Would you do a point/counterpoint debate on same sex marriage?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Joseph M. Smith, Mar 12, 2010.

  1. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not an editor, nor do I play one on TV. But I do supervise an editor who is responsible for producing a regional denominational periodical (Baptist). She is interested in soliciting articles that would both defend and critique the recent decision of the District of Columbia to permit same-sex marriages.

    One option is to say nothing about it and go on with our news and promotion articles. But she believes that to ignore a major issue is to court irrelevance.

    Another option is to print only one side, what most of us would consider the Christian and moral side, opposed to same sex marriage. But we do have within our Convention pastors and churches who are vigorously supportive of this new practice, and to ignore that or to refuse to give them a voice seems unfair.

    So the solution she proposes is to solicit point/counterpoint articles, making sure that the authors know that she will edit out pejoratives and hate language, no matter which side it comes from. But she is still concerned that some of our church members may be offended, either at the very mention of this practice or at the space given to a point of view most will not agree with.

    So, since I am her supervisor, I need to give or withhold permission. What say you?
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    Absurd! Seems unfair to whom?
     
    #2 Revmitchell, Mar 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2010
  3. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    I agree. Why give voice to sin? Would a Christian group give both sides to adultery? To murder? How about stealing? I don't think so.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    They should not be given a voice they should be removed from their pulpits and the churches kicked out of the convention.
     
    #4 Revmitchell, Mar 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2010
  5. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek:


    :laugh:
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your opponent's side will be heard with or without you. Seems like a good idea to me. You can present your case. Besides, there is nothing to fear in open debate of ideas. Only falsehoods need protection.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    On this, we are in full agreement (1Cor 5:6-13).
     
  8. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea that somehow since the 1960s alone (or really, the 1970s) people FINALLY understood that sodomy is somehow a lovely gift of God, and not the disgusting abomination the Church universal (and Israel before) always held it to be, is ridiculous on its face. The absurdity of that idea is only exceeded by the breathless arrogance of those who make it.

    Look what happened to the Episcopal Church after they began their 'listening process' and giving them a voice. How that worked was the 'gay agenda' insisted on speaking and everyone else was to listen. They are intolerant of biblical truth. They insist the Holy Spirit is 'doing a new thang'.
     
  9. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    You never cease to amaze me. Would you also say it was a "good idea" to present the case for abortion, pedophilia, and rape?
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think a better route to take would be to discuss if government should be involved in the marriage issue at all.

    I think the government needs to stay out of it. Marriage is a matter for the church, not the government. Marriage preceded human government, but marriage did not precede God's commandments.
     
  11. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    The world si filled to overflowing with this sin and it's acceptance as normal, what is is not filled with is the truth of the word of God on this topic. And the truth of God's word I would think was the responsibility of a christian newspaper or magazine. There more then enough defense of sin, what chrisitans need is the word showing them what God says, not the world.
     
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >I think a better route to take would be to discuss if government should be involved in the marriage issue at all.

    Agree 100%! How would you handle the tax breaks and employee benefits issues?
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    The ideal behind tax breaks for a wife and child was that the husband was the sole supporter. Not so much today anymore.

    Besides, I am a supporter of the electronic tax - solely. That would do away with the income tax completely and all its loopholes and tax breaks.

    Employee benefits:
    Lets see - a married man works gets health benefits for himself and his 3 kids, paid for in part by the employer.
    The single man only get health benefits for himself.
    SO in essence, the married man is making more money than the single guy.

    How about this - just give every worker the same pay scale, and the employee can spend the money the way he wants to?
     
  14. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say let the Holy Spirit be your conscience and Guide in any decision you make. I do know that God would not want us condoning sin, and same-sex marriage is an abomination.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salty

    I'm pleased we can agree on a few topics.
     
  16. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of you raise important points that I must and will consider. On the "fairness" idea ... where I said that my editor thinks that presenting only one perspective would be unfair ... some said that unChristian or unBiblical viewpoints should not be presented in a Christian periodical.

    But factor these things in:

    [1] Do we not need to understand how the world is thinking if we are going to counter it with a sound Biblical perspective? And ...

    [2] The fact remains that there are several churches in our Convention which are vigorously supportive of same-sex marriage. Unless and until we "kick them out", as one person has suggested, they are franchised to speak their positions, aren't they, so long as they are critiqued by others who hold different views? And ...

    [3] To what extent does this issue rise to the level of a fellowship-breaker? Someone has suggested that we would not give equal time to someone advocating rape or murder; but those items are not in contention in the Christian church, so far as I know. The same contributor mentioned abortion; that is in contention, and it appears that honest and spiritual people do differ on this and other issues. So where is the line drawn, and how?

    I trust you see that I am not trying to be contentious, nor have I rendered a decision yet. I am struggling with the Biblical, ethical, and even the institutional questions involved.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    What kind of details do we need to add to our knowledge of homosexuality? Do you really believe anyone can add anything to our knowledge?

    No they are to be given a platform or even regarded as legitimate.

    Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.


    It matters not how "honest" or "sincere" anyone is but I doubt it. The point in avoiding them and refusing to give them a platform is so that they will be taught they are wrong. They already know what scripture says but they refuse the plain teaching of it. Since they refuse the plain teaching on this sin both homosexuality and abortion then they must be refused a platform or to be fellow-shipped with.


    1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
    1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
    1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.


    1Co 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.
    1Co 5:2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
    1Co 5:3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
    1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
    1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.




    I do not think you are but I am concerned that this would even be a consideration amongst Christians, theologians, or even pastors.
     
  18. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexual apologists struggle to justify that which is self-evidently unnatural. Ultimately, their entire case rests upon the testimony of the homosexual himself. He says “My desire is authentic, and therefore natural, and therefore good.” When confronted with the argument that authentic desire is not inherently self-justifying, he claims “My desire is biologically determined. I cannot help it.” His argument at this point exhausts itself. He can go no further. This is why he must resort to attacking his opponent as a homophobe, or a bigot, or a hater. He has no other recourse. Being unable to justify himself, he must settle for destroying his accuser.

    Give them 'a voice' and see what you get.
     
  19. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    I am not sure, as a Christian, what you can debate about same sex marriage.
     
  20. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an example of what the 'gay lobby' will argue (supposed biblical 'evidence)

    Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. Some important verses which describe their relationship are:
    1 Samuel 18:1

    "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

    "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

    Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
     

Share This Page

Loading...