Sermon opposing gay marriage may lead to church eviction

[annewandering]

Why would you adopt a puppy from the pound that bites and snarls?

[Vort]

I can't get worked up about it because it's what the christians have been doing and claiming it's the right thing to do. Deny service to gay because it's what their religion says. Now if there weren't numerous examples of this I'd surely feel a great deal more about the injustice going on in the story PC posted, but if they are getting what they give then no, i see it as you get what you give.

So you are ignoring the difference between private enterprise and public (aka governmental) service.

[Windseeker]

So you are ignoring the difference between private enterprise and public (aka governmental) service.

I was going to say, it's important to keep in mind that Souls a Canadian. I'm not trying to be disparaging (I love Canada), it's just reading his posts there is an underlying fundamental difference in his view of the role and purpose of government and the rights of free speech.

[Soulsearcher]

So you are ignoring the difference between private enterprise and public (aka governmental) service.

Nope just saying the spirit of the action not the letter of the law behind it is similar. I do agree there is a difference, but the spirit behind what's being done is similar. It's the spirit of the action either against religion or gays i don't like, problem is i see it championed against gays by many christians so i really can't feel bad for those same champions when it's turned against them.

[Soulsearcher]

Why would you adopt a puppy from the pound that bites and snarls?

Exactly my point. Why am i going to accept that a christian "loves" me but hates my sin when all i hear from them is snarling or snapping. Am i going to believe it or think it's a bunch or tripe and just get pushed to the further extreme. Those that speak and relate in a tone that equates with the result they really want tend to get closer to that result. If you make it clear you are nothing but hostile then claim to love the sinner it just tends to make you appear two faced and you get left behind like the snarling biting puppy. Same goes for both sides, if you speak with respect and attempt some understanding even if you don't change your stance at least there can be a feeling of something other than contempt. General thoughts not directed at any individual.

[prisonchaplain]

Liberty Counsel has weighed in (it is a religious liberties legal advocacy group): Liberty Counsel

[annewandering]

Exactly my point. Why am i going to accept that a christian "loves" me but hates my sin when all i hear from them is snarling or snapping. Am i going to believe it or think it's a bunch or tripe and just get pushed to the further extreme. Those that speak and relate in a tone that equates with the result they really want tend to get closer to that result. If you make it clear you are nothing but hostile then claim to love the sinner it just tends to make you appear two faced and you get left behind like the snarling biting puppy. Same goes for both sides, if you speak with respect and attempt some understanding even if you don't change your stance at least there can be a feeling of something other than contempt. General thoughts not directed at any individual.

Have I ever snarled and snapped at you? I have seen little to none of that here. I think you and many others assume insult when there is none given.

[Just_A_Guy]

I hope I am wrong...but I get the impression that some segments of LGBT have come to believe that it is them or us. They have allies in the atheist "free thinker" groups. So, a few have gone on the offensive. They attack Christianity as outdated, mean and false. I seem to remember that NYC was considering evicting all churches from the use of schools--arguing that allowing them--even for rent--was somehow a violation of the separation of church and state.

You know, PC, I actually sort of agree with this. I can see a school allowing clubs--either religious or hobby-oriented--on school grounds, because the schools monopolize so much of children's time that they effectively have no other place to meet. But I'm not sure I'm OK with school facilities being leased out to religious or advocacy groups when school's out of session. Whatever comes out of those groups--left- or right-leaning--can't help but bear the imprimatur of the government agency that runs the school system; and that just seems like a Pandora's box to me. I went to a Republican neighborhood caucus building at the local middle school a couple years ago, and even that struck me as very odd and uncomfortable.

Seems to me that schools should focus on educating, and that communities that want a community center should erect a structure dedicated to that purpose that's available to whoever wants it.

[annewandering]

It might be a funding asset issue. They seem to rent to a LOT of groups. I agree that it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that church is being held in schools. My reasoning being that it opens up the possibility to religous favoritism, which in fact, is what happened.

[prisonchaplain]

J-A-G, the courts agree with you, I don't. To me it is discrimination to say that districts can rent out to any groups, except religious ones, or except political ones. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that churches that meet in schools are not subsidiaries of the school.

