Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Tue, Oct. 13 2009 01:24 PM EDT

Calif. Conservatives 'Disappointed' with New Harvey Milk Day

By Jennifer Riley|Christian Post Reporter

California conservatives say they are “disappointed” and “appalled” by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signing into law two pro-gay bills, including the Harvey Milk Day legislation which honors the pro-gay rights activist.

Gov. Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 572, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), into law Sunday night and announced it on Monday. The bill calls for the governor to annually proclaim May 22, which is Milk’s birthday, as Harvey Milk Day in honor of the first openly homosexual politician. The legislation also encourages schools to conduct exercises or programs that focus on Milk’s contributions.

“California Family Council is disappointed that Governor Schwarzenegger has placed the interests of a specific group over the educational needs of students,” the group expressed in a statement Monday. “SB 572 wrongly encourages schools to sacrifice students’ class time in order to appease special-interest groups.”

Pro-family groups raised concern that children as young as five years old will be exposed to the controversial subject of sexual orientation in public school classrooms.

West Coast pro-family group SaveCalifornia.com used stronger language to denounce the legislation.

Noting that the new law teaches children to "admire" the life and values of the homosexual activist, Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, warned, “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses – everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Last year, Schwarzenegger had vetoed a similar bill that sought to establish a Harvey Milk Day. The California governor had said Milk should be honored locally, mainly in San Francisco, where he had the most impact.

But after he signed the bill this week, Schwarzenegger’s spokesman explained that Milk has grown in prominence.

Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in August and actor Sean Penn won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the politician in the 2008 film “Milk.”

"He has become much more of a symbol of the gay community than he was a year ago because of those things," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said, according to The Associated Press. "That made the difference from last year: he's really come to symbolize the gay community in California."

On the same day the California governor officially designated Harvey Milk Day, he also signed a bill that recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages conducted during the period when California legally allowed such unions.

Same-sex marriages performed outside of California between June 16, 2008 and November 5, 2008 are to be legally recognized as in-state marriages, according to the bill, also authored by Leno. In November, state voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.

"This is tragic news for California families," state Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, on Monday. "The governor has chosen to completely undermine the will of the people – the millions of Californians who have twice stated that they intend for only traditional marriage to be recognized in our state. By signing SB 54, the governor thumbs his nose at the initiative process and the voters who trust that their vote means something.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    rhi, totally agree and I appreciate your honesty and civility in our discussion and look forward to conversing with you on other sites and issues, be blessed!!

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer, we seem to be going round and round on this with nothing new to say. I won't be monitoring this section anymore but I am sure we will engage again on some other part of this site.

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:45 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    rhi, yes, I have stated my support for domestic partnerships publically and yes there are some evangelicals who adamantly disagree with me. And I do agree their are some in the conservative evangelical camp who always need a bone to chew on. And frankly I'm not a big fan of Pat Robertson or even the late Jerry Falwell, I do agree with some of their views but at the same time I feel on some issues they threw out the baby with the bath water. My concern is that we stand wholeheartedly grounded in the Word of God with regards to the cultural issues of our day and at the same time we don't try to put square pegs in round holes with regards to these cultural issues simply because we personally disagree with these issues. This to me includes the issues of same-sex marriage, sex education, and abortion. But at the same time I believe our major focus must always align itself with God's major focus, the fulfillment of God's Great Commission!!

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:29 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    It seemed to me that there was a lack of introspection among the culture warriors of the Moral Majority and the (we’re) Christian (and you’re not) Coalition. I read material put together by a group that regularly watched Pat Robertson. He made comments and predictions about world events that time and again were proven false (the role of Saddam Hussein) and the same was true of many others (we don’t hear much about the Beast in Revelation since the 10 nation Common Market became the European Union with many more than ten members). I won’t restate the numerous times in US history when conservative Christians have cited the Bible in support of issues they now reject. Rather than have the SB and others apologize belatedly for slavery and racism etc., I would like them to reflect upon what this implies about their current support for conservative causes that impact folks outside conservative Christianity. Once you burn or hang the witches, an apology is hollow. Understanding how one comes to use scripture to inflict such harm would be useful, and might lead to greater maturity among people of faith.

