I Voted Yes!!!

[pl_walker]

Last Wednesday, we went to church at a local church (see elsewhere for our church issues). Anyway, the pastor was an older man with an interesting sense of humor. He got up and told everyone that he would be out of town today (election day). So, here in South Carolina, they set up absentee polling places early so you don't have to do by-mail voting. Also, we have the marriage issue on the ballot.

He said that when he clicked the vote for Yes (Marriage is only a man and woman) that he shouted "YES!!" and shoved his finger in the air. Amid the scattered laughter, he admitted that he didn't really do that.

I thought it was funny, and as I went to vote this morning, I checked the Yes for that ammendment and I was tempted to shout "YES!!!" and shove my finger in the air. I didn't, but the temptation was VERY strong.

I do have my "I Voted" lapel sticker hung on the wall at work by a post it that says "YES". So it looks like "I Voted YES".

Paul

[Zanyboy]

That is so sad.

[chad_ghost]

That is so sad.

Um... okay? What do you mean?

[Zanyboy]

I find it sad on many levels.

First, that the Republican party felt the need to demonize of an entire segment of our population for the sole purpose of rallying yet another for their votes. Even sadder that it worked.

What I found sad about pl-walker's post was how humorous he and some members of his church apparently found the situation, considering how many people were (and are) suffering due to to pieces of legislation like this (and others).

[RevSears]

how are they suffering? Please inform me. They can still live together (in-sin) and have homosexual relations. So they don't get tax breaks? I agree that if one of them is dying a gay partner should be allowed in the room. I still don't approve of the lifestyle but would grant them that out of kindness.

It simply protects marriage as it is. Marriage is dillouted enough with all the divorces that go on. Those tax breaks help promote a FAMILY. Last time i check gay people can't produce offspring. Seems nature is telling us something there.

[Darko]

(I think I'm missing something in the original post...why was putting your finger in the air and shouting "YES" so hilarious?)

how are they suffering? Please inform me. They can still live together (in-sin) and have homosexual relations. So they don't get tax breaks? I agree that if one of them is dying a gay partner should be allowed in the room. I still don't approve of the lifestyle but would grant them that out of kindness.

It simply protects marriage as it is. Marriage is dillouted enough with all the divorces that go on. Those tax breaks help promote a FAMILY. Last time i check gay people can't produce offspring. Seems nature is telling us something there.

You're going to run into a whole lot of problems if you start linking the validity of marriage to procreation. For instance, a friend of mine recently discovered that he and his wife are incapable of having children. Should their marriage license be rescinded? And what about couples that choose not to have child (either through just abstaining or a surgical procedure that prevents fertilization)? Heck, I've been married almost four years and my wife and I use birth control (...don't tell the Pope...) because we feel we're not ready to have children yet. Should the government be sending me a notice that I have X amount of time to get my wife pregnant or our marriage is null and void? How about after the female half of a couple has gone through menopause? Is the male then released from his marriage commitment?

I am not opposed to legalized homosexual marriage. Now, before you go throwing Leviticus at me, I'm only talking about state-marriage, not church-marriage. Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality is a perfectly good reason to not perform or recognize homosexual unions in your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. And, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that if, tomorrow, gay marriage was legalized in all fifty states, not a single religious institution would be required to change any one of their views or practices. Legal or no, if a homosexual couple came to your church and said they'd like to be married there, your pastor would have the right to say, "I'm sorry, we don't condone that lifestyle or perform homosexual marriages here." (same as they could tell a heterosexual couple that they felt was getting married unprepared or for the wrong reasons that they wouldn't perform the marriage). That's the upside for the churches to the separation of church and state.

