Christian Position on Opposing the Legality of Same Sex Marriage of Non-Christians

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I'm not asking if same sex relationships are compatible with Scripture. I know they're not, and I'm not having a crisis over it or anything like that. What I'm wondering about is to what degree should we oppose it on a legal level. I started thinking about it when reading Mere Christianity again. As C.S. Lewis says:

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is quite the different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

What do you guys think? I realize Lewis isn't scripture, and would never treat it as such. However, Christ makes it clear that His kingdom isn't of this world, and the apostles always wrote to be loyal, even during persecution.

Should we just make a distinction between Godly and worldly marriages?
 

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Should we just make a distinction between Godly and worldly marriages?
It surprises me greatly (and I have discussed this with a couple of Church leaders) that the Church has not taken this step a long time ago. To my mind the legislative world (in NZ) stepped away from the Biblical model of marriage well before same sex marriage reared its head, and for Christian leaders to have maintained a following of the legislation is more about loyalty to the law than it is about adhering to the intentions of the Creator on marriage.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Lewis' stated position mirrors my own and I would further the notion to same sex unions.

IMHO, the church/clergy should no longer be agents of the state in the contractual, civil union, of the state. The church/clergy should only act in behalf of the church.
In the eyes of the state(s), only state initiated civil unions should be recognized.

Just my opinion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,011
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟38,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I favor two levels of marriage.

One 'legal', observed by the state to determine conjugal rights, inheritance, hospital visitation and 'end of life' rights, and child support and such. Essentially a 'record' of lawful intents of the participants.

The second 'religious', observed by the religious colleagues of the participants as a formal dedication of the participants to live within the bounds of that group's limits and expectations.

Further, no 'religious' group could be mandated to perform, or observe (watch) a 'marriage' not conforming to the groups sensibilities, but all would have to 'accept' all marriages in the 'legal' sense.

I don't think Muslims should be able to dictate marriage requirements to Christians, nor Buddhists to Hindus, nor 'straights' to 'gays' or vice versa. Nor do I think Muslims should be able to legally coerce Buddhists to marry Muslims, nor ... you get the idea.

Nor do I think a Muslim bakery should be legally forced to make a cake for a wedding (or birthday party, for that matter) with an inscription offensive to Muslims. The same applies to everyone else as well.

At the same time, there are laws in the United States - and most other countries - which mandate certain conduct or prohibit certain conduct. By the nature of our government foundation - and presumably other countries similarly - those laws must apply to everyone.

Laws such as schooling, operating a motor vehicle, murder, theft, slander, perjury and so on.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
How would this be done. By branding or a tatoo in a visible location?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sheep4Christ
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There are now quite varying Christian views on marriage, so it seems it would make sense to have state marriages and then marriages performed / blessed / whatever by a representative of your church.

I've heard this sort of thing before, and I don't see a problem with it. Get married in the eyes of whichever institution is important. Or both, if that's the case.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In the eyes of the state(s), only state initiated civil unions should be recognized.
That would be saying that Christians unions can only be considered marriages and that would never be accurate or accepted.

However, churches should not be entering into legal contracts with the state. Which most pastors do if they perform marriages. They have to because of the laws of their state, which ironically it was the church that wanted the state to have that authority. Now they are finding that they made a big mistake in trying to control other peoples lives through government law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dayhiker
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I favor two levels of marriage.

One 'legal', observed by the state to determine conjugal rights, inheritance, hospital visitation and 'end of life' rights, and child support and such. Essentially a 'record' of lawful intents of the participants.

The second 'religious', observed by the religious colleagues of the participants as a formal dedication of the participants to live within the bounds of that group's limits and expectations.

Further, no 'religious' group could be mandated to perform, or observe (watch) a 'marriage' not conforming to the groups sensibilities, but all would have to 'accept' all marriages in the 'legal' sense.

I don't think Muslims should be able to dictate marriage requirements to Christians, nor Buddhists to Hindus, nor 'straights' to 'gays' or vice versa. Nor do I think Muslims should be able to legally coerce Buddhists to marry Muslims, nor ... you get the idea.

Nor do I think a Muslim bakery should be legally forced to make a cake for a wedding (or birthday party, for that matter) with an inscription offensive to Muslims. The same applies to everyone else as well.

At the same time, there are laws in the United States - and most other countries - which mandate certain conduct or prohibit certain conduct. By the nature of our government foundation - and presumably other countries similarly - those laws must apply to everyone.

Laws such as schooling, operating a motor vehicle, murder, theft, slander, perjury and so on.
Colorado is a legal common law state, shacking up is not considered marriage there has to be a public declaration of an actual marriage that can only be dissolved by a legal divorce. But no pastor in that state has to contract with the state in order for a couple to meet both the requirements of the state and the requirements of the church. I think that it is a perfect solution. Colorado used to be a very conservative libertarian state and so common law marriage has prevailed.
Other states have forms of common law marriage but Colorado's is the only one that works out for Christians who do not want to break any of God's commandments even for a few days.
 