    It seems to me that parts of conservative Christianity need to have a group (gays, liberals, the emergent church, Rob Bell & Co.) to project their anger and frustration upon. These groups are not just people with a different opinion, but a manifestation of Satan to be attacked and defeated. My own disillusionment with evangelical and conservative Christianity grew out of researching the attack materials used to fight sex education. I have no problem with someone who has a different opinion. But those who use their position of trust as a religious figure to disseminate false or misleading information to discredit their opposition are not following Jesus. I once remarked that many people I encountered who believed in the Ten Commandments as moral absolutes had a curious lapse with regard to the one about false witness.

    Well it is late. Goodnight.

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:28 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    So believer, have you come out publicly in support of domestic partner laws for gay couples? I find it difficult to believe that anyone holding such a position in the SBC would not find their job in jeopardy.

    Please explain to me why the social laws of the Old Testament fit well in the cultural context that scholars have found but seem oddly out of synch for a God who never changes, and has total knowledge of how the future will struggle with these outdated scriptures,

    In truth, Christians use a very small part of the Hebrew Scriptures. Much of what is used revolves around the issues of evolution, homosexuality, creationism, etc.; Issues that the Hebrew Scriptures never meant to address in detail. And while it may be possible to draw some general conclusions from comments about how to redress damage done by an escaped ox, the acts of violence attributed to God, the acceptance of slavery, the obvious inferior role of women, all point to a writer more influenced by cultural values than by eternal truths. Taken as a whole, you can find large sections of the Hebrew Scriptures and some sections (Philemon comes to mind) of the NT which are far less inspiring than the works of more modern (and some ancient) sages.

    I led a workshop some years ago for people involved in the Texas Family Planning Association. Because of wide scale opposition to education on birth control and HIV prevention from conservative religious groups (often from para-church groups), I looked at the cultures wars as a unifying theme among groups which otherwise did not agree theologically. I speculated that secular humanism, creationism, and sex education were rallying cries for those concerned about schools and textbooks. But anti-abortion and anti-gay rights fueled many “ministries” which needed big bucks to fund their radio and TV ministries. It was far more lucrative to warn against evils threatening to destroy America than to formulate a positive spirituality. Contd.

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, you tend to bring up commands that are no longer applicable today such as the two fabrics issue which we find only once and in the Old Testament and I agree that there are some commands in the Word of God that are purely cultural and not applicable to us today such as women covering their heads. But when God declares His original and only design for marriage not once or even twice but four times we can easily see this is still applicable to us today and the same is true of His original and only design for sexual intimacy. And while I am more than willing to support stronger domestic partnership laws to ensure all couples receive the same legal rights and benefits as any married heterosexual couple there is no way I can support same-sex marriage which clearly violates God's design.

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer, what was God's specific command regarding the wearing of clothing made from two fabrics? Don't you think God was serious given the punishment? In the times of the Bible, there is no concept of sexual orientation. Slaves were used sexually regardless of their personal desires. Many thought male seed carried a tiny person which was planted in the female. The early Catholics made masturbation and other acts, homosexual and heterosexual, which did not allow the seed to be properly installed in the womb, grave sins. Virgin captives who carried the seed of Israelites would give birth to an Israelite planted by the Israelite father. Some male prostitutes were involved in pagan religion.

    We could argue, as some do without end, as to how to interpret the few Biblical passages on same sex relations. You cannot change without your whole world coming down. I understand because it took a life shattering serious of events to push me to reexamine the faith delivered to me by my church.

    But if you spend time with a wide range of gay and lesbian people as I have, an honest person finds the majority to be no different than the rest of society. For those gay and lesbian people raised withing western Christian society, there is a massive conflict. Some, to be acceptable, adopt the conservative church's view of themselves and struggle all their live to be acceptable to God. Other find love and acceptance and realize that the law kills and the spirit gives life. They make the courageous decission to believe in the truth of their own experience and establish their onw relationship with God unmediated by priest or preacher.

    You must grasp onto the dogma that is the foundation of your life. Only you can determine if someday it proves to be sand. But, at least in the secular world and among religious groups which do not share your dogma, allow gay and lesbian people and their families to live in peace and enjoy the protections and responsibilities of our representative democracy.

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, dress issues once again are normally a cultural matter than a biblical issue and I do agree that some Christians and local churches make totally inaccurate assumptions in the area of homosexuality and appear to attack the individual rather than address the sins of homosexuality. And our members do indeed need to be exposed to the whole truth in matters to prevent them from making false assumptions about the person or the issue. But that does not give us permission to discount or ignore specific biblical teachings or commands with regards to these issues!!

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Yes believer but you do not have a concern for the matronly members of the church who nevertheless would have been condemned for almost 2,000 years because they either wear pants, skirts that reveal their "limbs,." wear make up, cut their hair above the shoulder, or wear lots of jewelry. I don't even mention those scandalous women who wear red hats. Do you really mean to leave the impression that Baptist pastors of the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries would not have denounced such behaviors.
    My best friend and I date the twin daughters of a Baptist minister when I was a freshman in high school. The ultra conservative church did not allow makeup until the wife of the pastor became a Mary Kay consultant. Praise the Lord, the twins got lipstick.
    Actually, their dad did not want them to date a non Baptist but the boys in the church (it was small) were mostly druggies (I think they call that rebellion) and three were members of a rock band.
    Believer, you have been polite but I understand you cannot change your opinion. You would lose your position in the church if you even expressed the possibility that it was wrong with regard to gays.

    But each day more and more Americans are meeting real people, not the stereotypes that are denouced. (I remember the Chick publication tract on Gays)
    I wish you well.

    In the past the SBC has provided many lighter moments. Remeber Bailey Smith and "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew?"

    But thousands of your own kids suffer from the attitudes your church promotes. They hide. They pretend. They despise themselve. Many find positive role models but some are on the street self-medicating the pain and rejection of family and faith community.

  • Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:58 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    rhi, I certainly have re-examined my views with regards to homosexuality, but I do it in light of what the Word of God has to say about it. And to this point God's Word says that they sexual practices of homosexuality are a sin since they clearly violate God's original and only design for sexual intimacy. God also has only one ordained form of marriage and that is one man and one woman and same-sex marriage violates His original and only design for marriage. Plus, I work with 28 SBC churches in my role as Director of Missions and it deeply concerns me when I see some of the dress styles parents allow their children to wear which indeed give a very wrong message to the opposite sex among boys and girls alike.

  • Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Actually believer you are still dodging the issue. Of course the women in your church are not immoral because the wear skirts above the ankle or blouses that show reveal the neck or a bit more.
    Jesus used a lot of stories based upon everyday life. I think it was one way to circumvent the religious teachers who had cornered the market with their approved interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures. How much they wanted to deny that a Samaritan was the hero of the story. It violated their since of rightness.
    You cannot reexamine your beliefs about homosexuality no matter what evidence is presented because to do so seems like attacking God. But God gives us a mind to think, reason, and increase our knowledge. That's some catch that Catch 22.

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, sorry about that, I do agree that some issues need to be considered in the Bible from the culture of that day, but at the same time we can't simply reject biblical truth that is still valid today by saying that was a cultural thing when indeed it wasn't, perhaps the response to the teaching of that truth was cultural and our response would be different today, but it doesn't negate the truth being taught in God's Word.

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    gem, here's a first, I agree with your last post 110%!!

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    rhi, if you'll notice I don't speak much to the abominations issue since all sin is an abomination to God. And I do agree that dress standards need to be addressed at all age groups, male and female. But I am more concerned with the youth and especially the young ladies because many of them have no clue how males are reading into their dress style. And their readin it in ways I'm certain these young ladies never intended!!

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:49 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    "There are too many young Christian women who are truly giving a wrong message both about themselves and their faith in the way they dress."

    Carrie Prejean is truly implanting the wrong message about herself and her faith?

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Niice dodge believer. Marieina, I have never made such a claim so you are also failing to deal with what I presented. I would also say that since you do not know the mind of God it would be wise not to denounce virtuous men and women created in God's image based upon culturally misunderstood scripture and prejudice. If you cannot do so in your church, where thinking a new thought can lead to shunning, at least do not attempt to deny them civil rights under civil law.

    believer, do you deny the accuracy of my observation? You also put it off on young women. I make the same claim regarding the most virtuous older woman in your congregation. Her hair, jewelry, makeup, length of skirt would have been a scandal for 19 centuries. Now it is no problem.
    Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the major changes in understanding and interpreting the gospel which have happened over time.

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:59 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    rhi, once again you use a cultural example as opposed to a biblical example. Whereas when it comes to same-sex marriage and sexual intimacy outside of marriage God's Word is clear that these do indeed violate His original and only designs for both marriage and sexual intimacy. But I personally think some people who profess to be Christians do need to consider the attire they wear to not only church but out in public as well. There are too many young Christian women who are truly giving a wrong message both about themselves and their faith in the way they dress.

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    rhi, once again unlike you I don't claim to totally understand all God's thoughts or ways and in fact He declares that about Himself. But unlike you I'm not going to discount God's Word simply because I can't understand why God says, does, and allows the things He does. These nations made themselves enemies of God and God's people and they paid a severe price for that, they had the opportunity to repent and turn to God and they refused to and God allowed His wrath to come upon them as a result.
    ---------------
    levitra stories

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    No believer, willfully violating the your interpretation is what I am discussing. You pick and choose the weight you give to the "abominations" of the Hebrew Scriptures. You show no evidence of understanding the concept of a holiness code or the cultural definitions of different points in time.

    Let me illustrate. If you go to a church service, a congregation you think is a wonderful example of modern Bible Believing Christianiy, take a look at the women of the congregation. From the eldest to the youngest, their clothing styles would have been denounced as unholy, unChristian, lewd and an invitation to incite male lust, etc. in the first 19 plus centuries of Christianity. What changed?

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, but when your decisons or actions willfully violate the Word of God then there is a problem, it's called sin!! God's Word is clear to what His original and only design for marriage is, one man and one woman, as well as His original and only design for sexual intimacy which is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman. The reality is we have no control over the latter and I would not want it, but we do with the first. And the reality is that stronger domestic partnership laws would ensure that any two adults sharing the same household as each others primary caregiver would have the same legal rights and benefits as any married heterosexual couple regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, and/or sexual intentions and this would ensure they have the same civil rights as any other couple!!

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    al, mistakes in its recording or mistakes in its content?

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    No believer, I am pointing to the inconsistancies in the way in which conservatives approach the Bible. I do not rely upon the Bible to tell me what decades of first hand experience have shown me. When it is raining I do not need a Biblical authorization to use an umbrella nor do I say that if God didn't want me wet He wouldn't have made it rain today.

    I do not need Biblical authorization to approve using such unnatural items as cars, vacines, airplanes, telephones, etc. Most of these can be misused but on the whole they can be demonstrated to have positive, even life saving applications.

    The lives of countless Gay and Lesbian people make postive contributions to society. Many have chosen to put their lives at risk in the military. They are very much like the African Americans who served in WWII even thought their own nation did not extend full civil rights to them.

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer »Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:22 pm al, Yes, the Bible in it's original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant plenary Word of God, literally God's Word!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: So using the basic definition of the word, inerrant meaning "free from error, you would conclude that it is perfect and therefore free from any mistakes?

    Yes or no will suffice for an answer.
    TFR

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    al, Yes, the Bible in it's original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant plenary Word of God, literally God's Word!

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer »Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:10 pm
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: believer lets first establish whether or not you think the bible is the "As for me, I'll put my confidence in the inerrant Word of God" and then you can ask if I want to be preached to by a person that is unable to first prove that his god even existed.
    So, I will keep this simple so you aren't confused.

    Are you saying the bible is "the inerrant Word of God" or not?

    Just a simple yes or no will answer this question, I will then proceed to other questions based upon your answer and then demonstrate why you are wrong regardless of the answer.

    TFR
    TFR

  • GMG »
    Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    tki is sure conversant with the prozac site. Hmmmmmmm.......