If schools ban churches, they should not rent their facilities to anyone. As a taxpayer, I would rather they make the money on after-hours use.

[Just_A_Guy]

PC, I'd have no objection to a broader ban. The only exception I think I might passionately defend would be little-league sports teams practicing on a school field, or something like that.

[carlimac]

Exactly my point. Why am i going to accept that a christian "loves" me but hates my sin when all i hear from them is snarling or snapping. Am i going to believe it or think it's a bunch or tripe and just get pushed to the further extreme. Those that speak and relate in a tone that equates with the result they really want tend to get closer to that result. If you make it clear you are nothing but hostile then claim to love the sinner it just tends to make you appear two faced and you get left behind like the snarling biting puppy. Same goes for both sides, if you speak with respect and attempt some understanding even if you don't change your stance at least there can be a feeling of something other than contempt. General thoughts not directed at any individual.

So the Christians are the snarling snapping puppy? LOL This shouldn't make me laugh, especially when we had to put our loving faithful 12 yr old Golden Retriever, Jessie down this morning. But I do sort of get the comparison you're tryng to make (sort of).

Our sweet dog was no respector of persons at all. She loved everyone equally and figured that every human being on the earth loved her. So much so that she about scared the bejeebers out of an Indian woman walking in the park as Jessie ran up to her thinking she'd get a pat on the head. The lady screamed. (Dogs are considered dirty and filthy in India apparently) and my puppy ran away with her tail between her legs. I didn't see what happened but the lady may have kicked or slapped at my dog.

Back to my point. Is it always the Christians doing the snapping and snarling? Or could that be coming from the LGBT's too? There seems to be lots of blame, name calling, snapping and snarling or screaming in alarm coming from both sides. Either side could be the dog or the Indian woman. Either side could be the one perceiving danger coming from the other. And what could be percieved as snapping and snarling from either side might be just fear. Fear that what is dear to them- what is most important is going to be taken away. (For the Indian woman- cleanliness. For Jessie- freedom from being hurt. For Christian- their rights to worship as they believe, and for LGBTs their ability to freely and openly love someone of the same sex.)

I don't know what the answer is, but if we all react like the Indian woman - striking out with fear and thinking we're in the right, there won't be any peaceful solutions.

Just as much as you want Christians to love and accept LGBTs, Christians want the same respect. We don't want our beliefs to be belittled and called "fairy tales" and to be scorned by atheists or to be bullied by LGBTs and the government to give service where we don't think it's appropriate- to have our freedom trampled upon by snapping snarling dogs.

There are always two perspectives.

[Bini]

Our sweet dog was no respector of persons at all. She loved everyone equally and figured that every human being on the earth loved her. So much so that she about scared the bejeebers out of an Indian woman walking in the park as Jessie ran up to her thinking she'd get a pat on the head. The lady screamed. (Dogs are considered dirty and filthy in India apparently) and my puppy ran away with her tail between her legs. I didn't see what happened but the lady may have kicked or slapped at my dog.

Sorry about your dog. I have three and I'm a big advocate for animal welfare. Having said that, since we cannot control how other people will react to our beloved furbabies, I always ensure that my dogs are leashed or that I can recall them on command while out in public. It's a good general rule, for the safety of others and my dogs.

I don't know what the answer is, but if we all react like the Indian woman - striking out with fear and thinking we're in the right, there won't be any peaceful solutions.

Both sides need a little more tolerance and a little less hostility. No one can hear when both sides are shouting and no one is listening..

[Vort]

and for LGBTs their ability to freely and openly love someone of the same sex.

This may be the stated goal, but it melts away under inspection. Christians have never, ever, ever sought to curtain the homosexuals' "ability to freely and openly love someone of the same sex". This is outright falsehood; indeed, almost all Christians love people of the same sex.

Christians (lately, at least) have not even sought to prevent homosexuals from legally engaging in homosex. Rather, Christians want to maintain the right to proclaim the evils of homosex and teach their children the same without governmental interference, where governmental agencies (such as public schools) affirm that there is nothing wrong with homosex.

