have in the past).

And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which
reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in
particular cases. While the significance of man and woman becoming "one
flesh" (Genesis 2:24) goes beyond the mere physical act of sexual union, it
certainly encompasses that as well. The male and female bodies are clearly
designed by God to complement one another in the act of intercourse. Two
men or two women can achieve only a crude and often dangerous simulation.
The human rectum is only one cell thick...we need not explain anything
more.

It must be admitted that society's interest in marriages that do not
produce children is less than its interest in marriages that do. However,
we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a
heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or
ability to bear children.

There is no need or reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex
couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is
intrinsically incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age,
health, or intent--of producing babies. In fact, they are incapable of even
engaging in the type of "one-flesh" sexual union that gives God joy. And it
takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries
to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn
the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is
essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with
reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved
in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government
intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government
defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is
undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a
central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of
marriage.


A large coalition of pro-family groups, supported by resolutions and
proclamations from a number of public officials, has declared July 11, 2004
as "Protect Marriage Sunday." Pulpits all over America will spread the
word to call your senators and congressman NOW to ask that they vote for
the Federal Marriage Amendment.


This sample sermon outline was prepared by the Center for Marriage and
Family Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
Users of this sermon may adapt it by using personal illustrations and
incorporating any theological distinctives of their own church tradition
(such as a sacramental view of marriage).

Fair And Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector
2004-07-11 21:41:25 EST
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:34:52 GMT, Gary Dorman <gdorm@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>Somebody sent me this in email...Do these people not realize what bigots
>they are?
>

its repackaged Pharisee morality

if they are so worried about "the family" why don't they make divorce
a crime?

the Conservatives on their 2d and 3d marriages ought to like that




>
>Marriage - the most basic creation of God to sustain humanity -
>has been undermined by the homosexual agenda.
>
>Yet at the same time, social science research has uncovered a large and
>growing body of evidence that marriage has significant benefits for
>husbands and wives, and for their children. Put simply,
>families headed by married husbands and wives are:
>
>happier
>healthier
>more prosperous
>
>than people in other types of households.
>
>Given the clear social benefits of marriage, and the threats now facing it,
>it is important to ask,what can we as the church do to protect marriage
>from being rendered irrelevant
>
>To answer that question, we must first address a more fundamental one:
>
>I. What is Marriage For?
>
>Marriage is an institution created by God. That is a historical fact shown
>in Genesis 2:18-24:
>
>18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make
>a helper suitable for
>him."
>19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
>field and all the birds of
>the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and
>whatever the man
>called each living creature, that was its name.
>20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all
>the beasts of the field.
>But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
>21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he
>was sleeping, he took
>one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
>22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
>and he brought
>her to the man.
>23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
>shall be called 'woman,'
>for she was taken out of man."
>24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
>his wife, and they will
>become one flesh.
>(NIV)
>
>Because it was included as a part of the original creation, it is clear
>that God's fundamental intention for marriage applies to all human beings.
>
>However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has special
>meanings for the people of God.
>
>A. Theological Meanings of Marriage
>
>1. Reflecting the Nature of God
>
>There is only one God, but that God exists as three persons--Father, Son,
>and Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in that they all
>possess the same divine nature; yet they differ in roles and personality.
>
>This combination of "sameness" and "difference" also characterizes
>humanity. Indeed, it may be this combination that reflects "the image of
>God" (Gen. 1:26). In Genesis 2, Adam names the animals, but they are not
>"suitable" companions for him, because they are not the same as him--they
>are not human.
>
>To create a "suitable partner" for Adam, God takes a part of Adam's body to
>fashion one the same as Adam--another human being. Yet the person God
>creates is also different from Adam--a woman, not a man. The human race is
>incomplete without both male and female. Yet when they unite during the
>marriage act to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), their oneness--despite
>their difference--reflects the oneness of God, despite the plurality of
>Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>
>2. Symbolism of Marriage
>a. Old Testament
>In the Old Testament, the covenant of marriage serves as a metaphor for the
>relationship between God and the people of Israel.
>The worship of other gods (idolatry) is viewed as the equivalent of
>adultery, with Israel as the unfaithful spouse. (see Jeremiah 3:6, 8)
>b. New Testament
>In the New Testament, marriage is seen as a metaphor of the relationship
>between Christ and the
>Church. (Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 19:7-9).
>
>3. Marriage advances God's purpose in salvation
>a. Old Testament
>In the Old Testament, God's desire to live in community with humankind
>(those who bear his image, yet are different from him) is manifest in his
>relationship with the nation of Israel. Yet the nation is the outgrowth of
>the 12 tribes, which are the outgrowth of extended patriarchal families,
>which are the fruit of marriage and procreation. Thus, marriage is the seed
>for the community of God's people on earth.
>b. New Testament
>In the New Testament, loyalty to the biological family of nation and tribe
>is largely supplanted by loyalty to the family of Christ--that is, the
>universal church. However, marriage, family, and home retain important
>roles in the spread of God's kingdom through evangelism. This role is
>fulfilled in the witness of the silent and submissive wife, in the
>teaching of children, and in the service to the church offered by couples
>such as Priscilla and Aquila (1 Corinthians 16:19).
>
>B. Universal Purposes of Marriage
>While marriage has certain specific meanings, both symbolic and functional,
>within the order of salvation, it also has some broader purposes that are
>rooted in the order of creation itself.
>
>Therefore, these purposes apply to all marriages, even those of unbelievers
>or of other faiths. These purposes must therefore lie at the heart of our
>civil laws defining and regulating marriage.
>
>
>1. Companionship
>Psychologists say that human beings have a fundamental need for "stable
>primary bondings" with other people. Yet that merely confirms the Genesis
>account, in which God says simply, "It is not good for the man to be
>alone" (Genesis 2:18). It is to provide "a helper suitable for him" that
>God creates the woman. And the two becoming "one flesh" is in part a
>spiritual event reflecting the emotional bonding of the two.
>However, there is danger in assuming that companionship alone defines the
>purpose of marriage.
>
>Homosexual activists argue that this is the case, and that therefore same-
>sex pairings that provide a desired companion are beneficial. Yet this
>same Genesis passage that speaks of the man's need for companionship (Gen.
>2:18-24) also clearly shows God filling that need with another person who
>is like the man, yet also different. She is someone who, by being of the
>opposite sex, serves to complement the man, not merely mirror him. Marriage
>unites opposites, each of whom has what the other lacks, and only in this
>way does it resolve the incompleteness that each feels when alone.
>
>The homosexuals engaging in acts of sexual union are demonic and lustful in
>nature, rather than honoring God.
>
>Furthermore, if one focuses exclusively on companionship as the purpose of
>marriage, the homosexual might as well be in love with his image in a
>mirror, since his "partner" is not "different."
>
>
>2. Regulating sexual behavior
>In one sense, regulations to limit sexual behavior outside of marriage--
>whether by religious teachings, social taboos, or civil laws--can be seen
>as attempts to protect the institution of marriage. The uniqueness and
>permanence of marriage, and the exclusiveness and trust necessary
>for its success, are all threatened by homosexual activity.
>
>However, in another sense, marriage itself can be seen as an institution
>that serves the purpose of regulating sexual activity by channeling and
>containing it within specific boundaries. To do so is essential, because
>even the most private homosexual acts can have destructive public
>consequences (see1 Corinthians 6:12-20).
>
>To cite only the most obvious example, homosexuality results in the spread
>of AIDS, which has spread to infect innocent children and heterosexuals
>through blood transfusions and possibly insect bites.
>
>Anthropologist Frank Beach has written, "There is not, and can never have
>been, a true society without sexual rules." Yet the U. S. Supreme Court
>seems to have endorsed exactly that nightmarish vision in its June 2003
>decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.
>
>As with the purpose of companionship, the purpose of marriage in regulating
>sexual behavior is particularly distorted--or denied outright--by the
>homosexual movement. Although a few so-called "conservative" homosexuals
>speak of the benefits of same-sex civil marriage in "civilizing" the
>behavior of homosexuals and taming their promiscuity, this is naive in the
>extreme.
>
>An abundance of research shows that homosexual men are particularly
>promiscuous, making provision for casual sex partners on the side even if
>they are in a "long-term partnership." And no homosexual activist group has
>ever said that they will call on homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of
>marriage if they are granted the right to legally marry.
>
>Therefore, if same-sex couples are granted that "right," we can expect the
>following:
>
>Very few homosexuals will actually be willing to accept the esponsibilities
>of marriage.
>
>Most of those homosexuals will marry for the financial benefits they can
>gain at the expense of taxpayers and will continue to have relationships
>that are neither permanent nor sexually faithful and monogamous.
>
>Rather than changing the behavior of homosexuals, this radical social
>experiment will further undermine society's conception of marriage and thus
>weaken the institution, and confuse our children.
>
>3. Procreation and Child-Rearing
>That reproduction of the human race is one of the central purposes of
>marriage is clear from God's mandate to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:
>
>27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
>male and female he created them.
>28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
>fill the earth and subdue it.
>For the human race to "be fruitful and increase in number," it was clearly
>necessary that man and woman come together in a procreative act.
>
>Throughout church history there have been disagreements, however, about
>whether procreation is an absolutely essential purpose of marriage. Some
>married couples are unable to bear children because of infertility, and
>some because of age. We concede that in the past the Church has been
>inconsiderate of "Barrenness." Through artificial or natural family
>planning, some couples simply choose not to have children. Yet almost no
>one ever questions that such couples are legitimately married.
>
>This has led some to dismiss procreation as a central purpose of marriage
>at all. Homosexual activists are particularly fond of this argument, for
>the obvious reason that same-sex couples are inherently incapable of
>reproducing.
>
>But barring same-sex couples from marrying, while allowing infertile
>opposite-sex couples to do so, is not a contradiction. A couple that
>doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth
>control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be
>infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment
>may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman
>outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural
>type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children
>(or could have in the past).
>
>And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which
>reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in
>particular cases. While the significance of man and woman becoming "one
>flesh" (Genesis 2:24) goes beyond the mere physical act of sexual union, it
>certainly encompasses that as well. The male and female bodies are clearly
>designed by God to complement one another in the act of intercourse. Two
>men or two women can achieve only a crude and often dangerous simulation.
>The human rectum is only one cell thick...we need not explain anything
>more.
>
>It must be admitted that society's interest in marriages that do not
>produce children is less than its interest in marriages that do. However,
>we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a
>heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or
>ability to bear children.
>
>There is no need or reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex
>couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is
>intrinsically incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age,
>health, or intent--of producing babies. In fact, they are incapable of even
>engaging in the type of "one-flesh" sexual union that gives God joy. And it
>takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries
>to determine that.
>
>Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn
>the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is
>essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with
>reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved
>in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government
>intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government
>defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is
>undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a
>central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of
>marriage.
>
>
>A large coalition of pro-family groups, supported by resolutions and
>proclamations from a number of public officials, has declared July 11, 2004
>as "Protect Marriage Sunday." Pulpits all over America will spread the
>word to call your senators and congressman NOW to ask that they vote for
>the Federal Marriage Amendment.
>
>
>This sample sermon outline was prepared by the Center for Marriage and
>Family Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
>Users of this sermon may adapt it by using personal illustrations and
>incorporating any theological distinctives of their own church tradition
>(such as a sacramental view of marriage).