To make something illegal in the secular realm, you need to prove that it is detrimental to society as a whole, which includes not just Christians but Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Neo-pagans, Hindus, Buddhists and all the rest. And they, like it or not, have equal citizenship with us. Christians see homosexual marriage as detrimental because our sacred scripture tells us it is against the will of the God we believe in (and therefore, if that is how you read the scriptures, then you should not practice such). But an atheist who doesn't believe in God or the validity of scriptures is not going to see things that way and asking them to live by a morality based on concepts they don't subscribe to is like asking all Christian women to cover themselves head to toe before they leave the house because some Muslims find their current style of dress immoral. Something has to be harmful to society as a whole for it to be made illegal (for instance, it's illegal to murder not because God said "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but because a society where lives could freely be taken could not stand). And I have yet to hear a valid reason for why legalized gay marriage would be detrimental to society as a whole. Some reasons I HAVE heard...

-Letting homosexuals marry would hurt the institution of marriage: Really? Because, during those months when gay marriage was legal in California, my marriage certificate didn't burst into flames. My relationship with my wife didn't crumble. Our pact with God was not dissolved. Our marriage was no more affected by homosexuals being able to be married than it is by heterosexual atheist couples being able to get married at the court house (That right there goes against the biblical notion of marriage (a pact between a couple and God), or a couple that gets married for financial reasons only, or a couple married through an arranged marriage, or a couple that gets married and then gets divorced. Because, when it comes down to it, the institution of marriage is only as strong as the convictions of the two people currently in the marriage. If the actions of others, especially people you don't know, can cause your marriage to falter, then there's probably a deeper issue at work.

-They're forcing their beliefs on ME by wanting to make gay marriage legal: No. No they're not. They're not requiring you to go get married to another man, or be attracted to other men, or dissolve your heterosexual marriage, or perform gay marriages in your church. At most, they're requiring you to live in a society where something you find immoral exists. They are neither forcing nor preventing you from doing anything. I don't know about the rest of you, but if gay marriage is made legal, I don't plan on changing anything about how I live.

-Letting gay people marry would be redefining marriage: First off, let's not pretend like marriage is a uniquely Judeo/Christian concept. Tons of other cultures had similar joining rituals. Second, we've already redefined marriage many, many times since Old Testament days. Know what group has a form of marriage very close to the Old Testament form? Radical, fringe Mormons (remember the story of David and his many, many wives?). And in the Middle Ages (when Christianity reigned supreme) when marriages were arranged by parents between children who had often never met, not for the purposes of love or even procreation, but land/property acquisition...you don't think we've redefined marriage a bit since then?

-Even if they don't believe in God, it's in their best interest to make them live by His commandments: Is it? Do works save now? When a heterosexual atheist stands before God, will God say, "Well, you didn't believe in me or accept my son as your savior, but lucky for you, my followers prevented you from getting gay married, so go right in."?

Bottom line, if you think gay marriage is sinful, immoral, or just plain wrong, then you're entitled to that opinion, and you shouldn't get gay married. If your church also finds it sinful, then they shouldn't practice it. But you can't legislate personal morality.

[RevSears]

Y'know Darko this may suprise you but using the reasons you just stated when the state bill came up to protect marriage (don't tell anyone) a few years ago i voted against it. As time as when on though i've changed my mind mainly for two reasons 1) this would likely be just a stepping stone. Isn't it a hate crime to preach Homosexuality as sin in Canada? that bill may not have made it to law, i've heard this, but not seen it for myself. 2) I think giving them civil union status would work just fine. Then again i think most marriages in this country could probably be done that way cause they aren't looking at the forever part anymore.

well hold on there is a third reason. 3) the people voted, and i honestly think democracy should win this one. In California there was talk of still declaring it unconstitutional even though they amended the constitution and to place it there! That scares me.

So maybe there is a little bit of fear here. I'm usually a pretty rational guy and like to base my decisions on logic. But lets let the people decide.

Btw i like your sig, I don't hate any gay person and feel if we really want to help marriages we should focus on things like marital pre-marital counseling and teaching self sacrifice and patience ! I strongly believe Homosexual activity is a sin, but i also believe it is not the only one and certainly not the greatest one. It's the same as pre-marital sex and we hardly see that attacked anymore.

