1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NC Marriage Amendment and President Obama

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Slaol121, May 15, 2012.

  1. Slaol121

    Slaol121 Newbie

    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]


    ...(If you live under a rock, NC passed Amendment One, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and President Obama announced today that he is in favor of legally acknowledging same-sex marriages.)

    I’m both troubled and provoked to thoughtfulness because of a number of things concerning both Christian and non-Christian responses in the last 24 hours.

    First, I am struck by the lack of biblical literacy from virtually every voice in this discussion. Let me start with Christians. It seems that we have little sense about what politics does and does not achieve. My brothers and sisters, “we won” is not an appropriate response. Patting ourselves on the back is silly. Moving forward with anything less than continual proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ with the somber realization of the lostness we face is simply missing the point. Politics does not bring victory over sin, death, hell, and the grave – Jesus does. Laws do not change people’s hearts – the Spirit of Christ does. Elections will not bring this country to be a picture of God’s Kingdom – God the Father and his electing purposes will do so when he sends his Son to restore all things at the end of the age. Don’t get me wrong, we ought to vote in a way that reflects God’s Kingdom, and in doing so perhaps some will be confronted with the reality of God and his created order. But please don’t act like temporal laws in a temporal government will ever bring about the true spiritual change that’s needed to redeem hearts, minds, souls, and bodies for Christ.

    <snip>

    NC Amendment One and President Obama | Secundum Scripturas
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2012
  2. sorednax

    sorednax Champion of the 80's

    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Personally, I don't care what homosexuals do with each other, but if the political climate is going to make me choose sides, than I say no, gays should not be allowed to marry.

    Redefining marriage to include who or whatever is what 's wrong. Accept the term "civil union" and enjoy the same benefits or don't take anything. The traditional role and description of Marriage, both religious and non-religious is still defined as a man and woman and it shouldn't even be debated.

    It's funny how they demand respect shown to them, but they seem to lack respect when it comes to the majorities views and beliefs regarding what defines a "marriage."

    Shoot, I've heard gay people liken their "struggle" with that of blacks and the civil rights era. Cause gays rode the back of the bus, couldn't drink from hetero-only water fountains, or enroll in college. right:doh:
     
  3. dayhiker

    dayhiker Mature veteran

    Messages:
    11,359
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Good post Shlaol,
    The people with an agenda seem to have a hard time keeping their attitude right. The agenda seems to be more important for those people as best I can tell. Tho I'm terrible at figuring out why people do what they do.
     
  4. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    91
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    An excellent post, but I think you ignore the fact that many who support homosexual marriage, myself included, only do so in terms of Civil homosexual marriage. Right now homosexuals in states that do not allow or recognize homosexual marriage are denied numerous rights and benefits that come with marriage. We are not saying that the Bible supports homosexual marriage, nor are we denyimng what scripture says because we are speaking only in term of a Civil marriage.

    I, and I think I speak for many Christians who favor Civil homosexual marriage, would strongly oppose any effort to force any church or other religious organization--Christian or otherwise--to perform a homosexual marriage in violation of the beliefs of that church or religious organization.
     
  5. Audacious

    Audacious Flaming Jesus Freak And Science Advocate

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Protestant
    My problem with gay marriage being illegal is twofold:

    First of all, US law does not operate with an agenda of keeping its citizens morally pure - it operates with an agenda of giving people as many rights as possible without infringing on the rights of others. So saying that it should be illegal for religious reasons doesn't work if only because it is a secular nation, and thus the Bible does not and should not be applicable in law.

    Secondly, we're not talking about biblical marriage; we're talking about marriage licenses. Could gay people get married in churches? Sure, but they'd have to find a pastor willing to do it first (and they can do that now without the marriage license anyway.). Why not just give gay people legal marriage? It doesn't have to be ordained by God to be ordained by law, and much of the argument against it is just semantics; "Well, it shouldn't be called marriage because..."

    And if the name is such a problem, okay, fine. Change marriage licenses to civil union licenses. Problem solved - we have equal monickers and rights for both parties in monogamous and legal relationships, and outside of law it can be called whatever it wants.

    Since the name isn't really a problem though, why not just call it marriage? It makes a lot more sense to put something which has the exact same legal implications under an existing monicker (marriage) than to change it and then give it the exact same legalities (as far as taxing, how finances and civil rights work, etc).

    Since the United States is a secular society, we should be trying to make the best law we can. Yes, the Bible can be an inspiration, but it can't be the basis of our law (nor is it) - there are people of many beliefs in the US and it should not change, nor should our law be biased towards a particular religion ("The Bible says this, therefore it's in law! We don't care about what that silly Buddhism says.").

    Ultimately, theocracies become oppressive regimes (even if the majority agrees with the oppression, it's still oppression - try being a Christian in Iran) or at the least, prejudiced towards people who don't agree with the government's religious agenda (see how Israeli courts treat non-Jews. It's not nice.) and don't profit anyone.

    Is God the ultimate authority, perfect, etc? Of course; but many people don't believe this, nor should they be forced to (there is a possibility that we're wrong, regardless of how much conviction we have over the existence of the Christ), and God's law does not have to be our nation's law.

    Yes, I try to follow the Bible and live by Christianity, but people should have a choice in that and just because I believe it doesn't mean other people should have to.

    James
     
  6. jsimms615

    jsimms615 Child of God Staff Member Moderator Trainee Supporter Angels Team CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    8,785
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I live in North Carolina, and while I know that making a law reflecting a biblical view of marriage won't lead anyone to Christ, I believe if I am given the opportunity to vote as a christian in a way that reflects what I believe in the Bible then I should do so. This is an opporunity that many don't have throughout the world either because they live in a regime that is harsh and oppressive or they don't get to vote at all.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2012
  7. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    Messages:
    13,945
    Likes Received:
    29
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How many threads about homosexuality have to be closed before y'all realize you can't post about it here??
     
  8. Cuddles222

    Cuddles222 Newbie

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    It is strange how it took the word homosexuality to make us look more into the subject of 'marriage'. Before the 1970s, it was noticed that people outside of Christ were divorcing for many reasons....and then remarrying another. There were church debates that took place arguing that people in the secular world didn't have to do the things that the New Testament said Christians were to do according to divorce and remarriage. I don't think the news media picked up on this (or maybe they did), anyway, it must not have been really important to the rest of the world.

    If we looked closer into Biblical marriage, we would find that the Genesis account does only mention a man & woman. It says nothing of divorce and remarriage. That would come later...and only to the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt (Deut. 24:1-4). This would have been about 1500 B.C. This means that every couple that divorced, not only divorced and remarried, sinned in so doing. That God will only have seen them as adulterers unless they returned to their original spouse.

    So only the Israelites had any commands from God concerning this. The Gentiles (non-Jews) had to take the moral/spiritual 'high ground' by not ever divorcing. Likewise, the non-Christians since 33 A.D. have had to take the moral/spiritual 'high ground' by not ever divorcing, since they have no commands from God concerning this subject like the Christians. (Mt.19:9) (1Cor.7:15)
     
  9. Trogool

    Trogool New Member

    Messages:
    2,838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Why?

    Why? That sort of dogmatism seems silly.

    I haven't noticed any homosexuals mocking marriage or any heterosexual relationships.


    Yes? It seems a valid comparison.
     
  10. Trogool

    Trogool New Member

    Messages:
    2,838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    *stares in confusion*

    How does the Bible call on you to discriminate against others and deny them equal civil rights under the law?
     
  11. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis De profundis clamavi et exaudisti me.

    Messages:
    12,327
    Likes Received:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    Another victory for small government? He asks quizzically whilst tilting his head.

    -CryptoLUtheran
     
  12. sorednax

    sorednax Champion of the 80's

    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Why?

    Because there is no reason to re-define something that doesn't need to be re-defined.

    Why? That sort of dogmatism seems silly.

    Don't confuse the word "dogmatism" with "traditional". The definition of dogmatism is to arrogantly assume an opinion as truth. Marriage has "traditionally" been defined as between a man and woman.


    I haven't noticed any homosexuals mocking marriage or any heterosexual relationships.

    Lesbians tend to refer to hetero-women as "breeders." Look at the amount of pro-gay marriage cartoons on the internet justifying homosexual marriage by tearing down heterosexual marriage. Or better yet, if you oppose gay marriage, your deemed a right-wing neo-nazi, conservative, white supremist or something.


    Yes? It seems a valid comparison.

    Really? That's like saying poking fun at Gingers equates to the discrimination of Jewish people during the holocaust.
     
