(01-21-2014 11:54 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  How many SBC states have legalized gay marriage? How many SBC schools recognize gay marriage in any legal sense?

Marriages are recognized in all 50 states per the Federal Government.

All SBC institutions recognize Federal marriages. They are public.

(01-22-2014 12:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:54 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  How many SBC states have legalized gay marriage? How many SBC schools recognize gay marriage in any legal sense?

Marriages are recognized in all 50 states per the Federal Government.

All SBC institutions recognize Federal marriages. They are public.

It's not so simple. 36 states currently have "defense of marriage" statutes that expressly state that the government will not recognize a same-sex marriage. If you live in one of these states, the state will not recognize your same-sex marriage. This means that you can't enjoy health plan benefits, state tax benefits, protection from discrimination, or other legal rights that married spouses enjoy.

With that being said I'm all for gay marriage and gay rights. I'm a Texan and like many Texans don't believe in the government getting in everyone's business. Bad thing is lots of Texans are stupid and old fashion. In the few progressive cities in Texas my view on gay rights is common.

LU's policies on this subject are by no means popular in today's world nor should they be. But LU is a private university so they can have old world policies. It's not like the bible was wrote yesterday it's a pretty old book. None of LU's stances are new just dated. I do wish they would get with the times and I hope as time progresses they do.

I'm also an LU alum and many of my fellow LU friends feel the same way. It's just the more vocal and crazy ones that are heard the most.

(01-22-2014 12:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:54 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  How many SBC states have legalized gay marriage? How many SBC schools recognize gay marriage in any legal sense?

Marriages are recognized in all 50 states per the Federal Government.

All SBC institutions recognize Federal marriages. They are public.

What is a federal marriage?
Have never heard of the federal government marrying anyone. Thought it was one of those things left to the states.

(01-22-2014 07:30 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:54 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  How many SBC states have legalized gay marriage? How many SBC schools recognize gay marriage in any legal sense?

Marriages are recognized in all 50 states per the Federal Government.

All SBC institutions recognize Federal marriages. They are public.

What is a federal marriage?
Have never heard of the federal government marrying anyone. Thought it was one of those things left to the states.

What he is referring to is recent federal court ruling recognizing same sex marriages for every state. This makes it so couples on the federal level can file federal taxes together it also has other effects on the federal level. But for benefits on the state level it's different. Lots of states still don't recognize same sex marriage.

(01-22-2014 01:41 AM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:54 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  How many SBC states have legalized gay marriage? How many SBC schools recognize gay marriage in any legal sense?

Marriages are recognized in all 50 states per the Federal Government.

All SBC institutions recognize Federal marriages. They are public.

It's not so simple. 36 states currently have "defense of marriage" statutes that expressly state that the government will not recognize a same-sex marriage. If you live in one of these states, the state will not recognize your same-sex marriage. This means that you can't enjoy health plan benefits, state tax benefits, protection from discrimination, or other legal rights that married spouses enjoy.

With that being said I'm all for gay marriage and gay rights. I'm a Texan and like many Texans don't believe in the government getting in everyone's business. Bad thing is lots of Texans are stupid and old fashion. In the few progressive cities in Texas my view on gay rights is common.

LU's policies on this subject are by no means popular in today's world nor should they be. But LU is a private university so they can have old world policies. It's not like the bible was wrote yesterday it's a pretty old book. None of LU's stances are new just dated. I do wish they would get with the times and I hope as time progresses they do.

I'm also an LU alum and many of my fellow LU friends feel the same way. It's just the more vocal and crazy ones that are heard the most.

I get that LU's students aren't the same as their administrators. But its LU's leadership and written policies we have to take into account when evaluating LU.

By Liberty's leadership I assume you are continuing to refer to Staver & Barber and not the university administration. Correct?

(01-22-2014 03:59 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  By Liberty's leadership I assume you are continuing to refer to Staver & Barber and not the university administration. Correct?

It would include Staver and Barber, but remember that JFJ is fully aware of both of their activities and has done nothing to remove either of them from leadership roles at the school.

I think the leadership should rewrite the student policies to specifically allow Gay married students to attend and to allow for Gay married employees in non-theological disciplines. Its not going to turn LU into Berkeley.

(01-22-2014 09:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the leadership should rewrite the student policies to specifically allow Gay married students to attend and to allow for Gay married employees in non-theological disciplines. Its not going to turn LU into Berkeley.

Here is the issue with that idea -

1. The Bible teaches Christians that homosexuality is a sin, and also a lifestyle choice.
2. Because of that, I doubt we'll ever see the day that Liberty denounces its current stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general.


As a Libertarian, my two cents -


1. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice (I've never met a gay man who remembers that moment when he decided to become gay)

2. I think eventually science will prove the link between hormonal imbalances at birth and sexual orientation later in life.

3. The evidence is already pretty good - Testosterone seems to be the culprit - too much in a female and their likelihood of being gay increases, too little in men and their likelihood also increases.

4. I think we can see this with the number of gay female athletes at the elite level...these are very high testosterone females with very masculine features (think Brittney Griner), and it makes logical sense as testosterone is more attracted to women. If you look at her, listen to her, and watch her play, well, she looks like a man with extremely high levels of testosterone. I have yet to meet anyone here at Liberty that when presented with the Brittney Griner debate have anything logical or scientific to say in rebuttal.




Now Tom...there are a lot of "states rights" libertarians here that agree with the founding fathers...anything not in the constitution should be left to the states. Sure, you have your red blood Republicans who want a national marriage definition of one man and one woman, but many here are also in the live and let live crowd.

(01-23-2014 11:31 AM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the leadership should rewrite the student policies to specifically allow Gay married students to attend and to allow for Gay married employees in non-theological disciplines. Its not going to turn LU into Berkeley.

Here is the issue with that idea -

1. The Bible teaches Christians that homosexuality is a sin, and also a lifestyle choice.
2. Because of that, I doubt we'll ever see the day that Liberty denounces its current stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general.


As a Libertarian, my two cents -


1. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice (I've never met a gay man who remembers that moment when he decided to become gay)

2. I think eventually science will prove the link between hormonal imbalances at birth and sexual orientation later in life.

3. The evidence is already pretty good - Testosterone seems to be the culprit - too much in a female and their likelihood of being gay increases, too little in men and their likelihood also increases.

4. I think we can see this with the number of gay female athletes at the elite level...these are very high testosterone females with very masculine features (think Brittney Griner), and it makes logical sense as testosterone is more attracted to women. If you look at her, listen to her, and watch her play, well, she looks like a man with extremely high levels of testosterone. I have yet to meet anyone here at Liberty that when presented with the Brittney Griner debate have anything logical or scientific to say in rebuttal.




Now Tom...there are a lot of "states rights" libertarians here that agree with the founding fathers...anything not in the constitution should be left to the states. Sure, you have your red blood Republicans who want a national marriage definition of one man and one woman, but many here are also in the live and let live crowd.

Granted there are innumerable interpretations of the Bible but in the congregations I've attended (and there have been many), "choice" was never about people "choosing" to be gay but rather, they choose to be active. Much like people who have a tendency to be promiscuous that choose to be actively promiscuous but others choose not to succumb to their desires.

I don't know why the notion of choice or genetic is even pertinent to this discussion.

From a personal standpoint, I don't care why an individual is gay. Because it doesn't have an impact on me. I guess in the MOST roundabout way, a gay man benefits me, as then there is one less guy I have to contend with for the favors of a woman. But the root cause of why they are gay? It's immaterial from my perspective.

From a marriage standpoint, it does have some impact on me, as if it is legally recognized, two men (or two women) could then "fake" a marriage to gain tax benefits or insurance benefits. The hole in that theory though is that the same issue is already present (a man and a woman can get married to reap benefits as it stands). So, there's no difference to me there, when you boil it down.

(01-23-2014 11:55 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't know why the notion of choice or genetic is even pertinent to this discussion.

It really is quite important though. The only thing the ultra conservative Christians hang on with regards to homosexuality is that they believe it is a choice, like choosing to take heroin, and that it is a sin, that no one is born gay, that hormones and science has nothing to do with it.

Now if science were to prove that hormonal imbalances in the womb cause differences in sexual orientation...now you're talking about innate differences in which the baby had no control. It would be an "earth is flat" kind of stance to discredit that information and label homosexuals as "sinners" when it could be that homosexuality is a very natural form of simple chemical imbalances at birth.

(01-23-2014 12:29 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  It really is quite important though. The only thing the ultra conservative Christians hang on with regards to homosexuality is that they believe it is a choice, like choosing to take heroin, and that it is a sin, that no one is born gay, that hormones and science has nothing to do with it.

Now if science were to prove that hormonal imbalances in the womb cause differences in sexual orientation...now you're talking about innate differences in which the baby had no control. It would be an "earth is flat" kind of stance to discredit that information and label homosexuals as "sinners" when it could be that homosexuality is a very natural form of simple chemical imbalances at birth.

I appreciate that your views are more progressive than many, but I feel the need to make two notes:

1) Many conservative Christians are willing to acknowledge a biological basis to homosexual tendencies without conceding that it is okay to act on them. The "it's not a choice" argument is not the cure-all it would seem to be. Some folks just aren't going to bend from what they're taught. (Side note - Long ago, I actually did my final psychology paper...at a Christian university, FWIW...on the correlation between beliefs in the choice of homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuals themselves. In short, it didn't have the clear-cut relationship I expected.)

2) It's also important not to label a biological basis for homosexuality as a "chemical imbalance." I doubt it was your intention to make it sound like a disease, but that's the way it comes across. There's no reason to treat it as a dysfunctional trait (or even an evolutionarily maladaptive one, although I doubt most at Liberty are concerned about that argument, hardy-har-har...).

EDIT: My bad, you used "hormonal imbalance," but the same response applies...

The position of most Christians in Liberty circles is that all sin feels natural. Just like some folks have a natural inclination to steal, overindulge in food/alcohol or lie ... some folks have a predisposition to find the opposite sex attractive. There is no sin in finding the opposite sex attractive unless it falls under the specter of lust. The same goes for heterosexual attraction. Keep in mind that Romans 3:23 is that the foundation of any such discussion.

You can call it old fashioned and impractical if you like, but those of us that take the Bible as our personal guide tend to hold to this position. Celibacy seems archaic and nearly impossible to most. But it is what God clearly demands outside of marriage based on Scripture.

(01-24-2014 06:10 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:29 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  It really is quite important though. The only thing the ultra conservative Christians hang on with regards to homosexuality is that they believe it is a choice, like choosing to take heroin, and that it is a sin, that no one is born gay, that hormones and science has nothing to do with it.

Now if science were to prove that hormonal imbalances in the womb cause differences in sexual orientation...now you're talking about innate differences in which the baby had no control. It would be an "earth is flat" kind of stance to discredit that information and label homosexuals as "sinners" when it could be that homosexuality is a very natural form of simple chemical imbalances at birth.

I appreciate that your views are more progressive than many, but I feel the need to make two notes:

1) Many conservative Christians are willing to acknowledge a biological basis to homosexual tendencies without conceding that it is okay to act on them. The "it's not a choice" argument is not the cure-all it would seem to be. Some folks just aren't going to bend from what they're taught. (Side note - Long ago, I actually did my final psychology paper...at a Christian university, FWIW...on the correlation between beliefs in the choice of homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuals themselves. In short, it didn't have the clear-cut relationship I expected.)

2) It's also important not to label a biological basis for homosexuality as a "chemical imbalance." I doubt it was your intention to make it sound like a disease, but that's the way it comes across. There's no reason to treat it as a dysfunctional trait (or even an evolutionarily maladaptive one, although I doubt most at Liberty are concerned about that argument, hardy-har-har...).

EDIT: My bad, you used "hormonal imbalance," but the same response applies...

There is no proper way to word it that doesn't make it sound like a rehabilitating birth defect, and of course that isn't what I meant. I suppose you could compare it the six fingered man - It isn't bad, it isn't good, just different. Most people are born with 5 fingers and he was born with 6.

Sly and I will disagree on this one - I do think there is a scientific basis for homosexuality that is set at birth, in which case I don't know that we can call homosexuals sinners anymore than we can say people born with any other type of imbalance or difference are sinners.

I find this to be a "world is flat" type of argument - give it time and the church will come around. The earth is certainly round and there is plenty of evidence for hormones affecting sexual orientation. High estrogen men are more likely to be gay, and high testosterone women are more likely to be gay. Seems rather logical to me.

I believe you are misinterpreting the position I stated above. I acknowledged that some folks are born with a tendency toward specific behavior. There is no sin in those tendencies just as having an unhealthy attraction to food. But like gluttony, pursuing and acting upon temptation is sin whether it has to do with gluttony or extramarital sex. I have an unhealthy taste for cheesecake. That is not sinful. Eating an entire cheesecake is sinful. Do you see the distinction?