[Darko]

Y'know Darko this may suprise you but using the reasons you just stated when the state bill came up to protect marriage (don't tell anyone) a few years ago i voted against it. As time as when on though i've changed my mind mainly for two reasons 1) this would likely be just a stepping stone. Isn't it a hate crime to preach Homosexuality as sin in Canada?

Not exactly. The Canadian law doesn't prohibit religious preaching as long as it isn't done in such a way as to directly incite violence against a group. Here is a fairly decent write-up on the law. It's a bit wordy, but here's the important section:

Section 319 deals with hate speech:

1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.
2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:
-The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
-If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
-If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
-If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
-If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.
-If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.

In this section of the Code, the term "statements" includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.[/url]

So, basically, it wouldn't be a hate crime for you say, "Homosexuality is a sin," but it would be a hate crime for you to say, "Homosexuals are sinners, and therefore it would be good and right for us to beat them to death." And, frankly, I think it should be illegal to make such statements about any group of people, regardless of how you feel about their behaviors.

well hold on there is a third reason. 3) the people voted, and i honestly think democracy should win this one. In California there was talk of still declaring it unconstitutional even though they amended the constitution and to place it there! That scares me.

I agree entirely. But they also have the right to introduce measures to overturn prop 8 and let that be voted on as well.

[destros_elite]

Darko,
The heart of the issue is homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sin no matter what you want to believe or, as you used the word, your "opinion" is. The reason for this? BECAUSE GOD SAID IT IS! Because, Darko, the Word of God stands above all and the Word of God is NOT AN OPINION! It is not a book of options for someone to choose which of God's laws they want to obey and which they do not. Like Rev said, though, homosexuality is NOT the be all end all of sin as many Christians make it to be. Sin is sin. But read Romans Chapter 1 and you will see that Paul addresses homosexuality and a list of other sins. Then right at the very end of the chapter, Paul says that not only those who participate in such are deserving of death, but also those who APPROVE of such sins. But of course if you have believed the lies of the Deceiver and think homosexuality is not a sin (meaning you disregard part of what God has told us), then you probably have disregarded this part of scripture as well.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I have a problem with Christians standing up for that which is sin. Another scripture comes to mind from James.

"Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." James 4:4

I'm not a fighter and I really shy away from most confrontations. However, when it comes to my LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ, I will stand on the mountain tops for what He has done for me and you...which is dying for our sins and rising again! So I cannot stand pat and let someone promote sin that sent my LORD to the cross.

And to address one other issue:

You mentioned Prop 8, saying they have a right to introduce measures against it and vote on it. Guess what? It WAS voted on by the people of California and they passed it! So let's see, if someone is elected to the House of Representatives that I didn't vote for, can myself and those who didn't vote for him (the minority in a democracy) raise a stink and get what the majority in a demorcracy voted for, overturned?


You also said, "Christians see homosexual marriage as detrimental because our sacred scripture tells us it is against the will of the God we believe in (and therefore, if that is how you read the scriptures, then you should not practice such). But an atheist who doesn't believe in God or the validity of scriptures is not going to see things that way and asking them to live by a morality based on concepts they don't subscribe to is like asking all Christian women to cover themselves head to toe before they leave the house because some Muslims find their current style of dress immoral. Something has to be harmful to society as a whole for it to be made illegal (for instance, it's illegal to murder not because God said "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but because a society where lives could freely be taken could not stand). "
Do you even believe that God is God of all??? Because HE IS! Whether you believe in Him or not, that does not change that fact that HE IS! His existence does not hang on whether or not someone believes in His existence! Likewise His law! If someone decides they do not believe in gravity will they suddenly float off into space because, since they don't believe it, they are no longer bound by it? Of course not!

[Darko]

Oh good, the reactionary train has pulled into the station. I assume it will be making the usual stops at "I didn't actually comprehend what you were saying" plaza and "You're not a REAL Christian because you don't read the Bible like I do!" lane.

