Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[BigBadWlf]

This is a really weak arguement, and you know it. It's a real stretch, sounding like it's coming from a sinner who wants to use the Bible to justify his sin.

Using fact and actual research is a “weak” argument?

 

[Dogbean]

Using fact and actual research is a “weak” argument?

Well, you used research, but the act of using research does not mean the research is not bunk. The research was a real stretch. Anyone can spew research, facts, and figures and sound like they know what they are talking about.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Well, you used research, but the act of using research does not mean the research is not bunk. The research was a real stretch. Anyone can spew research, facts, and figures and sound like they know what they are talking about.

Instead of dismissing a point you disagree with, how about arguing against it? Offer some disproof.

 

[Markus6]

This is a really weak arguement, and you know it. It's a real stretch, sounding like it's coming from a sinner who wants to use the Bible to justify his sin.

I don't necessarily agree with BBW's reasoning but you've dismissed it without giving any reason as if it is totally obvious and accused him of being a sinner just looking to get out of it. His argument deserves a far more reasoned and less accusatory response IMO. An argument isn't weak just because you say it is. If it is weak you will be able to break it down.

 

[Dogbean]

Instead of dismissing a point you disagree with, how about arguing against it? Offer some disproof.

I don't necessarily agree with BBW's reasoning but you've dismissed it without giving any reason as if it is totally obvious and accused him of being a sinner just looking to get out of it. His argument deserves a far more reasoned and less accusatory response IMO. An argument isn't weak just because you say it is. If it is weak you will be able to break it down.

Excuse me? What the two of you don't know is that BBW and I have a long history of arguing this very point, to which I have made my case to him on numerous occasions. Before inserting yourselves into something you were not originally involved in and slinging accusations, know that there are larger things going on here than what you think you see. I am not getting out of anything! BBW's post is something I have seen dozens of times, from him and from others. I don't care to repeat myself over and over only to have him provide me shady reasoning. And yes, he is a sinner. I am a sinner. We are all sinners, and the only One who wasn't a sinner is Jesus Christ Himself! I have broken down his arguement with simple, common sense reasoning, but every time I do so, he calls me a racist, a bigot, and says I support discrimination and prejudice, which is simply false. I have been round and round with him many times and it's my humble opinion that he is angry toward Bible-believing Christians for reasons I have yet to find out. These are just the hypotheses I have made from observing him and his posts.

 

[OllieFranz]

I have a very hard time believing that gay sex is part of the image of Christ.

For myself, as a life-long celibate, I have a hard time believing that any sex is part of the image of Christ. But that is an emotional reaction; there is 1 Corinthians 7 providing an approved channel (marriage) for the sex drive and the indirect evidence throughout the Bible of men and women blessed of God, who were clearly sexually active within their marriages.

Plus there is the evidence of good Christians even today who are sexually active within their marriages, and I can see how strong the sex drive is throughout society. And nowhere in the Bible is marriage restricted in terms of who may contract (covenant) a marriage. [Even the so-called incest prohibitions are prohibitions against adultery within the family. Your uncle's wife, or your sister-in-law are not blood relations, and the levirate marriage laws show that when their husband, your near relative, dies, not only are you allowed to marry them, in some cases you are required to.]

 

[Dogbean]

For myself, as a life-long celibate, I have a hard time believing that any sex is part of the image of Christ. But that is an emotional reaction; there is 1 Corinthians 7 providing an approved channel (marriage) for the sex drive and the indirect evidence throughout the Bible of men and women blessed of God, who were clearly sexually active within their marriages.

Plus there is the evidence of good Christians even today who are sexually active within their marriages, and I can see how strong the sex drive is throughout society. And nowhere in the Bible is marriage restricted in terms of who may contract (covenant) a marriage. [Even the so-called incest prohibitions are prohibitions against adultery within the family. Your uncle's wife, or your sister-in-law are not blood relations, and the levirate marriage laws show that when their husband, your near relative, dies, not only are you allowed to marry them, in some cases you are required to.]

You are missing Genesis chapter 2, and also Matthew and Mark who both quote that verse when talking about marriage. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh."

 

[OllieFranz]

You are missing Genesis chapter 2, and also Matthew and Mark who both quote that verse when talking about marriage. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh."

And how exactly does that restrict who mat contract a marriage? It offers no command or even advice about who may marry.

All it says that once the marriage is contracted, the spouses are to become one flesh. If all married couples do, and if both spouses in each marriage honor God above all else, and submit one to the other in all things, then there would be no divorce. And that is exactly the lesson that Jesus teaches from it.

 

[Dogbean]

And how exactly does that restrict who mat contract a marriage? It offers no command or even advice about who may marry.

All it says that once the marriage is contracted, the spouses are to become one flesh. If all married couples do, and if both spouses in each marriage honor God above all else, and submit one to the other in all things, then there would be no divorce. And that is exactly the lesson that Jesus teaches from it.