Upvote 0

ken777

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Aug 6, 2007
2,245
661
Australia
✟48,308.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not asking if same sex relationships are compatible with Scripture. I know they're not, and I'm not having a crisis over it or anything like that. What I'm wondering about is to what degree should we oppose it on a legal level.

Seems there is a movement, even among some Christian groups, to silence the voice of the Church in society. The overt Christian character of the presidential inauguration ceremony indicates that laws reflecting Christian morals should govern the nation, or at least the Church has a right - and responsibility - to support such laws.

Because marriage is both a social and a religious institution, recognizing ssm brings a variety of legal consequences affecting society, business, education & churches. It is disingenuous to argue that ssm affects only the couple being married.

Marriage for millenia has been the natural, historical & universal means for providing the optimal environment for raising children. A stable heterosexual marriage allows children to experience the important contribution of both a mother and a father. The fact that some marriages fail, and that some couples do not reproduce, does not alter the fact that a society benefits from promoting & supporting & legally protecting heterosexual marriage as the best means of producing the next generation.

Society has never granted people the legal right to marry anyone they choose. Restrictions, such as age, kinship, single status, mental competence & gender, have been applied to limit who one can marry. Each of these restrictions is based on the protection of those marrying, or children, or society. The individual rights of children, and the overall benefits to society, are best served by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WolfGate

Senior Member
Supporter
Jun 14, 2004
4,168
2,089
South Carolina
✟448,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with Lewis. Our church briefly discussed going to a model where we stopped performing the civil part of the marriage contract and only performed a church wedding. That would require people who married in our church to do two ceremonies, one at the courthouse and the other in our church. May end up doing that eventually, but one of the challenges is that there isn't that sharp, clear divide societally.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Seems there is a movement, even among some Christian groups, to silence the voice of the Church in society. The overt Christian character of the presidential inauguration ceremony indicates that laws reflecting Christian morals should govern the nation, or at least the Church has a right - and responsibility - to support such laws.

Because marriage is both a social and a religious institution, recognizing ssm brings a variety of legal consequences affecting society, business, education & churches. It is disingenuous to argue that ssm affects only the couple being married.
Can you provide us with some concrete real world examples of just how you are personally affected the legal recognition of same sex marriage?

Marriage for millenia has been the natural, historical & universal means for providing the optimal environment for raising children. A stable heterosexual marriage allows children to experience the important contribution of both a mother and a father. The fact that some marriages fail, and that some couples do not reproduce, does not alter the fact that a society benefits from promoting & supporting & legally protecting heterosexual marriage as the best means of producing the next generation.
"best" is an opinion.
There are many who would say that the best means of producing the next generation woudl be to have children raised by parents of the same skin color or ethnic background. Or raised by parents that have a minimum annual income. Or who aren't in the military. Or parents who never consume alcohol.
You will never get a consensus on "best" here. What matters is the result and how the kids turn out.

Society has never granted people the legal right to marry anyone they choose. Restrictions, such as age, kinship, single status, mental competence & gender, have been applied to limit who one can marry. Each of these restrictions is based on the protection of those marrying, or children, or society. The individual rights of children, and the overall benefits to society, are best served by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
and there still are restrictions on marriage eligibility and legal recognition of same sex marriage didn't change that any more than legal recognition of interracial marriage did a generation ago.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you provide us with some concrete real world examples of just how you are personally affected the legal recognition of same sex marriage?

"best" is an opinion.
There are many who would say that the best means of producing the next generation woudl be to have children raised by parents of the same skin color or ethnic background. Or raised by parents that have a minimum annual income. Or who aren't in the military. Or parents who never consume alcohol.
You will never get a consensus on "best" here. What matters is the result and how the kids turn out.

and there still are restrictions on marriage eligibility and legal recognition of same sex marriage didn't change that any more than legal recognition of interracial marriage did a generation ago.
The question the OP raised was not an invitation for espousing your support of SS marriage or homosexuality. It was asking if we as Christians should be forced to make a distinction between "Godly" and "worldly" marriages. The morality of homosexual acts is not freely open to debate in CF and the OP conceded the immorality of (not legality of marriage) such acts.

As the law effects society and can influence our behavior as a whole the answer from everyone should be that we aught to be concerned and want legislative influence on society to be positive as a whole. That the union between a man and woman has been central to and done for the promotion of human society from the beginning cannot be questioned. As such it is not possible say we may expand the definition without acknowledging we cannot still be talking about the same thing. That we call such unions a marriage is our reality, has been from the beginning and still is today.

That the law has departed from our reality to expand the legal definition to allow calling some SS couples living together a "marriage" is also a fact. Unclear how having a law that departs from human reality can be positive for a society. But a legal definition is just that, and being humans there is nothing special about legislating that makes that process free from error.