Darko,
The heart of the issue is homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sin no matter what you want to believe or, as you used the word, your "opinion" is. The reason for this? BECAUSE GOD SAID IT IS! Because, Darko, the Word of God stands above all and the Word of God is NOT AN OPINION! It is not a book of options for someone to choose which of God's laws they want to obey and which they do not. Like Rev said, though, homosexuality is NOT the be all end all of sin as many Christians make it to be. Sin is sin. But read Romans Chapter 1 and you will see that Paul addresses homosexuality and a list of other sins. Then right at the very end of the chapter, Paul says that not only those who participate in such are deserving of death, but also those who APPROVE of such sins. But of course if you have believed the lies of the Deceiver and think homosexuality is not a sin (meaning you disregard part of what God has told us), then you probably have disregarded this part of scripture as well.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I have a problem with Christians standing up for that which is sin. Another scripture comes to mind from James.

"Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." James 4:4

Well, that was fast. Must be on the express.

Let's try reading for comprehension this time. When did I say homosexuality was or wasn't a sin? What I DID say was that, in this country, which, no matter how much some people try to pretend otherwise, IS a secular nation (we don't have a national religion...says it right there in the constitution), you cannot make laws based solely on what any one religious group believes to be a sin. You don't even have to go out of the Christian religion to see why that would be a problem. Some fundamentalist baptist groups read the Bible in such a way that they consider dancing sinful. Do you want a law against that? Heck, we're in Lent right now...want an official law against eating meat on Fridays?

I'm not a fighter and I really shy away from most confrontations. However, when it comes to my LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ, I will stand on the mountain tops for what He has done for me and you...which is dying for our sins and rising again! So I cannot stand pat and let someone promote sin that sent my LORD to the cross.

There's not a big enough to express how hard I just rolled my eyes. I think it made a squishy noise. This is called a discussion. Typically they can be civil. Put away the crusader banner.

You mentioned Prop 8, saying they have a right to introduce measures against it and vote on it. Guess what? It WAS voted on by the people of California and they passed it! So let's see, if someone is elected to the House of Representatives that I didn't vote for, can myself and those who didn't vote for him (the minority in a democracy) raise a stink and get what the majority in a demorcracy voted for, overturned?

Ah, no, but you CAN vote for someone else next election. And they can put another proposition on the ballot and vote for that.

You also said, "Christians see homosexual marriage as detrimental because our sacred scripture tells us it is against the will of the God we believe in (and therefore, if that is how you read the scriptures, then you should not practice such). But an atheist who doesn't believe in God or the validity of scriptures is not going to see things that way and asking them to live by a morality based on concepts they don't subscribe to is like asking all Christian women to cover themselves head to toe before they leave the house because some Muslims find their current style of dress immoral. Something has to be harmful to society as a whole for it to be made illegal (for instance, it's illegal to murder not because God said "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but because a society where lives could freely be taken could not stand). "
Do you even believe that God is God of all??? Because HE IS! Whether you believe in Him or not, that does not change that fact that HE IS! His existence does not hang on whether or not someone believes in His existence! Likewise His law! If someone decides they do not believe in gravity will they suddenly float off into space because, since they don't believe it, they are no longer bound by it? Of course not!

First off, quote tags; they're your friends. Makes things a lot easier to sift through. Second, at no point did I say that God's law changes because someone doesn't believe in God. In fact, I said very little about God's law period. I said things about UNITED STATES law, and the United States is not God (don't worry, lots of people make the same mistake...just ask their bumper stickers). The United States has laws that are entirely separate from God's laws. Know how I can tell? Because you don't vote on God's laws. Again, we have no official religion, so the basis for our laws cannot be "because God said so," because there are thousands and thousands of people in this country who hold religious beliefs that differ from those of Christianity (...you do realize that, right?). You didn't actually think that every United States law out there corresponds to the will of God, right? That's because we're not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, Vatican City is very nice this time of year (...but you'll probably have to take a few vows you'll be uncomfortable with to live there), and if you like warmer climates, there's always Iran.

