Dan,

You left out a good one.

1 Corinthians:
"Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor men who practice homosexuality,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God."

And then Jesus in Matthew:
"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.'
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So...how many straight men haven't looked at a woman with lust?

Doesn't that put both gay and straight people in the same boat when it comes to sin?

I think Jesus' point was we're all sinners.

Snoofy,

"Setting aside you still can't tell me which bathroom the trans women are supposed to use."

Actually, I've already laid out what I think is a workable solution in the past.

It's unfortunate that this issue is being fought in the courts instead of letting society work it out like it's always been.

At this point, the only clear line seems to be weiner/no weiner.

If that's too difficult, then maybe the answer is find somewhere else to go.

Right,

To clarify. Historically these men may have presented as a woman and and others may have accepted or referred to them as such.

But...did they or anyone else actually believe they literally are the other gender?

That's doubtful when you read historical accounts.

Right,

Men have been dressing and living as women for hundreds of years. Thats nothing new.

What's changed is the claim: "I have literally become the other gender."

That's where my issue lies.

Historically, did transgender individuals truly believe they became the opposite sex, or did they acknowledge their biological reality while choosing to live differently?

Snoofy,

Funny how people who mock religion suddenly become biblical scholars when it suits their argument.

Quoting scripture out of context to push a political agenda shows you're just using it as a weapon.

Stop getting all your info..
I meant

Dan,

"How about gay people? Ever a peep?"

In those days the #1 topic I heard most about was abortion.

Gays were rarely talked about and in fact it was an open secret some men were "probably" gay.

It was just inappropriate to bring up the subject.

There was never any sermons on it. It was becoming a topic people understood that sexual orientation can't really be changed.

The motto was "hate the sin...not the sinner"

Maybe you should get out and find out for yourself and get all your information from atheists and hate filled liberals

Snoofy,

Discrimination vs religious freedom will be an interesting conflict.

It pits claims of discrimination against the right to practice one's faith.

This may end up being one of the defining legal and cultural battles of our time.

It'll be interesting to see which one the courts and society ultimately choose to protect.

Snoofy,

"Are you really this blissfully unaware of the Hobby Lobby decision?"

Hobby Lobby wasn't about discrimination.

It was about whether a private business could be forced to violate its religious beliefs under federal law.

Danni,

"This is Populism; they find targets that the less educated can focus their hate on, Today it's transgender people"

You can't honestly claim that today's pushback on transgender issues is purely religious or driven by hate.

I spent years attending a conservative church, and not once did I hear a word about transgender people.

This isn't some campaign to harm transgenders. It's society waking up to the real world conflicts that some transgender "rights" are creating, especially for women.

The issue is where one group's wants start infringing on another group's rights.

Danni,

"next it will probably be gay people"

You know... these days, I think conservatives are more concerned about liberals than they are about gays.

Nuf..for now...wife wants to run errands.

Snoofy,

"Are you saying the Church will be harmed if gay marriage happens inside it?"

Yes.

Once a church is pressured to perform or affirm something it fundamentally rejects, it's not just that church that suffers. It's the principle of religious freedom itself.

What hurts one church today can be used to hurt any church tomorrow.

If the state can tell one faith how to function and what to believe, what's next. Who can hire? What they can preach?

This isn't just about one issue. It's about whether faith based convictions still have any protection at all.

And lately, let's be honest, many on the left have worked hard to tell others not just what to tolerate, but what to think and believe.

Under that scenario they would be trying to extend that to churches.

Snoofy,

Never say never.

Give it time. Mark my words.

Eventually some radical activist couple will try to use a church they know will say no, just to provoke a legal challenge and chip away at religious protections.

Honestly, I've believed for years that for some atheists and far-left ideologues, the ultimate goal isn't equality.

It's dismantling the Christian church and they are willing to push legal, cultural, and political boundaries to do it.

Snoofy,

You did hit on an interesting point.

Some churches allow members or even non-members to use their sanctuary for weddings.

But they might not allow a same sex couple to do the same based on their beliefs.

Now I find myself wondering. If a court decided that was discriminatory, could it force the church to either allow same sex ceremonies or stop allowing anyone to use the space?

Could they essentially push the church to close its doors to non-members entirely just to avoid legal conflict?

That's where things get complicated and where "separation of church and state" should be protecting the church too.

Snoofy,

I think you've been smoking too much weed and you're wierder than usual.

I'm done talking to you.

Snoofy,

"anyone here"

as in people posting on this thread.

Matt,

I don't believe anyone here is questioning the legality of Gay Marriage.

The conversation sort of drifted from transgender to religion to gay marriage (as is the typical path transgender threads seem to do)

Snoofy,

"Separation of Church and State is why gay marriage has to be legal."

Do you think Separation of Church and State means churches must adhere to what is the law?

That churches should be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

Red,

"So, you're cool with turning Christians away from marriage because the church refuses to perform the ceremony?"

That question doesn't really make sense.

Churches don't issue marriage licenses. The state does.

So no one's being "turned away" from marriage.

A church has the right to decline performing a ceremony if it conflicts with their beliefs.

And couples have the right to get married legally through the state.

That's how separation of church and state works. It protects both sides.

Snoofy,

Separation of Church and State works both ways.

Churches may not make laws and the state may not dictate church doctrine.

That is, if you believe the Constitution is the gold standard for America.

Snoofy,

Different churches interpret the Bible in different ways.

But people of faith feel obligated to live by and support biblical standards even when those standards conflict with modern culture.

What you're really saying is that you believe the Bible itself teaches bigoted beliefs.

That's your right but don't expect believers to abandon their convictions just to avoid that label.

Laura,

The Bible actually addresses other controversial situations regarding marriage such as marrying someone who's been divorced under certain circumstances.

But it's up to each church to make that determination based on their doctrine.

Of course, people in those situations can still marry legally.

It's not just gay couples some churches may choose not to affirm.

There are other cases where religious standards differ from civil law.

Laura,

Actually, I thought some straight couples might have been interested in civil unions too.

For example, an atheist couple might prefer a civil union to avoid any appearance of deferring to a religious sacrament.

Lamp,

"Why do you think your religious beliefs seem to override the laws?"

I don't believe my religious beliefs override legal marriages.

They're separate, like you said.

Legally, same sex couples can marry under civil law. I'm not disputing that.

But that doesn't mean churches are required to host, bless, or acknowledge those marriages within their sanctuaries.

Religious freedom means churches can follow their own doctrines, just as the state follows its laws.

You bring up an interesting point.

Before gay marriage became law, I actually supported legally licensed Civil Unions with all rights and responsibilites as a marriage.

I thought it would provide fairness without confusion and protect gay couples' rights, while also preventing future lawsuits that could pressure churches to modify their doctrine.

Lamp,

You asked my opinion.

I gave it.

Read into it what you will.

But for the record, this has nothing to do with "separation of church and state."

The state isn't establishing religious doctrine and churches don't issue marriage licenses.

The two operate independently.