Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[BigBadWlf]

I really don't believe the mumble jumble I typed, it was nothing more than attempt to answer the question from a secular perspective although I can see the validity of the argument when comparing to polygamy. I am against it because God is, but those who prefer to justify their own sins do not want a biblical argument. Bottom line - we have equal rights. You and I have the exactly the same freedom, we can marry any woman whose chooses to marry us and vice versa.

Well my wife would have something to say about my freedom to marry any woman I wanted.

That aside your position is exactly the same as those a generation ago opposed to interracial marriage. Those opposed also said God is against such unions and claimed that anyone who wanted to sin and marry someone of a different skin color had equal rights, they had the right to marry someone of the “correct” skin color.

 

[marksman315]

Hmmm... so it's okay for atheists to campaign to have Christianity and other religions outlawed?

Some already have been doing that. Wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from the American dollar, getting Christian symbols (like the ten commandments) removed from courthouses, and disallowing the teaching of intelligent design.

The modern attacks on Christianity have been going on for quite a while.

 

[marksman315]

I feel whether you are for or against civil unions that we need to have a national referendum on this in the United States. It's too strange to have this legal in some states and not in the other. It should be legal or illegal nationwide.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Some already have been doing that. Wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from the American dollar, getting Christian symbols (like the ten commandments) removed from courthouses, and disallowing the teaching of intelligent design.

The modern attacks on Christianity have been going on for quite a while.

Can you explain why the government should be in the business of forcing Christianity onto everyone? If we accept the basic premise of the constitution, that there is no state religion, why should one religion be promoted by the state?

As for “intelligent design” (what a laugh) why should Christianity be taught as scientific fact to our children? Creationism doesn’t even qualify as a theory.

 

[Texas Lynn]

To answer the question in the original post, no.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Intelligent design isn't especially Christian, though many back it to oppose evolution.

 

[Kerwin]

This is certainly off topic but intelligent design is a version of evolution and tries to fix the problems with the evidence supporting evolution. It would be a variation of the "sudden monster" version of evolution.

To address the actual topic Christians believe the Law is good and so a version of the Law would be good for the country though only following the gospel of Christ can get you to heaven.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Intelligent design isn't especially Christian, though many back it to oppose evolution.

Intelligent design is creationism and has been shown to be just that in a court of law.

It’s Christianity pretending to be science and failing badly

 

[BigBadWlf]

To address the actual topic Christians believe the Law is good and so a version of the Law would be good for the country though only following the gospel of Christ can get you to heaven.

What law? The law condoning slavery?
The law condoning segregation and racism?
The law calling for the killing of rape victims?

 

[Kerwin]

Intelligent design is creationism and has been shown to be just that in a court of law.

It’s Christianity pretending to be science and failing badly

I am pretty much convinced the saying that all lawyers are liars is true and judges are lawyers after all it was judges who decided to declare pregnancy was a disease. I actually don't think a honest lawyer would remain employed for very long since who wants an honest lawyer on their side in a dispute. Maybe an honest prosecutor but I have my doubts.


I ask you which lawyer will you choose the one that states he will get you a fair trial or the one who states he will get you a trial based in your favor?

In other words I shot down your appeal to authority by discrediting your authority. I should also mention your authority is not an authority on science or religion.

 

[Kerwin]

What law? The law condoning slavery?
The law condoning segregation and racism?
The law calling for the killing of rape victims?

Actually it would be bonded servitude in a great many cases as the slaves were supposed to be released on the Jubilee years. Slavery was actually a method to supply social services in the Hebrew tribes. Enemy captives and a few other exceptions were different. Enslaving convicts is still legal in the U.S.

I believe both segregation and racism would be a violation of the law. The law calls for the killing of an adulteress/adulterer and not a rape victim. Women were expected to resist even if they were terrified.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I am pretty much convinced the saying that all lawyers are liars is true and judges are lawyers after all it was judges who decided to declare pregnancy was a disease. I actually don't think a honest lawyer would remain employed for very long since who wants an honest lawyer on their side in a dispute. Maybe an honest prosecutor but I have my doubts.


I ask you which lawyer will you choose the one that states he will get you a fair trial or the one who states he will get you a trial based in your favor?

