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

Fri Nov 14 02:58:26 UTC 2008

Thank you for clarifying what you are saying. RJ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Slucki" <sslucki at chariot.net.au>
To: "Faith-talk,for the discussion of faith and religion" 
<faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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