Progressive With An Attitude
2004-07-11 21:57:12 EST
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:34:52 GMT, Gary Dorman <gdorm@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Somebody sent me this in email...Do these people not realize what bigots
>>they are?
>>
>
>
> its repackaged Pharisee morality
>
> if they are so worried about "the family" why don't they make divorce
> a crime?
>
> the Conservatives on their 2d and 3d marriages ought to like that
>
>
>
>
>
>>Marriage - the most basic creation of God to sustain humanity -
>>has been undermined by the homosexual agenda.
>>
>>Yet at the same time, social science research has uncovered a large and
>>growing body of evidence that marriage has significant benefits for
>>husbands and wives, and for their children. Put simply,
>>families headed by married husbands and wives are:
>>
>>happier
>>healthier
>>more prosperous
>>
>>than people in other types of households.
>>
>>Given the clear social benefits of marriage, and the threats now facing it,
>>it is important to ask,what can we as the church do to protect marriage
>
>>from being rendered irrelevant <snip>
>
So you are really saying that you don't want gays and lesbians to be
happy, healthy and more prosperous. Some Christian!

The rest of this essay was based on religious teachings and is
accordingly irrelevant in the US which has a secular government.

Ninure Saunders
2004-07-12 09:57:50 EST
===================================================
A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage

Since the church believes gay marriage is wrong for religious reasons, it
is in the church's best interest to support gay marriage for civil rights
reasons.

Wasn't sure you heard me the first time? Then let me be absolutely clear:
Conservative Christians should support gay civil marriage.

Why? Because the question of whether to allow civil same-sex marriage is a
civil liberties question, and maintaining a respect for people's civil
liberties in this country is always to the church's advantage. In fact, it
is absolutely essential for the church's survival in a pluralistic
society.

For obvious reasons we Christians have always been adamant supporters of
civil liberties when it comes to freedom of religion. We have even managed
to be consistent in this principle by not opposing the rights of
Buddhists, New Agers, or even Satanists to meet, because we realize that
to do so would equally undercut our own right to assemble. Perhaps the
thought of undermining religious freedom sends through our minds flashes
of those days when the Emperor Nero used to ignite Christians as human
torches to light the streets of Rome at night. The persecutions against
the early church have ingrained into our Christian consciousness the
incredible value of living under a government that protects the interests
of religion.

But in the case of civil same-sex marriage, instead of recognizing the
civil rights issue at stake here, we oppose the idea, quoting Bible verses
and appealing to morals, nature, tradition, history, and the fear that
Western civilization as we know it will come crashing to the ground. All
of these arguments are related, of course. They are an appeal to that part
of American society in which Judeo-Christian values are still deeply
rooted. For even in America at the dawning of the 21st century, many
people's understanding of morality and nature still reflect the vestiges
of the Western Christendom of our heritage, as do their ideas of
tradition, history and an ideal society.

We do not, however, argue against civil same-sex marriage in the spirit of
calm persuasion. There is desperation in our tone. There is also a great
deal of fear and mean-spiritedness in our rhetoric, to the point where we
even accuse homosexuals (without much proof, I might add) of being child
molesters and sexual predators, and of seeking to corrupt our youth by
recruiting them into their "lifestyle."

There are probably many people who think they are justified in having such
fears, but it seems to me it is more than just paranoia that feeds our
frenzy. We feel deeply threatened, for we sense that we are losing the
battle. Not simply the battle against homosexuals, but the battle to hang
on to what we still think of as "Christian America."

At one time in this country we could count on quoting a verse from Genesis
or Leviticus before Congress or the Supreme Court and that would be the
end of the debate. No more. The consensus of common biblical values on
which we had once depended is giving way to the pluralism of a postmodern
society. And seeing the disastrous handwriting on the wall, we have become
politically desperate, and so we lunge at the enemies of Christendom with
a ferocity that rivals that of even the most radical gay activists.

Rethinking Our Political Strategy

I suppose we can continue living in denial, stubbornly bailing water out
of the rapidly sinking ship of "Christian America." Or we can get in touch
with reality and realize that we need drastically to change our political
course. The future of the Christian church in America lies with the
preservation of civil liberties, not with the dogged pursuit of our
Christian moral agenda to the annoyance of everyone else. Christians of
all people ought to take interest in making the preservation of civil
liberties in this country a top political priority, because as a group of
religious people in a pluralistic society, we uphold moral standards and
traditions that the rest of the country thinks are at best outdated and at
worst harmful.

As a sub-culture that is often a counter-culture, we worry that someday
our right to live according to our religious beliefs will be taken away,
and we discuss such concerns among ourselves to no end. How often have I
heard Christians express fear of having their children taken from them by
Child Protective Services because of their belief in corporal punishment?
How often have I heard Christians express concern that the current
sentiment that automatically equates religious beliefs with intolerance is
stigmatizing them, threatening to undermine their ability to get work in
certain fields, or their chances in court of being declared a fit parent?
With the current rise of the homeschooling movement, Christians wonder
whether the government will attempt to quash the movement or allow people
the right to decide how their children should best be educated.

It was these kinds of fears of being marginalized from American politics
that gave rise to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and the Christian Right
in the 1980's. We felt ignored, and our response was to band Christians
and other religious leaders together to make our voice heard. Fueled by
the abortion controversy, we rallied ourselves into becoming a formidable
political force in the favorable climate of the Reagan-Bush
administration, and that momentum continues to propel our movement forward
to this day.

The problem is, our political aim was not simply to protect the rights of
Christians. It was to enact moral change in society that would affect
everyone regardless of whether they agreed with our views. We have sought
to push a moral agenda instead of lobbying for civil liberties as we
should have. If we had focused on civil liberties, we would have made
progress in securing the rights we wanted for ourselves, and made a
valuable contribution to securing the rights of our fellow Americans in
the process. We could have still taken on abortion and concentrated
primarily on defending the rights of the unborn child.

But instead we supplemented our arguments with a lot of religious rhetoric
that served only to alienate everyone else. Our strategy of taking our
Bibles into the voting booths and transforming preachers into politicians
betrayed our self-interest, and our lack of interest in the concerns of
the rest of the population. Christian politics has not been about
religious freedom. It has been a power grab.

Maybe you don't have a problem with that. "Since Christ is Lord of the
nations, Christians ought to be in charge," I have heard many people say.
The problem is the Bible argues just the opposite. It says that Christ's
lordship is the very reason why we can submit to the government without
worrying so much about whether Christians or non-Christians are in charge.


The apostle Paul writes, "Let every person be in subjection to the
governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1). God is the one
who invented civil government and it is through this institution that he
rules the affairs of the world. And he doesn't seem to be terribly
concerned if non-Christian or even un-Christian people are in power, as if
their presence is going to foul up his program. He can handle it just fine
because he is, after all, Lord of the nations.

Thus, it should be no surprise that when we look to the New Testament for
instruction on incorporating Christian beliefs into the laws of the land,
we are met with a deafening silence. Jesus, in fact, rebuffed the Jews of
his day who sought to hail him as a political revolutionary against the
oppression of Roman rule. His famous admonition, "render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew
22:21) teaches willing submission to the state regardless of whether its
laws are "Christian" or not. The apostle Peter concurs with Jesus, "Submit
yourself for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king
as the one in authority, etc." (1 Peter 2:13), as does the apostle Paul as
we have already noted.

Since Jesus and the apostles have little to say about politics, except
that we should submit and not worry about who is in charge, why are we
devoting so much of our energies trying to legislate the Bible?

If there is any political goal we might legitimately pursue for ourselves
as Christian citizens, it is to exist peacefully in our society without
harassment. "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and
thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in
authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all
godliness and dignity" (1 Timothy 2:1-2). But not being harassed means
that we don't harass others. Notice that right on the heels of another
Pauline reminder "to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be
obedient," the apostle, as if foreseeing the political mess we would get
ourselves into today, also exhorts us "to malign no one, to be
uncontentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men" (Titus
3:1-2).

Therefore, since the church's primary concern with relation to the state
ought to be the protection of our right to freely practice our religious
beliefs, our political strategy ought to be twofold: 1) making sure we
don't turn public opinion against us by being pushy, overbearing, and
malicious; and 2) supporting the rights of other people also to exist
peacefully in this land, because in doing so we secure the same for
ourselves.

Supporting other people's civil liberties doesn't say that we necessarily
agree with their views of morality or religion. For instance, we don't
agree with Buddhists and yet we don't hesitate to stand up for religious
freedom. What it does say is that we are willing to get along with others
and demonstrate the same respect for them that we wish for ourselves. This
is not some radical new idea. It is simply practicing The Golden Rule:
"However you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law
and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).

The Validity of the Gay Civil Rights Argument

This leads us to the issue of civil same-sex marriage. Most Christians
oppose it, thinking this one is a no-brainer. The Bible says homosexuality
is a sin, and so it would seem obvious that same-sex marriage is
completely out of the question, right?

But Christians need to take a second look at this issue. Gays and lesbians
have built a pretty solid civil rights case in favor of why they should be
allowed to marry. For one thing, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U. S.
Supreme Court once wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." For another,
homosexuals are the only group of people in American society who are
legally barred from marriage. As long as the state refuses to recognize
same-sex marriage, they cannot legally marry the person they love.

This is something to think about. If you are a single heterosexual adult
in America, regardless of your race, religion, or ethnicity you have
literally millions of marriage possibilities. But if you are a homosexual
adult living anywhere in America, regardless of your race, religion, or
ethnicity your opportunities for legal marriage are zilch (unless you go
to Vermont, where you can enter into same-sex civil union). The only kind
of marriage that can be legitimately granted to you is one you must enter
into dishonestly, swearing before God and these witnesses to a love you
don't really have.

But the kind of marriage homosexuals seek doesn't even involve swearing
before God and these witnesses. What they want is a secular marriage
granted and recognized by the state, and we can keep the religious
institution of marriage homosexual-free if it makes us happy, they say.

People think that by allowing civil same-sex marriage, it won't be long
before we'll allow people to marry their sister, or their pet iguana. But
isn't there a big difference between a person who chooses incest or
bestiality against the normal marriage options available to him, and a
person who is only capable of being sexually attracted to someone of the
same gender, so that without the right to enter into same-sex marriage he
or she is left with no marriage option at all? People who like having sex
with family members or dumb animals are making perverse sexual choices. By
contrast the vast majority of homosexuals did not choose to be homosexual.
They are people who find themselves attracted to other people of the same
sex for reasons even they cannot explain.

