Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
So what exactly is the problem?
Well, there's theories:
-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.
Well, there's theories:
-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.