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    al, thanks for allowing me to know how ignorant you are with regards to the Word of God. Real quick I'll explain it so even a three year old can understand and hopefully you can to. Just because someone writes about an event in history does not mean that person is in favor of what he wrote. Or maybe a little simpler for you. If a sports writer writes that the Yankees beat the Mets it does not mean he is a Yankees fan or even a baseball fan he is simply reporting the results of an event. Do you get it now? Just because the writers of the Bible who were indeed superintended by the Holy Spirit of God recorded an event or practice that happened in biblical times does not mean that either the writers and more importantly God approved or ordained what happened or what was being practiced. And polygamy is a good example, even though some were involved in polygamy by no means says God approved or ordained polygamy which in fact He did not!!

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    believer »
    Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0 Flag

    rhi, once again you cite practices that have absolutely no biblical support and yet you use them to support your attempt to say God would have no problem with same-sex marriage. Just because something is recorded in the Bible by no means says that God either ordained it or condoned it unless His Word says He does. There is an old saying that says a person who will stand for nothing will fall for anything. As for me, I'll put my confidence in the inerrant Word of God which clearly declares God's only and original design of marriage as that of one man and one woman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: believer, wasn't it you that said god had caused men to write the bible? If god had them write the bible then by your logic god had given them what god had wanted to be said ergo, god had said it through men, so it is either infallible word or god or the entire bible is wrong and not infallible word of god, you can't have it both ways.

    Either god said it or god didn't say it either way you have written yourself into a corner that you can't get out of.

    TFR

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    gem_of_tki »Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 8 Disagree: 4

    "I reject gay marriage on the same level I'd reject pedophilic marriages and incestous marriages, so this insanity has got to stop."

    http://www.prozac.com

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, once again you cite practices that have absolutely no biblical support and yet you use them to support your attempt to say God would have no problem with same-sex marriage. Just because something is recorded in the Bible by no means says that God either ordained it or condoned it unless His Word says He does. There is an old saying that says a person who will stand for nothing will fall for anything. As for me, I'll put my confidence in the inerrant Word of God which clearly declares God's only and original design of marriage as that of one man and one woman.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer, once again you ask for a verse as though I am trying to prove something is in scripture when what I am saying is that scripture says virtually nothing about the diverse marriage cusoms throughout the history and cultures mentioned in the Bible. There is a lot in Hebrew Scriptures about the danger of having a wife from a pagan culture. The concern is always about the influence of the wife's belief system not the number of wives.
    At the time the various books of the Bible were written, girls were usually married by 15 or 16 years of age and sometimes younger. Do you think this is a divine pattern or merely a cultural pattern related to shorter life span and a shortage of wives do to death in childbirth? There is a tendancy to spritualize some things in the Bible and not others. That is what I am saying. I doubt you have ever seen a Baptist pastor dance before God as David danced before the Ark. Yet Pentecostals think it is a major endorsement of their worship style (although they do require more clothes than David wore). I met a group in Kentucky back in the late seventies who thought they were more spritual because they wore white robes and sandals and the man had long hair and beards in imitation of the common pictures of Jesus. Most conservatives at the time thought long hair and beards were as symptom of Satan's influence upon youth culture.
    Most cultural (not all) issues like these are trivial.

    If you study the matter, the words "who gives this woman in marriage" was a question asking the father to terminate his ownvership of the daughter in favor of the selected husband to appease the more pagan groups being asked to accept Christianity. The husband pledges to "have and to hold." and originally he was not talking about an embrace but establishing ownership and his willngness to enforce his rights.

    In England of the past, most people could not afford to get married in a church wedding. Common folk had civil marriages recognized by family and friends. This was a couple of centuries ago. On the prairies of Texas, people got married, had kids, and when a traveling preacher happened by they made it official and baptized the kids.

