Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I sense people have grown weary of this topic! :-) That's OK. If I seem obsessed with it, it's because I believe it to be about the most important "values" question of this era. Domestivally speakin'. Freedom or order? Minority liberty or majority rule? Anything goes, or some things don't? It's a real urban-rural, red-blue thing, too. Real juicy topic, this.

Maybe y'all are just tired of me. Got no response from my moonshine-meth deal the other day.

Maybe I'll just take my blog and go home.

NOT. :-)
 

I wonder why this particular sin, above all others, gets you so stirred. And what exactly is the sin? Is it the particular sexual act? Is it the relationship involved?
I dunno... I'll think on it some more when I'm not trying to get work done.
 

It's not the sin, it's the public policy thing. It's the whole notion of what is tolerance, vs. what is acceptance vs. what is approval -- and the fact that the law and rights and privilege and contract law and tradition and ALL that stuff is all balled up, so to speak, in the small yet explosive phrase "gay marriage."
 

I guess a church has the right to make a stance on anything it wishes.

Besides, I'm looking for somethin' to laugh at, not this. That's why I didn't comment. You're just spoiled. :-)
 

ER, You said, Tolerance is one thing. Acceptance is another.

Acceptance is one thing. Approval is another

I wonm't diagree with that for it is true, however, My opinion, and it IS MY opinion, is that tolerance for sin is as bad as the sin itself. Case in point: I really have a hard time believing that EVERYONE in Sodom and Gommorah were homosexual. I believe that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed, alomg with all who lived there, not only because there was rampant homosexuality, but also becaise the rest of the people accepted anmd tolerated it. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Cadence: I often hear Catholics and former Catholics use the fact that they were raised Catholic as a means to prove they are Christian. Being raised in the Catholic church or Baptist, or Church of Christ or Lutheran, or any other Christian religion does not make one a Christian any more than being raised in a garage makes one a car.
 

OK, I think I've cleared my mind enough (maybe) to comment.

I'm not sure I'm buying your statement that it's a "public policy" issue with you rather than "a sin" that makes you feel ookey. But I'll go with that for a minute.

Public policy is in constant flux. Substitute "mixed" for the word "gay" and step back 40 years in time. (Yeah, don't give me any lip about how much easier it is for me to do that than you...) Even now, you'll still find pockets of folks who think racially mixed marriages are a sign of the Second Coming and by golly should NOT be allowed in OUR Christian nation because it IS NOT NATURAL! (end of pretend rant).

Come on. It's happened, and it will continue to happen, and some day we'll just be "the human race" rather than any mix of check-off boxes on a government form. The world did not stop revolving when society changed. Now we look back, many of us in horror to think about how badly some people were treated "in the olden days."

People's thoughts and positions on the gay thing are changing too, in many circles. Mine among them, because of circumstances where I was FORCED to look at the issues when I didn't want to. And it includes more Biblical study, too, to see what the real issue was. There are many pastors now who think the issue of homosexuality is more a reflection of the society and circumstances in Paul's day, much like the "women should be silent in church" thing. May have been very good reasons for it at the time; maybe should be viewed in light of those circumstances.

I like what Cadence said about divine revelation not ending with the binding of the Bible. God still speaks. We must continue to listen, even when we get the willies about something. Usually that's a sign that we need to look at it carefully, in my experience.

OK, now, onward. With or without official sanction of the church or the state, love will find its own way. Gay unions will exist. Straight unions will exist, in marriage and outside it. The problem is gay couples have no way of sanctioning a union which may be every bit as valid, committed and long-lasting as a straight marriage. That is discrimination, and we all know it. We may accept that as good policy, or not. I do not.

When Terry Schiavo was near the end of her life, there was a lot of hubbub about states' rights vs. federal rights. One of the state's rights is to determine laws about marriage.

If you support state rights, then you have to seriously look at the issue and ask whether the state or family or anyone else had the right to interfere with Terry's husband's rights and duties to make decisions on her behalf. I think that was one of the major screw-ups in that case. They were married and as her husband, that was a right that was granted to the both of them when they said "I do."

Now, back to gay marriage: why should members of gay couples not have the right to have that same legally, state sanctioned contract between them?

And as for the church position on it, well, every denomination was formed because of a rift in its predecessor church. Every denomination is a splinter off the original Church. Churches split over whether to use musical instruments or what songs should be in the dang hymnal. Of course there will be splits and dissention over this issue. My own denomination is terribly torn on the issue.

But it still comes down to this for me: Who has the right to rate sins in order of badness?

There is no rating system, in my opinion. Sin is sin, and every sin is as bad as every other sin. Sin is separation from God, not a brownie point to be granted or denied.

And you do have to wonder. If we accept that we were made in God's image, male and female He created them, then who is going to stand up and say He did not create gay people? And if they were created in HIS image, who the hell are we to deny them anything?

OK, you wanted a response, and I just had to provide one.
 

OK, so we've all experienced what it's like to contemplate our place as a theologian or our stance on gays. Enough, I say. Let's break down these walls, Mr. Gorbachev, and read about something that makes us all pee our pants laughing.
 

Rule No. 1: If you believe in religious freedom, you can't support a law banning expression of religous belief. Many Christian churches, including the Church of the Open Arms in OKC, believe that homosexuality comports with Christianity. Baptists have used the people's government before to outlaw their particular sect's ban against dancin'. Well, stomp on that.
 

Well, that wasn't very funny, Mr./Ms. Anonymous. Try again.
 

I understand that, Cadence, you made your point the first time. I like that analogy too, so I took the opportunity to use it!
 

This is a great discussion. (Teditor, go to www.theonion.com for laughs. :-) )

This begs a response:

Re, "I think it is the belief of most Christian faiths that God has not finished revealing the word to the world. Divine revelation does not end with the binding of the Bible."

Actually, this is not the case with most of the churches in Oklahoma, which are fundamentalist. Revelation DID end with the binding, to those folks -- except for the super Pentecostal fundies who believe in direct revelation, tongues and such.

My interest in this subject, Trixie, really has more to do with the dance of freedom and order than the fact that I feel "ookey" about gayness. Ask Dr. ER about the large table of 'em we sat next to at the B&B in Santa Fe. I didn't feel a need to call any of 'em a pansy, preach to 'em or beat one up as an example. I lived and let live. That does NOT mean it ain't a Big Issue that will fester in the legislatures and courts for the rest of our lives.
 

If by "most churches" you mean Baptist churches, OK. But there are a lot of us mainline Protestants out here who believe that God continues to reveal Himself and continues to create, even today.
 

Trixie, what I mean is "most churches." What I mean is count up the churches in this state, and most of them are some kind of Baptist or fundamentalist. So, "most."
 

I will take you up on your invitation to come back after winning a coveted redneck point.:)

I don't want to sound like a brimstone & fire "God hates fags" person. Those people make me as sick as a molestor or rapist......But if we, and what I mean by we is, believers in Christ don't speak out on this issue we are doing those who are decieved in thinking this is a "normal" lifestyle a serious unloving disservice.
If you have something wrong with your body it usually aches somewhere or fever sets in to warn you that you need to check it out. If our country keeps moving down the path of approval and acceptance of this lifestyle then those in it will not have the "ache" that something is wrong and continue on slowly headed toward the death of their souls.
Acceptance of sin leads to numbness and we can't hear the truth anymore.

If we fail in stopping gay marriage outside the church that is one thing... at least we tried. If we fail to stop it in the church and continue to go those churches that accept it then we need to start examining what we really believe about the truth what God says about us and what we really should be.
 

By the way I believe the scriptures below clearly point out that God did not destroy Sodom for homosexual conduct alone. Are we getting close to this here in US?

Ezekial 16:
48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.
49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.nasb
 

Re, "Lobbying the state to legislate what is admittedly a religious belief undermines the seperation of church and state."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: ALL any legislature does is legislate morality. Somebody's. Even speed limits are a line beyond which someone has argued that it is "wrong" to pass.

And, concerns over gay marriage go beyond "religious beliefs" -- way beyond. They go to the sense of societal order, they go to who we, as Americans, as a whole want to be. Pro or con, I, myself, refuse to concede this point -- the bigger one, about the legality of gay marriage -- to the church(es) alone.

I AM a state's rights liberal. Let Vermont do what it may. Let Oklahoma do what it may.

Let the churches do what they may.

And let adult grown-up people make the decisions they may.

God WILL sort it out.

(If I have to leave this discussion over the weekend, it's because my home computer will not let me into the comments on this post, for some reason.)
 

NOTE: PLEASE LEAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE LATER POST,

"Happy in Jesus redux"

and maybe I can actually get to them. Thanks.