#190966 - 10/05/08 11:57 PM
Proposition 8 (California)
|
Carpe Diem!!!
Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 3945
Loc: 49.05° Lat- 122.3° Long
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#190975 - 10/06/08 12:49 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Stan Jensen]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
Wow, we're really talking out of both sides of our mouths, aren't we?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#190978 - 10/06/08 12:58 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Swiss n Swedish American
Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 9100
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
|
I think our prophet would suggest we stay out of it.
_________________________
Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#190999 - 10/06/08 02:41 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Redwood]
|
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 602
Loc: Texas
|
This kinda goes back to my question in a different forum, about should one even vote being a Christian. Due to the fact that one is then responsible about the outcome of that vote.
If one can separate their "Christian" self from their "I am not sure what word I need here--I don't think it is secular though" self; one could vote either way.
On the one hand one could decide that marriage is *just* between a man and a woman; however, one might also decide that people are going to choose their lifestyle and keeping them from their partner during critical times of their life isn't going to win them to Christianity either.
Having said that *I* think that the *Church* should make a stand in their own doctrines or beliefs but should stay completely out of politics. I think that they can get into some murky waters if they start telling their people on how to vote.
This is my muddled two cents.
_________________________
For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Mat. 16:26
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191002 - 10/06/08 02:54 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Redwood]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
I think our prophet would suggest we stay out of it. That's fine with me. But how is this issue different than abortion, as far as getting involved with it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191009 - 10/06/08 03:23 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2992
|
I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191034 - 10/06/08 04:54 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Shane]
|
Swiss n Swedish American
Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 9100
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
|
As Adventists we believe homosexuality is sin. That is our religious belief. We also believe certain types of music and movies are sin but we do not support laws to ban them. Do you guys realize how many things our prophet calls a 'sin'? We could start a huge list of things that we could have laws against.
_________________________
Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191044 - 10/06/08 05:07 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Redwood]
|
Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 642
|
We look at the Moral issue facing the nation and the church today as compared to very similar moral issues Ellen White faced in her day at this thread - http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499For Example - Ellen White would call Sabbath breaking sin - but never urged legislation to promote Sabbath nor a constitutional ammendment enforcing Sabbath. YET on the subjects of "Value of human life" and the moral issue of drug-abuse (Alcohol) she urged activism for SDAS as we see in that link. Significant Moral issues regarding the last 6 commandments - man's-duty-to-man did not come across as optional in the early Adventist church. in Christ, Bob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191046 - 10/06/08 05:08 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: ichabod]
|
Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 642
|
I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise. For an example of her urging the Church to "Activism" on moral issues (even arguing that we should be "the head and not the tail" in those activist movements regarding very specific moral issues) - http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499in Christ, Bob
Edited by BobRyan (10/06/08 05:10 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191071 - 10/06/08 06:22 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Redwood]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2992
|
Redwood, nobody's saying that every sin should be made illegal. That has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
There are two quite different issues that are relevant here.
1) There's a difference between "making a sin illegal," and specifically legalizing it. Lying, in most cases, is not illegal. But that doesn't mean we should hand out a "license to lie."
2) Some lying is illegal--fraud, for example-- not because society deems it 'immoral,' but because it is damaging to the fabric of society. There are lots of morally neutral things--playing loud music at night, for example--which may nonetheless be outlawed.
Since it's not a constitutional issue, like the free exercise of religion, it's quite possible to say that because gay marriage damages a society, it should be outlawed, without regard to whether it's moral or not.
And yes, there is a real danger to freedom of religion if gay marriage is legalized. Just ask the Canadian printer who was fined for printing a Bible text.
Hate speech laws will be increasingly used to silence dissent against a whole range of issues.
Hate crime legislation in general is dangerous, because the state moves from regulating what person does, to what a person thinks. That's tyranny.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191076 - 10/06/08 06:44 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: ichabod]
|
Registered: 07/01/02
Posts: 1394
Loc: Colorado
|
Hate crime legislation in general is dangerous, because the state moves from regulating what person does, to what a person thinks. That's tyranny.