Am I saying that the civil rights argument rests on understanding
homosexuality to be an unchosen condition? Absolutely. And so this is a
golden opportunity for us conservative Christians to finally get our heads
out of the sand and start looking into this question for ourselves,
instead of blindly accepting the anti-gay rhetoric of religious right
leaders. Why do we believe people choose to be homosexual? Have we ever
asked an actual homosexual person to explain his or her homosexuality to
us?

Chances are we have not, because most of us have never had a close enough
relationship with someone who is gay to build the trust for such personal
things to be shared. We are so quick on the draw when it comes to whipping
out our Bibles. Then we get trigger-happy, demolishing every protest with
yet another verse that condemns homosexuality as a sin.

In making such condemnations, we don't usually distinguish between
homosexual attraction and homosexual sex. The latter is obviously the
outworking of the former, but as far as the former is concerned, have we
asked ourselves how it is that one chooses to be attracted to people of
the same sex? How many of us have taken the time to consider how such a
thing might work?

For so long we have told ourselves we don't need to look into it. We
believe homosexuality is chosen because the Bible teaches it is a sin, and
then we define sin as an act of willful disobedience to God's law. But is
such a narrow definition true to our own experience with sin? I think not.
None of us have been able to choose away all of our own sins. In fact,
there are many things that the Bible considers to be sin that operate at a
such a deep level in our nature, such as pride, selfishness,
self-righteousness and impurity, that they seem out of the reach of a
simple act of human will.

This is something to keep in mind when you go to the gay and lesbian
section of your local library or bookstore, or search for web sites posted
by gay Christians, and start reading for yourself the personal accounts of
people's private struggles with homosexual feelings. I think you will be
struck by the similarity of the stories, whether told by men or women,
Christians or non-Christians, Protestant evangelicals or Roman Catholics
or Jews, ex-gays or people who have tried to change and could not. Even
the stories of ex-gays tell of an agonizing, ongoing struggle that seems
only to confirm why it is that so many people cannot change.

For the most part you will hear ordinary people talk about how they have
battled their homosexual feelings most of their lives and tried to
suppress them to no avail. You will learn about the shame and the fear
that sent many of them into hiding; and how in spite of every incentive,
the desire for parental approval, the dream of someday having children,
gaining acceptance in a small town community, escaping the threat of AIDS,
people still could not change literally (as in the case of AIDS) to save
their lives.

I suppose you can dismiss these people's stories. You can argue that they
are so depraved and so in love with their sin that they are incapable of
responding normally and humanly to such strong incentives. You can believe
that, as long as you understand that in doing so, you are in the name of
Christian morality judging all homosexual persons to be categorically
sub-human. You might also argue that these people are simply lying. And
you can believe that too, as long as you understand that such a cavalier
dismissal seems to lack the diligence God expects from us in keeping his
ninth commandment not to bear false witness against our neighbor.

Why not simply take the common sense route? Why not acknowledge that apart
from a miraculous work of God, it appears that for the most part a gay
person's chances of successfully adopting heterosexual feelings are about
the same as a straight person's chances of successfully adopting
homosexual feelings?

A civilized society ought to recognize that there is a big difference
between homosexuality thus understood, and perverse and irresponsible
sexual practices such as incest and bestiality. Thus, it is only
appropriate to respond by treating homosexual persons humanely and
allowing them to live their lives with dignity and respect. And whatever
we as Christians might conclude about the morality of homosexuality before
God, we also have to realize that with respect to society a gay person's
open acknowledgement of his or her homosexuality is, in a very real sense,
an act of personal integrity.

The Incoherence of the Conservative Christian Position

The leaders of the Christian right don't seem interested in acknowledging
the complexities that surround the issue of homosexuality. They have
glossed over the difficult questions and gone straight for the emotional
jugular, talking about family values, the future of our children, and the
decline of our nation, in order to rally an American moral majority behind
them. But once again, what we are really concerned about is pushing our
Christian moral agenda because, let's face it, we don't really care what
the majority of Americans think about morals. If we did, we would be
saying that we would willingly acquiesce to what seems to be an increasing
majority of Americans who think that giving your child a swat on the hand
for defying parental authority is tantamount to child abuse.

Let's go back to the question of whether homosexuality is a choice. Let's
say, for the sake of argument, that Christians are right in believing that
it is a choice, so that once same-sex marriage is legally approved in
society, numerous people begin converting to the "gay lifestyle" and the
number of same-sex marriages begin to rival that of heterosexual
marriages. Do we really want to see majoritarian politics prevail in such
a situation? What if homosexuals were to manage a moral majority that
began to view heterosexuality as unnatural? Or perhaps more realistically,
a majority that viewed the church's religious prohibition against same-sex
marriage as illegal discrimination? Imagine how it would be for us as a
religious community to have to fight for our civil liberty against such an
onslaught. That is exactly the position we have put the gay community in
when we rally public opinion against their right to marry.

That is why we need instead to work toward some kind of mutual respect
between our two groups. Perhaps we should even sit down at the bargaining
table with the gay movement right now and say, we will respect your right
to same-sex marriage in the civil arena as long as you respect our right
to exclude it from our churches. Then we ought to join forces and fight
like the dickens to keep civil liberties at the forefront of American
politics to ensure the protection of our respective interests.

The problem is we don't feel the need to go to such lengths to safeguard
our religious freedom because we smugly take for granted that it will
always be there. Such complacency has blinded us from seeing how we
actually threaten religious freedom when we dismiss gay rights on the
grounds that homosexuals choose their condition. Because if homosexuality
is chosen, then what about the fact that many of us have chosen our
religion? Those of us who are born-again Christians never tire of talking
about that moment in our lives when we "made a decision for Christ." Are
we now saying that people who choose their "religious condition" don't
deserve religious rights either? Does it not bother us that gay writers
David Boaz and Stephen H. Miller have already pointed out our hypocrisy on
this point?

Now let's suppose that we have the sense to realize that homosexuality is
not a choice. We may not agree with the idea that people are born
homosexual, but perhaps we can acknowledge that many people develop
homosexual attractions in early childhood through factors that are quite
beyond their control.

We don't ask people to agree with Christianity in order to respect the
rights of Christians. So why should we stand in the way of people who have
no religious obligation to our conservative Christian beliefs who want to
marry someone of the same gender because they are simply incapable of
having heterosexual feelings? What reason do we have that is so important
as to justify barring two people from making this private commitment to
each other?

We're squeamish? Well, for sake of civil liberties we'll just have to get
over it. We think it's wrong? Well, we think the Buddhist religion is
wrong too, but we don't prevent Buddhists from meeting peacefully in this
country. We don't want to expand the definition of marriage to accommodate
something that isn't true marriage? But we recognize Buddhism as a
religion that deserves to be protected under America's freedom of religion
clause, even though from a biblical standpoint we believe Buddhism to be a
false religion.

We're afraid that supporting civil same-sex marriage will send a message
to the gay community that Christians approve of homosexuality? Well,
believe me, the gay community is under no such delusion. For years they
have listened to our arguments against homosexuality ad nauseam and can
even quote all the pertinent Bible verses back to us by heart. But if that
doesn't convince you, perhaps it would be more helpful to look at it this
way. Which is the worse sin, supporting civil same-sex marriage and giving
gays and lesbians the impression that Christians approve of their
homosexuality; or opposing it and continuing this political campaign of
smearing the gay community with half-truths so as to prevent people from
entering legally into committed and sexually responsible relationships in
violation of their civil rights?

If we're so concerned about the message we might be sending, why not look
at it as sending a message that we approve of committed relationships and
sexual responsibility? Aren't these the values that we have been
trumpeting at our fellow Americans for years? Aren't we the ones who are
always condemning the promiscuous "lifestyle" of gay men? Why not look at
gay marriage as a step in the right moral direction?

In fact, one of the main arguments the proponents of civil same-sex
marriage use is that marriage is a morally good thing for homosexuals.
Hearing gay writers Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch argue eloquently on
this point is like listening to any staunch conservative praise
old-fashioned family values. For they argue that marriage grows a person
up, stabilizes a person emotionally, and forces a person to be responsible
toward someone else. They even point out that civil same-sex marriage
would benefit society by helping to curb promiscuity and to civilize gay
men. The strength of such arguments has, in fact, caused some in the gay
community to oppose the same-sex marriage campaign, because they see it as
a concession to the Christian right-wing moral agenda.

So Sullivan and Rauch give us plenty of moral reasons to get behind this
movement and push. And why not? If America is finally showing signs of
getting beyond its adolescent fling with the excesses of the sexual
revolution, and is starting to value marriage once again in light of these
age-old virtues, perhaps we had something to do with it.

Yet we should not make the mistake of thinking these people are begging
for our compassion on their moral plight. They want their rights, not our
pity, and it is important that we consider this issue from that angle.
Otherwise we will think, as we Christians are so prone to thinking, that
we can justify opposing their right to gay marriage as long as we do it
lovingly. But I'm not sure if people understand what we mean by that.
Frankly, I'm not sure if I always understand what we mean by that. The
impression I get from homosexuals is that given a choice between having us
drench them with our loving Christian compassion while we open up our
Bibles to Leviticus, versus having us listen to their arguments rationally
and objectively and then grouchily concede to them the point, they would
overwhelmingly prefer the latter.

Paving the Way for a True Testimony

Our relentless pursuit of a moral agenda is not only futile in our
pluralistic society, it is not only involving us in an ugly power struggle
that is hurting our testimony to the world, but it poses a direct threat
to civil liberty itself. This was illustrated last year in southern
California when a group of students calling themselves the Gay-Straight
Alliance Club sought approval from the school board to meet during lunch
hour at El Modena high school under the protection of the Equal Access
Act. This was the same Act that Christians rallied hard for in the early
'80's so that Christian clubs could meet freely during school hours on
their public high school campuses.

But fifteen years later it was the Christians who turned out in droves at
the school board meeting to protest the freedom that the Equal Access Act
would allow the gay-straight club. In the end, the board members voted 7-0
against the club's application for club status. The students then
responded with a suit, winning a settlement in September of this year.

By trying to deny the gay-straight club the right to meet because of moral
objections to homosexuality, Christians were undermining the very right
that they themselves had once fought so hard to establish. Did Christians
rally for the Equal Access Act in the first place because they were such
die-hard libertarians? Apparently not. Civil liberty was only a means to
getting our way. Then when the principle worked against us we did not
hesitate to undercut it. We tried to kill the goose that laid the golden
eggs because we saw that some of those eggs were going to people we didn't
like.

It is high time that we grow up and learn to play fair. Freedom for us
means freedom for someone else too, even our fellow Americans in the gay
and lesbian community. Is that too high a price to pay? Of course not.
Civil liberties is what gives Christians the freedom to pursue our moral
convictions in this country in the first place. It is what guarantees a
future for ourselves and our children in which we will be able to practice
our religious beliefs free of harassment and fear. It is what paves the
way for us to make a true moral impact on our culture, not by trying to
legislate the Bible as if that will change people's hearts, but through
leading by example as Jesus commanded us: "Let your light shine before men
in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

How will this help forward the gospel of Jesus Christ? A wise Christian
minister once said, "It is quite useless to approach a man with both a
club and an argument. He will very naturally be in no mood to appreciate
our argument until we lay aside our club."

It is no wonder that nobody listens to us anymore. For too long we have
been trying to persuade people with the gospel while wielding the club of
political authoritarianism. What a contradictory message this presents to
the world. Does not our gospel say that God is love, and that he has come
down to earth, stretched out his hands, and allowed himself to be nailed
to a cross for our sins, so that the gates of paradise might be freely
opened to anyone who believes? When will we lay aside our club so that
this message may be heard more clearly, and felt more poignantly?

We often think being a witness for Christ means doing some extraordinary
thing. But sometimes the best witness to the gospel is as simple as being
civil enough to respect people's legitimate freedoms, and being decent
enough to put aside the name-calling and treat people like human beings.
Supporting the civil liberties of homosexual American citizens is decent,
civil and, yes, loving. Loving at least in a way that gays and lesbians
are more likely to understand.

Posted on November 19, 2000
MusingsOn.com


* * * * * * * *

For research purposes, an excellent collection of viewpoints representing
all sides of the civil same-sex marriage debate can be found in:

Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader, edited by Andrew Sullivan

The following writings have contributed key arguments to the case I have
presented in the above essay:

Virtually Normal, by Andrew Sullivan

"Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage," by Andrew
Sullivan

"Marrying Somebody," by Jonathan Rauch (also appears in Same-Sex Marriage:
Pro and Con)

"For Better or Worse?" by Jonathan Rauch (also appears in Same-Sex
Marriage: Pro and Con)

"A Pro-Gay, Pro-Family Policy," by Jonathan Rauch

"And 'Special Rights' For All," by Stephen H. Miller

"Gay People Want to Get Married, Too," Eric Marcus

Kingdom Prologue, by Meredith G. Kline

============================================

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com


My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

Pastor Dave
2004-07-12 11:07:41 EST
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:34:52 GMT, Gary Dorman
<*m@prodigy.net> posted thusly:


>Somebody sent me this in email...Do these people not realize what bigots
>they are?

Why do you call them bigots?


>Marriage - the most basic creation of God to sustain humanity -
>has been undermined by the homosexual agenda.
>
>Yet at the same time, social science research has uncovered a large and
>growing body of evidence that marriage has significant benefits for
>husbands and wives, and for their children. Put simply,
>families headed by married husbands and wives are:
>
>happier
>healthier
>more prosperous
>
>than people in other types of households.
>
>Given the clear social benefits of marriage, and the threats now facing it,
>it is important to ask,what can we as the church do to protect marriage
>from being rendered irrelevant
>
>To answer that question, we must first address a more fundamental one:
>
>I. What is Marriage For?
>
>Marriage is an institution created by God. That is a historical fact shown
>in Genesis 2:18-24:
>
>18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make
>a helper suitable for
>him."
>19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
>field and all the birds of
>the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and
>whatever the man
>called each living creature, that was its name.
>20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all
>the beasts of the field.
>But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
>21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he
>was sleeping, he took
>one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
>22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
>and he brought
>her to the man.
>23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
>shall be called 'woman,'
>for she was taken out of man."
>24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
>his wife, and they will
>become one flesh.
>(NIV)
>
>Because it was included as a part of the original creation, it is clear
>that God's fundamental intention for marriage applies to all human beings.
>
>However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has special
>meanings for the people of God.
>
>A. Theological Meanings of Marriage
>
>1. Reflecting the Nature of God
>
>There is only one God, but that God exists as three persons--Father, Son,
>and Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in that they all
>possess the same divine nature; yet they differ in roles and personality.
>
>This combination of "sameness" and "difference" also characterizes
>humanity. Indeed, it may be this combination that reflects "the image of
>God" (Gen. 1:26). In Genesis 2, Adam names the animals, but they are not
>"suitable" companions for him, because they are not the same as him--they
>are not human.
>
>To create a "suitable partner" for Adam, God takes a part of Adam's body to
>fashion one the same as Adam--another human being. Yet the person God
>creates is also different from Adam--a woman, not a man. The human race is
>incomplete without both male and female. Yet when they unite during the
>marriage act to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), their oneness--despite
>their difference--reflects the oneness of God, despite the plurality of
>Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>
>2. Symbolism of Marriage
>a. Old Testament
>In the Old Testament, the covenant of marriage serves as a metaphor for the
>relationship between God and the people of Israel.
>The worship of other gods (idolatry) is viewed as the equivalent of
>adultery, with Israel as the unfaithful spouse. (see Jeremiah 3:6, 8)
>b. New Testament
>In the New Testament, marriage is seen as a metaphor of the relationship
>between Christ and the
>Church. (Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 19:7-9).
>
>3. Marriage advances God's purpose in salvation
>a. Old Testament
>In the Old Testament, God's desire to live in community with humankind
>(those who bear his image, yet are different from him) is manifest in his
>relationship with the nation of Israel. Yet the nation is the outgrowth of
>the 12 tribes, which are the outgrowth of extended patriarchal families,
>which are the fruit of marriage and procreation. Thus, marriage is the seed
>for the community of God's people on earth.
>b. New Testament
>In the New Testament, loyalty to the biological family of nation and tribe
>is largely supplanted by loyalty to the family of Christ--that is, the
>universal church. However, marriage, family, and home retain important
>roles in the spread of God's kingdom through evangelism. This role is
>fulfilled in the witness of the silent and submissive wife, in the
>teaching of children, and in the service to the church offered by couples
>such as Priscilla and Aquila (1 Corinthians 16:19).
>
>B. Universal Purposes of Marriage
>While marriage has certain specific meanings, both symbolic and functional,
>within the order of salvation, it also has some broader purposes that are
>rooted in the order of creation itself.
>
>Therefore, these purposes apply to all marriages, even those of unbelievers
>or of other faiths. These purposes must therefore lie at the heart of our
>civil laws defining and regulating marriage.
>
>
>1. Companionship
>Psychologists say that human beings have a fundamental need for "stable
>primary bondings" with other people. Yet that merely confirms the Genesis
>account, in which God says simply, "It is not good for the man to be
>alone" (Genesis 2:18). It is to provide "a helper suitable for him" that
>God creates the woman. And the two becoming "one flesh" is in part a
>spiritual event reflecting the emotional bonding of the two.
>However, there is danger in assuming that companionship alone defines the
>purpose of marriage.
>
>Homosexual activists argue that this is the case, and that therefore same-
>sex pairings that provide a desired companion are beneficial. Yet this
>same Genesis passage that speaks of the man's need for companionship (Gen.
>2:18-24) also clearly shows God filling that need with another person who
>is like the man, yet also different. She is someone who, by being of the
>opposite sex, serves to complement the man, not merely mirror him. Marriage
>unites opposites, each of whom has what the other lacks, and only in this
>way does it resolve the incompleteness that each feels when alone.
>
>The homosexuals engaging in acts of sexual union are demonic and lustful in
>nature, rather than honoring God.
>
>Furthermore, if one focuses exclusively on companionship as the purpose of
>marriage, the homosexual might as well be in love with his image in a
>mirror, since his "partner" is not "different."
>
>
>2. Regulating sexual behavior
>In one sense, regulations to limit sexual behavior outside of marriage--
>whether by religious teachings, social taboos, or civil laws--can be seen
>as attempts to protect the institution of marriage. The uniqueness and
>permanence of marriage, and the exclusiveness and trust necessary
>for its success, are all threatened by homosexual activity.
>
>However, in another sense, marriage itself can be seen as an institution
>that serves the purpose of regulating sexual activity by channeling and
>containing it within specific boundaries. To do so is essential, because
>even the most private homosexual acts can have destructive public
>consequences (see1 Corinthians 6:12-20).
>
>To cite only the most obvious example, homosexuality results in the spread
>of AIDS, which has spread to infect innocent children and heterosexuals
>through blood transfusions and possibly insect bites.
>
>Anthropologist Frank Beach has written, "There is not, and can never have
>been, a true society without sexual rules." Yet the U. S. Supreme Court
>seems to have endorsed exactly that nightmarish vision in its June 2003
>decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.
>
>As with the purpose of companionship, the purpose of marriage in regulating
>sexual behavior is particularly distorted--or denied outright--by the
>homosexual movement. Although a few so-called "conservative" homosexuals
>speak of the benefits of same-sex civil marriage in "civilizing" the
>behavior of homosexuals and taming their promiscuity, this is naive in the
>extreme.
>
>An abundance of research shows that homosexual men are particularly
>promiscuous, making provision for casual sex partners on the side even if
>they are in a "long-term partnership." And no homosexual activist group has
>ever said that they will call on homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of
>marriage if they are granted the right to legally marry.
>
>Therefore, if same-sex couples are granted that "right," we can expect the
>following:
>
>Very few homosexuals will actually be willing to accept the esponsibilities
>of marriage.
>
>Most of those homosexuals will marry for the financial benefits they can
>gain at the expense of taxpayers and will continue to have relationships
>that are neither permanent nor sexually faithful and monogamous.
>
>Rather than changing the behavior of homosexuals, this radical social
>experiment will further undermine society's conception of marriage and thus
>weaken the institution, and confuse our children.
>
>3. Procreation and Child-Rearing
>That reproduction of the human race is one of the central purposes of
>marriage is clear from God's mandate to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:
>
>27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
>male and female he created them.
>28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
>fill the earth and subdue it.
>For the human race to "be fruitful and increase in number," it was clearly
>necessary that man and woman come together in a procreative act.
>
>Throughout church history there have been disagreements, however, about
>whether procreation is an absolutely essential purpose of marriage. Some
>married couples are unable to bear children because of infertility, and
>some because of age. We concede that in the past the Church has been
>inconsiderate of "Barrenness." Through artificial or natural family
>planning, some couples simply choose not to have children. Yet almost no
>one ever questions that such couples are legitimately married.
>
>This has led some to dismiss procreation as a central purpose of marriage
>at all. Homosexual activists are particularly fond of this argument, for
>the obvious reason that same-sex couples are inherently incapable of
>reproducing.
>
>But barring same-sex couples from marrying, while allowing infertile
>opposite-sex couples to do so, is not a contradiction. A couple that
>doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth
>control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be
>infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment
>may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman
>outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural
>type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children
>(or could have in the past).
>
>And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which
>reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in
>particular cases. While the significance of man and woman becoming "one
>flesh" (Genesis 2:24) goes beyond the mere physical act of sexual union, it
>certainly encompasses that as well. The male and female bodies are clearly
>designed by God to complement one another in the act of intercourse. Two
>men or two women can achieve only a crude and often dangerous simulation.
>The human rectum is only one cell thick...we need not explain anything
>more.
>
>It must be admitted that society's interest in marriages that do not
>produce children is less than its interest in marriages that do. However,
>we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a
>heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or
>ability to bear children.
>
>There is no need or reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex
>couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is
>intrinsically incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age,
>health, or intent--of producing babies. In fact, they are incapable of even
>engaging in the type of "one-flesh" sexual union that gives God joy. And it
>takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries
>to determine that.
>
>Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn
>the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is
>essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with
>reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved
>in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government
>intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government
>defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is
>undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a
>central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of
>marriage.
>
>
>A large coalition of pro-family groups, supported by resolutions and
>proclamations from a number of public officials, has declared July 11, 2004
>as "Protect Marriage Sunday." Pulpits all over America will spread the
>word to call your senators and congressman NOW to ask that they vote for
>the Federal Marriage Amendment.
>
>
>This sample sermon outline was prepared by the Center for Marriage and
>Family Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
>Users of this sermon may adapt it by using personal illustrations and
>incorporating any theological distinctives of their own church tradition
>(such as a sacramental view of marriage).