To have a law reflect something different from reality is wrong on several levels and for that reason alone it merits our attention as both citizens and Christians. In the past such laws are eventually corrected if the society last long enough to make the correction. We have overcome such legislative error in the past and if this country last long enough we will do so in this matter. I don't expect it will occur in my lifetime or many of those posting here - but I think as Christians we should stand against any law that does not properly reflect our human reality.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
The question the OP raised was not an invitation for espousing your support of SS marriage or homosexuality. It was asking if we as Christians should be forced to make a distinction between "Godly" and "worldly" marriages. The morality of homosexual acts is not freely open to debate in CF and the OP conceded the immorality of (not legality of marriage) such acts.
I wasn't responding to the OP post I was responding to statements made by Ken777. I'm sorry you missed that. In the future do try to notice such things.

As the law effects society and can influence our behavior as a whole the answer from everyone should be that we aught to be concerned and want legislative influence on society to be positive as a whole. That the union between a man and woman has been central to and done for the promotion of human society from the beginning cannot be questioned. As such it is not possible say we may expand the definition without acknowledging we cannot still be talking about the same thing. That we call such unions a marriage is our reality, has been from the beginning and still is today.

That the law has departed from our reality to expand the legal definition to allow calling some SS couples living together a "marriage" is also a fact. Unclear how having a law that departs from human reality can be positive for a society. But a legal definition is just that, and being humans there is nothing special about legislating that makes that process free from error.

To have a law reflect something different from reality is wrong on several levels and for that reason alone it merits our attention as both citizens and Christians. In the past such laws are eventually corrected if the society last long enough to make the correction. We have overcome such legislative error in the past and if this country last long enough we will do so in this matter. I don't expect it will occur in my lifetime or many of those posting here - but I think as Christians we should stand against any law that does not properly reflect our human reality.
Something else you apparently missed: I asked - "Can you provide us with some concrete real world examples of just how you are personally affected the legal recognition of same sex marriage?" Ken777 may be able to answer my question but you didn't. Your response is a clear indication that you cannot site any concrete real world example.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I wasn't responding to the OP post I was responding to statements made by Ken777. I'm sorry you missed that. In the future do try to notice such things.

Something else you apparently missed: I asked - "Can you provide us with some concrete real world examples of just how you are personally affected the legal recognition of same sex marriage?" Ken777 may be able to answer my question but you didn't. Your response is a clear indication that you cannot site any concrete real world example.
LOL, my post was attempt to redirect the thread back to the OP rather than provide people like you a platform for promoting homosexuality.
I did give reason how everyone in a society is negatively affected by the law, specifically that it opposes reality. I think you meant to say that is a reality you choose to ignore.
On that reason alone, that it opposes reality, it should be opposed by every citizen, Christian or otherwise. How more concrete and real can we get than telling our children that it is wrong to have laws that are not based on reality?

As an aside I have to say someone wanting to promote opposition to reality asking for "concrete real world" examples is funny.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
LOL, my post was attempt to redirect the thread back to the OP rather than provide people like you a platform for promoting homosexuality.
I am doing no such thing. I am however prompting blue eyes. I have actual pamphlets printed up detailing all the joys and benefits of changing your eye color to blue


I did give reason how everyone in a society is negatively affected by the law, specifically that it opposes reality. I think you meant to say that is a reality you choose to ignore.
and what is the real world effect of this? Do you have any anything other than hot air?

On that reason alone, that it opposes reality, it should be opposed by every citizen, Christian or otherwise. How more concrete and real can we get than telling our children that it is wrong to have laws that are not based on reality?

As an aside I have to say someone wanting to promote opposition to reality asking for "concrete real world" examples is funny.
hot air and a lot of it.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am doing no such thing. I am however prompting blue eyes. I have actual pamphlets printed up detailing all the joys and benefits of changing your eye color to blue


and what is the real world effect of this? Do you have any anything other than hot air?

hot air and a lot of it.
Actually it really is funny that someone promoting a fiction demands concrete real world examples against a fiction. It is like a slavery proponent asking for concrete real world examples showing why men are not created equally.
Same sex marriage is an impossibility in the real world. Expanding the legal definition to force a society to pretend the make believe is real cannot be a positive thing for that society.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ken777
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Actually it really is funny that someone promoting a fiction demands concrete real world examples against a fiction. It is like a slavery proponent asking for concrete real world examples showing why men are not created equally.
Same sex marriage is an impossibility in the real world. Expanding the legal definition to force a society to pretend the make believe is real cannot be a positive thing for that society.
You keep pumping out the hot air but we still have not a single concrete example of actual harm.

I'd say your lack of ability to respond and the lengths you are going to to direct attention away from that was funny. Bit. it's not funny, just a little bit sad
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not asking if same sex relationships are compatible with Scripture. I know they're not, and I'm not having a crisis over it or anything like that. What I'm wondering about is to what degree should we oppose it on a legal level. I started thinking about it when reading Mere Christianity again. As C.S. Lewis says:

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is quite the different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

What do you guys think? I realize Lewis isn't scripture, and would never treat it as such. However, Christ makes it clear that His kingdom isn't of this world, and the apostles always wrote to be loyal, even during persecution.

Should we just make a distinction between Godly and worldly marriages?
That's always been my basis for legalising homosexual marriage.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums