44 thoughts on “A straight Christian’s view on gay marriage”

  1. I can give you a non-secular reason gays should not be technically “married”. Because marriage is defined as that between and man and a women. The constitution is correct. But the controversy is about the definition of marriage, not constitutional rights. Good video, and I support gay “unions” without the word “marriage” in it. Gays should get equal “rights” under the law, but compare it to heterosexual marriage, because it isn’t.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  2. Hello Rian

    I was told that I should just write out a list of the Christian things I didnt believe and leave.

    I’m posting this here because Bryan has been busy with content/ is posting A LOT of material and the dialogue might be lost if not brought forward.

    Sure I stand by this as “being” for your own good. Having judged the bible as being wrong/ mistake ridden/ just “move on” in the only way you can.
    It would be intellectually honest to itemize the things you don’t believe in and permanently put it to bed. OWN YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. Be responsible for what you have rejected and own it. I reject the “big bang” cosmology for example. I’m prepared to take that rejection and own it.

    The bible is like the only articles of association/ oniy defining feature of Christianity. I read it as logical, coherent/ cogent – even if things about “heaven” cannot possibly be known from outside of it. God, I believe, has carefully given out information on a need to know basis.

    John Dickson gives a very good overview of the evidence for Orthodox Christianity in his made for TV documentary series.

    Ps. Bryan seems to have trouble God inspired and authorized the book of Revelations

    “:But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [? sexually immoral, fornicators, homosexuals?], and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

    Don’t believe the Holy Spirit or Jesus Himself has inspired those words Bryan? Rian? Josh?

    Was John deceived and you “know” better? Just own it!

    Come out, come out, articulate. Own it!

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Hi PhillipGeorge,
      With your questions and challenges so courteously and sensibly delivered, I feel a little bit like the Prime Minister at Question Time. So I answer in appropriate wise…..
      I thank the Honorable Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I am delighted to offer the following response, although I cant honestly imagine just why he might imagine that there is any reluctance on my part to speak thus.
      Firstly, as I have frequently had occasion to point out, – the title at the head of this blog is FAITHWORKS. It is not even described as representing a platform for Christian Faithworks, and especially is it not titled Fundamentalist or Evangelical-works. And until Bryan retitles it as some such, I will take it that he is inviting ANYONE whether Christian or no to continue to participate and discuss any matters that he has offered in the main discourse, and presumably still doing, providing that the only restrictions are to refrain from directly attacking anyone personally in his postings. (interesting and instructive that, eh?)
      It is perfectly true to say that I do not accept any single religious word reported in the Jewish Scriptures or in the Christian Testament as being automatically accurate and historical, other than as representing the opinions and teachings of the individuals or schools who produced it (or those of the partisan individuals who transcribed and translated them. Neither you nor I can truthfully and for certain, identify the seer and visionary who is identified in the last book of the Testament as John. His writings belong to a very well known class of writings described as Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic.
      The very best scholarship appears to describe the contents of the book as a message carefully written in code that was designed to encourage the faithful within some particular Christian sect or circle to keep the faith when threatened with the possibility of martyrdom. It clearly demonizes the Roman Empire and its influence. But how instructive it can be to compare the anti-Roman message it contains with the extraordinary Roman-friendly images of the Gospels, and not to mention with the sweet and happy relationship described with Rome and its officials in the Epistles of Paul. Whoever he was, I simply could not believe for one second that this apocalyptic John would have tolerated for one second the views of Paul. There are some researchers who are convinced that an individual referred to in Revelations 2.2 was actually Paul himself. They appear to have a good rationale for this too.
      The Book of Revelations enjoyed an amazing seesaw position in its position within the Canon of the Testament. And all authorities have agreed that it was the last piece of writing to be accepted into the Scriptures, albeit reluctantly by many. Martin Luther was tempted to even leave it out of his New Testament. And our good friend Professor Carl Jung spoke this way about it – that the visions of Revelation were unworthy of serious study because ‘no one believes in them, and the whole subject is an embarrassing one.’ (and heaven knows, interpretations of the imagery in the book have proven over and over to be highly embarrassing to many within and without the Church.)
      Honestly, I dont need to discuss this in detail because an enormous quantity of ink has been spilt over 1600 years dissecting the text and in interpreting it.
      So PG, – No, I dont think that John was ‘deceived’. He was some sort of frantic visionary of the period, who had his own experiences, and possibly under the influence of drugs. We are told by scholars that within the text of the Apocalypse, there are reflections of mythological images and traditions from Zoroastrianism and a number of other sources.
      From the start, Christians of all persuasions have thought to read into the material all sorts of ideas and prophecies. They are still doing it, and probably making fools of themselves as they, like their millions of predecessors, continue to apply the concepts of prophecy to their own times and events. And similarly, there is simply no way to absolutely prove that the sage-like heavenly being that the Presbyter describes in the opening chapter of the book was genuinely to be identified with Jesus. Naturally the moral principles being espoused by this John would be the very issues that any visionary being he sees must quote.
      If anyone would care to pursue the matter, and learn about the multitude of ways in which the ‘prophecies’ of Revelation have been taken over the centuries, I would commend to your research – A History of the End of the World, by Jonathon Kirsch and published by Harper in 2006.
      PG, if you are going to be so dismissive of myself, Bryan, Josh and others on this blog, and want to make the Forum first and foremost a platform for your brand of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity, then check it out with Bryan first (and IT IS HIS BLOG, REMEMBER), then best to head off to form your own fancy Website on the topic. I am happy to continue doing exactly what Bryan has always encouraged, – to remain here, to post in and discuss the various matters that come up on the blog. I am not in the least embarrassed about expounding on my beliefs (and non-beliefs). Ask away, most Honorable Leader of the Opposition.
      Cheers, Rian.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • spoken like a true evolutionist.

