[Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!

Fri Nov 14 02:05:36 UTC 2008

No, R.J.,

I'm not saying that we should happily accept this practice as normal and ok.

I'm saying two things:

Firstly, Christians should NEVER NEVER accept the sexual expression of 
homosexual relationships as being valid, we should ALWAYS ALWAYS be uneasy 
about the even celibate homosexual. I hope that's clear?

Having said the above, homosexuals are people, too, who've been ensnared 
into their set of sins by Satan working on their corrupt fallen nature. 
Furthermore, there are still traces of God's Image even within notorious 
sinners like homosexuals -- I do believe that.

Secondly, what I am saying is that if we want a hearing in the wider society 
for our distinctive views (against legalising same-sex marriage or civil 
unions), I believe we must either press for the re-criminalisation of sodomy 
(which ain't gonna happen without a great-awakening type REVIVAL) or else 
try to blunt/limit the influence of this arrogant, mislead minority so they 
don't pollute our society.

Guys on list, do let's be respectful to each other by first of all checking 
our spelling and grammar before we send a message and then check out the 
other guy's full message before we go off half-cocked, addressing issues 
that aren't there.

Thanks.
Stefan Slucki.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rjs059 at peoplepc.com>
To: "Faith-talk,for the discussion of faith and religion" 
<faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!

> So, Is what you're saying is that we should just except this practice? RJ
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stefan Slucki" <sslucki at chariot.net.au>
> To: "tribble" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "Faith-talk,for the discussion of
> faith and religion" <faith-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Everett Gavel"
> <EverettG at successfuladaptations.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!
>
>
>> Hi Laura and list,
>>
>> Well, Laura, it does seem that commenting on this most relevant topic on
>> our
>> list does open that "can of worms" you refer to.
>>
>> Now worms are good for fertilizing the garden so I hope what I say, 
>> below,
>> is useful to all.
>>
>> Obviously, it's a big subject as the traffic on list has shown in the 
>> past
>> ten days.
>>
>> Now I think consensus has been reached on the list as to the desirable
>> individual Christian's attitude and approach to individual
>> homosexuals/domestic partnership members.
>>
>> Why resist granting either "civil union" or "marriage" status to these
>> folk?
>>
>> Firstly, as Chuck Colson argues, heterosexual marriage is and always
>> should
>> be held up as the norm in society, with Christian marriage as the ideal.
>> To
>> use the word "marriage" in relation to a same-sex partnership is socially
>> confusing, inconsistent and suicidal to such convictions.
>>
>> Secondly, heterosexual marriage has a "civil union" element in that the
>> paperwork associated with marriage is State-based not church-based.
>>
>> As a Minister of the Gospel, I have to prepare couples according (in my
>> case) to the directions of the Marriage Act of Australia 1961 and return
>> certain papers to the appropriate government registry of births, deaths
>> and
>> marriages.  Of course!  I stress to couples that my role is to also
>> prepare
>> them from a Christian viewpoint.
>>
>> The point I'm making is that even if a couple have a civil ceremony, they
>> are still lawfully and actually married in God's Sight even though they
>> didn't actively seek His Blessing on their union -- for whatever reason.
>>
>> Giving homosexuals this right is a hair's-breath away from full marriage
>> and
>> not to be contemplated.
>>
>> Thirdly, what practical consequences can it have in society to grant them
>> such entitlements?
>>
>> ** The greater lying illusion that their chosen lifestyle is "normal"
>> equal
>> in value to heterosexuality -- for knowledgeable Christians to affirm 
>> this
>> is to violently offend their own and these folk's conscience!
>>
>> ** To strengthen their argument in favour of adoption,
>> artificial-insemination thus potentially paving the way for greater
>> paedophilia and abuse of children.
>>
>> ** The general departure of our Christian-inheritance society to an
>> anything-goes if-ya-into-bestiality-so-what approach to society which is
>> beginning to surface in the so-called civilised world.
>> U'huh, intimacy with animals or -- as they would say -- some other
>> animals.
>>
>> Finally, so should we consider ANY recognition of domestic partnerships
>> which aren't either marriage or "common law [de facto]" marriages?  What
>> about superannuation and similar entitlements for those who've been
>> together
>> for years?
>>
>> Christians do disagree about such issues.  Personally, I can see no 
>> reason
>> why what are known as co-dependent relationships cannot be registered 
>> with
>> the State i.e. no marriage-mimicking ceremony, just the recognition that
>> two
>> people consider each other their 'significant other'.  Such recognition
>> can
>> be given to two sisters or any other couple living together where no
>> sexual
>> involvement exists.
>>
>> Homosexuals will argue that without such entitlement, all sorts of
>> business
>> issues are made more difficult -- I can see their point.  Unless we again
>> criminalise sodomy we cannot easily dismiss their call for
>> individual-based
>> entitlement-fairness, I accept that point.
>>
>> Some homosexuals would be happy with this outcome, they recognise 
>> marriage
>> for what it is, don't want it because they've rejected the Christian
>> worldview which underpins it:  but the radicals demand equal recognition
>> with the married!
>>
>> Stefan Slucki.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Faith-talk mailing list
>> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> Faith-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/rjs059%40peoplepc.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 11/13/2008
> 6:01 PM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Faith-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/sslucki%40chariot.net.au
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 
6:01 PM