Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[EnemyPartyII]

Now, if someone wanted to discuss showers of gold in bedrooms being abomination, I could well be onside for THAT discussion!

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'm not really asking for a discussion of Christian belief about this topic -- there is plenty of discussion of this in other threads in this subforum. Rather, I'm asking how far Christians feel that their beliefs should be allowed to impinge on the rights of others, who do not necessarily share those beliefs.

And anyway, I don't make decisions based on ancient Hebrew mythology. You might as well say, 'Read the story of Zeus appearing in Danae's chamber in the form of a shower of gold, and then decide.'

Well, it is true we have a significant number of theocrats active in the U.S.

I think Zeus was conceived of as a hybrid between the Hebrew God and Bill Clinton, personally, with the former's facial hair.

 

[Kerwin]

Adultery, divorce and re-marriage are very clearly condemned in the New Testament -- far more clearly than homosexuality appears to be, and some of that condemnation comes from Jesus' own words, and there are studies showing their harmful effects on the family that Christians and non-Christians can agree on. And yet even the Conservatives in the Church seem to be OK with the state allowing them. They even perform marriage services for the adulterers.

You are asking me to defend the actions of those who practice heresy and even pageantry. I can not do it. I will state my observation which is that sin is treated to lightly even in conservative churches. A lot of conservative churches would probably look the other way about homosexuality as well as long as it was not rubbed in their faces by either those who perform the sin or others. I have certainly heard of at least one Catholic Church that does. On the other hand I am a hardliner and I am firmly convinced anyone who firmly embraces sin is unfaithful and should be tossed out of the church. Even I have my weakness as I view addicts as being faithless and therefore needing nourishment and thus throwing them out is a bad idea. Telling the difference between the two types can be difficult to say the least.

There are a few unclear points about divorce such as divorce involving a believer and unbeliever that is initiated by the unbeliever and whether or not the believer is free to remarry. Another point would be whether God would hold a believer accountable for a divorce that occurred before they became a believer or whether being a new man the believe would be treated as if they were never married. A third point is how broad is the term marital unfaithfulness and would it cover such things as abuse and abandonment.

 

[LogosRhema]

Not as far as I know. This is why I suspect that Christians who oppose gay marriage (or even homosexuality in general) are not being entirely honest. They say they regard all sins as equal, but they are not making any fuss about remarriage after no-fault divorce, which Jesus himself proclaims to be 'adultery' and therefore a sin (Matthew ch. 19).

In the ethics section of this board, there are no forums discussing the question of remarriage after no-fault divorce, which suggests to me that even literalist Christians don't really care about it.

I realize you are atheist, but AMEN! lol

 

[OllieFranz]

You are asking me to defend the actions of those who practice heresy and even pageantry. I can not do it. I will state my observation which is that sin is treated to lightly even in conservative churches. A lot of conservative churches would probably look the other way about homosexuality as well as long as it was not rubbed in their faces by either those who perform the sin or others. I have certainly heard of at least one Catholic Church that does. On the other hand I am a hardliner and I am firmly convinced anyone who firmly embraces sin is unfaithful and should be tossed out of the church. Even I have my weakness as I view addicts as being faithless and therefore needing nourishment and thus throwing them out is a bad idea. Telling the difference between the two types can be difficult to say the least.

There are a few unclear points about divorce such as divorce involving a believer and unbeliever that is initiated by the unbeliever and whether or not the believer is free to remarry. Another point would be whether God would hold a believer accountable for a divorce that occurred before they became a believer or whether being a new man the believe would be treated as if they were never married. A third point is how broad is the term marital unfaithfulness and would it cover such things as abuse and abandonment.

If you are as much of a hardliner on this subject as you claim, then you are at least consistent. Most of the "anti-gay" people on this forum, and most conservative churches are not.

There are only sporadic threads in the main ethics forum about adultery and remarriage ever started and they almost always die out quickly. People are too uncomfortable to discuss it. Likewise sermons in Conservative pulpits touch lightly on this subject.

So if much of my statement does not apply to you specifically, it is still true, in general.

 

[visionary]

And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, "How have we wearied him?" By saying, "Every one who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them." Or by asking, "Where is the God of justice?" (Malachi 2:14-17)

 

[Andreusz]

On the other hand I am a hardliner and I am firmly convinced anyone who firmly embraces sin is unfaithful and should be tossed out of the church. Even I have my weakness as I view addicts as being faithless and therefore needing nourishment and thus throwing them out is a bad idea. Telling the difference between the two types can be difficult to say the least.

There are a few unclear points about divorce ....

I applaud your consistency, but I do believe it is rare.

 

[HaloHope]

And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, "How have we wearied him?" By saying, "Every one who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them." Or by asking, "Where is the God of justice?" (Malachi 2:14-17)

Evidently there should be an anti-divorce movement trying to make an amendment to the US constitution to stop people getting divorced or remarrying. I mean the only rational conclusion is to interfere in other peoples lives, right?

 

[visionary]

We have to stand against civil homosexual marriages for the sake of our nation. If we allow it to fall below God's standard, we will fall into God's judgment.

Jude, the brother of Jesus gives us several additional facts about the destruction of the Cities of the Plain:

"Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 3-7)

 

[marksman315]

That the constitution governing the United States grants its citizens rights including the right to equal protection and equal access under the law and that these rights cannot be voted away. And that includes minorities, even unpopular minorities.

Exactly my point. The constitution which was written by people, and has been amended by people. The government of the United States determines the rights of the people in the United States.

We don't have any rights other than the ones allowed by the government we were born under.

 

[visionary]

Exactly my point. The constitution which was written by people, and has been amended by people. The government of the United States determines the rights of the people in the United States.

We don't have any rights other than the ones allowed by the government we were born under.

But we are under a higher standard, and though we may be soon under the lifestyle of Sodom by government enforcement, we still must rise above it and live Godly lives.

 

[marksman315]

Sorry but marriage is a right and one protected by the constitution

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry…resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
All quotes by Chief Justice Warren writing for the court in the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia

I'm not talking about the Constitution. My point is that being born a human does not give you any rights except for the ones given to you by the government you are born under. Being born American gives a person the rights as an American. Being born Russian gives the a person the rights as a Russian. I'm talking human in general with no government or political affiliation.

Why should the rights of a minority living in a democracy/republic whose laws specifically guarantee that they are equal to the majority have their rights put to a vote?

Wow you sure hate people who are willing to have things put up for a vote! Would you rather have it that the majority just say "no" or do you want a voice in it?

Can you explain why YOU should have the special right to vote away the rights of minorities? Why does your right to hate trump the rights of any minority to have equal protection and equal access under the law?

I'm not voting away anything. What the heck do you think a democracy is, and why are you lumping me in as a "hater" right away? What are you scared of about having a vote by the people? People could vote "yes" or "no", and you want to remove their freedom of choice on how their government should be governed? Are you a dictator?

BTW, I am part of a minority. Half Asian-Half White (Thai and German), and I know how it feels sometimes to be a minority. I'm not part of some elitist majority.

 

[marksman315]

Would you have suggested that blacks of the pre-civil rights era leave the country to obtain their constitutionally protected rights?

The blacks of the pre-civil rights era did the right thing and protested and got the Jim Crow laws removed. They had the choice to move, but they decided to stay, and did the right thing and got the government to change.

 

[marksman315]

A rather dismal view of life...but hey, it's your life.

In my view it is a harsh reality that some people find hard to accept. God has provided many things for us, but somethings we have to fight for because they are not given as rights to us.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...that is what I believe.

The rights (or should I say commandments and guidelines that we should live under) are given to us by God. However, there have been many other threads about this subject on who believes what is right and wrong. I won't reiterate them here.

 

[marksman315]

I am not concerned for myself, but for the oppressed in other countries.

If people think this is oppression then they have never truly understood what being oppressed is. No one is making slaves out of homosexuals.

 

[Andreusz]

But we are under a higher standard, and though we may be soon under the lifestyle of Sodom by government enforcement, we still must rise above it and live Godly lives.

Do you really believe that those countries that have legalized gay marriage -- The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Canada and South Africa -- are 'under the lifestyle of Sodom'? Well as an inhabitant of South Africa, I can't say I've noticed! I don't even see gay couples holding hands while walking down the street here!

 

[Kerwin]

If you are as much of a hardliner on this subject as you claim, then you are at least consistent. Most of the "anti-gay" people on this forum, and most conservative churches are not.

There are only sporadic threads in the main ethics forum about adultery and remarriage ever started and they almost always die out quickly. People are too uncomfortable to discuss it. Likewise sermons in Conservative pulpits touch lightly on this subject.

So if much of my statement does not apply to you specifically, it is still true, in general.

I am one of the unchurced because my doctrine is at odds with every church I know so I can not say much on this topic.

 

[visionary]

Do you really believe that those countries that have legalized gay marriage -- The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Canada and South Africa -- are 'under the lifestyle of Sodom'? Well as an inhabitant of South Africa, I can't say I've noticed! I don't even see gay couples holding hands while walking down the street here!

As I said before... we are under a higher standard... no matter what the government allows.

 

[OllieFranz]

As I said before... we are under a higher standard... no matter what the government allows.

OFF TOPIC WARNING!

I just had say that you just reminded me of the old Hebrew National frankfurter commercial: We're kosher and have to answer to a higher authority.

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED DEBATE.

 

[BigBadWlf]

We have to stand against civil homosexual marriages for the sake of our nation. If we allow it to fall below God's standard, we will fall into God's judgment.

Yeah… a generation ago people said the same thing about interracial marriage