Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[HaloHope]

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)

That didnt really answer my question at all. Secondly Im not American and am immensly proud that my country already allows gay civil marriages I intend to have one myself in the future.

Oh and the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

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?

Are we talking about civil rights? Interracial marriage?

Shouldn’t these things be put up to a popular vote?


You didn’t answer the question. Why should the rights of minorities, rights guaranteed by the constitution by the way, be put up for a popular vote?

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.

Why should a racial minority like you even have the right to vote at all…was there a vote to determine if you should have that right? Don’t you think the majority should have the opportunity to say no to you having a voice in this country? Are you scared of about having a vote by the people?

 

[BigBadWlf]

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.

But there was no popular vote like the kind you want … so according to your rhetoric what happed was wrong

 

[BigBadWlf]

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

The Nazi’s never enslaved the Jews….so by your standard the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were never oppressed

 

[BigBadWlf]

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

Can you explain how prejudice and discrimination is a “higher standard”?

 

[dies-l]

That is why I specifically mentioned "no-fault" divorce. On a literalist reading of the Bible, someone who has been divorced "by mutual consent" should not be allowed to remarry. Literalist Christians claim that they oppose all forms of sin equally, and Matthew 19:9 states that remarriage after divorce (with the exceptions you mention) is adultery. But I don't see Christians clamouring for laws to prevent such remarriage, which is why I consider them to be hypocrites. I am sorry if I have offended you. (But as you say, you are not a literalist Christian!)

The motive for my post was not so much out of person offense, as I understood the point that you were trying to make. (Okay, I admit, as a remarried person, I was mildly offended by the analogy). But, moreso, I wanted to point out the flaw in your biblical reasoning to encourage you to frame your argument more accurately. But, I will leave it at that, because I don't know that a side discussion on divorce and remarriage will do much other than derail the thread. Sorry for the harsh tone of my last post. I think I must have been in a foul mood that day, as several of my posts came across as unnecesarily harsh that day.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Nazi’s never enslaved the Jews….so by your standard the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were never oppressed

Wow... what Holocaust were you watching?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wow... what Holocaust were you watching?

I’m sorry. Did i miss Jews being put on the auction block in Berlin circa 1938?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I’m sorry. Did i miss Jews being put on the auction block in Berlin circa 1938?

apparently so...

The following list of companies is composed of two categories: companies that requisitioned forced and slave labor during the Third Reich and companies today with a combination of highly similar names, locations or products. American Jewish Committee does not claim any legal connection between the historical and actual list of companies. According to our research, all of these companies have a high probability of historical and/or financial links. Therefore, the AJC wants to stress at least a moral responsibility, as well as a legal responsibility in some cases, to pay compensation to former slave laborers and forced laborers... [big list] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/germancos.html

 

[marksman315]

Are we talking about civil rights? Interracial marriage?

Shouldn’t these things be put up to a popular vote?

Sure we can vote for them. Why not?

You didn’t answer the question. Why should the rights of minorities, rights guaranteed by the constitution by the way, be put up for a popular vote?

Government by the people for the people. That is why.

Why should a racial minority like you even have the right to vote at all…was there a vote to determine if you should have that right? Don’t you think the majority should have the opportunity to say no to you having a voice in this country? Are you scared of about having a vote by the people?

There was a time when minorities could not vote. I don't mind if the majority has a voice in it. If I lose what I feel are my rights then I will either fight for them or move. It sounds like you are not willing to fight, but you would rather have judges determine what is acceptable morality. If judges suddenly decide against your views then what will you do then? If the majority wanted to homosexual marriage to be legal, but judges say "no", then what will you do?

 

[marksman315]

I’m sorry. Did i miss Jews being put on the auction block in Berlin circa 1938?

The auction blocks were skipped and they were put into forced labor camps, and those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones were executed.

 

[marksman315]

But there was no popular vote like the kind you want … so according to your rhetoric what happed was wrong

True, it was never put up for a popular vote. Voting is an opportunity to hear the voice of the nation. They had to take action themselves to get what they the desired. The gay community has been working in legal ways to get what they want, and I am happier about that than having to deal with protests.

I just want an end to all the fighting and the back and forth, and the mixed rules between the states. A popular vote is one solution. How else is the true voice of the people to be heard?

 

[OllieFranz]

As much as they wanted ordinary citizens to have an equal say in governing the nation, the founding fathers of the United States were just as fearful of mob rule as they were of tyranny. One charismatic leader* with a harmful agenda could wipe out decades of steady progress.

So they set up a government with rules. Those rules limited how much the government could do, and set up a system of competition between the branches of government (we call this the system of checks and balances). They also established some meta-laws outlining rights that legislated laws could not supersede. We call the document that spells out these rules and meta-laws the Constitution. It is possible to change (amend) the Constitution if that is the will of the people, but that is, by design, a slow and deliberative process, in order to prevent mob rule.

A constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights proved to be a stable and prosperous form of government, and other nations adopted constitutions and/or drafted Charters of Rights.

And you want to give up 2¼ centuries of steady growth specifically to declare one group of people are not to be allowed to exercise what the government has recognized as a fundamental right?

*There are several good examples of a charasmatic leader using mob rule to ruin a country in the history of the 20th century. I am resisting using them as examples, however, because because I don't want to lose this thread to Godwin's law.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sure we can vote for them. Why not?



Government by the people for the people. That is why.

If government is for the people…why should some people be excluded?

There was a time when minorities could not vote. I don't mind if the majority has a voice in it.

And when was that vote?

If I lose what I feel are my rights then I will either fight for them or move.

Why should anyone have to leave the country just because bigots can’t see beyond their petty hatred?

It sounds like you are not willing to fight, but you would rather have judges determine what is acceptable morality. If judges suddenly decide against your views then what will you do then? If the majority wanted to homosexual marriage to be legal, but judges say "no", then what will you do?

You really think hatred, bigotry and discrimination are “acceptable morality”?

 

[Polycarp1]

This is not a smart-alec post. Exactly what rights, Marksman, would you lose if gay people were allowed to marry? I can see from your posts that you think there are such rights; others of us are not perceiving what you believe they are. So please spell out what you mean.

 

[marksman315]

This is not a smart-alec post. Exactly what rights, Marksman, would you lose if gay people were allowed to marry? I can see from your posts that you think there are such rights; others of us are not perceiving what you believe they are. So please spell out what you mean.

It was not my intention to make it appear that I would lose rights if gay people were allowed to marry. Essentially the arguments held against me by wanting a vote are to silence my "right" to have a voice in my government. Are gay people the only ones that can decide what my government should be like? If so then that is discriminating against me.

I just want a fair, honest vote, but some people don't even want that. If gay marriage wins, then so be it. It wins. At least all this mismatched policies between states on marriage will be over with. That is my real point of why I brought this up. I just had to argue further because I was deemed as a "hater" just because I have a different opinion.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It was not my intention to make it appear that I would lose rights if gay people were allowed to marry. Essentially the arguments held against me by wanting a vote are to silence my "right" to have a voice in my government. Are gay people the only ones that can decide what my government should be like? If so then that is discriminating against me.

I just want a fair, honest vote, but some people don't even want that. If gay marriage wins, then so be it. It wins. At least all this mismatched policies between states on marriage will be over with.

Again why should the rights of any minority, rights guaranteed to everyone whether you like them or not, be put to a vote?

That is my real point of why I brought this up. I just had to argue further because I was deemed as a "hater" just because I have a different opinion.

How is it NOT hate?

 

[marksman315]

If government is for the people…why should some people be excluded?

And when was that vote?

I never said there was one. What is your point?

Why should anyone have to leave the country just because bigots can’t see beyond their petty hatred?

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they hate you or they are bigots. I also never said they have to leave. They can choose that or fight for what they feel is right.

You really think hatred, bigotry and discrimination are “acceptable morality”?

Again, you are trying to suppress my opinions with your reverse bigotry, and reverse hatred. I'm not expressing hate or bigotry. I'm expressing that I want freedom to have a voice in how my government is ruled. Why do you want to put me down and take away from my "right" to do that? Also, how can this be discrimination when it is following the law? Legally it is not discrimination by not allowing gay people to marry. You can always try to get the law changed. A vote is just one way to do that.

As I have stated before, if gay marriage wins, then it does. At least marriage will be the same in every state no matter what the outcome is.

I feel really disturbed and downright offended that by bringing up the idea of a vote in America (Yes, the United States), that so much hate is being brought back on me on one of the freedoms Americans have. Now that does not make any sense.

 

[marksman315]

Again why should the rights of any minority, rights guaranteed to everyone whether you like them or not, be put to a vote?

How is it NOT hate?

Geez, I have not branded you a "Hater" just because you disagree with me, so why do you do it to me?

Right now there is no right to gay marriage so this right you are saying is guaranteed does not exist. It's a dream. Since it does not exist yet then why can't it be voted on?

 

[marksman315]

BigBadWlf,

You are the one that is full of hatred, and you can't even see it. You would rather be the victim and say others are "hating". I'm done replying to your hate. You want to restrict my freedom to vote, and I served this country for 8 years. You aren't going to restrict me with your cries of "hate". When you get off your soap box of hate then I'll listen to you again.

I'm sure you must be happy about this because you think you won. However, you do not realize that I was for the American people a voice in this matter, and giving you a legal chance to change the laws instead of crying about discrimination, bigotry, and hate. It seems like you would rather play the victim and whine about it instead of doing something legal about it.