[destros_elite]

Darko,
I'm not attacking you. I was addressing the thoughts put forth, but not you.
You refer to

This is called a discussion. Typically they can be civil.

But then you start in on:

Put away the crusader banner.

Oh good, the reactionary train has pulled into the station.

Let's try reading for comprehension this time.

First off, quote tags; they're your friends

Civil? I call it rude, which I was not and will not be to you. I apologize to you if I came off as attacking. I was fired up, yes, but at the view, not you. Going back and reading my post, I can see where it may have come off the wrong way, and for my delivery, I am sorry.
Discussions can be heated at times and still be civil.

I disagreed with your post, let you know that I did, and backed up why I did. So why are you jumping on me simply because it does not agree with what you said?

But in response to your last post. I said:

You mentioned Prop 8, saying they have a right to introduce measures against it and vote on it. Guess what? It WAS voted on by the people of California and they passed it! So let's see, if someone is elected to the House of Representatives that I didn't vote for, can myself and those who didn't vote for him (the minority in a democracy) raise a stink and get what the majority in a demorcracy voted for, overturned?

You said:

Ah, no, but you CAN vote for someone else next election. And they can put another proposition on the ballot and vote for that.
I assume it will be making the usual stops at "I didn't actually comprehend what you were saying" plaza and "You're not a REAL Christian because you don't read the Bible like I do!" lane.

True, I could vote for someone else the next election, but I couldn't overturn the current results.

Second, at no point did I say that God's law changes because someone doesn't believe in God. In fact, I said very little about God's law period.

What about...

To make something illegal in the secular realm, you need to prove that it is detrimental to society as a whole, which includes not just Christians but Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Neo-pagans, Hindus, Buddhists and all the rest. And they, like it or not, have equal citizenship with us. Christians see homosexual marriage as detrimental because our sacred scripture tells us it is against the will of the God we believe in (and therefore, if that is how you read the scriptures, then you should not practice such). But an atheist who doesn't believe in God or the validity of scriptures is not going to see things that way and asking them to live by a morality based on concepts they don't subscribe to is like asking all Christian women to cover themselves head to toe before they leave the house because some Muslims find their current style of dress immoral. Something has to be harmful to society as a whole for it to be made illegal (for instance, it's illegal to murder not because God said "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but because a society where lives could freely be taken could not stand). And I have yet to hear a valid reason for why legalized gay marriage would be detrimental to society as a whole. Some reasons I HAVE heard...

"They don't subscribe to" meaning they don't believe in and thus not following it. So if they don't believe in God or His Word then it doesn't apply to them. But it does still apply to them.

In reference to your remarks about "theocracy"...I know we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy. The entire reason we can have this discussion is because of the wonderful country we live in!

Darko, once again, I apologize to you for coming across harsh. As I said, I was very heated at the thoughts set forth and simply meant to attack those ideas and not you. It was not my intention to attack you as a person.
However, I stand firmly by what I said in regards to the thoughts and ideas.

[Darko]

True, I could vote for someone else the next election, but I couldn't overturn the current results.

No one is suggesting that you could, or that prop 8 could be overturned in any way other than another vote at the designated time.

What about...

To make something illegal in the secular realm, you need to prove that it is detrimental to society as a whole, which includes not just Christians but Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Neo-pagans, Hindus, Buddhists and all the rest. And they, like it or not, have equal citizenship with us. Christians see homosexual marriage as detrimental because our sacred scripture tells us it is against the will of the God we believe in (and therefore, if that is how you read the scriptures, then you should not practice such). But an atheist who doesn't believe in God or the validity of scriptures is not going to see things that way and asking them to live by a morality based on concepts they don't subscribe to is like asking all Christian women to cover themselves head to toe before they leave the house because some Muslims find their current style of dress immoral. Something has to be harmful to society as a whole for it to be made illegal (for instance, it's illegal to murder not because God said "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but because a society where lives could freely be taken could not stand). And I have yet to hear a valid reason for why legalized gay marriage would be detrimental to society as a whole. Some reasons I HAVE heard...

"They don't subscribe to" meaning they don't believe in and thus not following it. So if they don't believe in God or His Word then it doesn't apply to them. But it does still apply to them.

Again...third time...I never said GOD'S law doesn't apply to them. We're not talking about God's law here. We're talking about STATE law. Different than God's law. God's law applies to everyone on a grander scale, but you can't make a state law out of God's law simply on the basis that it is God's law. When someone gets sent to hell, it's because they violated God's law. When someone gets sent to jail, it's because they violated a state law. The issue isn't "is homosexual marriage MORAL?" it's "should homosexual marriage be ILLEGAL." Very different things. Lots of immoral things are legal in this country because they are not considered detrimental enough to society to make a blanket law that everyone must follow regardless of religious beliefs. It's immoral to take God's name in vain, but it's not illegal to. For that matter, from a Christian perspective, it's immoral to be a part of a non-Christian religion, but that's not illegal either.

[destros_elite]

True, I could vote for someone else the next election, but I couldn't overturn the current results.

No one is suggesting that you could, or that prop 8 could be overturned in any way other than another vote at the designated time.

But why then does the California Supreme Court have to get involved? Because people are challenging the validity of it. How could it be invalid?

Again...third time...I never said GOD'S law doesn't apply to them. We're not talking about God's law here. We're talking about STATE law. Different than God's law. God's law applies to everyone on a grander scale, but you can't make a state law out of God's law simply on the basis that it is God's law. When someone gets sent to hell, it's because they violated God's law. When someone gets sent to jail, it's because they violated a state law. The issue isn't "is homosexual marriage MORAL?" it's "should homosexual marriage be ILLEGAL." Very different things. Lots of immoral things are legal in this country because they are not considered detrimental enough to society to make a blanket law that everyone must follow regardless of religious beliefs. It's immoral to take God's name in vain, but it's not illegal to. For that matter, from a Christian perspective, it's immoral to be a part of a non-Christian religion, but that's not illegal either.

I understand that you were talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. I said in my first post that the heart of the matter is homosexuality itself. I know that your post was about the legality of same-sex marriage. I just don't see how Christians can have a problem with a law that supports what God's Word says.

You know when I first read the "I Voted Yes" topic, I had NO IDEA what it was about and had NO IDEA of the path it would take. But I have to say, this is a great thread and great discussion going on!

[destros_elite]

Sorry, Darko, the quotes really weren't my "friends" this last time. I totatlly screwed up the quoting. I hope you can follow it though. My response begins with "But why then..."
My bad...

[RevSears]

Des qoutes are pretty easy to get used to, just test em out some. It's easy to hit the qoute button in your reply box and go back and just copy and paste what you want to qoute from them inbetween.

Darko that first response did seem a little harsh to des but i understand the point you were trying to make.

Blue laws is what we are discussing, can we or maybe should we because we can, this is a democracy, make laws about moral behavior? One thing that came to mind is that if we don't let sinners in this country how can we evanglize? The U.S isn't Qumran. If a vote comes up again, I will vote yes this time.

My beef w/ marriage is more about how easy it is to get one. how the churches are failing their members in guiding and supporting them in marriage. If we get ourselves right and living Holy we can be in a better position to persuade the homosexual community to attempt a change. It is possible btw. I recently met an old friend who was gay and is been saved and repented from that life. It was very easy to reach back out to me because while he knew where i stood on homosexuality (it being a sin) i would still be a friend to him. It's a hard line to walk there, don't confuse what i'm saying. We can be corrupted by hanging out with people we shouldn't, but we aren't to be islands to ourselves but lighthouses to men.