Christians and "civil unions"

[razeontherock]

"Civil unions" as defined in this day and age is two people of the same gender or differnt genders (i.e.; shacking up for a man and women) living together as though they were married.

When the world says it is "OK" and we as Christians turn a blind eye, or a deaf ear to this, we are doing exactly the opposite of what Paul said here:

"And be not conformed to this world:" -Rom. 12:2 (KJV)

Just because certain states, or laws are passed saying this is acceptable does not mean I have to accept it.

My viewpoint may not be the "politically correct" one, and it may not be the accepted one, but it is the scriptural one, and to me, that is what counts.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[razeontherock]

How we behave as Christians is one thing. How we legislate that others behave, who are not necessarily Christians, is another. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional fundamental for Americans, and it applies to all, regardless of their religion or sexuality. I don't think that requires that we redefine marriage, but it does require at the very least that we allow people visitation rights in hospitals for their sick or dying loved ones, whether married or not.

Agreed. Give in on all issues that are actually rights, including economic benefits. If the GLBT were content with that this whole thing would become a non-issue almost immediately; and nobody's kids would grow up thinking it's normal to experiment w/ homosexuality.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Matthew, you wanted me to answer a yes or no question of yours. I have a couple of mine I would like you to address.

A Christian man and a Christian woman ask their Christian pastor to marry them in a Christian ceremony. But they don't get a license from the state, are they married or not?
A two avowed atheist, one a man and one a woman get a marriage licesne and have a ceremony officiated by an unbelieving judge. Are they married or not?


In other words, what is it that makes two people married? Is it the authority of the state or of God that you recognize?

 

[Big Drew]

Matthew, you wanted me to answer a yes or no question of yours. I have a couple of mine I would like you to address.

A Christian man and a Christian woman ask their Christian pastor to marry them in a Christian ceremony. But they don't get a license from the state, are they married or not?
A two avowed atheist, one a man and one a woman get a marriage licesne and have a ceremony officiated by an unbelieving judge. Are they married or not?


In other words, what is it that makes two people married? Is it the authority of the state or of God that you recognize?

Excellent questions...I was thinking of something similar, earlier.

 

[nChrist]

Am I really in the Fundamentalist forum? Doesn't seem like it when it seems like the majority are OK with homosexual unions which is essentially no different than gay marriage. I guess being labeled a Fundamentlaist on this web site doesn't mean much. I guess you can beleive it is OK to have a man marry or "union" 10 women and 5 men and live together. This opinion is not an option with what I would call a true fundamentalist.

There are some fundamentalists here, and I'm one of them. For the record, I'm totally against ANY recognition of any kind for homosexuals living in SIN. Further, I think that the felony crimes regarding homosexual acts should be put back in force. I'm not aware of any real fundamentalist who would advocate or promote the gay lifestyle in ANY manner. IMHO, this would be like asking me if I want to live in Sodom and Gomorrah. NO!

 

[desmalia]

Am I really in the Fundamentalist forum? Doesn't seem like it when it seems like the majority are OK with homosexual unions which is essentially no different than gay marriage. I guess being labeled a Fundamentlaist on this web site doesn't mean much. I guess you can beleive it is OK to have a man marry or "union" 10 women and 5 men and live together. This opinion is not an option with what I would call a true fundamentalist.

Agreed. And I share your frustration. It sure ain't what it used to be around here.

 

[Big Drew]

So you all think we should be calling for some kind of revolution?

 

[jlujan69]

I know some may think it's our responsibility as Christians to oppose such thing, vocally...but we don't live in a theocracy.

I'd hope, though, that as believers, we'd let the gov't and society in general know our position on this and at least warn them of the consequences. If we can affect gov't policy, and to a limited extent, we can, then expressing our convictions through the ballot box would be acceptable as well. A common misconception amongst the pro-gay crowd is that only secular-based laws are objective and fair--as if they sprang from morally-neutral minds. However, as moral creatures, our decisions reflect our personal convictions, so the pro-gay lobby essentially wants to do the same thing they accuse us of: impose their religion on everybody. Ultimately, all human laws go back to somebody's notions of right and wrong and what's best for society.

 

[GraceSeeker]

There are some fundamentalists here, and I'm one of them. For the record, I'm totally against ANY recognition of any kind for homosexuals living in SIN. Further, I think that the felony crimes regarding homosexual acts should be put back in force. I'm not aware of any real fundamentalist who would advocate or promote the gay lifestyle in ANY manner. IMHO, this would be like asking me if I want to live in Sodom and Gomorrah. NO!

