Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[Apollo Celestio]

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

It makes effort to not be Christian, given you can believe in ID and evolution. It's just not atheist. Not that I really care.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Marriage is heavily regulated, and homosexuals are not the only group of people who cannot marry. State recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways. About half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all states prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to marry more than one person. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.So gays are not the only people who have restrictions on marriage.

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. Allowing gay marriage gives the notion that sexual love, is the sole reason for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two gays simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five?

Please do not make the mistake of boiling down gay coupling to "sexual love." That is a cheap shot at best.

It's about true love, monogamy, trusting relationship, and building a future together. (And for many of us, it is a part of the way we give thanks to God.)

My partner and I have every right to all of those "certain benefits" you list above - our 24 year relationship attests to that.

Sorry - but married straight people are not going to have special rights much longer. Equality is coming.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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

This is a typical lame platitude of the right, and it's just not true.

However, if you think it's really true, I assume you'd be AOK with your daughter marrying a closeted gay man.

Here's hoping!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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.

It should be LEGAL nationwide.

And the basic rights of people should NEVER be put to a vote.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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.

Works salvation?

 

[Kerwin]

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?

Do you know the difference between a flame and an accusation. If a prosecutor charges a person for a crime then they are not flaming that person. I am charging lawyers with the possible exception of prosecutors with being liars and I gave some of my reasons for that belief. You or they can answer those points and I would certainly be interested. Scripture actually goes further than me and calls everyone a liar at least everyone than is not in Christ Jesus. Still I do not think it is the same thing as it is not a job requirement.

Still feel free to ignore that and explain what a non-expert has to do with deciding what is religion and what is science. I have heard even experts in the field stumble over that one. I think it has something to do with egos. According to the field of education both religion is just another type of science and they probably have more expertise in a more appropriate field in order to determine that that even scientists or theologians.

 

[Kerwin]

Works salvation?

As God states through Paul the requirements of the law were not the problem with the law rather it was that man was required to uphold the law by human effort and that proved impossible.

But here is where scripture makes the same point I did.

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

I also pointed out the law would be good for the country but it would not save anyone the later takes adherence to the gospel of Christ Jesus.

 

[Kerwin]

The bible says slave not indentured servant.

You must be a lawyer or a politician to attempt to quibble over words. I also want to point out that it is the culture of the time that decides what is allowed and not allowed in cases of bonded servitude.

indentured servants are not compelled to be sex toys, slaves are

I do believe you are jumping to the assumption that a female slave is compelled to be a sex toy. Even if the women in question was used as a concubine she is entering a contract to do so and that contract is negotiated by her parents. Islam has something similar to that today. I am not sure you are correct though as the law against adultery seems to oppose your idea but maybe not if the man is not married.

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.

That would be one of the exceptions I mentioned. This does bring up a question and that is what happens if a alien slave converts to Judaism and thus becomes Hebrew.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect

That would probably be Roman Law or the law of some other country of that time period not Hebrew Law which was subject to the Romans. Still according to scripture slavery is not the evil but rather it is the way people treat each other except it does condemn slave trading.

1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Have you ever heard of the 13th amendment?

I have heard of it and read it and know it makes an exception for convicts.

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

They misinterpret scripture as according to them Canaanites(Phoenicians) are Black and so they are obviously wrong unless I have been sadly misinformed. I am not sure where they get the segregation from as there are scriptures that outright condemn it.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

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

It would certainly discourage adultery and that would be beneficial for the U.S. Still God does urge us to be suffer the existence of evil in hopes that wrongdoers will repent and turn to him and thus be saved.

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

You should read the rest of that passage as it makes clear the woman is expected to resist or is assumed to be willing.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

To anyone who it concerns.

This is actually on topic since we are addressing the point of whether or not the law is good. If it is good then it can be used as a prototype of the legislation of a good country.

 

[dies-l]

It should be LEGAL nationwide.

And how do we go about accomplishing this? Constitutional amendment? Or do we wait for the Supreme Court to interpret this right into the Constitution? Short of a change in the Constitution or in the interpretation of the Constitution, I don't know that there is a legal basis for such a federal law.

And the basic rights of people should NEVER be put to a vote.

How exactly do we define what is and is not a "basic right" that "should NEVER be put to a vote"?

 

[dies-l]

I am pretty much convinced the saying that all lawyers are liars is true

. . . .only in the sense that all people are liars. Assuming that you live in the U.S. or another country with similar freedoms, I would encourage you to consider that most of the freedoms (vis a vis the government at least) that you exercise on a daily basis are protected in large part by lawyers. Perhaps, you should be cautious about painting a whole profession with such a broad stroke. Yes, there are shady and dishonest lawyers in the world. But, then again, can't the same thing be said of any profession (even clergy)?

 

[Kerwin]

. . . .only in the sense that all people are liars. Assuming that you live in the U.S. or another country with similar freedoms, I would encourage you to consider that most of the freedoms (vis a vis the government at least) that you exercise on a daily basis are protected in large part by lawyers. Perhaps, you should be cautious about painting a whole profession with such a broad stroke. Yes, there are shady and dishonest lawyers in the world. But, then again, can't the same thing be said of any profession (even clergy)?

Lawyers do not protect me rather they oppress me by letting murderers, thieves, and rapists free to prey on me and mine once more. Truthfully I might be safer without them as law enforcement is more honest and that is not saying much. Still I would like to hear someone successfully explain how a lawyer can be honest and still be successful.

 

[dies-l]

Lawyers do not protect me rather they oppress me by letting murderers, thieves, and rapists free to prey on me and mine once more. Truthfully I might be safer without them as law enforcement is more honest and that is not saying much. Still I would like to hear someone successfully explain how a lawyer can be honest and still be successful.

To avoid derailing this thread, I will simply comment that your viewpoint on this is patently delusional and/or severely misinformed. As to your second point, there is no reason to "explain how a lawyer can be honest and . . . successful" because there is no logical or factual basis for your assumption to the contrary. But, once again, to avoid completely derailing this thread, I will leave my comments at that, and this will be my last post on this topic on this thread.

 

[lincolngreen50]

I oppose it, because same sex marriage is against the laws of God as is same sex unions.The homosexual act is an abomination to the Lord.
People are free under some secular laws in different states to marry and the homosexual act is not unlawful under secular laws in some countries but there are many countries where homosexuality is illegal.
Under Gods law it is illegal and as a Christian I believe that those who disobey Gods laws will have to answer to Him on judgement day.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

Anyone else have a problem with this idea? *thinking of the older, senior member of the community taking advantage of 13 year olds, just for instance*

 

[dies-l]

Anyone else have a problem with this idea? *thinking of the older, senior member of the community taking advantage of 13 year olds, just for instance*

I have seen the same obscene argument (i.e., that rape victims are expected to resist. Thus, in failing to successfully to do so, they are responsible for the consequences.) used to support the notion that rape victims should be held responsible for any pregnancy that occurs (i.e., so they should not have access to abortion). It is an utterly reprehensible, which reveals far more about the moral integrity of those who use it than it does about the reality of rape.

 

[Andreusz]

I oppose it, because same sex marriage is against the laws of God as is same sex unions.

Do you oppose divorced people remarrying with equal vehemence? Are you fighting the laws that allow divorced people to remarry?

The homosexual act is an abomination to the Lord.

Understandably! Yuck!

People are free under some secular laws in different states to marry and the homosexual act is not unlawful under secular laws in some countries but there are many countries where homosexuality is illegal.
Under Gods law it is illegal and as a Christian I believe that those who disobey Gods laws will have to answer to Him on judgement day.

So can't you just allow them the freedom to do what they want, and leave it up to God to judge them?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

No, its RETARDED Christianity pretending to be science (said the Christian evolutionary biologist)

BIG diference

Well said, she that loves her brothers. Maybe it's people clinging to irrational hopes. But thanks for the encouragement.

 

[lucyclaire]

At the end of the day a marriage is a civil affair, that legally ties two people together.. .. whether it is a religious affair is optional because at the end of the day only thing that matters by law is the signing of the register and the certificate which proves that two people are married. In biblical times, marriage was merely an alignment to two families, decided by the man.. thankfully we have moved past treating people like commodities... Heterosexual couples can choose to have a civil wedding, which is the same ceremony as gay couples, if it doesn't interfere with religious groups but legally imposing on them gay weddings, contrary too the practice of the religion why would in be a problem.

Gay civil unions became legal in the UK in 2006 and I am proud that my country has managed it so little trouble.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well said, she that loves her brothers. Maybe it's people clinging to irrational hopes. But thanks for the encouragement.

Ishida, you don't seem to be your usual effervescent self, whats up?

 

[Kerwin]

To avoid derailing this thread, I will simply comment that your viewpoint on this is patently delusional and/or severely misinformed. As to your second point, there is no reason to "explain how a lawyer can be honest and . . . successful" because there is no logical or factual basis for your assumption to the contrary. But, once again, to avoid completely derailing this thread, I will leave my comments at that, and this will be my last post on this topic on this thread.

The legal system of the country at hand it may be relevant to the question at hand as it is a reason why to or why not to oppose homosexual civil unions. You are unable to actually back up your conclusion as it is a dogmatic. I on the other hand did back up my argument.