If that is all you got out of it then you missed perhaps the two most important words in the verse....
"MAN" and "WIFE!"

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Excuse me? What the two of you don't know is that BBW and I have a long history of arguing this very point, to which I have made my case to him on numerous occasions. ....

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debated seven times, each of them repeating essentially the same arguments over and over again. But each time they debated before a new and different audience.

This is an open forum. You never know who is looking in. Maybe your readers know your previous debates with BigBadWolf. Maybe not. You certainly can't count on it.

So, as I said, it is not enough to dismiss BigBadWolf's argument as weak. You have to show your work. And if you do not show your work, you can expect to be called on it. That's how it is in a debate forum.

 

[OllieFranz]

If that is all you got out of it then you missed perhaps the two most important words in the verse....
"MAN" and "WIFE!"

So if I read a magazine article or a story that talks about the special bond of trust and loyalty between a boy and his dog, that means that a man and a dog can't bond? Or a girl and a dog? Or a boy and a cat? Or any of literally hundreds of other possibilities of a bod between a person and a pet? Yes, the bonds are different. Every bond is different. But one bond between one boy and one dog being "special" does not mean that all other similar bonds are not just as "special" in their own ways. To speak of their bond does not restrict others from forming bonds.

The fact that the verse, which uses Adam and Eve as its premiere example, mentions a man and a wife, which is what Adam and Eve happened to be, places no restriction on any other relationships, much less on other marriages.

 

[KCKID]

So if I read a magazine article or a story that talks about the special bond of trust and loyalty between a boy and his dog, that means that a man and a dog can't bond? Or a girl and a dog? Or a boy and a cat? Or any of literally hundreds of other possibilities of a bod between a person and a pet? Yes, the bonds are different. Every bond is different. But one bond between one boy and one dog being "special" does not mean that all other similar bonds are not just as "special" in their own ways. To speak of their bond does not restrict others from forming bonds.

The fact that the verse, which uses Adam and Eve as its premiere example, mentions a man and a wife, which is what Adam and Eve happened to be, places no restriction on any other relationships, much less on other marriages.

Similarly with 'love'. I mean, who can define the feeling of 'love' in all of its myriads of applications and relative to the individual? I don't love or even particularly like some people I know; however, they have friends and family who apparently DO love them and ARE friends with them. I can't reasonably expect them to feel the way I do about that person. And yet we have people on this board who are basically telling others who they can and who they cannot love or be sexually attracted to. Furthermore, they do it in the name of God. This surely borders on blasphemy. God would never have intended others to become His mouthpiece in this regard.

If the truth be known, this entire 'issue' of 'gay' marriage is a non-issue. Doesn't anyone else feel as I do in that we perhaps need to be moving on from this non-issue and concentrating on the REAL issues out there that are causing misery and suffering to countless thousands? I'm not talking about those in Third World countries either, but those that are on our doorstep. Greed, lovers of money, lovers of self are dragging down our society more so today than ever before. Simply look around. We're ALL either perpetrators or victims of a society that is on the skids. And it has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

 

[Dogbean]

So if I read a magazine article or a story that talks about the special bond of trust and loyalty between a boy and his dog, that means that a man and a dog can't bond? Or a girl and a dog? Or a boy and a cat? Or any of literally hundreds of other possibilities of a bod between a person and a pet? Yes, the bonds are different. Every bond is different. But one bond between one boy and one dog being "special" does not mean that all other similar bonds are not just as "special" in their own ways. To speak of their bond does not restrict others from forming bonds.

The fact that the verse, which uses Adam and Eve as its premiere example, mentions a man and a wife, which is what Adam and Eve happened to be, places no restriction on any other relationships, much less on other marriages.

I think creation speaks to us. God's design for sex is obvious. God's design for a family is obvious. Science has spoken (that graphic article that shows the fragility of the anus), the rampant spread of AIDS among gays in the 80s and 90s, I think all this stuff, added together with how it's worded in the Bible makes a good case for homosexual sex being wrong....I dunno, nothing can convince me otherwise, and the arguements that have been made to me I think are really stretching it and just are not changing my mind. I see where they are coming from, but they just are not doing it for me. I've honestly listened to you all.

 

[OllieFranz]

I can see how because you feel so strongly about the thought of gay sex, that it seems so unnatural, that it is hard to simply accept any argument in favor of it. I felt the same way for years, not only about gay sex, but also about straight sex. But I have no problem with marriage and families, as long as I do not think about the couples, or the parents of the families actually engaging in sex. I learned that the relationship is more than just the sex, and in fact, the public face of the relationship does not include sex at all. That is reserved for private time.

So by separating the knowledge that they probably have sex in private from those aspects of their lives that they share publicly, including the public part of their relationship, I can look at them and their relationship more objectively. And objectively, I see no essential differences in the relationships that my friends on this forum, Polycarp1 (a man married to a woman) and ChaliceThunder (a man married to a man) have with their respective spouses.