[norah63]

And taking that stand as a christian is where the road block seems to be. The alternate lifestyles want everyone to approve of them, no matter what, and to make the law of the land the same.

As christians we have no right to approve of a lifestyle, or promote one that goes against our faith.

There can be no compromise and I pray that our leaders always uphold the traditional family.

We cannot love creation (man), more than our Creator.

Where is the tolerance when on tv the 'lifestyle' promoters call us haters. I don't hate them, just don't approve of that lifestyle.

Competition seems to leads towards compromise.

[carlimac]

Sorry about your dog. I have three and I'm a big advocate for animal welfare. Having said that, since we cannot control how other people will react to our beloved furbabies, I always ensure that my dogs are leashed or that I can recall them on command while out in public. It's a good general rule, for the safety of others and my dogs.

She was on a leash. (Always in MN. The laws were very clear about that and people in MN were very law concious. Here in ID dogs tend to run more freely. ) The leash was just extended out too far at the moment and I was distracted and didn't notice she was running toward the woman (for a pat on the head. She even "smiled" but some thought she was getting ready to bite.) She was the most loving creature and never hurt a soul intentionally. ( As a puppy she nipped a few kids and tore holes in 13 kid shirts!) But she had unconditional love for all humans. In fact I believe she thought she was one.

[carlimac]

This may be the stated goal, but it melts away under inspection. Christians have never, ever, ever sought to curtain the homosexuals' "ability to freely and openly love someone of the same sex". This is outright falsehood; indeed, almost all Christians love people of the same sex.

Christians (lately, at least) have not even sought to prevent homosexuals from legally engaging in homosex. Rather, Christians want to maintain the right to proclaim the evils of homosex and teach their children the same without governmental interference, where governmental agencies (such as public schools) affirm that there is nothing wrong with homosex.

I totally agree. And this is how I see it, too. Christians aren't trying to prevent anyone from loving whomever they want to love. I think the LGBTs are falsely stating that that's what we're about and perhaps even forgetting that little point. It's so important for both sides to recognize that distinction. If they did I think everyone could relax a little. Boston is way overreacting to Chick-fil-a. They and other Christian organizations aren't trying to outlaw love. It's all about the same sex marriage thing we're trying to prevent so that the waters don't get muddied about what marriage is. Someone wants a same gender sexual relationship? Have at it. Just don't flaunt it in our faces. But allow those of us who hold to the teachings of God and prophets to believe it's wrong, just as so many other activities on this earth are wrong. I don't hear smokers complaining that they can't smoke in church. They respect our beliefs and aren't out to change the world about it.

Edited July 27, 2012 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

Have I ever snarled and snapped at you? I have seen little to none of that here. I think you and many others assume insult when there is none given.

I wasn't suggesting i was referring to you, just commenting on what PC was saying about the culture war heating up and why the love the sinner hate the sin approach doesn't always get the reception christians want or expect.

[Soulsearcher]

I totally agree. And this is how I see it, too. Christians aren't trying to prevent anyone from loving whomever they want to love. I think the LGBTs are falsely stating that that's what we're about and perhaps even forgetting that little point. It's so important for both sides to recognize that distinction. If they did I think everyone could relax a little. Boston is way overreacting to Chick-fil-a. They and other Christian organizations aren't trying to outlaw love. It's all about the same sex marriage thing we're trying to prevent so that the waters don't get muddied about what marriage is. Someone wants a same gender sexual relationship? Have at it. Just don't flaunt it in our faces. But allow those of us who hold to the teachings of God and prophets to believe it's wrong, just as so many other activities on this earth are wrong. I don't hear smokers complaining that they can't smoke in church. They respect our beliefs and aren't out to change the world about it.

The issue with the smoking comparison is invalid though. It's not gays wanting to get married in your church, it's them getting married period. If you take your smoking example it's like the churches banning smoking all together. Smoker do complain about the more and more limits of where they can smoke that have been coming for the past number of years. The issue with marriage is you aren't just keeping it in your church, you are directing people outside of your church as well. Trust me if the church made a push to outlaw smoking all together they'd face some pretty strong resistance i think.

