Gay marriage
I‘m writing on behalf of all Christians for traditional marriage. My only
problem is which traditional marriage.
How about a marriage where a wife
being unable to bear a child would be helped out by a servant girl? Or for a
widow to be married to a brother-in-law and any children being the heirs of
the deceased. Or David, “a man after God’s own heart.” He had three wives.
His first (wife) was embarrassed by David’s ecstatic public strip dance. He
acquired one of his wives by murdering her husband. We don’t want that
tradition?
So being followers of Jesus we follow his principles. The problem
is he says nothing about gay relationships, but has a few things to say
about divorce. And about loving our neighbors and supporting the oppressed.
He suggested laws are made for helping humans, not the other way around. We
don’t like these traditions. We need a theology of evil: what makes anything
right or wrong, not arbitrary rules cast in concrete.
I propose a tradition of marriage being for two people who can and do make sincere vows of
lifelong commitments to love and honor each other above all others and to be
faithful partners despite all life and social demands.
We say we support the marriage that provides for children and stability of
the institution. If marriage were really about procreation and raising
children or the provision of inheritance we would have to eliminate
marriages for people beyond their childbearing years. Perhaps we need a
constitutional amendment banning divorce, rather than going after persons we
think are different and therefore wrong. Perhaps they’re not so different at
all.
As a Christian, as a septuagenarian married for 47 years, who has a number
of gay and lesbian friends, I am compelled to oppose an amendment that would
prevent the fullest expression of love between committed persons.
Donald Belton
Lake Shore
Comments (12)
Add commentI think the amendment is pretty clear which definition...
...one man, one woman. And in case you didn't figure it out, that's the model that Jesus promoted, as well. That little Sermon on the Mount, which rejects divorce as being a man-made invention (not God's will) and the clear reference to the one man, one woman model is the only proof you need to show that's what Christ promoted. Your argument that he didn't talk about gay marriage is evidence that a) The idea would have been so ludicrous in that day, that people would have thought he was off his rocker if he'd addressed it, and b) Because the idea would have been so absurd at the time, Jesus really would have required to say something specific about it if it had been His will, as he did with many, many other things that the people of his time did not properly understand.
55.8% of Minnesotans
identify themselves as Christians. That ranks Minnesota 8th in the United States. That means a sizable minority of 44.2% do not. And many Christians are voting no. I have hopes that Minnesota will not pass this discriminating amendment.
Oh Boy!
What you have written here really shows the true state of humanity and what we call christianity today. The problem is not with the true nature of marriage in the Bible.. The problem here is that ALL of the people you pointed to were HUMAN.. IF you look at God's true intention for the marriage model (One man and one woman working together to bring their children up in a Godly home) there cant be any mistake.. Unfortunately we have fallen into this thing where we can look at the stories of men/women in the Bible who failed miserably (because of their sinful human nature) and say oh well if they did it and God forgave them then whats the problem.? The problem is that the Bible says that we are to follow Christ's example not the example of men. Its easy to fall into a pattern of bending the Bible to fit our human views.. However we forget to look at what God set forth in the beginning as a model for humans to follow.. If man had not fallen we wouldnt be having a discussion about this, but then there would not have been men/women with multiple wifes/husbands either.
To my point.. You are pointing to men like David... Thats the problem.. You should be citing What God expects of us, not what sinful humans have done... Personally I will take the guide for my life from that which was set forth by Christ and NO other.. That said.. Im going to vote, and thats the end of it..
DOMA ruled Unconstitutional
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/doma-defense-of-marriage-act_n_...
This amendment will be, too, if passed.
Time to change the Bible
Let's get the Bible changed right away so it can match the wants of the marriage for anyone group. You should be able to marry anyone you want who cares about the past.
Change the constitution while you are at it.
Go ahead "make my day".
Oh Sadie
Sooooo dramatic. Here is the deal..real simple for you boneheads to understand. It doesn't matter what the Bible says about marriage. That's the beauty of it. We are talking about our law here, not your church rules. This state and country don't need to bow down to your hateful bigotry based on the bible, Harry Potter, or any other book you so choose to believe. We were founded by banning religious persecution and that is what this feeble attempt is all about. You taking your beliefs and shoving it down the throats of all Minnesotans. You don't like gay marriage don't have one, and don't support them. Don't go to one. Hell, don't allow them in your federally protected church, but do us all a favor and save your repulsive rhetoric of bible this and Jesus that to justify your hate. You are making all Christians look really dumb, and I know most are not.
OK I'm a bonehead
There are Christians that are dumb. Wow, I make a 3 sentence sarcastic remark and get judgemental remark.
I don't really belong to a church so you can cross that off your list.
My objection to gay marriage is not based on the Bible.
It is based on my common sense and I'll admit Adam and Eve do come to mind
I agree that it doesn't matter what the Bible says about marriage and I have said that many times in this comment section.
I'm a bonehead, I'm a bonehead, I'm a bonehead.
I'm a bonehead hater.OK
Then why a post about
Then why a post about changing the bible, if thats not the reason for your belief's? Starting to back track like another Conservative we all love to hate, eh Mittster.
I can't say what
I'd like to to medic because last time it complained and wanted me warned by Denton. Maybe Denton should look at medic's putdowns on here and warn him/her?
medic
I was joking. If you notice many of the post on both sides mention Bible passages .which is why I thought some
joking might lighten things up. I am thoroughly disheartened by the name calling regarding this issue. A person can't seem to be for or against something without being called names.I am for man/woman marriage for my common sense reasoning.
If someone has read my posts on this topic for months, I have always said that I base my yes on personal opinion.
not the Bible. I can see how such arguments can be made on both sides of the issue using the Bible.
I do agree that some gays may want to marry( not the ones I know), but I can't agree to the gay marriage.
man+woman= marriage
medic
was just venting some hatred and bigotry toward straight and religious people and wants to shove that hatred down all of our throats. His tolerance of anyone that isn't of his beliefs is non-existant.
really
Gay marriage is gay.