Have you changed your view on gay marriage since you downloaded this app?
It is pretty much the only social issue that haven't change my stand on.
Yes. I went from I don't care to meh.
No but I've always been for it
I have always been for it and it'll always be that way
Yes – I have softened on the idea of secular civil unions. I will, however, always oppose Church marriages for gays, or anyone else in unrepentant open rebellion against God.
Open rebellion against God?
Yes. God forbids homosexual behavior in the strongest possible terms in both the Old and New Testaments, so if they persist in that behavior, they are in deliberate and open rebellion against God.
And so is a heterosexual couple that lives together (in a sexual relationship) before marriage.
This is a genuine question- God also says we shouldn't lie, dishonor our parents, or cause harm to our neighbor. I've done all of those on occasion. Is that the same rebellion against God?
Honest answer, Sunshine - I know you are trying to live morally. What I'm talking about is people who know that they are living in a state of disobedience over a particular sin. That's just plain defiance. In premarital counseling, I would ask if
the couple is being intimate. After discussing why that is sin, I would ask if they are willing to stop until their wedding night. If not, I would not marry them, because they are putting their will above God's. The marriage would never be optimal.
Does that make sense to you? I know it's not "modern," but it's Biblical, and that's what matters to me. Our goal should be to please God, not to please ourselves – and then we WILL be pleased as a result, and blessed. :o)
it does. I see where you're coming from. Sorta unrelated Q, If a couple "can't" wait for the date of their marriage in a church to be intimate, is it immoral for them to go to the courthouse and get married, only to have the "real" wedding later?
Sunshine, your eyes are so much better than mine, and you can see so many shades of gray! That is a really tough one. To me, the courthouse marriage is less legitimate than the church marriage. Marriage is a sacred gift from God. And yet, they are
trying hard not to sin, and somehow legitimize their marriage before they have sex. God is gracious and merciful, and looks into the heart. So my best guess is that they are probably OK, but there ARE ways to resist temptation until the wedding.
The most important one is, Never be anywhere alone together where you can't be interrupted. Try to avoid being behind closed doors. Of course you want to talk privately, but that doesn't mean being locked away!
I'm sorry to be asking so many questions, I really hope I'm not bothering you, but the church I go to hasn't preached on marriage for years, and I really value your insight on it. So... I have more :) In a marriage where only one party is...
...religious does that at all downgrade the marriage?
Sunshine, don't ever he reluctant to ask me questions! I'm retired, and plenty of time and am happy to talk with you anytime! ❤️ The Bible says, "Do not be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever." This is very good, practical advice. It is very
sad to see a young person who is Christian marry a non-Christian expecting that they will "save" them, because it rarely happens, and it might take years of patience. The nonbeliever will also drag the Christian's values down gradually. So I really
advise against it. If a Christian girl thinks that she can bring her boyfriend to Christ, let her go ahead and try before they are married. And while she is trying, is he pressuring her for sex? That's a very bad sign of who he sees needs to change.
this topic always brings me back to the "cursed to the 3rd and 4th generation" thing in the Pentateuch. Do you think that is still very real today, or something that more or less died with the OT like the curse on Jericho?
I do believe in generational curses. But I believe that in response to the sincere prayer of a Christian believer, God can and will break those curses.
BTW, I'm home alone all day with my puppydogger, because my wife is out of town doing a concert
with the Singing Women of West Texas, a women's choir that she sings in and plays piano for. So I have plenty of time for your questions. It always feels good when someone actually WANTS my opinion! :o)
Lol now I feel so bad that I wasn't on for a few hours... But that's interesting. Are you non-denominational?
I had lunch and took a nap, so I've been gone too. Yes, I'm basically non--denominational. I have been a member of Lutheran, Methodist, Assemblies of God, Presbyterian, independent Christian, and Nazarene churches, but I believe more in Jesus than
in any denomination.
See I love that. I hate how much fighting there is within the church. Even within a denomination. The LCMS and ELCA are constantly butting heads. We're all Lutheran. They should all be followers of Christ above all else, but for some reason...
...it can't be that way.
Are you LCMS? I like their conservatism in regards to doctrine. They aren't led astray by doctrinal fads and social trends. Yes, I would love for the branches to unite, but it's very much like politics nowadays. The liberals think we conservatives
are stupid. You'd think that we in the church would know how to unite better than the politicians do, but we continue with our divisions. And whatever happened to the Wisconsin Synod?
My family is LCMS. I'm Not sure what I am. And the WELS is still going strong enough. However the ELCA is more and more a mad-house.
So your Missouri pastor hasn't preached on marriage for a long time? Are there not many young people in the congregation? That's hard to understand. Are you able to visit other churches, or do your parents expect you to go with them?
My dad's the pastor, so you could say I'm required to go. We're a very tiny church, so the youth group is 10 people.
Whoops! So tell me, right off the top of your head, first reaction – does your church feel "alive"? Is the worship God-centered and moving? Are the sermons Biblical and relevant to your life? Is the youth group helping you at all? What are you, 17?
No to every single question. My church, it feels like it's just through the actions, I don't see many people who actually care. I don't see our worship as centered around God, but centered around man. The sermons aren't very biblical and speak...
...of politics way too much. If they are relevant to my life they are too relevant. (my dad using the sermon to make a point) Youth group is a nightmare. I'm 17 in March.
What day? My son was born 3/21/91 and my daughter 3/22/85. Would you be able to visit another church on Wednesday nights? Some non-denominational churches have Wednesday night services. Ask your friends at school. Check the Yellow Pages. Be aware
that their worship and preaching will be very different from what you're used to. Don't let that scare you off right away. Check everything you hear against the Bible. If it lines up with the Bible and the people are genuine, give it a chance.
If you can do this, you will be able to stay in your Dad's church and still get fed spiritually in the other one. When you go off to college, you will be able to go where you want. Do you have any colleges in mind yet? Did you take the SATs yet?
I was born on 3/13/97. I took the SATS last year but am going to take them again soon. As for college I'm not sure where I want to go but I want to major in sociolinguistics. But I definitely should look into other churches. Truthfully, I'm not...
...really sure about Christianity. I'm leaning deistic. I'm not sure about much anymore...
Sunshine, read John, Mark, Luke, and Matthew in a readable version like the NLT, NIV, or ESV before you turn away from Christanity. Just ask God to open your eyes and heart to His Good News. I will also pray. Jesus IS real, hon. :o)
Thanks Tom, it means a lot. :) Is there a reason to read them in that order?
1) Many people don't make it past the first chapter of Matthew or Luke because of the long genealogies. They don't realize it will get interesting after the first page. 2) John is the Foremost of the Gospels in my opinion. Every chapter presents a
slightly different picture of Jesus. So if you only get through one, I want to be John. Mark is the shortest of the three "synoptic" Gospels. They are called that because they look at things in a similar way. But they are by no means carbon copies of
each other. Mark is thought to be the "Gospel of Peter," in that Mark probably accompanied Peter and heard most of the stories firsthand from Peter, the eyewitness. It is a Gospel of action, and popular with young people. Luke is the first of a
2-volume set, the second volume being Acts. Luke, a physician and the best historian of the four, addresses his books to "Theophilus," meaning "friend of God." Finally, Matthew is the most familiar of the four to most people. So I saved it for last.
I love Mark for that reason. The way Peter speaks is objective and to the point but liturgical. I usually go back to the original though, translations try to make it an easier read and change the wording.
Good for you! Dad has taught you well!
As much as I support gay rights, I really like the idea of privatizing marriage.
Everyone wins, except government.
I agree with the privatization.
As kong as it's across all 50 states. It would just seem weird that someone is married in some states but not others.
Yes Dave, all states!
No. State by state. Let people govern themselves. Not everything has to be a federal issue. People in California shouldn't have any influence how those in other states live. We have states so that there can be differences. Uniformity is overrated.
I agree, PB. After writing that, I knew it was wrong.
Sorry, I'm going back and forth on this. If the government is out of marriage in one state, they have to be out of it in all states, right?
Government can't give marriage benefits to people who marry in California but none to those in Oregon.
No. A state that doesn't recognize marriage would simply stop giving "state" benefits to it's people. Those same people, however, may be eligible as a married person for "federal" benefits under federal law. The federal law would simply .............
....need to be adjusted a little to handle marriages in states where the state doesn't recognize it. Remember, this would NOT eliminate marriage. It would just eliminate state recognition and governance of it.
....people would continue to get married in those states and people would presumably still create a document indicating that a ceremony took place. The document could be issued by anybody.
.... And the document might contain a dog's paw print, neighbors signature, preachers signature, etc. whatever anybody wanted to do as long as they have a document they can send to the social security administration.
Ideally the federal gov wouldn't issue benefits based on marriage either. Why should people who "shack-up" get something that single people can't get? Single people have babies too. Why discriminate against people on the basis of a document?
It's time to tear-down the old notions that being married "means something" that society should honor and reward with privilege or honor.
The GoV shouldn't care that people "love" someone or for any other reason want to cohabitate with them.
I thought gays are against civil unions because they don't get federal benefits. I thought once the federal government was out, it came down to the churches and whether or not they would preform a marriage. I didn't know there were individual
individual state laws that treated marriage differently.
State law currently controls marriage. This is why gay marriage is legal in some states and not others. I don't think there should be a single legal benefit for it. Since when is having a relationship with someone something that the rest of ..,,,,,..
This is getting a lot more complicated than I thought. :-(
.., rest of us should pay for in benefits? I don't care about anybody's relationship.
Actually, privatized marriage would exponentially simplify everything from a legal perspective. It would mean everyone is equal.
That's all good until Dave's question about individual states came up
I think I need a little more time to get my head wrapped around this again :-/
What if someone is married in NY but they get transferred in their job to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage- their tax situation is different, their medical is different, their estate is different if something happens to them..
It has to be even across the board. What if it's a military member whose stationed in various different states, married, not married, married, not married..ridiculous.