In other words I shot down your appeal to authority by discrediting your authority. I should also mention your authority is not an authority on science or religion.

No you flamed a group of people. You didn’t address anything presented in this thread

You don’t know much about debate do you?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Actually it would be bonded servitude in a great many cases as the slaves were supposed to be released on the Jubilee years. Slavery was actually a method to supply social services in the Hebrew tribes. Enemy captives and a few other exceptions were different.

Yeah…people have tired to pretend that slavery was somehow not condoned by the bible by playing word games and ignoring scripture.

It doesn’t work.



You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
Leviticus 25:44-45

The bible says slave not indentured servant.
indentured servants are not purchased, slaves are
indentured servants are not passed on as permanent inheritance, slaves are
indentured servants are not property, slaves are


If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6

The bible says slave not indentured servant.
indentured servants are free, slaves are not
indentured servants cannot be set free, that would be slaves who are set free
Children are not born into indentured servitude, slaves are
Indentured servants are not publicly mutilated, slaves are.
indentured servants do not forever belong to his master, slaves do


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7-11

The bible says slave not indentured servant.
indentured servants are not compelled to be sex toys, slaves are


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

The bible says slave not indentured servant.
indentured servants are not beaten to death, (three days or not), that again would be a slave
indentured servants are not “property”, slaves are property



Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2
The bible says slave not indentured servant.


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5
The bible says slave not indentured servant.

Enslaving convicts is still legal in the U.S.

Have you ever heard of the 13th amendment?

I believe both segregation and racism would be a violation of the law.

Racists disagree and happily quote the bible to support their personal prejudices

The law calls for the killing of an adulteress/adulterer

So…you think John and Cindy McCain should be stoned to death? Remember you said that the Law would be good for the country

and not a rape victim. Women were expected to resist even if they were terrified.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death Deuteronomy 22:23

 

[OllieFranz]

Actually it would be bonded servitude in a great many cases as the slaves were supposed to be released on the Jubilee years. Slavery was actually a method to supply social services in the Hebrew tribes. Enemy captives and a few other exceptions were different. Enslaving convicts is still legal in the U.S.

But there was no jubilee year in America. Nor did early Americans usually make any real distinction between chattel slavery, indentured servitude, prisoner-of-war situations and sentences to "hard labor" for crimes committed. That is why the 13th amendment abolished both of the first two, and radically changed the nature of the second two.

When someone agrees to work for another person for a set period of time -- even if for the purpose of working off a debt -- there is a contract guaranteeing an end of the commitment at the end of that time, and providing for achievable means of terminating the contract early. No more indentured servants. And yet even so, employers have often found ways of coercing their employees to renew their contracts against their better interests:

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store​

Convicts who are able are expected to earn their keep. There are jobs that must be done in the prison that the prisoners are as qualified as outsiders to fill. If they didn't hire the prisoners, the state would have to hire others, many of whom would not be working at their best because they would not feel safe. Other jobs are relocated into the prison because the prisoners cannot be located to the factories, but conditions in prison factories are similar to conditions in outside factories.

Gone are the days when prisons would sell the services of the convicts to farmers and factory owners who would chain them up in the basement at night to prevent them from escaping or attacking the family.

I believe both segregation and racism would be a violation of the law.

Both were defended based on then-current understandings of several biblical passages. Today we consider those understandings as poor or biased interpretations. Given that they were defended by devout and sincere Christians, how can we be certain that the now-current understandings of the so-called "clobber passages" are not also flawed?

The law calls for the killing of an adulteress/adulterer and not a rape victim. Women were expected to resist even if they were terrified.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27
​

The law does not tell the judges to ascertain whether or not she fought back or screamed. It just assumes that all country girls are pure and would have screamed, while all city girls have round heels and agreed to it.

Determining legally that they had committed adultery was not easy under the rules of evidence, but once it was proved that there was sex, the girl had no defense: her actual attitude and actions don't count for half as much as the easy out the law provides for the judges.

 

[Andreusz]

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Not true. In six countries in the world, and two American states, people can marry other people of the same sex. In many countries, including my own, polygamy is permitted.

The fact people want to put spin on it and call it "civil union" doesn't change the underlying facts. It's like saying I don't support the death penalty but do support capital punishment. It's just playing a word game.

I don't understand the relevance of this. I'm not talking about civil unions. I'm talking about marriage (which is what same-sex marriage is called in my country).

God did not design humans to be homosexuals.

"The penis smooth and round was made
Wwith anus best to match it
Had it been made for cunnus’ sake,
It had been formed like a hatchet."
(Arabian Nights -- Translated by Sir Richard Burton.)

The evidence in scripture is so overwhelming:

Reference:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:9-11

As a Christian we are called to rebuke and correct other Christians who are on the wrong path and are deliberately changing or ignoring scripture to suit their own lifestyle. Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever other name game you want to play is not God's plan.

I'm not talking about your relationships with other Chrisitans but with society as a whole. If non-Christian homosexuals wish to marry, why should it bother you?

 

[D'Ann]

I probably won't be back to debate this further, although, I will try and come back and share stuff.

Based on my faith, I don't believe in same sex marriages in a "Church". But with my mind and heart, I do understand why same sex couples desire to be married and the need to feel that connection in a marriage sort of way. I don't have a problem with people getting married in a civil way...

We live in such a complicated world these days especially when it comes to this issue.

I think as a Christian, why I do oppose marriage in a Church for same sex couples is that I fear that one day, my own Catholic Church will be persecuted for not honoring this new modern day way of thinking.

Many Christian Churches according to their own theology and/or dogma... doctrine do not believe that same sex couples should marry and thus, they won't do it. And so I think the reason that most Christians fight so hard against this is because we all fear that one day, our own faiths will be persecuted for taking a stand for what we believe.

So, of course, most Christians are against same sex marriages based on biblical scriptures and thus debates here.

But for me personally, putting my faith aside, I understand the need to love and be loved, the need to share one's life with another. I understand the desire to want to have that connection and commitment to the same person for the rest of your life. I don't have a problem with civil marriages for the same sex couples as long as it doesn't filter into Christian Churches having to perform marriages that go against their own theology/dogma...

(I hope this makes sense).

 

[Andreusz]

Bottom line - we have equal rights. You and I have the exactly the same freedom, we can marry any woman whose chooses to marry us and vice versa.

Not so. Straight Americans have he right to marry the person they love. In most states, gay Americans do not have this right.

 

[Andreusz]

Some already have been doing that. Wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from the American dollar, getting Christian symbols (like the ten commandments) removed from courthouses, and disallowing the teaching of intelligent design.

The modern attacks on Christianity have been going on for quite a while.

I didn't ask whether or not it was happening. I asked if it was okay.

 

[HaloHope]

I probably won't be back to debate this further, although, I will try and come back and share stuff.

Based on my faith, I don't believe in same sex marriages in a "Church". But with my mind and heart, I do understand why same sex couples desire to be married and the need to feel that connection in a marriage sort of way. I don't have a problem with people getting married in a civil way...

We live in such a complicated world these days especially when it comes to this issue.

I think as a Christian, why I do oppose marriage in a Church for same sex couples is that I fear that one day, my own Catholic Church will be persecuted for not honoring this new modern day way of thinking.

Many Christian Churches according to their own theology and/or dogma... doctrine do not believe that same sex couples should marry and thus, they won't do it. And so I think the reason that most Christians fight so hard against this is because we all fear that one day, our own faiths will be persecuted for taking a stand for what we believe.

So, of course, most Christians are against same sex marriages based on biblical scriptures and thus debates here.

But for me personally, putting my faith aside, I understand the need to love and be loved, the need to share one's life with another. I understand the desire to want to have that connection and commitment to the same person for the rest of your life. I don't have a problem with civil marriages for the same sex couples as long as it doesn't filter into Christian Churches having to perform marriages that go against their own theology/dogma...

(I hope this makes sense).

Makes sense and you put your point across in a very polite and caring manner . Would be far less hostile debate here if everyone could construe posts like this.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

For Christians there is no such thing as gay marriage so they dont need to oppose it as that.

You mean for SOME Christians.
You must never forget that there are many Christians who come to different conclusions than you do on the topic of homosexuality and sin.

I know many Christians (both gay AND straight) who are active advocates of gay marriage.