The Christian Response to Jason Collins

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The question of should they be able to fire employee for x reason is irrelevant. They should be able to fire someone if they can legally fire someone for x reason.

The x reason is kinda important. And it does need to be defined.

 

Yes, my beef was with the should they be able to part

[StPaulHusker]

I am not sure what just happened here but The Commandments says something against adultery, right? So the first bolded statement is true, right? Because regardless of gay or straight, if you have sex outside of marriage, that is adultery, right? So I am not sure why you would be shocked and saddened, but hey to each his own.

 

And in response to the 2nd bolded item. Since you quoted Leviticus. Chapter 18 and 20 has passages against it. So again, not sure why the sadness, but the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

I will admit I was off on the BELIEF of sin on divorce. but in my defense, I said I wasn't sure where it was written.

1. A gay couple married in a christian church aren't committing adultry when they have sex with one another. Correct?

2. My Leviticus quotes were in the section that says: ""You can make a much stronger textual case against woman preaching or divorce or in favor of slavery or women being submissive than you can against same gender relationships. Each time we have faced one of these issues, we have thought it prudent to disregard Biblical precedent in favor of Biblical principle."

#1. If there is a Christian Church that recognizes it, correct. But that wasn't your question mentioned above. You specifically mentioned sex only. Not married sex.

 

And again, not sure why you are shocked and saddened.

I am shocked and sadden that you assume that all Homosexual Sex is a sin, that you write "if there is a Christian Church that recognizes it" as if you have never heard that multiple christian denomination welcome same-sex marriage ceremonies in the states that provide this legal right to same sex couples.

I assumed nothing. I do not feel it is a sin. I never said it was. The bible has issues with it. Not me. I couldn't care less who lays down with whom. But I respect a religions right to not fall in lockstep with these same thoughts. I don't think there should be amendments to any Constitution to ban it by law because that would be the exact opposite of what a Constitutions purpose is. But people have a right to speak their peace about this topic whether you agree or disagree with what they say. If they feel it is a sin and feel that based on their religious beliefs that if they condone any part of it that they could go to hell, who are you to say they are wrong? Just respect people's opinions and if you don't like their answer, move along because you won't change their mind. At least not in a forum like this.

[carlfense]

Well, this is timely.

Well, this would seem to be a first. The four most influential athletes in America really don’t play. At least not lately.

Idle NFL quarterback Tim Tebow has been back in the news, but not for any heroics: he was recently cut loose by the New York Jets after a one-year experiment as a part-time QB behind Mark Sanchez failed to yield results. The “Tebowmania” days in Denver are only 15 months old, but it seems like 15 years. And yet, when Americans are asked which pro athletes they believe carry the most influence with the public, Tebow’s name tops the list.

 

A unique set of QB strengths and weaknesses and an affinity for wearing his Christian faith on his sleeve combine to make Tebow a compelling public figure, even as an NFL backup. Whether or not he’s able to remain deeply ingrained in the public consciousness without eventually getting more time on the field remains to be seen. But for now, Tebow, he of 2.2 million Twitter followers, is still the man people talk about.

http://www.forbes.co...ial-athletes-2/

[strigori]

The question of should they be able to fire employee for x reason is irrelevant. They should be able to fire someone if they can legally fire someone for x reason.

The x reason is kinda important. And it does need to be defined.

 

Yes, my beef was with the should they be able to part

Part where? Race, gender and religion are non-starters. But in most states, anything else is fair game, at least until the reason goes public and the backlash sets in, which is why most employers have rules that clearly define what is a fireable offense. Typically things that are beyond your control get protected status, while choices do not. And sexual orientation is not something one chooses, and has started getting protected status is many places.

[HuskerShark]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

[Landlord]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

 

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Our society and our government has attached a very, very large number of benefits to marriages (civil unions) that aren't possible or obtainable by any other avenue.

[strigori]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

It predates religion, and goes beyond a religious practice. Its a societal thing, that has been practiced by virtually every civilization humans have ever had.

[HuskerShark]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

 

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Our society and our government has attached a very, very large number of benefits to marriages (civil unions) that aren't possible or obtainable by any other avenue.

 

Not really. It's something I've always wondered. As Christians, we believe that marriage is the union of 2 souls in Christ. I would think that non-religious marriages stemmed from that, but maybe not. So aside from the benefits that married couples receive, there is no logical reason for non-religious people to get married?...

[strigori]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

 

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Our society and our government has attached a very, very large number of benefits to marriages (civil unions) that aren't possible or obtainable by any other avenue.

 

Not really. It's something I've always wondered. As Christians, we believe that marriage is the union of 2 souls in Christ. I would think that non-religious marriages stemmed from that, but maybe not. So aside from the benefits that married couples receive, there is no logical reason for non-religious people to get married?...

A public declaration of commitment to each other.

[HuskerShark]

A public declaration of commitment to each other.

 

Fair enough.

[knapplc]

Monogamy isn't relegated to humans. Several species of primates are monogamous, as are bald eagles, turtle doves, even some fish are known to select a single partner throughout their lives.

 

Humans just formalized monogamy and called it "marriage," but it really has nothing to do with religion. Religious components to marriage are a late addition to the process.

 

Aside from that, there are numerous legal benefits, including but not limited to:

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
  
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
  
• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
  
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
  
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
  
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
  
• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
  
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
  
• Receiving public assistance benefits.
  
• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
  
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
  
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
  
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
  
• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
  
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
  

SOURCE

[BigRedBuster]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

 

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Our society and our government has attached a very, very large number of benefits to marriages (civil unions) that aren't possible or obtainable by any other avenue.

 

Not really. It's something I've always wondered. As Christians, we believe that marriage is the union of 2 souls in Christ. I would think that non-religious marriages stemmed from that, but maybe not. So aside from the benefits that married couples receive, there is no logical reason for non-religious people to get married?...

 

 

Try loving someone for years and living with them only to find out that when that person gets sick and is in Intensive Care and dieing, you are not allowed to be by their bed side because you are not family.

[carlfense]

What I've always wondered is, if you aren't Christian or a believer in a religion that practices marriage...

 

What would be the point of getting married? Wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary practice?

 

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Our society and our government has attached a very, very large number of benefits to marriages (civil unions) that aren't possible or obtainable by any other avenue.

 

Not really. It's something I've always wondered. As Christians, we believe that marriage is the union of 2 souls in Christ. I would think that non-religious marriages stemmed from that, but maybe not. So aside from the benefits that married couples receive, there is no logical reason for non-religious people to get married?...

 

 

Try loving someone for years and living with them only to find out that when that person gets sick and is in Intensive Care and dieing, you are not allowed to be by their bed side because you are not family.

+1