Comments on: Look Back 2008

By: luis r marshall

luis r marshall — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:52:44 +0000

This matter should not be complicated for christians who claim to be serving the Lord in spirit and truth. Romans 1st chap. vs 22-32. clearly explains the cause and effects of this behavior in the eyes of the Lord. We must be aware there is enmity between the things of the flesh and the spirit therfore we are constantly trying to justify ungodly behavior to satisfy our
flesh. God made it clear “there is no good thing in the flesh. God word says “serve him in spirit and in truth”. Joshua said thats for me and my house we will serve the Lord. Make your choice now: Heaven or Hell bound!

By: Karen McLeod

Karen McLeod — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:19:40 +0000

It seems to me that our current laws on marriage improperly mix state business with religion’s business. The state has a legitimate concern in ensuring that people carry out their obligations to insure that legal contracts are kept or are dissolved in a manner that protects the rights and properties of the contracting parties. The state also has a legitimate interest in ensuring that children have a stable economic, emotional, and social base. These are the state’s concerns. As such these contracts should be overseen and validated by the state, and should be available to any parties willing to make and abide by any such contracts. The Church has a Sacrament (or otherwise labeled service) called Marriage. It contends that this union is indissoluable, or that it’s dissolution is so severe (like a major amputation) as to be very unwise, if not impossible. It also contends that Marriage is a vehicle of God’s grace. Now these 2, different purposes have no business being mixed together. The result of mixing them has been a major cheapening in the Sacrament which has resulted, I think, because people confuse the dissolution of a civil contract with the dissolution of a Marriage. It has caused this current turmoil about gay marriage, because it forces the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which it has no business doing in regards to a civil contract. Religious institutions need to make up their own minds about whom they consider appropriate for marriage. These 2 very different should be split. Let anyone seeking legal recognition of domestic cohabitation apply to the state for the state’s recognition of their contract. This recognition should be granted of any reasonable domestic contract between consenting adults. Let those who believe “Marriage” to be a gift from God, seek Marriage with their religious institution. It is up to that institution to grant or deny that sacrament. It is, of course, up to the couple to live up to the greater demands of that grace-filled state.

By: Greg Hines

Greg Hines — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:08:53 +0000

Interesting look back, but I am very disappointed in the lack of mention of the shootings, and 2 deaths, at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Knoxville, Tennessee back in late July. Especially in regards to the various Gay related amendments, because the UU Church of Knoxville’s political stance on that issue was cited as one of the reason the shooter chose THAT church for his muderous rampage.

By: Michael S

Michael S — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:34:38 +0000

T’s comments seem incomprehensible to me. Marriage was clearly instituted for the last 2,000+ years as between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. In fact, a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated. How does T propose that a gay union is consummated? Of all the people I know opposed to the use of the phrase ‘gay marriage’, not one opposes gay unions having the right to file taxes jointly (already permitted), to have visitation rights or in fact every other civil right enjoyed by married couples. Nor do they object to gay unions being blessed in church. To describe this view as apartheid is not only incorrect but also inclines more people to see gay people in a negative light.

By: T

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:57:12 +0000

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.