I'm ok with the Feds forcing privatized marriage down onto all of the states. I guess the notion of having state legislatures that make laws for their state is old fashioned too. Maybe we should scrap the states and just have a fed gov?
Dave. If we quit giving people benefits based on a document then it wouldn't matter. We should quit discriminating against single people.
I don't think everything has to be fed. vs. state. For the sake of common sense and practicality, some things should be across the board. My parents were married in NY. Should they have been considered not married or single when we all moved to FL?
PeppleB, that's a whole other ball game. I never really considered it discrimination. I never thought about that at all.
Also, such issues already exist and have for decades. The treatment of property varies from state-to-state. This is normal. Some states are "community property" states and others aren't. PRe-nups are also dealt with differently. None of those are new
If you're married then you're married, even in a state that doesn't recognize marriage. It won't affect your ability to cohabitate or have children. You'd be treated the same as any other married couple in that state. And yes, it is discrimination.
Have a good night folks. I'm done for the evening.
Yes. Two years ago I was very anti, in the past few months I've become pro, and the idea of privatization of all marriage is growing on me.
I remember having gay brothers that went to my middle and high school. The pain they endured every day from all the bullies made a very strong impression on me. I never understood why they were treated so badly when they were both very nice boys.
That goes back 35 years that I haven't changed my views on gays.
Why should gay people be treated any different from any other Americans? So NO
I've always found the arguments gay.
A man was still a man before this app. A woman was still a woman before this app. Procreation was the same before this app. The consequences for homosexuality are still the same.
I think all the legal benefits that are given when two people get married should not be given based on marriage.
It hasn't and it won't.
What does the app have to do with anything? It just isn't right.
Cowboy- I'm guessing the op wants to know if anyone here has changed your point of view on the issue. As tough as you are, I don't think you are a gay hater.
Of course I don't hate gays but society shouldn't validate their behavior by allowing them to marry or have children. That's just messed up.
How do you feel about privatizing marriage?
I don't think the government should be involved at all. It's between a man, a woman, and God.
Hmm.. I have my work cut out.
To clarify I was laughing at Cowboy when he said "this is an app etc"
I hope no offense was taken.
It's hasn't changed. We all have the same rights to marry.
Music to my ears.
No change. Viewed it as a civil right before and still do.
Unless there can be some way for gay couples to have the same privileges for hospital visitation, etc, that straight couples do. This seems to be the standard, so that's the solution.
Yes. I incorrectly thought that civil unions were the same as marriage. So I used to be for civil unions for gay couples, then I found out it was different because there was no federal benefits in a civil union. So I changed to being for gay marriage
That other debate was exhausting. I have more thinking to do.
That was a doozy.
No, don't approve won't in the future
Nope. Homosexual marriage is just as perverted as it ever was.
And you're just as ignorant and bigoted as you always were :)
Hey, thank you.
...replies the anti Christian bigot.
P1:"they shouldn't have the rights/privileges the I have"
P2:"yes they should.."
Marriage is not a right.
Then take out "right" and read it again
I don't think heterosexual marriages should have privileges either unless they stop discriminating against the singles also.
So you don't want to let homosexuals get married because you don't like how heterosexual marriage works
No, homosexual marriage will only be a marriage by law. I don't care if any of us get extra benefits. Homosexual marriage is not equal.
So, if I believe men shouldn't marry men, I am a bigot. But if you believe that I shouldn't teach my kids creationism you are not a bigot?
Rocker is not a bigot. He just does not think homosexual relationships should be recognized. I 100% agree.
And I also do not support the government recognizing straight marriage.
"I don't like the state recognizing straight marriage, so instead of going against that, I'll go against homosexual marriage instead"
Can you imagine if we mocked and ridiculed gays the way people who believe in God are mocked?
You think you're persecuted
Would you rather go up to a possible employer being proud about your strong Christianity or your strong atheism?
Or what about a strong/devout homosexual? Of course you'd choose the Christian statement
You are twisting my words. Did I say persecuted?
Change "persecuted" into "in a much worse situation"
My statement remains true
This makes no sense.
LateGreat, you are exactly right!!...as normal.
Yes. I went from being indifferent, to entirely for marriage equality. Not a result of the app, though. The only reason I wasn't prior is due to the fact that I didn't really think about it.
Not on gay marriage! However, I have on straight marriage. Yeah! That is crazy isn't it. I don't believe the government should recoginize marriage at all. That should be left up to individuals. For me, I define marriage between a man and woman.
No but I have altered my view on it and what should be done about the issues relating to it in recent years
Naw, I always gays deserved to have the same rights as straights
I think you left out believed
They have the same rights, abo.
Not in Kentucky, rocker.
I do not support gay marriage!
I don't know about any suppressed rights anywhere. Are they allowed to exercise all the rights granted in the Constitution? Such as the 2nd amendment rights? I think they are.
Abo- 'I always gay' it's ok. We will support you
Rocker doesn't think marriage is a right?
No, it's not a right. I would like to know how that rumor got started.
How do you earn marriage privileges?
Heterosexuals don't have a "right" either.