  13. sniperelite7

    sniperelite7 Junior Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Christian
    Because each generation of Christianity has different social issues that they must face, and fail miserably at, all the while justifying it with the Bible. About 50 years from now, no one is going to care about gay marriage. Instead we'll be arguing that humans grown in tanks, or that cybernetics; are abominable and people coming from such shouldn't have rights because Jesus didn't make em in a uterus...or something derpy like that.
     
  14. dlamberth

    dlamberth Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    14,655
    Likes Received:
    244
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    It's also been noticed that the divorce rate among Christians comes pretty close to mirroring that of non-Christians.


    .
     
  15. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We don't live in a theocracy where different religious morals decide law, laws are based on constitutional equal rights. However, after the constitution was written it took many years before blacks and women were given equal rights, the fight today is now homosexuals.

    I have no doubt gay people are born that way, today new MRI imaging shows that the attraction node parts of the brain are different, take a gay man, MRI's show many parts of his brain look like those of a s8 female, so he is attracted to males like a s8 woman would be, a gay female, many parts of the brain match those of a s8 male. we say gay is sin because it goes against nature, but it's natural for them, it would be going against nature for them to act different.

    I have no problems with gay marriage, I think it's silly to call it civil unions just to satisfy our bias.

    Seems most politicians want to leave it to the states, but the issue has to federal, however it end the Supreme Court will eventually get it and based on our laws I would think they would pass gay marriage.
     
  16. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    Messages:
    13,945
    Likes Received:
    29
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ... who have all the rights the Constitution guarantees anyone. They have no civil rights beef. What they want is to undermine a moral society, and people such as yourself are unwitting conspirators with them.
     
  17. suzybeezy

    suzybeezy Reports Manager Supporter

    Messages:
    52,847
    Likes Received:
    488
    Faith:
    Christian
    MOD HAT ON

    As a reminder:
    &#9679; Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

    MOD HAT OFF
     
  18. Trogool

    Trogool New Member

    Messages:
    2,838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Except for marriage, obviously.

    I'll be sure to pass that on to my homosexual friends and acquaintances, they might find the idea that they are diabolical masterminds intent on destroying civilization entertaining.
     
  19. Trogool

    Trogool New Member

    Messages:
    2,838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Except there patently is a need, as all the civil rights activists indicate.

    And women were "traditionally" defined as basically the property of their father or husband. Just because something is "traditional" doesn't mean it is good or acceptable.

    And many heterosexuals tend to refer to homosexuals as "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]", "queers" and "homos". Are you arguing that the existence of a few people who act like children should be a consideration?

    Zero?

    I'm not sure where you are getting the white supremacist and neo-nazi bit, but as for right-wing conservative, yeah.

    If you had a vocal segment of the population vehemently insisting that red-heads shouldn't be permitted to marry each other, adopt children, or join the military, your analogy might be valid.
     
  20. WinBySurrender

    WinBySurrender New Member

    Messages:
    3,668
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They can get married if they want. To someone of the opposite sex. In that respect they have the same rights to marriage as I do. They want more than what I have in respect to marital rights (not that I'd want it differently anyway). If they want to cohabitate with one of the same sex, they can do the same thing now required in North Carolina of unmarried heterosexual couples: Go to a lawyer, make a contract naming one another heirs to their joint estate, giving one another say over each other in the event of medical incapacity, etc.

    You make mention of women being considered "property" in another one of your posts. That is not true of women in the Bible, never has been. Israeli women in Moses' time were the first in the world to be granted property rights, and the Proverbs 31 woman is obviously a very well-rounded, fulfilled woman admired by her husband and children. So to say that women are "traditionally" viewed as property is incorrect, except in the secular societies of the world.
    I wouldn't say that applies to all gays and lesbians, but certainly it applies to the political ambitions of the LGBT movement, most of which are not monogamous, have no desire to be married and are simply trying to undermine Christian morality, only because they mistakenly view us as the "enemy." We are not, regardless of the overtly intentional misleading characterize us as such.

    Speaking the truth in love is not hate. It is required of us. Worley is not doing that, obviously. But I an many Christians do. We can't help the fact many others won't follow Jesus' example, but then again, its not surprising as few actually do in any aspect of His teaching. We are in the church of Laodicea now until the Rapture.