        look, unbelievers are common on the ground

        Like

      • per chance I need a more expansive rejoinder.

        Rian, a mirror will give you an image of yourself. Can I give you a better one?

        of all the books of the Bible, the book of Revelation, claims to be that most directly “autographed” by God Himself – [perhaps any book or bit of writing since the ten commandments that is – whose tablets being directly inscribed by God’s own hand]

        [1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
        [2] Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
        [3] Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

        What you are saying and signing in your own name is that God did not write or cause those words to be written.

        Now, you OWN THAT. It is on “your” historical record – or what else is to be inferred from your own words or presence here – or your state of being? If you don’t like what the mirror shows you, change it!

        Like

      • PhillipGeorge

        I cant imagine just why you are suggesting that I might have any second thoughts about what I wrote on the Book of Revelation. Of course I dont believe that a/the God actually wrote/inspired/edited the book.

        You really are hilarious, arent you? I own my words there freely. Did you honestly believe that I could write all the other things I’ve said up until now, and yet take a few lines out of Revelation and declare them to be true regardless?

        It was the easiest thing in the world in those old days to make claims about the authenticity of what one had written. I understand, – and I’m no Greek scholar, – that the book of Revelation is written in very poor Greek. If so, then this God didnt dictate or edit it (as someone suggested months ago about the Bible as a whole) very appropriately and neatly.

        As far as the ten commandments are concerned, there are no less than three versions of the Decalogue in the Jewish Scriptures, with some variations. I cant really see in any case that they represent any great improvement on the laws of Hammurabbi.; Neither are they as comprehensive and practical as the ancient Egyptian Confession to Maat. As I’ve said before, just how many of the Ten represent everyday laws for us today?

        Since you are challenging me, here’s one for you. if you were in charge in Australia, and could ‘enforce’ the Ten Commandments, just what sort of enforcements and punishments would you promote for their failures? Come on do tell us. Would any of them be Capital Crimes under PhillipGeorge’s benign rulership? Or would you just stick to the three that are virtually common all over the whole world? Come on, – own up here. Let’s know the real PG underneath the mask.

        So my friend, I am answering directly and honestly. Do you imagine that any of the other non-Koshers and atheists on this blog would say any different? Do you smugly and blithely imagine in your heart that inwardly each of them/us sits in our corner gnawing at our fingernails and trembling since we/they actually BELIEVE, for all our protests?