± Pastor Dave Raymond ±

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of
them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding
of the relationships between living organisms is barely
perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to
say that fossils, or at least the traditional
interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than
clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."
(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus
Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Pastor Dave
2004-07-12 14:03:25 EST
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:57:50 GMT,
R*e@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure
Saunders) posted thusly:

>===================================================
>A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage

There is no such thing, since it would violate
Scripture.



± Pastor Dave Raymond ±

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

A. Dulcimer
2004-07-12 14:16:29 EST
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:03:25 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:57:50 GMT,
>*e@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure
>Saunders) posted thusly:
>
>>===================================================
>>A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage
>
>There is no such thing, since it would violate
>Scripture.

Where exactly in scripture does it mention same sex marriage or civil
unions? I haven't been able to find it.
--

"It is not possible to find a leader more foolish then Bush, who deals
with matters by force rather than wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation
while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to
embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nations as
civilisation. Because of this we desire Bush to be elected."

al Qaeda statement, 3/17/04

Dore
2004-07-14 20:47:34 EST
"Gary Dorman" <gdorm@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:0VlIc.7847$Jh4.4107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...

> However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has
special
> meanings for the people of God.
>


Yea, the servants of God, DO NOT engage in marriage or sex of any kind, for
marriage is for the children of THIS world.



Luke 20:34-36

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and
are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,(heaven)and
the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and
are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

KJV



Matt 19:27-29

27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and
followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

KJV



Matt 19:29

29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

KJV



Matt 19:12

which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

KJV



Rev 14:4-5

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were
redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before
the throne of God.

KJV



Luke 14:26-27

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple.

27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
disciple.

KJV



1 Cor 7:32-35

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for
the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how
he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman
careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in
spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she
may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon
you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord
without distraction.

KJV









Matt 16:24

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross,
and follow me.

KJV



1 John 3:2-3

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is
pure.

KJV



1 John 2:15-16

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

KJV



Gal 5:16-17

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of
the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the
things that ye would.

KJV



1 John 2:16

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

KJV



Mark 4:19

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the
lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
unfruitful.

KJV


--
Dore

www.dorewilliamson.com


"Gary Dorman" <gdorm@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:0VlIc.7847$Jh4.4107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> Somebody sent me this in email...Do these people not realize what bigots
> they are?
>
>
>
> Marriage - the most basic creation of God to sustain humanity -
> has been undermined by the homosexual agenda.
>
> Yet at the same time, social science research has uncovered a large and
> growing body of evidence that marriage has significant benefits for
> husbands and wives, and for their children. Put simply,
> families headed by married husbands and wives are:
>
> happier
> healthier
> more prosperous
>
> than people in other types of households.
>
> Given the clear social benefits of marriage, and the threats now facing
it,
> it is important to ask,what can we as the church do to protect marriage
> from being rendered irrelevant
>
> To answer that question, we must first address a more fundamental one:
>
> I. What is Marriage For?
>
> Marriage is an institution created by God. That is a historical fact shown
> in Genesis 2:18-24:
>
> 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make
> a helper suitable for
> him."
> 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
> field and all the birds of
> the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and
> whatever the man
> called each living creature, that was its name.
> 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and
all
> the beasts of the field.
> But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
> 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he
> was sleeping, he took
> one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
> 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the
man,
> and he brought
> her to the man.
> 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
> shall be called 'woman,'
> for she was taken out of man."
> 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
> his wife, and they will
> become one flesh.
> (NIV)
>
> Because it was included as a part of the original creation, it is clear
> that God's fundamental intention for marriage applies to all human beings.
>
> However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has
special
> meanings for the people of God.
>
> A. Theological Meanings of Marriage
>
> 1. Reflecting the Nature of God
>
> There is only one God, but that God exists as three persons--Father, Son,
> and Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in that they all
> possess the same divine nature; yet they differ in roles and personality.
>
> This combination of "sameness" and "difference" also characterizes
> humanity. Indeed, it may be this combination that reflects "the image of
> God" (Gen. 1:26). In Genesis 2, Adam names the animals, but they are not
> "suitable" companions for him, because they are not the same as him--they
> are not human.
>
> To create a "suitable partner" for Adam, God takes a part of Adam's body
to
> fashion one the same as Adam--another human being. Yet the person God
> creates is also different from Adam--a woman, not a man. The human race is
> incomplete without both male and female. Yet when they unite during the
> marriage act to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), their oneness--despite
> their difference--reflects the oneness of God, despite the plurality of
> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>
> 2. Symbolism of Marriage
> a. Old Testament
> In the Old Testament, the covenant of marriage serves as a metaphor for
the
> relationship between God and the people of Israel.
> The worship of other gods (idolatry) is viewed as the equivalent of
> adultery, with Israel as the unfaithful spouse. (see Jeremiah 3:6, 8)
> b. New Testament
> In the New Testament, marriage is seen as a metaphor of the relationship
> between Christ and the
> Church. (Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 19:7-9).
>
> 3. Marriage advances God's purpose in salvation
> a. Old Testament
> In the Old Testament, God's desire to live in community with humankind
> (those who bear his image, yet are different from him) is manifest in his
> relationship with the nation of Israel. Yet the nation is the outgrowth of
> the 12 tribes, which are the outgrowth of extended patriarchal families,
> which are the fruit of marriage and procreation. Thus, marriage is the
seed
> for the community of God's people on earth.
> b. New Testament
> In the New Testament, loyalty to the biological family of nation and tribe
> is largely supplanted by loyalty to the family of Christ--that is, the
> universal church. However, marriage, family, and home retain important
> roles in the spread of God's kingdom through evangelism. This role is
> fulfilled in the witness of the silent and submissive wife, in the
> teaching of children, and in the service to the church offered by couples
> such as Priscilla and Aquila (1 Corinthians 16:19).
>
> B. Universal Purposes of Marriage
> While marriage has certain specific meanings, both symbolic and
functional,
> within the order of salvation, it also has some broader purposes that are
> rooted in the order of creation itself.
>
> Therefore, these purposes apply to all marriages, even those of
unbelievers
> or of other faiths. These purposes must therefore lie at the heart of our
> civil laws defining and regulating marriage.
>
>
> 1. Companionship
> Psychologists say that human beings have a fundamental need for "stable
> primary bondings" with other people. Yet that merely confirms the Genesis
> account, in which God says simply, "It is not good for the man to be
> alone" (Genesis 2:18). It is to provide "a helper suitable for him" that
> God creates the woman. And the two becoming "one flesh" is in part a
> spiritual event reflecting the emotional bonding of the two.
> However, there is danger in assuming that companionship alone defines the
> purpose of marriage.
>
> Homosexual activists argue that this is the case, and that therefore same-
> sex pairings that provide a desired companion are beneficial. Yet this
> same Genesis passage that speaks of the man's need for companionship (Gen.
> 2:18-24) also clearly shows God filling that need with another person who
> is like the man, yet also different. She is someone who, by being of the
> opposite sex, serves to complement the man, not merely mirror him.
Marriage
> unites opposites, each of whom has what the other lacks, and only in this
> way does it resolve the incompleteness that each feels when alone.
>
> The homosexuals engaging in acts of sexual union are demonic and lustful
in
> nature, rather than honoring God.
>
> Furthermore, if one focuses exclusively on companionship as the purpose of
> marriage, the homosexual might as well be in love with his image in a
> mirror, since his "partner" is not "different."
>
>
> 2. Regulating sexual behavior
> In one sense, regulations to limit sexual behavior outside of marriage--
> whether by religious teachings, social taboos, or civil laws--can be seen
> as attempts to protect the institution of marriage. The uniqueness and
> permanence of marriage, and the exclusiveness and trust necessary
> for its success, are all threatened by homosexual activity.
>
> However, in another sense, marriage itself can be seen as an institution
> that serves the purpose of regulating sexual activity by channeling and
> containing it within specific boundaries. To do so is essential, because
> even the most private homosexual acts can have destructive public
> consequences (see1 Corinthians 6:12-20).
>
> To cite only the most obvious example, homosexuality results in the spread
> of AIDS, which has spread to infect innocent children and heterosexuals
> through blood transfusions and possibly insect bites.
>
> Anthropologist Frank Beach has written, "There is not, and can never have
> been, a true society without sexual rules." Yet the U. S. Supreme Court
> seems to have endorsed exactly that nightmarish vision in its June 2003
> decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.
>
> As with the purpose of companionship, the purpose of marriage in
regulating
> sexual behavior is particularly distorted--or denied outright--by the
> homosexual movement. Although a few so-called "conservative" homosexuals
> speak of the benefits of same-sex civil marriage in "civilizing" the
> behavior of homosexuals and taming their promiscuity, this is naive in the
> extreme.
>
> An abundance of research shows that homosexual men are particularly
> promiscuous, making provision for casual sex partners on the side even if
> they are in a "long-term partnership." And no homosexual activist group
has
> ever said that they will call on homosexuals to abstain from sex outside
of
> marriage if they are granted the right to legally marry.
>
> Therefore, if same-sex couples are granted that "right," we can expect the
> following:
>
> Very few homosexuals will actually be willing to accept the
esponsibilities
> of marriage.
>
> Most of those homosexuals will marry for the financial benefits they can
> gain at the expense of taxpayers and will continue to have relationships
> that are neither permanent nor sexually faithful and monogamous.
>
> Rather than changing the behavior of homosexuals, this radical social
> experiment will further undermine society's conception of marriage and
thus
> weaken the institution, and confuse our children.
>
> 3. Procreation and Child-Rearing
> That reproduction of the human race is one of the central purposes of
> marriage is clear from God's mandate to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:
>
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him;
> male and female he created them.
> 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
> fill the earth and subdue it.
> For the human race to "be fruitful and increase in number," it was clearly
> necessary that man and woman come together in a procreative act.
>
> Throughout church history there have been disagreements, however, about
> whether procreation is an absolutely essential purpose of marriage. Some
> married couples are unable to bear children because of infertility, and
> some because of age. We concede that in the past the Church has been
> inconsiderate of "Barrenness." Through artificial or natural family
> planning, some couples simply choose not to have children. Yet almost no
> one ever questions that such couples are legitimately married.
>
> This has led some to dismiss procreation as a central purpose of marriage
> at all. Homosexual activists are particularly fond of this argument, for
> the obvious reason that same-sex couples are inherently incapable of
> reproducing.
>
> But barring same-sex couples from marrying, while allowing infertile
> opposite-sex couples to do so, is not a contradiction. A couple that
> doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth
> control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be
> infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment
> may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman
> outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural
> type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children
> (or could have in the past).
>
> And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which
> reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in
> particular cases. While the significance of man and woman becoming "one
> flesh" (Genesis 2:24) goes beyond the mere physical act of sexual union,
it
> certainly encompasses that as well. The male and female bodies are clearly
> designed by God to complement one another in the act of intercourse. Two
> men or two women can achieve only a crude and often dangerous simulation.
> The human rectum is only one cell thick...we need not explain anything
> more.
>
> It must be admitted that society's interest in marriages that do not
> produce children is less than its interest in marriages that do. However,
> we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of
a
> heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or
> ability to bear children.
>
> There is no need or reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex
> couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is
> intrinsically incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age,
> health, or intent--of producing babies. In fact, they are incapable of
even
> engaging in the type of "one-flesh" sexual union that gives God joy. And
it
> takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries
> to determine that.
>
> Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to
turn
> the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is
> essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with
> reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved
> in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government
> intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government
> defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is
> undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a
> central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of
> marriage.
>
>
> A large coalition of pro-family groups, supported by resolutions and
> proclamations from a number of public officials, has declared July 11,
2004
> as "Protect Marriage Sunday." Pulpits all over America will spread the
> word to call your senators and congressman NOW to ask that they vote for
> the Federal Marriage Amendment.
>
>
> This sample sermon outline was prepared by the Center for Marriage and
> Family Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
> Users of this sermon may adapt it by using personal illustrations and
> incorporating any theological distinctives of their own church tradition
> (such as a sacramental view of marriage).



Joe Myers
2004-07-14 21:01:31 EST
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote

> Yea, the servants of God, DO NOT engage in marriage or sex of any kind,
for
> marriage is for the children of THIS world.


[snips]

> Matt 19:12
>
> which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
>
> KJV

I want to see the local Holy Rollers answer the "alter" call when the
Pentacostal Ass. of God Churches conduct their Eunuch Sunday services!


Mary
2004-07-15 01:59:51 EST

"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:GukJc.6105$G9.2030@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Gary Dorman" <gdorm@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:0VlIc.7847$Jh4.4107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> However, a look at the whole of Scripture reveals that marriage has
> special
>> meanings for the people of God.
>>
>
>
> Yea, the servants of God, DO NOT engage in marriage or sex of any kind,
> for
> marriage is for the children of THIS world.

Were you recently released from a mental institution?

If so, commit yourself again.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron