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

[Joseph M. Smith]

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

or to refuse to give them a voice seems unfair

Absurd! Seems unfair to whom?

 

[annsni]

Absurd! Seems unfair to whom?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

They should not be given a voice they should be removed from their pulpits and the churches kicked out of the convention.

 

[Amy.G]

They should not be given a voice they should be removed from their pulpits and the churches licked out of the convention.

:laugh:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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.

 

[Martin]

They should not be given a voice they should be removed from their pulpits and the churches kicked out of the convention.

On this, we are in full agreement (1Cor 5:6-13).

 

[lori4dogs]

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'.

 

[matt wade]

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.

You never cease to amaze me. Would you also say it was a "good idea" to present the case for abortion, pedophilia, and rape?

 

[KenH]

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.

 

[donnA]

Absurd! Seems unfair to whom?

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.

 

[billwald]

>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?

 

[Salty]

>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?

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?

 

[Jon-Marc]

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.

 

[billwald]

Salty

I'm pleased we can agree on a few topics.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

[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 ...

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?

[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?

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.

[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?

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 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.

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

 

[lori4dogs]

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.

 

[SaggyWoman]

I am not sure, as a Christian, what you can debate about same sex marriage.

 

[lori4dogs]

I am not sure, as a Christian, what you can debate about same sex marriage.

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.