As far as the issues of disease and injury go, neither is in the exclusive province of gay sex. Disease (especially sexually-transmitted disease) are spread through promiscuity, whether the promiscuous sex is gay or straight, but committed Christians, gay or straight who remain monogamous both have extremely low risk. And although the specific injuries may be different, they occur in both gay and straight sex.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Oliiefranz,

So if I read a magazine article or a story that talks about the special bond of trust and loyalty between a boy and his dog, that means that a man and a dog can't bond? Or a girl and a dog? Or a boy and a cat? Or any of literally hundreds of other possibilities of a bod between a person and a pet? Yes, the bonds are different. Every bond is different. But one bond between one boy and one dog being "special" does not mean that all other similar bonds are not just as "special" in their own ways. To speak of their bond does not restrict others from forming bonds.

But you still missed “man” and “wife”, which was the bit pointed out to you and the quote to which you have responded. It was the orginal point made to you.

The fact that the verse, which uses Adam and Eve as its premiere example, mentions a man and a wife, which is what Adam and Eve happened to be, places no restriction on any other relationships, much less on other marriages.

I cant really accept any of this. Firstly a ‘premiere’ example means there must be some notion of a secondary example, but there is no such notion in the scripture as God made woman for man to be united as one flesh and no alternative is countenanced.
Secondly Jesus refers to God’s creation of man and woman in discussions about marriage, many here still keep referring to other unions as marriage, there is no Biblical case for it. First you need to argue for it and if accepted you can refer to it, but at the moment many of us would say there is no such thing as any other marriage union apart from man and woman.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Oliiefranz,

I can see how because you feel so strongly about the thought of gay sex, that it seems so unnatural, that it is hard to simply accept any argument in favor of it.

I don’t see that he has really put his views at all, he has been referring to what the word of God says and other logical reasoning.

I see no essential differences in the relationships that my friends on this forum, Polycarp1 (a man married to a woman) and ChaliceThunder (a man married to a man) have with their respective spouses.

But that’s a different worldview altogether, there is no such Biblical thing as a man marrying a man, as shown Genesis 2 Matt 19 etc marriage is man and woman. You can’t quote something that doesn’t exist in God’s word and in Christian terms.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,
You see we dont accept the concept of marriage being anything other than between a man and a woman according to the Biblical references ie Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7 etc. You keep arguing about gay marriage, first you need to argue why you think there is such a thing.

 

[Polycarp1]

To Olliefranz,
You see we dont accept the concept of marriage being anything other than between a man and a woman according to the Biblical references ie Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7 etc. You keep arguing about gay marriage, first you need to argue why you think there is such a thing.

Hmmm? I think there is such a thing because I have seen same-sex couples committed to each other and feeling the same sort of marital love that my wife and I share. I thin there is such a thing because the laws of Massachusetts, California, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain provide for it and give it legal recognition. I think there is such a thing because people with your apparent viewpoint, BrightMorningStar, are determined to split our beloved Anglican Communion over the issue. Nobody has knock-down-drag-out fights over whether the Invisible Pink Unicorn is coral pink or rose pink; you only fight that hard over real things.

If you mean, "What does God think about it?", well, my answer is that I don't know for sure, but I feel that He blesses it, at least when entered into with intent to make a loving lifelong commitment. What I am sure of is that the position of legally demanding its illegality because of one's reading of Scripture and need to keep one's neighbor morally pure, is indistinguishable from what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. And that, I am certain, is wrong in His eyes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,
Yes but whatever you personally think about sharing feelings and union, the Bible refers to marriage between man a woman as God created woman for man.
Ie Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7 etc. So your view is not in line with what God has created and ordained. This is why I am objecting to the use of the concept ‘gay’ or ‘same sex’ marriage. Biblically there is no such thing, its only a concept held by humans.

I think there is such a thing because people with your apparent viewpoint, BrightMorningStar, are determined to split our beloved Anglican Communion over the issue.

No I am not, but you are if you hold a view contrary to the majority agreed view (ie Lambeth 1.10) as you do.

If you mean, "What does God think about it?", well, my answer is that I don't know for sure, but I feel that He blesses it, at least when entered into with intent to make a loving lifelong commitment.

Again that’s just your feeling and contrary to the word of God which only countenances man and woman in faithful union, and celibacy as an alternative. I didn’t say so, Jesus did. (Genesis 2, Matthew 19) Its not a question of reading the scripture to most people the scripture says what it says, it’s a question of disbelief.

And as to

need to keep one's neighbor morally pure,

is indeed what the Pharisees did, but they disagreed with what Jesus said as well. No, Jesus NT teaching is not to judge others, but to help brothers and sisters caught in sin to repent (Gal 6) Those who like the Pharisees refuse to see they are caught in sin, cant really be helped.

 

[OllieFranz]

Jesus NT teaching is not to judge others, but to help brothers and sisters caught in sin to repent (Gal 6) Those who like the Pharisees refuse to see they are caught in sin, cant really be helped.

QFT (and for the irony)