        Again you are hinting that no-one but believers should be on this blog. On top of what I said before about this, I must remind you that the blog not only concerns faith, but on the Google explorer listing it mentions that it is a blog on Music and on Journalism as well. So when are you going to have a heart to heart chat with Bryan, and ask him to change the qualifications about this blog?

        Regards, Rian.

        Like

    • More strawmen Rian.
      Unbelievers are a dime a dozen. You are an evolutionist – so have great faith in the unseen and unobservable and what “eons” and “random” can do.

      Jurisprudence involves juries and nullifcation Rian. Common law was and is largely based on the ten commandments and the current farce called Canberra is largely about the general wholesale departure from them. A people who don’t know what tribunals are and how they are used against the general population are apt to be slaves – over and over again the cycle runs. Nullification and the avoidance of legal fiction are among the last lines of civilized defense against despotism.

      Like it or not, and you obviously don’t, the Monarchy is a Christian institution.

      If a Christian were given “ultimate” powers in the legal system? What other fairy tales do you wish to promote? If I were given ultimate totalitarian powers in this country I’d have the freedom to leave a lot of law unenforced. Unenforced law is a concept too few people have gotten their heads around – apparently you among them.

      Time and time again the bible admonishes to do justice and love mercy. Too few people have gotten their heads around that. I watched a bit of the new musical version of Les Miserables last night. The “love mercy” scene was compellingly well done. Hugh Jackman is a great actor.

      Austin 3.16, Non-believer, dabbles largely had trouble accepting that I genuinely think of them as “fools/ simpletons/ idiots”.

      Unbelievers are a dime a dozen. People making insightful observations about the real world a scarcer stuff. Your appeal to consensus decision making group think denial of the bible is passe. Have you put anything vaguely original in these posts?

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • PhillipGeorge
        “Unbelievers are a dime a dozen. People making insightful observations about the real world a scarcer stuff. Your appeal to consensus decision making group think denial of the bible is passe. Have you put anything vaguely original in these posts?”

        Believers are also a dime a dozen. People making insightful observations about the real world are indeed scarcer stuff – but Rian is a good example of what they look like, whereas your observations seem to mostly be about a world other than the real one. Your appeal to any sort of authority of the bible is passe. Have you put anything vaguely original in these posts? I notice you weren’t willing to “own” your position enough to answer the question about what laws you would enact (or, if you like, which ones you would neglect to enforce).

        Like

      • Hi Rod,

        Thanks for the moral support here. (actually you just happened to say some of the things that I was planning to answer!) Do you notice how the most conservative ‘believers’ appear to have no sense of humour.. I reproached one or other on this blog some months back. I was told that this was just not true. ‘We often laugh at you’. was the answer. Charming! I have always felt that it is one of the great gifts in life, to be able to take oneself not too seriously.

        Like you , I ceased to retain any Christian beliefs a long time ago. Must have been about 1975. It was rather thrilling, – something like a conversion experience in reverse. Unlike you however, I do cherish a ‘faith’ of my own; though I am not dogmatic about it. My creed however is that of Humanism, and I never bother to defend or explain my faith and spiritual convictions.

        Did you ever hear about the agnostic who was terminally ill in hospital? the chaplain came in to see him and asked if he had made his peace with God? Our hero of the moment answered gently: ‘Well actually, we’ve never quarrelled!’.

        cheers brother, Rian.

        Like

    • “The other modern substitute for the Bible is the heart. We live in the Age of Feelings, and an entire generation of Americans has been raised to consult their heart to determine right and wrong.

      If you trust the human heart, you should be delighted with this development. But those of us raised with biblical wisdom do not trust the heart. So when we are told by almost every university, by almost every news source, by almost every entertainment medium that the heart demands what is probably the most radical social transformation since Western civilization began — redefining marriage, society’s most basic institution, in terms of gender — it may be wiser to trust the biblical understanding of marriage rather than the heart’s.
      My heart, too, supports same-sex marriage. But relying on the heart alone is a terribly flawed guide to social policy. And it is the Bible that has produced all of the world’s most compassionate societies.

      This, then, is the great modern battle: the Bible and the heart vs. the heart alone.”

      Amen!

      I’ve been on a roller coaster ride concerning same sex marriage—-the battle between what my heart is saying and what I believe God’s heart/ His Word is saying in this matter. I came on this blog totally against homosexuality and especially same sex marriage. I do however, believe that I was bigoted in my view because of my perception and perspective. So God gave me the space and opportunity to think my attitude through. He brought people like Justin, Tennebrous and others of differing sexual orientation onto this blog to educate me and for that I will always be truly grateful.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • This is Francis Frangipane’s prayer. I received it yesterday….and I say yes and amen. I need to be set free from the influence of that spirit also.

      “Father, we submit to You and Your standard of righteousness. We ask for purity, meekness and holiness of heart. Forgive us for our tolerance of the spirit of Jezebel in both our mind and our deeds.

      Father, because we submit to You, we have Your authority to resist the devil. We bind, in the name of Jesus, the spirit of Jezebel. We pray against the stronghold of Jezebelic-thinking over our community and our state. We come against the fortresses this demon has built up in the spirit realm in this area, and we ask the Holy Spirit to release captives and plunder the house of Jezebel.

      We also pray for faithfulness of eyes and heart to husbands and wives. We release purity of heart and grace to each member of the body of Christ, in our church community. We cover Your people with the blood of Jesus. We loose the joy of a humble and submissive spirit and pull down the imaginations of selfish ambition and pride. In Jesus’ name. Amen!”

      Like

      Reply ↓

  4. I applaud this Christian response on the issue. In a nutshell it is. We can hold all kinds of variant views based on our interpretation of the Bible, the Koran, or whatever religious beliefs we may have but we do not have the right to impose those views on others. I am a Christian and I am grateful that God is far more loving and understanding of what it is to be human than us humans will ever be able to comprehend. And why should we, because we ain’t God. Thanks for posting Bryan….

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • I agree David. That we can have varying views even if we think others are totally wrong. As I do with the video above.
      Its not just the obvious verse but many throughout the Bible. Many in proverbs and psalms such with themes about Gods provision and Gods favour. When a verse states a wife brings God’s favour. Not a gay couple, but between a man and a woman. These are dotted throughout the Bible.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Alexie, Hi
        Interesting when one hears certain Evangelical preachers proclaiming that ‘God created Adam and Eve, but NOT Adam and Steve’. Very clever bit of word play, I must say.

        However very interesting to note that our friend St Augustine who was the one who singlehanded developed the popular doctrine of the fall of man and of Original Sin had something very interesting to say that might relate to this.

        He like St Thomas Aquinas AND indeed like Martin Luther, puzzled greatly over the reason why God should have created a woman to be a help-meet for the first man at all? They all agreed that if the God really wanted man to have a companion with whom he could converse and relax, He would surely have created a man to be with him. Augustine and the others after puzzling over the matter for some time, decided that the only purpose for creating a woman, was for child-bearing.

        Rian.

        Like

      • Hi Rian

        The purpose of woman was to be about relationship. Relating to man and to God.
        Of course child birth was one purpose amongst many. That the two sexes as the image of God are very strong symbols. It leads us to look deeply into the concept of love and service to be another. Relationship! Through this we are told to “Be fruitful and multiply.” Later we discover the fall and that even this cannot keep us from God. That the two who are separated can become one flesh. We too separated from God can become one on the body of Christ.

        Like

      • Alexie,
        Oh sure, you have given a fine summary of the developed Christian approach to the creation of woman for the first man.

        Always fascinates me how Christians cherry-pick over the teachings and decisions of the early Fathers, and not to mention the early Councils, accepting those they like and rejecting those they dont approve of.

        Of course, as you will realize in my Post about the views of the Church Fathers, I was not quoting my own views. Just showing how bizarre are some of the ideas that were held and developed by the same men who gave you the formulations of the teachings you accept. I am gratified to observe that Christianity did not stay with all the views of these antique sages.

        Cheers, Rian

        Like

  5. I stopped listening to the video when he said, “I don’t think God really cares about same sex marriage and admits to not having a clue what the Almighty really thinks about it and quite frankly neither do we”. Oh really?

    I agree with you Phillip George and writeonce 1770. In fact, amazingly, before having a look see on the blog just now, I had the question of same sex marriage on the mind because yesterday I attended a Civil Marriage by the foreshore; only the second one ever, since all the other marriages I have been invited to have been in the Church. The ceremony was lovely but I was taken aback by the female celebrant’s deliberate statement that marriage in Australia is classified as between and man and a woman. She made me think. So then I was imagining what I might be feeling if my nephew was marrying the man of his dreams instead of the woman of his dreams right then and there.

    You know, for the first time ever, I felt angry at myself for siding with the same sex marriage proponents. I came to the conclusion that I was allowing them to trample underfoot something truly beautiful, marriage between man and woman as God decreed it.

    I will no longer support same sex marriage.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • if you go to the common prayer book of about 1680, which was and is an act of our Sovereign’s parliament it has the words

      with my body I thee worship …….. wrt marriage

      love, honour and obey ………….. wrt marriage

      ie. modern man is just about clueless

      Like

      Reply ↓

  6. If they want to be treated better in Australia why do they represent themselves with such a disgusting vehicle as the Gay Mardi Gras ?

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • exactly Dom,

      where is the Heterosexual Madi Gras, the proud to be straight movement, or the gay “respect” for Abstinence and self restraint.

      Even these sentences will hatch the usual antipathy.

      God is Right.

      Stupefied by relativism. I admit, muhammad wasn’t wrong about everything. That would be nigh impossible.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  7. I find the comments here interesting. And some dismaying, but nt unexpected. But In the end, God is powerful enough to ensure in the end all will be well. Despite any indications to the contrary, God is solidly in charge of the universe..

    Like

    Reply ↓

      • Hi Bryan

        You are a good person but God knows us better.

        Once the institute of marriage was held sacred, over the decades it has become a bit of a joke. Does this have any consequence ? An investigation into the London riot states a major factor is a generation that is growing up without a father figure.

        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100100154/london-riots-absent-fathers-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/

        Messing around with the family unit may not have any immediate consequence but what will the future hold ?

        Like

      • I agree Dom. The father is underrated in a family these days as is the family unit.
        I will have to disagree with Bryan that many disagree because of fear, or fear only.
        Many disagree because of Gods Word. That is a big reason. Also biological reasons, family and societal reasons. Reasons that research tells us about good family foundations. No one is saying gays cannot have tax laws changed, or super. No one is saying they cannot live together. Just leave the definition of marriage alone. Its not just about love either.

        Like

  8. All this fuss over a chemical within a brain that is out of the norm .
    Maybe within 15 years they will find out exactly what is that difference and what triggers it to happen .
    Perhaps then people could get on fixing the massive increase in all the crap made all for the sake of “” GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT “”
    Now that is a delusion of stupidity based on the “”belief “” in perpetual growth in a finite world

    Like

    Reply ↓

  9. Ten Q&A’s about marriage.

    1. What’s love got to do with it?
    2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
    3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?
    4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?
    5. Won’t biological parents continue to have a default legal right to rear the children they sire and bear together?
    6. How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?
    7. How about we just “get the state out of the marriage business” altogether?
    8. Isn’t it relevant that public opinion is shifting in favor of same sex marriage?
    9. What about all those conservative politicians and pundits now reversing course and supporting same sex marriage?
    10. What about equal rights for gays? Doesn’t restricting marriage to union of a man and woman infringe on their civil rights?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/ten_qa_on_same-sex_marriage_canards_and_evasions.html

    Like

    Reply ↓

  10. Recently the actor Jeremy Irons asked an interesting question:

    “Asked about same-sex marriage, Irons replied:

    It’s a very interesting one, that, and I don’t really have a strong feeling, but what I see … what we had in England, which was not marriage, but it was a union you could make if you were gay and you wanted to make a civil partnership … same rights but not the name … it seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name, and I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that. I mean tax-wise it’s an interesting one, because you see, could a father not marry his son?

    Zepps responded that there are laws against incest.

    Irons, not to be deterred, said:

    It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that. Now if that were so, and I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son, and pass on my estate to him.

    Zepps: That sounds like a total red herring. I’m sure that incest law would cover same sex marriages.