And I'm against any kind of recognition of not just homosexuals, but anyone living in sin. That's one reason why I don't want the government recognizing marriage at all, including between Christians. Government recognition is NOT what makes the union between a man and a woman not sin. It's the covenant they make between each other and God that does.

Now, when we speak of felony crimes, do you also think that we should go back to some of the other felony crimes that used to be on the books: all types of fornication and sodomy between a husband and wife?

And then, as long as we are codifying the moral teachings of scripture, shouldn't we also make adultery a capital offense? And, just to be consistent with the Biblical teaching on the subject, dishonoring one's parents, and speaking against God should be as well. Perhaps you don't want to go back to Old Testament law, let us just codify the New Testament's moral teachings: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Romans 13:13-14), and also "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9b-10). There is a lot more to be concerned with than homosexuality. And if we are going to regulate one, let us regulate them all, for fornication and these other moral issues appear on a much more frequent basis in scripture than homosexuality, it these other immoralities appear much more frequently in the world as well.

"Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." I'm afraid that hits us all, anyone who has ever coveted after a bigger house a nicer car a larger income, or a better reputation at school or work. We celebrated Homecoming at my high school this weekend. Do you suppose that all those who ran for Homecoming king and queen should be charged with a felony? For running for that recognition would seem to me to qualify as lusting after the things of the flesh.

No. One of the problems we have in the church is that we like to pick and choose those sins which we are against. We find that which we are not ourselves guilty of and lift it up as horrible, while excusing that which we really need to focus on because it is a part of our lives. That is not fundamentalist Christianity. That is pure hedonism masquerading as part of the faith. When we take out the log that is in our own eye, then we can begin to work on these specs in other's eyes.

Again, I'm no saying that there is anything right with homosexuality at all. But we've got bigger concerns than that in the church, and in the government as well. My original post was simply about getting the government out of the church's business, but since you seem to insist that the church should be telling the government what laws ought to be on the books, but sure to include all that scripture teaches, not just those things that are your pet peeves.

 

[Faith.Man]

"Civil unions" as defined in this day and age is two people of the same gender or differnt genders (i.e.; shacking up for a man and women) living together as though they were married.

When the world says it is "OK" and we as Christians turn a blind eye, or a deaf ear to this, we are doing exactly the opposite of what Paul said here:

"And be not conformed to this world:" -Rom. 12:2 (KJV)

Just because certain states, or laws are passed saying this is acceptable does not mean I have to accept it.

My viewpoint may not be the "politically correct" one, and it may not be the accepted one, but it is the scriptural one, and to me, that is what counts.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Romans 12:2 really says it all. As Fundamentalists in life and on this forum, we need to stop compromising the word of God to win acceptance in this world, being a man-pleaser instead of a God-pleaser. Thank you DD for boiling this argument down to it's most basic premise. All of us need to decide who we want to please.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Homosexual sex is dangerous to those engaged in it. No doubt. Is THAT your rationale for saying that Civil Unions are immoral?

Homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural, disordered, against the traditional family structure, and has deadly physical consequences (AIDS) on top of all that. But the extremely high rate of AIDS among "gay" men alone should give even an atheist enough reason to be against anything that encourages the behavior.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural, disordered, against the traditional family structure, and has deadly physical consequences (AIDS) on top of all that. But the extremely high rate of AIDS among "gay" men alone should give even an atheist enough reason to be against anything that encourages the behavior.

It seems then that your answer to the question is YES. Because it is dangerous to those who engage in it, it needs to be regulated by the government. I'm not for giving the government that type of authority over our lives to regulate everything. I'm for the church taking a stand to say that it is wrong. But that doesn't mean we have to invite the government in to enforce for us everything that we do need to tell the world is wrong.

 

[nChrist]

It seems then that your answer to the question is YES. Because it is dangerous to those who engage in it, it needs to be regulated by the government. I'm not for giving the government that type of authority over our lives to regulate everything. I'm for the church taking a stand to say that it is wrong. But that doesn't mean we have to invite the government in to enforce for us everything that we do need to tell the world is wrong.

Sounds like a good argument for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Thankfully, we can vote and do other things that are more than just saying something is wrong.

Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4​

 

[Tishri1]

mod hat on: closing this thread based on the new announcement here

please come to the MSC here with any questions or concerns