[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Well of course, no one lives according to something they think is wrong. However there's a difference between "I'm living the way I think is best" and "You should live the way I think is best".

How about one saying "We all should live the way God thinks best" as opposed to "We should all live absent of any acknowledgement of God according to the cultural moral standards of the day". Atheist are just as guilty as Christians of trying to influence the course of our society.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if I'd call it a rapid rate, but there is pressure and movement that way I'd agree... but there's always people who want to control what other people can do, and those people will use whatever tool they can, be it religion or government or whatever.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by photon

There's a difference between promoting and imposing. It's ok for a group to say "we don't do this, and you shouldn't", though it's probably a bit hypocritical when they in fact do it. Better would be "we try not to do this, and you should try not to too". But once they say "we aren't allowed to do this and neither are you" it crosses a line.

Agreed. Remember I do believe it was wrong to outlaw homosexuality. Where we differ is on marriage. I don't see it as a human right. Moreover, the only justifiable reason for the government to be involved is because of the traditional role that institution provides in the producing of our next generation and transmitting our culture to it.

Originally Posted by photon

It's not necessarily hypocritical. If someone professes sola scriptura then yes it would likely be hypocritical, but not everyone believes that. Some see the Bible a bit differently and the improving social mores are reflected and documented historically in scripture rather than originating them.

Yes within Christianity there is many different camps. Some hold traditions or church authority above scriptural authority.

Originally Posted by photon

You also don't see people who get divorces rights limited, be social outcasts, etc. It seems appropriate for a group fighting for equality to do things to try and get that equality.

Marriage isn't a right. It is a privilege afforded to a distinct group who are best equipped to provide a unique contribution to society.

Originally Posted by photon

As has been pointed out people got married long before there was a Christianity.

Sure but, at the founding of our nations Marriage was a Christian religious institution. The laws were created understanding this or else Pastors and Priests wouldn't be issued licences to preform marriages. The lawmakers obviously saw a need to protect and edify this particular institution.

Originally Posted by photon

If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, they aren't forced. Some churches do want to perform them. Churches have been performing same sex marriages for a long long time:

Sure and I don't believe the government should have the authority to tell a church what they can and can't do. That is why there is separation of church and State.

Originally Posted by photon

And divorce isn't promoted as a positive, but neither is it advocated that laws should be changed so that people cannot get divorced if infidelity is not a factor.

True because that is a church discipline matter for those within the church and a private choice outside of the church. Divorce like marriage is an area where the government saw a need to write laws to protect those involved.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know many Christians that would say that someone should not get a divorce if their partner was abusive to them or the kids (physically, emotionally, sexually). If some one's wife/husband was physically their children, isn't divorcing them the right thing to do?

Immediate separation is the right thing to do. You wait and pray for them to take the steps necessary to gain self control. You don't receive them back until you are confident that there has been true repentance and they have control of themselves.

Originally Posted by photon

Could he be a deacon? Be in ministry? Sing in the worship team? Teach night classes? Help collect the offerings? Be an usher? Be a greeter? Attend services?

Both Pastors and Deacons are held to a higher standard then other members of the church. Part of their qualifications is that they must be blameless. Even a man who divorced on the grounds of fornication wouldn't be considered blameless. How would they council married couples? A Pastor or a Deacon can lose their office for even having a rebellious child. As far as the rest of your list goes they would be qualified if they are in a right relationship with God.

Originally Posted by photon

Now ask those same questions of a homosexual couple in the church. The answers should be exactly the same for the divorced man and the homosexual persons right?

A practicing homosexual wouldn't be allowed membership within the church I attend. That alone would exclude them from any office. They could attend services if they chose. Anyone who divorces their spouse for a reason other than adultery(fornication) would expect to be cast out of the church. This usually happens before the divorce when one of the partners refuses to work towards eventual reconciliation.