I'm not sure i agree that christians have "never " tried to stop homosexuals from openly loving their partners, and with the push in the past and resurgence from some pulpits of trying to criminalize homosexual behavior or to create separate "camps" for homosexuals and the resistance from some in the religious right to even offer simple protections to homosexuals in general i'm not sure i can feel the way you think we should feel.

Now as mentioned earlier, yes this is a two way street and there are gaps coming from both side. No one side is completely at fault and there are groups on both sides that have made extreme efforts to find a better way of trying to coexist.

I do have one question though? you say not to flaunt a same sex relationship in your face? what does this mean? if i can openly love my partner just like you say christians aren't trying to stop...when does it become being in your face? What is acceptable and what isn't and are you just as willing to hold the exact same criteria to others who are just showing their love.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Soulsearcher

[Just_A_Guy]

This may be the stated goal, but it melts away under inspection. Christians have never, ever, ever sought to curtain the homosexuals' "ability to freely and openly love someone of the same sex". This is outright falsehood; indeed, almost all Christians love people of the same sex.

Christians (lately, at least) have not even sought to prevent homosexuals from legally engaging in homosex. Rather, Christians want to maintain the right to proclaim the evils of homosex and teach their children the same without governmental interference, where governmental agencies (such as public schools) affirm that there is nothing wrong with homosex.

I'm going to take minor issue here. Lawrence, which overturned state anti-sodomy legislation nationwide, was decided less than ten years ago.

[Vort]

I'm going to take minor issue here. Lawrence, which overturned state anti-sodomy legislation nationwide, was decided less than ten years ago.

Missouri's infamous Mormon Extermination Order was not rescinded until 1976. Do you suppose that means that Missourians routinely raped, pillaged, and exterminated Mormons until that date?

Anti-sodomy legislation -- which, by the way, is not homosexual-specific -- has not been routinely enforced for a very long time, if it ever was (which I kind of doubt).

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I'd have no objection to a broader ban. The only exception I think I might passionately defend would be little-league sports teams practicing on a school field, or something like that.

So a kids' sports league has more priority in society than a religious organization? Government has the right to determine this?

[annewandering]

We are forgetting a basic thing here. It is not about rights or loving or whatever. In the end it is about one thing and one thing only. satan is doing his thing trying to corrupt us by division and doubting our religious teachings.

We keep walking away in everything to do with homosexuality and religion. Now why is that? We are told we can NOT argue the right or wrong of anything by religion as if that were not an oxymoron. I was watching a news report on the chicken place last night. Some lawyers were saying the mayor of Boston was making a big mistake but only because of free speech issues. They repeatedly said it was a political opinion and everyone has is entitled to their political opinion. Well just a minute. It was not a political opinion at all. It was a religious belief on the part of the owner of the chicken place.

This issue is now officially ONLY political. Do you see the problem? satan has successfully taken it out of the sin arena and put it into political opinion, which has NO sin attachments.

This is a serious win for satan.

In a RELIGIOUS sermon in florida, in a school, the preacher is attacked for his political stand. Then he is defended by his free speech rights. Not by his religious freedom but by free speech. satan has won, on this issue, if this is left to stand.

[Soulsearcher]

Missouri's infamous Mormon Extermination Order was not rescinded until 1976. Do you suppose that means that Missourians routinely raped, pillaged, and exterminated Mormons until that date?

Anti-sodomy legislation -- which, by the way, is not homosexual-specific -- has not been routinely enforced for a very long time, if it ever was (which I kind of doubt).

Once I'm back home I'll have to find the sources i was reading, but in some states there were homosexual specific anti sodomy statues which carried as much as 15 years behind bars at one point and i seem to remember the anti sodomy statues being upheld into the 80's and 90's. The Lawrence case was taken to the supreme court directly because the plaintiffs were arrested for what they did in their own bedroom

from wikipedia

Legal punishments for sodomy often included heavy fines and/or life prison sentences, with some states, beginning with Illinois in 1827, denying other rights, such as suffrage, to anyone convicted of the crime of sodomy. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several states imposed various eugenics laws against anyone deemed to be a "sexual pervert". As late as 1970, Connecticut denied a driver's license to a man for being an "admitted homosexual".[3]

As of 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law in 1960.[4] In 1961, the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code advocated repealing sodomy laws as they applied to private, adult, consensual behavior.[5] A few years later the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took its first major case in opposition to these laws.[6] Most judges were largely unsympathetic to the substantive due process claims raised.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a law barring the use of contraceptives by married couples. In Griswold for the first time the Supreme Court recognized, at least for married couples, a right to privacy,[7] drawing on the Fourth Amendment's protection of private homes from searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law, and the Ninth Amendment's assurance that rights not specified in the Constitution are "retained by the people." Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights to unmarried persons. In 1973, the choice whether to have an abortion was found to be protected by the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court heard a constitutional challenge to sodomy laws brought by a man who had been arrested, but was not prosecuted, for engaging in oral sex with another man in his home. The Court rejected this challenge in a 5 to 4 decision. Justice Byron White's majority opinion emphasized that Eisenstadt and Roe had only recognized a right to engage in procreative sexual activity, and that long-standing moral antipathy toward homosexual sodomy was enough to argue against the notion of a "right" to sodomy. Justice Blackmun, writing in dissent, argued that Eisenstadt held that the Constitution protects people as individuals, not as family units.[8] He then reasoned that because state intrusions are equally burdensome on an individual's personal life regardless of his marital status or sexual orientation, then there is no reason to treat the rights of citizens in same-sex couples any differently.[9]

By the time of the Lawrence decision, nine states−Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia−still banned consensual sodomy without respect to the sex of those involved, and four−Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri−prohibited same-sex couples from engaging in anal and oral sex.[4]

History

Arrest of Lawrence and Garner

On September 17, 1998, John Lawrence,[10][11] a gay 55-year old medical technologist, was hosting two gay acquaintances, Tyron Garner,[12] age 31, and Robert Eubanks,[13] 40, at his apartment on the outskirts of Houston, Texas. Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for more than 20 years. Garner and Eubanks had a tempestuous on-again off-again romantic relationship since 1990. Lacking transportation home, the couple were preparing to spend the night. Eubanks, who had been drinking heavily, left to purchase a soda from a nearby vending machine. Apparently outraged that Lawrence had been flirting with Garner, he called police and reported "a black male going crazy with a gun" at Lawrence's apartment.[14]

Four Harris County sheriff's deputies responded within minutes and Eubanks pointed them to the apartment. They entered the unlocked apartment toward 11 p.m. with their weapons drawn. In accordance with police procedures, the first to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and in later determining what charges to bring, if any. He had a reputation for aggressive enforcement. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having anal sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in oral sex, and two others did not report seeing the pair having sex. Lawrence proved uncooperative and disrespectful, repeatedly challenging the police for entering his home. Quinn had discretionary authority to charge them for a variety of offenses and then to arrest them or not. When Quinn considered charging them with having sex in violation of state law, he had to get an Assistant District Attorney to check to the statutes to be certain they covered sexual activity inside a residence. He was told that Texas's anti-sodomy statute, the "Homosexual Conduct" law, made it a Class C misdemeanor if someone "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex".[15] The statute, Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, had been adopted in 1973 when the state revised its criminal code to end its proscription on heterosexual anal and oral intercourse.[16]

[Just_A_Guy]

Missouri's infamous Mormon Extermination Order was not rescinded until 1976. Do you suppose that means that Missourians routinely raped, pillaged, and exterminated Mormons until that date?

In my defense, Vort, I believe your earlier post used the word "never".

Anti-sodomy legislation -- which, by the way, is not homosexual-specific -- has not been routinely enforced for a very long time, if it ever was (which I kind of doubt).

As SS says, Lawrence was before the courts because some bright young man (or woman) in a DA's office in Texas thought it would be a good idea to prosecute someone under this statute in the 21st century, a jury of Texans thought there was sufficient evidence to convict, and the Texas judicial system had deemed the statute enforceable.