    Some cultures allowed young children to be married but the wedding was not consumated until the children reached whatever age was considered appropriate. In some cases Jews married female children to old men to prevent orphans from being converted by force. In farm country in Europe, no marriage happened until the wife was proven to be fertile (male infertility was not supposed if the man could complete the sex act).
    If you really want Biblical marriage, you would have to return to parents choosing the spouse for their child and concluding a contract.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, it's not a modern concept, it is God's original and only design for marriage, one man and one woman united as one for life. It's been in place since Genesis 2:24 took place. Plus, please cite any valid scripture where anyone specifically speaks to the benefits or blessing of having more than one wife. All the affirming verses on marriage speak to a husband and/or a wife, but never husbands and/or wives.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Actions speak louder than words. A lot of the politicians who are currently dealing with the aftermath of affairs are on record as big supporters of fidelity in marriage. I believe the current Governor of South Carolina led marriage seminars with his wife. How come no prophets denouce the patriarchs for plural marriage? I have heard Solomon interpreted in different ways but never before as a support for the modern concept of marriage. It still sounds more like wishfull thinking and an overwhelming need to make everything fit nicely. The world is messier and more complex.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    rhi, just read the Song of Solomon, do you ever hear him speaking to the joys of a polygamous relationship. Also, Eccleisiastes 9:9, "Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun." Notice he says womAn and not womEn. Plus, he also come to realize how his polygamous relationships have turned him away from God and God's truths and repents of his sin.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:01 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer, show me some verses where Solomon supports marriage from a monogamous standpoint. Do you mean that simply because he does not mention all his other wives and concubines he is supporting monogamy? Seems mighty thin given his harem.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, as far as his first marriage, some scholars simply believe because he speaks of it from a totally monogamous viewpoint that this was his first marriage prior to him falling into the practice or sin of polygamy. But the reality is that he does speak to the beauty of marriage through a monogamus viewpoint and not a polygamous viewpoint!

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, that's one of the reasons the Word of God can be trusted to be inerrant is that God has no problem airing the dirty laundry of His own followers as well as citing when they repent and turn back to Him in many cases and the negative consequences of their sin. The reality is that just because God allows or because something is recorded in the Word of God by no means say that God either condones or ordains it. Which is my point with regards to marriage. God's Word only records one form of marriage that God ordained, one man and one woman, which shows that is His original and only design for marriage. I should say that I agree with you 110% on your last post. But keep in mind as the bumper sticker says, "Christians Are Forgiven Not Perfect!"

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer,
    And those Bible scholars believe this was his first marriage becasuse.....?
    If it was, he must have tired of this wonderful relationship quickly. Having many wives and concubines was status, like having lots of cars, a private jet and a trophy wife. Solomon points to a great deal of things that got in his way. Some people need excuses and blame others or situations. A lot of blame gets put on women in the OT. Apparently the men of God could not take responsibility. Check Abraham introducing his wife as his sister to save himself. What a jewel.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, if anything your reference to Song of Solomon affirms the marriage of one man and one woman in that he speaks of that relationship specifically and does not in anyway endorse polygamy and in fact there are some if not many Bible scholars who believe he was speaking to his first marriage before he had several wives. And Solomon also records that polygamy was one factor that led to him turning away from God.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, I don't ignore polygamy at all and I point out the fact that in every specific polygamous marriage or affair cited in the Word of God there are negative consequences and indeed David's family is an excellent example. A daughter from one marriage is raped by a son from another marriage and that brother is murdered by his half-brother Absalom who then goes on to challenge his father for the throne. But if you would care to share any posotove consequences recorded in the Word of God with regards to anyone who was involved with polygamy or a passage where God specifically ordains polygamy as an acceptable form of marriage I would be more than willing to investigate that. But four times in the Word of God we have God's original and only design for marriage declared as that of one man and one woman.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:41 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    believer, it gets harder to find this comment page. I know from past discussion that it is pointless to go over the lack of a single marriage definition in the Bible. You use a couple of verses and ignore the common practice of polygamy saying everyone got punished for it(I thought David got punished for getting his girl friend's husband killed). The Song of Solomon praises a sexual relationship after Solomon already had wives. If a marriage of one man and one woman turns out poorly, you do not say they are being punished or suffering for improper marriage. The playing field is not level.

    It is like saying that because we have a law saying the age of consent for marriage is whatever it is in your state, we ignore the great diversity in other countries and in our own history. There was a time when making the age of consent for a woman in America was an improvement. The lack of insight into other cultures permeates the debate. Modern Christians assume that the Biblical figures define things much as we do.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, I am totally in favor of any two consenting adults who live in the same household and who are each others primary caregiver getting the same legal rights and benefits as any married heterosexual couple regardless of their sexual orientation, genders, and sexual intentions. This can be done through strong domestic partnership laws. I am totally opposed to discrimination in the workplace or anywhere else toward someone simply because they are homosexual. But at the same time God's Word clearly states what His original and only design for marriage is as well as His original and only design for sexual intimacy. And neither same-sex marriage or the sexual practices of homosexuality meet those designs and sexual intimacy outside the marriage bed of one man and one woman is sin in the sight of God and God would not recognize same-sex marriage as marriage in His sight. And therefore I am opposed to them because God is opposed to them and God's Word is perfectly clear in these two areas. So if I have the opportunity to voice or vote my opinion in the matter of same-sex marriage I am compelled as a Christian to vote against same-sex marriage.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:36 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer, I feel as though we are speaking different languages. Your whole statement is a judgment upon homosexuals based upon how you interpret the Bible and yet you state you cannot understand God and the actions attributed to God in the Bible. I doubt there is any gay person in American who does not know the position of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in regard to gay marriage and gay people.
    This post began because people objected to the gay community seeking to honor one whom they consider a pioneer for gay rights. The bulk of the gay community does not care how you or the churches of America feel about them. They want to be free of discrimination as citizens. They want protection from being fired from a job they are performing well solely because of there sexual orientation. They want their relationships to have the same legal standing you and I have with our spouses (assuming you are married).
    You do not need to worry about letting them know of your disapproval, your concern for their salvation, etc. They have churches and synagogues where they can worship if they so choose.
    So let God be God and if God is really unwilling to allow gay marriage trust God to take care of it. Pray to God to change people minds. But do not use God as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with history knows the suffering that has caused.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, I think you will find if you read my posts I don't place God's judgement on anyone and I especially don't condemn anyone for simply being homosexual. My concern is that any and all people would repent and turn to God before it is everlastingly too late regardless of what their sin is. I'm also concerned that by legalizing same-sex marriage we give some the idea that God is okay with the sexual practices of homosexuality which He is not and as a result leave people living in sin and either separated from God by their sin if they are not saved or unable to truly accomplish God's purpose for their life and grow in their relationship with God if they are saved and we may inadvertently cause God to remove His hand of protection from us as a nation and to stop blessing us as a nation. When God's people allow or say nothing about known corporate sin be it in the Church or the nation God will be patient for a while but eventually there will be consequences regardless of what that corporate sin is!

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer, it seems to me that you have to make that determination. I do not believe in your concept of God. However, I am looking at the Bible and hospice situation you mention and asking you the logical question. What does this say about your concept of God? If, as you say, you do not understand, please do not be so quick to speak God's judgment upon others. There is much more in the Bible about God visiting horrible death or calling for such death upon the innocent, than there is condemnation for homosexuality (assuming that the statements in the Bible have much to do with the modern understanding of sexual orientation).

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, having worked in Hospice I've seen young children who are terminally ill, so does that mean God's not aware of that or God's no longer in control or God's ultimately not the resonsible for the terminal illness? The same God who allowed that terminal illness to come on that child is the same God who called for the demise of the Midianite babies and children in Numbers 31. But most importantly He is the same God who allowed His only Son to die on the Cross at Calvary so we could be saved.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rhi, once again unlike you I don't claim to totally understand all God's thoughts or ways and in fact He declares that about Himself. But unlike you I'm not going to discount God's Word simply because I can't understand why God says, does, and allows the things He does. These nations made themselves enemies of God and God's people and they paid a severe price for that, they had the opportunity to repent and turn to God and they refused to and God allowed His wrath to come upon them as a result.

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:42 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    If that makes it OK (being under the age of reason and going to God) then you and I have a very large disagreement. Do you think all those children died painlessly and without terror? Do you think the survivors who became slaves ever forgot being told God ordered the slaughter?

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    rhi, and if they had not reached the age of reason they are home with the Lord!! Once again I don't claim to be God and there comes a point where we must simply let God be God and trust Him to know exactly what He is doing and what He is allowing to happen in all matters. It appears you have a mindset of what you think God should be like and act like and when you read the Bible and find places where He doesn't meet that image you say there is no way that is correct so therefore that can't be true about God and thus the Word of God is not inerrant.

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:05 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

    believer, then we differ because I understand totally that infants and children are no ones enemy.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links