What do you think would be a better alternative?
_________________________
...seeing is believing, no, believing is seeing!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191077 - 10/06/08 06:48 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: CoAspen]
|
Swiss n Swedish American
Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 9100
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
|
Hate crime legislation in general is dangerous, because the state moves from regulating what person does, to what a person thinks. That's tyranny.
What do you think would be a better alternative? We could make ALL crimes Hate Crimes.
_________________________
Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191163 - 10/06/08 08:29 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Liz]
|
Princess of Pasadena
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2591
Loc: California
|
Having said that, *I* think that the *Church* should make a stand in their own doctrines or beliefs but should stay completely out of politics. I think that they can get into some murky waters if they start telling their people on how to vote.
My sentiments exactly. The church is definitely treading some murky waters when it begins advocating for -- or against -- propositions on the political ballots. Let the preachers preach generic admonitions in their parish pulpits, but never get into the political arena. That could open up floodgates of reproof - from both public and private entities.
_________________________
Jeannie
...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191302 - 10/07/08 01:09 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Shane]
|
Swiss n Swedish American
Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 9100
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
|
I don't think those "Adventist" sites are officially sponsored by the church. Yes. But did you see the 'official' endorsements? Against: Mitchell Tyner Retired Associate General Counsel & Associate Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Terrence Finney Retired Superior Court Judge, State of California Lawrence T. Geraty President Emeritus, La Sierra University Tim Mitchell Senior Pastor, Pacific Union College Church Chris Blake Associate Professor of English and Communication, Union College Deborah Silva Professor of Speech Communication, Walla Walla University Fritz Guy Research Professor of Theology, La Sierra University Alger Keough Executive Pastor, Azure Hills Seventh-day Adventist Church, Grand Terrace, CA Gary Chartier Associate Professor of Law and Business Ethics, La Sierra University Delwyn Finch Pastor of Web Ministries, Forest Lake Seventh-day Adventist Church, Apopka, FL David Larson Professor of Religion, Loma Linda University Jeff Gang Pastor, Crosswalk Seventh-day Adventist Church, Redlands, CA Charles Scriven President, Kettering College of Medical Arts Maury Jackson Associate Pastor, Lancaster (CA) Seventh-day Adventist Church Aubyn Fulton Professor of Psychology, Pacific Union College Michael McMillan Pastor, Victoria Seventh-day Adventist Church, San Bernardino, CA Sam Leonor Chaplain, La Sierra University Milbert Mariano Chair of Visual Arts Dept., Pacific Union College Richard Lee Associate Pastor, San Diego Korean Seventh-day Adventist Church David Oceguera Pastor, Brawley & El Centro (CA) Seventh-day Adventist Church John R. Jones Associate Professor of New Testament and World Religions, La Sierra University Steve Leddy Lead Pastor, 24-Seven Ministry Center, Seattle, WA Harvey Elder Professor of Medicine, Loma Linda University Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson Chair of World Languages Dept., La Sierra University James Walters Professor of Religion, Loma Linda University School of Religion Ron Jolliffe College Place, WA AND : For: Doug Batchelor President, Amazing Facts Ministries
Stephen Bohr Speaker / Director, Secrets Unsealed & Pastor, Fresno Central SDA Church
Shawn Boonstra Speaker / Director, It Is Written
Ron Clouzet, M.Div., D.Min. Secretary of the SDA church's North American Division (NAD) Ministerial Association, Director of NAD Evangelism Institute (NADEI) and professor of Christian Ministry and Pastoral Theology at Andrews University
Herbert E. Douglass, Th.D. Theologian & Best selling Adventist author
Jim Gilley President, 3ABN
John Lomacang Pastor, Thompsonville, IL SDA Church
Neil Nedley, M.D. President, Weimar Institute & International best selling author
Jerry N. Page President, Central California Conference Association of the Seventh-day Adventists
Jean Ross Pastor, Granite Bay SDA Church
Harold White Pastor, Sacramento Central SDA Church
Steve Wohlberg Speaker / Director, White Horse Media I think just by examining the people who are endorsing each cause ... I can clearly decide where I stand.
_________________________
Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191382 - 10/07/08 11:24 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Redwood]
|
Princess of Pasadena
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2591
Loc: California
|
I would have signed a petition AGAINST Prop. 8 (legislation to require "marriage" to be only between one man and one woman), for the simple reason that I believe we as a church should not legislate such things--at all!
For the church to take a public stand supporting a political move to hurt the gay population is, IMHO, Anti-Christian and wrong! If Prop. 8 passes, many of our own members will ab initio, become criminals.
This does not mean I'm homosexual, or anything else. It means I believe we (and the civil law) need to treat all men and women equally.
I'm ashamed of my church for publishing an article supporting Prop. 8 in the Pacific Union Recorder. Our church should take no stand on this issue, because of its sensitive nature. It should be between the worshiper and God. Period.
_________________________
Jeannie
...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191391 - 10/08/08 12:49 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: CoAspen]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2992
|
What do you think would be a better alternative? Any rational reading of the Constitution would make all "hate crime" legislation unconstitutional. Most "hate crimes" are already crimes. For the rest, it's either penalizing speech or beliefs. That's totalitarian.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191393 - 10/08/08 01:03 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: ichabod]
|
Swiss n Swedish American
Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 9100
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
|
Just wanted to say thanks to the two above posts from Jeannie and ichabod. I appreciate and agree with you both. Well said folks.
_________________________
Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191396 - 10/08/08 01:18 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Jeannieb43]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
I'm ashamed of my church for publishing an article supporting Prop. 8 in the Pacific Union Recorder. Our church should take no stand on this issue, because of its sensitive nature. It should be between the worshiper and God. Period. I think you're right. If they published one view, then they should also present the other view - particularly since there are many SDAs on both sides of the issue. Present both sides fairly and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise, it is propaganda, as I have stated in other threads, and not a "news" magazine.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191509 - 10/08/08 03:51 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: BobRyan]
|
Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 642
|
I suspect the prophet would be astonished and horrified that such an oxymoronic notion as "gay marriage" should be entertained by anyone--SDA or otherwise. For an example of her urging the Church to "Activism" on moral issues (even arguing that we should be "the head and not the tail" in those activist movements regarding very specific moral issues) - http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...huma#Post190499The fact that they were willing to join with those promoting Sunday legislation -- were willing to vote for a Constitutional ammendment to support this legislation on Christian moral grounds and also were willing to vote on Sabbath to get it passed -- shows the level of "clarity" they had based on just how active SDAs were to be when it came to a firm support of moral initiatives. And as we know on the issue of the value of human life -- they urged that the country take a stand even if it meant civil war. so since any and ALL nations are at the Lev 18 risk should they choose to legislate FOR the abomination of killing infants or the gay agenda regarding marriage or condoning the act -- it is even more important to be "clear" about this today - than what they did in the 1800's. in Christ, Bob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191545 - 10/08/08 08:29 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2992
|
If they published one view, then they should also present the other view - particularly since there are many SDAs on both sides of the issue. Present both sides fairly and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise, it is propaganda, as I have stated in other threads, and not a "news" magazine. Does that apply to every issue?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191572 - 10/08/08 11:55 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: ichabod]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
I don't know about every issue, but I think particularly on issues where there is a vast variety of thought among members, they should absolutely present both sides.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191664 - 10/09/08 04:15 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2992
|
a vast variety of thought among members So, if there is a vast variety of thought among members, the church should take no position?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191674 - 10/09/08 04:30 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Stan Jensen]
|
Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 1350
Loc: USA
|
Several years ago California voters voted by wide margins that Marriage is between a man and a woman. now the courts have overruled that saying it is unconstitutional. All Prop 8 does is to put into the constitution what california voters already voted on. That marriage is between a man and a woman. That way the courts cannot make their own interpretation of the constitution.
I am voting YES on it.
_________________________
 Riverside CA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191697 - 10/09/08 04:57 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Stan Jensen]
|
Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 642
|
Good link -- Here is another good reference Lev 18
(Infant Sacrifice) 21 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
(Gay agenda) 22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 'Also you shall not have relations with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 'Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 25 'For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29 'For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 'Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.'" In Lev 18 and in Rom 1 God argues that EVEN non-Bible nations -- were held accountable to this standard by God himself -- in the form of their early-destruction. in Christ, Bob
Edited by BobRyan (10/09/08 05:04 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191700 - 10/09/08 05:02 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: BobRyan]
|
Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 642
|
As for Ellen White and religious liberty when it comes to voting on moral issues that do not deal with aspects of worship -- DF 274, "The Des Moines, Iowa, Temperance Experience." {3BIO 159.5} "'Shall we vote for prohibition?' she asked. 'Yes, to a man, everywhere,' she replied, 'and perhaps I shall shock some of you if I say, If necessary, vote on the Sabbath day for prohibition if you cannot at any other time."'--Ibid. {3BIO 160.1}
Writing of the experience--in an account Ellen White endorsed--Starr declared: {3BIO 160.2}
I can testify that the effect of the relation of that dream was electrical upon the whole conference. A convincing power attended it, and I saw for the first time the unifying power of the gift of prophecy in the church.--Ibid. {3BIO 160.3}
Before the Whites came onto the grounds in Iowa, an action had been taken at the business meeting, leaving out the words "by vote." Apparently Ellen White's Sunday afternoon address-- which, if it ran true to form, was on temperance--led to a reopening of the question, and the call upon Ellen White for counsel. The action, passed after she gave counsel, read: {3BIO160.4} Resolved, That we express our deep interest in the temperance movement now going forward in this State; and that we instruct all our ministers to use their influence among our churches and with the people at large to induce them to put forth every consistent effort, by personal labor, and at the ballot box, in favor of the prohibitory amendment of the Constitution, which the friends of temperance are seeking to secure.--RH, July 5, 1881. {3BIO 160.5}
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191716 - 10/09/08 05:49 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: ichabod]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
a vast variety of thought among members So, if there is a vast variety of thought among members, the church should take no position? Yup. Leave it alone. No comment. Preach God's word from the pulpit, and let people decide for themselves how to vote on issues. Churches that take positions like that should lose their tax exemptions.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191720 - 10/09/08 07:14 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 1350
Loc: USA
|
No Can do. I will vote YES for Prop 8. My conscience will not allow any other vote.
_________________________
 Riverside CA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#191894 - 10/10/08 02:20 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: CyberGuy]
|
Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 1681
Loc: Texas
|
Of course, you should vote, and you should vote according to your conscience. That's exactly my point.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#192266 - 10/11/08 12:39 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 596
Loc: Kansas
|
Yes, Ellen White has encouraged people to vote for certain things.
If the state will not recognize gay marriages, that's not the same thing as making homosexuality illegal. People have the right to be homosexual, but not to just spread it everywhere.
It's the same with alcohol. People have the right to drink, but minors can't buy it, and grown ups can't buy liquor for minors. It's also heavily taxed, so it's not dirt cheap. And there are other laws, like hard liquor can't be sold in grocery stores, etc. These regulations do not infringe upon our rights, it's just so alcohol doesn't get out of control. And it's what the people want.
Why do gays need to have their partnership recognized? Why do they need to flaunt it, and encourage our children to be gay and everything else? Why can't they keep it to themselves, just like we ask the alcoholics to keep their alcoholism to themselves and not push it on our children?
We have rights, too.
And homosexuality can be seen as a religious belief. It should not be forced upon us.
_________________________
I cant make a sig with 30 chrs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#192572 - 10/12/08 01:50 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: rush4hire]
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2055
Loc: CA
|
Something to be considered: I have never been for legistlating religion. I just think that the following needs to be considered. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is no more "religious" than saying that "obstaining from stealing" is religious. There can still be "domestic unions" but it isn't "marriage". Marriage can be defined by "tradition" or by "general consensus" just like "stealing" can be viewed as being "wrong" even by completely non-christian societies. People never say "Oh someone stole from him but that is ok and if he complains he is being a biggotted christian." Just because something agrees or disagrees with the Bible doesn't mean that words can't be defined by a society.
However, there have been cases where ministers or churches haven't wanted to marry gay couples and they are suddenly in trouble. Pastors or churches have a right to not marry gay couples if it is against their beliefs.
We must be careful, or everything will so be dubed as a hate crime that pretty soon we can't even preach any distinctive doctrine (that has nothing to do with the gay agenda) or it will be considered "too devisive and a hate crime".
I think society can define words without hating individuals. There are people who are in a "domestic union" and although I don't agree with the "gay lifestyle" they are truely in a "domestic union" but it isn't marriage by definition.
I just don't see why, simply because it happens to agree with God's word...that the traditional definition of marriage ends up being a religious thing. It is only a "religious thing" when those who have an agenda to push suddenly want to force it on someone else and when it isn't accepted then it is "religious descrimination."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198657 - 11/06/08 03:14 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: carolaa]
|
Carpe Diem!!!
Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 3945
Loc: 49.05° Lat- 122.3° Long
|
So what happened with Prop 8? Any changes in the wind?
_________________________
"To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.." ---Proverbs 8:13
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198664 - 11/06/08 03:56 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Stan Jensen]
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2055
Loc: CA
|
Prop 8 was passed which defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.
Gays can have unions and get benefits but they aren't "married".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198682 - 11/06/08 05:10 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Taylor]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7139
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Although the difference in votes on it was around half a million and there are over 3 million postal and absentee votes still to be counted, so if they skewed strongly the other way it's still remotely possible Prop 8 could be defeated.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198683 - 11/06/08 05:12 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Bravus]
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2055
Loc: CA
|
That would be sad, in my opinion. But I am sure you could be right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198686 - 11/06/08 05:18 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Taylor]
|
Carpe Diem!!!
Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 3945
Loc: 49.05° Lat- 122.3° Long
|
I still do not understand if this is a Moral Issue or a Religious Liberty Issue..
_________________________
"To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.." ---Proverbs 8:13
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198688 - 11/06/08 05:19 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Stan Jensen]
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2055
Loc: CA
|
To many christians it is both.
To the general population it is simply a definition which doesn't need to change.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198691 - 11/06/08 05:36 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Shane]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7139
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I disagree, just in that I think heterosexual marriage has lots of problems of its own, to which homosexual marriage is completely irrelevant. Better that Christians put all their energy into fixing their own marriages rather than fighting against other people's.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198698 - 11/06/08 06:10 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Bravus]
|
Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 1350
Loc: USA
|
Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent. Now the DA of San Francisco says he will file a lawsuit against the proposition to the state supreme court saying the proposition is unconstitutional. Seems he feels it was a revision and not an addition therefore needs to go through the state legislature which we all know would get NOWHERE as that body is pro gay.
_________________________
 Riverside CA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198700 - 11/06/08 06:12 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Shane]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7139
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I just 100% do not understand the concept that gay marriage damages straight marriage, at all. Don't understand it. It's completely irrelevant. The straight couple down the road getting married (or for that matter, divorced) doesn't effect my marriage, and neither would the gay couple. If people just attended to their own gardens instead of other people's, we'd be a lot better off. Please explain to me clearly in small words how gay marriage is an attack on straight marriage.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198704 - 11/06/08 06:33 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Bravus]
|
Here Forever, by Request :)
Registered: 07/30/01
Posts: 18479
Loc: Out standing in a field
|
It isn't. Period. And it isn't a threat to our churches either. If you think about it. A gay couple isn't going to come into a church that doesn't favor them and ask to be married. And even if they did I'm sure the pastor would handle matters behind closed doors.