    Irons: Really? Why?

    Zepps: ’cause I don’t think incest law is only justified on the basis of the consequences of procreation. I think there’s also a moral approbation associated with incest.”

    Can Govt. make decisions on ‘love’? Who gets to define love? Who gets to define morals?

    Is the real question should gay people be able to marry or is the real question, should we open the definition of marriage so that it is open to anyone who lobbies for it whether it be for love, or for tax purposes. Does that then weaken the purpose and intent of marriage?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  12. I think 90% of being gay is having style and being unafraid of the same sex. And in the other 10% are choices that involve expression of affection. And in 1% of that affection is 3rd base/ home plate. What REALLY bothers people is the last, if they are bothered by “gay-3rd&home”. Most people prefer not to think of ANY 3rd&home.

    In our culture ANY same sex touch is considered yellow flag. I call that anti-gay & it produces a “broke back” cowboy effect.

    I don’t feel inspired by gay base 1-4. I like atypical gay-produced fashion. I wish more guys gave me hugs who are family.

    The gov’t wants to keep tabs on taxable people.

    I don’t care if God cares about gay marriage. I think the whole system is gay.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  13. I loved this video! I’m a straight Christian woman who supports gay rights and gay marriages. My first Valentine’s Day with my husband, who is Catholic, was spent at a gay rights marriage rally because we felt that as a straight couple we wanted to support everyone in their rights to have the same rights we do.

    As both a journalist and a music lover, in my walk of life, I’ve seen so many gays, bisexuals and transgendered people struggle for human rights — and have seen so much abuse towards them. You are correct, we are all people and all people should love as Jesus loved us.

    If anything should be considered “non-Christian” — the biggest thing of all should be HATE! Nothing is more non-Christian than hate, prejudice and judging!

    This video is so on the money, it brought tears to my eyes! Well done! This made my morning.

    God bless!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  14. I can see that you have made some very emotional arguments — “straight from the heart” so to speak — about the gay “marriage” debate. However, your heart and God’s Word are not the same. Which is why followers of Christ ought to be reading God’s Word on a very regular basis in order to conform what our heart believes and wants to believe to what God actually believes.
    You can find God’s definition of marriage in Genesis 2:20-25; God’s view of impure destructive unions in Genesis 18:20-19:16; God’s hope for joy in marriage in the book The Song of Solomon; and God’s judgment on those who go their own way in Romans 1:24-32 and Revelations 21:8. These are just a few key passages in a book I believe you may have never read in its entirety. I fear for you. And I pray that God will mercifully open your eyes to the truth of His Word.
    Contrary to what you have said, real Christians do not hate homosexuals. We are grieved and gravely concerned about some of the behaviors they engage in (some of which endanger children), just as we are concerned about heterosexual behaviors that are outside the bounds of God’s blessings (which behaviors also sometimes endanger children). God offers a rescue from these destructive lifestyles. (One of these rescues is detailed in Barbara Swallow’s excellent book FREE, INDEED.) But these are available only to those who seek God. Oh His terms. Which you can find in the Bible.
    I don’t hate you either, even though we strongly disagree on these points.
    But I would never admit you as a brother in Christ. To be that, you would need to read God’s Word and conform yourself to the teachings therein.
    All I see you doing here is calling yourself a Christian, while denying the very teachings of the book you profess to follow. This is confusing to me. And not doubt to many others.
    You will be in my prayers.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you for your thoughtful comments Gwennon. I think you misunderstand me. The video I posted is not from me..It is one Christian’s view on gay marriage. I posted it to inspire debate on what I believe is an important issue. I believe that God’s perfect plan is marriage between a man and a woman. But I also believe marriage under australian law is a secular issue and on that basis I support equality for gay people. The institution of marriage has always been in a state of flux. Things once illegal, such as the marriage of the mentally handicapped, are now permitted. To arbitrarily decide that now marriage has evolved as far as it should according to one definition is to deny any possible subsequent influence of the Holy Spirit in our world..Having said that, I take on board what you have said and will certainky prayerfully consider that. I also like your new blog and will continue to read it (and learn from it). Thanks again.

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment