Your answer is candid, to be sure.

And you have now distinguished your point of view from the author of the original blog post, who wanted her church to either change to fit her way, or to travel her path of “acknowledge, apologize, and act”. I prefer yours to hers, to be honest. She would rather have her church be eviscerated of meaning (no marriages for anyone) than either accept its theology, or let the church theologically sort out the issue.

But I also fear that you want to keep me and those like me out of the politial process, in rather a totalitarian way. Let’s say my religion informs my views on civil law and politics (it does). Are my views disqualified because of that? May I not participate in civil politics? May I not lobby for a law that is consistent with my moral views, but that does not run afoul of the establishment clause? Or if I do, then I must be labeled as such and disqualified?

Civil laws are not “your” territory. They are mine, too. Convince me you are right, and I’ll go with you. But don’t fence me out of the discussion. You want my mind to be open, fine — it is. Just you do the same.

thank you for a very good answer rodander.

1. we do not all “sin.” speak for yourself please. sinning means offending god and that implies that god has something to do with humanity which is a notion we (with good conscience and complete serenity) soundly reject as a false premise.

2. we do not in principle support the notion of attaching warning labels to religion, or requiring members to sign an oath. churches do that well enough all by themselves.

3. what we want is for religious groups to keep their dangerous, medieval ideology away from civil laws. if your church does not wish to “sanctify” gay marriage, that is your perogative. when churches attempt to influence the state (as they have been doing) they cross the line into our territory. on this side of the line, churches should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes: dangerously addictive and harmful to health, liberty, and children.

The church sanctifies and blesses marriages, and the marriage relationship including its sexual aspects, when it carries out a marriage. In some denominations, marriage is sacramental.

We all sin, however. The church does not bless and sanctify our sins, saying they are a good thing and that we are to keep on sinnin’. Rather we contritely confess our sins and errors, and promise to sin no more, and we can receive forgiveness. And we go out and try to do good, but then we sin again and back we go.

So perfection is not required to be married. Nor does the church bless our sins that we will commit, even tho it knows we will sin again. But in the same way, the church cannot bless a marriage if the sexual acts that it knows will be a fruit of the union are (according to its teachings) sinful. And if it does, as you point out (sort of), it would be hypocritical.

But you don’t buy any of this anyway (given your eternal life comment). So why do you care what churches do? And really, since you would rather be in hell then spend time with “with people who think like [me]”, why do you care at all what the Boy Scouts or the more orthodox churches do or think or say? You apparently don’t want to join what I join anyway. Why make groups that you have no interest in go through the motions of having members sign “discrimination” oaths and post signs and fight lawsuits?

I have an answer in mind. I’ll just wait for yours to see if it is the same as what I am thinking.

rodander, christian churches routinely marry people who work on sunday, who use god’s name in vain, who covet their neighbor’s property, who are divorced, who have engaged in heterosexual sex outside of marriage, who eat shrimp and shellfish, etc, etc, etc.

and yet they won’t marry homosexuals because it goes against church teaching???

perhaps you can reconcile these sickening contradictions, we three blind mice cannot fail to see the hypocrisy.

if “eternal life” means spending eternity with people who think like you, then we will prefer hell.

ain’t nothing we would rather do.
going down, party time,
and our friends are gonna be there too….

Sexual acts (not attraction, but acts) have a moral significance. It is an essential role for a church to instruct and encourage its members to a moral life according to its tenets. “What must I do to attain eternal life?” is the question posed to Christ, who answers “Keep the commandments”. But the question of what those commandments are is central to the definition of a religious organization.

So a church cannot have it both ways without losing its relevance. If a church or denomination wishes to sanctify a union between two people, including the sexual acts that are to follow from that union, they must do so honestly, as a matter of Truth and God’s commandments. If there is something in the most sacred writings that conflicts with the actions of that church, the church must face the conflict and deal with it squarely and theologically. Otherwise, that church will lose its meaning — when members receive no answers to big questions, a church becomes just a club.

Even the most liberal/progressive denominations that welcome gays still have this stuff in their Bibles. Isn’t this rather like states that have anti-sodomy laws but say it doesn’t matter because they don’t enforce them?

a “truth in discrimination” law makes no sense until there is a general acceptance that said discrimination is wrong. this is the whole problem with brown and ayers approach. they are starting from the wrong place. they assume that a general agreement exists when it most certainly does not.

the problem is not that discrimination against gays and lesbians exists, the problem is that it is wholly acceptable. the problem is that george bush can be a strong supporter of federal legisiation “to stop liberal judges from imposing gay marriage on the states against the wishes of the voters and State Legislatures” and get away with it.

it was liberal judges who imposed civil rights on the southern states against the wishes of the voters and the state legislatures. as an american this is something to be PROUD of, not something to hold in contempt.

there is no need for a fair employment mark. america already has the EOE mark: “company X is an equal opportunity employer.” it is ubiqutous and it should apply to all citizens. don’t re-invent the wheel.

a “fair employment mark” is redundant and perhaps counterproductive. why single out gays and lesbians when they are already singled out? civil rights are everyone’s rights.

frankly it would be better to set up water fountains that say “heterosexuals only” or put signs on rest room doors that say “straight only” or to press for legislation that requires gays and lesbians to wear the pink triangle of nazi germany. (to protect the childrens!) get focus on the family and the other right wing christian organizations to support these measures – or force them to argue against it.

in order to combat discrimination you first have to convince people that it is wrong. the best way to do this is by drawing parallels to other forms of discrimination that most reasonable people accept are wrong. let’s call a spade a spade.

until you get there, you are wasting your time.