Im inclined to deal with gay marriage the way Jesus told us to deal with taxes. It's a government thing, not a religious thing. After that, it's up to God to deal with the individuals, not us.
_________________________
"Earth - insane asylum for the universe." - Maxine " Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him..."1 John 2:15-16
 Fairview Or
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198715 - 11/06/08 09:52 AM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Amelia]
|
Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 1241
Loc: CA
|
Just saw the website re: SDAs against prop 8. I was pretty surprised.
In the youtube videos that they showed, the issue that those SDAs seem to have is regarding religious liberty. But, I really don't feel like Prop 8 was a religious liberty issue.
Let's take the 10 commandments. If the gov wanted to post the 10 commandments in a courtroom, I'd object to that. The reason is, commandments 1-4 deal with God and man. However, commandments 5-10 deal with man to man. I think when man deals with man, then yes, the government should regulate commandments 5-10 (don't steal, don't kill etc.) However I don't believe the gov should regulate commandments 1-4 (what day to worship etc.). Those are between God and man.
So let's take Prop 8. Where in the spirit of the 10 commandments would this fall? Probably a man to man issue. So Prop 8 is the government trying to regulate a man to man issue. If we don't have a problem with the gov saying "don't kill" or "don't steal", then why would we have a problem with them saying "don't marry someone that's not of the opposite sex"?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198726 - 11/06/08 02:36 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Bravus]
|
Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 147
|
I just 100% do not understand the concept that gay marriage damages straight marriage, at all. Don't understand it. It's completely irrelevant. The straight couple down the road getting married (or for that matter, divorced) doesn't effect my marriage, and neither would the gay couple. If people just attended to their own gardens instead of other people's, we'd be a lot better off. Please explain to me clearly in small words how gay marriage is an attack on straight marriage. Marriage is a divine institution from God and should not be profaned by what is clearly a abomination to Him. If they want a government or civil document that is up to the powers that run it, but marriage is a total different matter.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198739 - 11/06/08 04:07 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: CyberGuy]
|
Administrator of Foro Adventista
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 17020
Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
|
Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent. Now the DA of San Francisco says he will file a lawsuit against the proposition to the state supreme court saying the proposition is unconstitutional. Seems he feels it was a revision and not an addition therefore needs to go through the state legislature which we all know would get NOWHERE as that body is pro gay.
The people of California voted and passed a ban on gay marriage in 2000. This year the California Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 ban violated the California constitution. So the people of California have now amended that same California constitution so that their constitution itself bans gay marriage. So now the Supreme Court cannot rule that the ban is unconstitutional when the ban is itself part of the constitution. However the amendment can be challenged in federal court and go all the way to the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court ruled the amendment was unconstitutional it would impact many others states that have already amended their constitution as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. However if that were to happen it would likely be a short-lived victory for gay rights as it would put enormous amount of pressure on Congress to amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriage.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198760 - 11/06/08 06:08 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Shane]
|
Princess of Pasadena
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2591
Loc: California
|
What bothers me about this whole thing is that the PRO Prop 8 people wanted to legislate AGAINST a minority. Take away the rights of a minority.
Well, as part of a religious minority myself, this bothers me tremendously.
If I don't stand up for the rights of a minority [of which I'm not a member, nor do I even really understand their viewpoint] -- who then will be left to stand up for ME when my rights are being legislated out of existence??
I think Prop 8 is totally WRONG, both under the U.S.Constitution and under the Bible. Every person should have the right to make choices for him/herself, regardless of whether s/he is in the minority or the majority.
_________________________
Jeannie
...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198763 - 11/06/08 06:15 PM
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
[Re: Jeannieb43]
|
Registered: 12/25/04
Posts: 2055
Loc: CA
|
They can make a choice....they can be gay, they can be in a union but it isn't marriage. That doesn't take any right away from them. They are still recognized as in a Union. If we gave them a "right" to call it "marriage" then we are saying that Pastors don't have any "right' to not do a wedding of those people. That also "infringes" on those rights. We are not descriminating | | | | |