Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[BigBadWlf]

The Constitution forbids it. And I don't believe that's the best way to get Christ's message across.

The constitution forbids discriminate against all minorities.

You want laws that deny some minorities equal rights and equal protection under the law. So why do you not support discrimination against all minorities?

 

[BigBadWlf]

So... "it's against the Bible" is a good reason to ban homosexual marriage, but not a good reason to ban other religions? That's a very selective way to look at the Bible...

QFT

 

[Dogbean]

Originally Posted by Dogbean I think creation speaks to us.
This is a logical fallacy, specifically it is an argument from ignorance.[/font][/size][/color]

You declare something is obvious then declare that your unrelated premise must be true.

Big Bad Wolf,

This is beautiful! The verse I am going to quote you to refute you goes right into a passage about homosexuality! Two birds with one stone!

You make it too easy.....
Romans 1:18-32 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Dogbean]

The constitution forbids discriminate against all minorities.

You want laws that deny some minorities equal rights and equal protection under the law. So why do you not support discrimination against all minorities?

Gays are not discriminated against. They can get jobs, housing, all the stuff we can. They are also free to obtain marriage benefits, if they marry someone of the opposite gender. Nobody is holding them back from doing that.

Now if someone came along and said they were not allowed to marry anyone, then yes, you have a point in saying they are being discriminated against.

Can you wrap your mind around this? LOL

 

[BigBadWlf]

Big Bad Wolf,

This is beautiful! The verse I am going to quote you to refute you goes right into a passage about homosexuality! Two birds with one stone!

You make it too easy.....

First you misquote yourself (always amusing)
For the record you said: “God's design for sex is obvious. God's design for a family is obvious.“ Then you go off on a non sequitur

 

[BigBadWlf]

Gays are not discriminated against.

this is just like saying blacks of the deep south of the pre-civil rights act weren’t discriminated against

The US Congress lists 1500 civil rights and legal protections denied to gays and lesbians by the United States government. Such discrimination includes:
Denial of the right to have marriage legally recognized
Denial of having legal marriages federally recognized
Right to serve openly in the Armed Forces
Hospital visitation
Adoption rights
Housing protection
Employment protection
And on and on and on.

They can get jobs, housing, all the stuff we can.

Actually there is no federal protection for housing discrimination or employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. They can be denied housing or employment just because they are members of a minority and they have no legal recourse

They are also free to obtain marriage benefits, if they marry someone of the opposite gender. Nobody is holding them back from doing that.

recycled racism…again

the same line was put out in defence of laws against interracial marriage. Interracial couple had the right ot marry people of the “correct” skin color...no one was stopping them from doing that were they?

Now if someone came along and said they were not allowed to marry anyone, then yes, you have a point in saying they are being discriminated against.

Can you wrap your mind around this? LOL

it is tough to understand how anyone can defend discrimination

 

[Markus6]

They are also free to obtain marriage benefits, if they marry someone of the opposite gender. Nobody is holding them back from doing that.

Huh, people actually use that argument?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Huh, people actually use that argument?

Sadly yes.


Its like saying blacks weren’t discriminated against because they had their own drinking fountains that they could choose to use anytime they wanted

 

[KCKID]

I don't know why I waste my time trying to help you understand. Your mind is darkened, just like the Scripture says.

Dogbean, I don't mean this unkindly but would you care to read what you wrote above a few times and honestly say that it doesn't sound somewhat sanctimonious and arrogant?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

Woah... WOAH!

Now, I'm sorry, but every time I see AIDS/HIV thrown out from someone on the "teh gay sex is rong!" side, I just sort of see red. You also say a couple of other things I'd like to address first...

"Science has spoken"... indeed... and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that homosexuality is perfectly natural, an inherent biological condition, and that the human body has evolved, "designed", if you will, to accomodate both homo AND heterosexual intimacy. But I fear that the only science you will accept is the science that says what you want it to say. Never mind that genetics and biology strongly support the inherent naturalness of homosexuality, and its existence as a beneficial trait with in populations, THAT science, I'm sure you will say is flawed or biased. But science that says the anus is fragile? Well THAT science is obviously infalible, right?
Never mind the brutal, blunt fact that not all homosexuality intimacy, male OR female, involves the anus.

"God's design for sex/family is obvious" Argument from design cuts very little ice with me. Again, "science has spoken", and what it says is that we evolved, not that we were designed. Therefore, widespread traits that exist across a wide range of populations implies a beneficial trait. Since homosexuality qualifies, science tells us that homosexuality confers a benefit to the populations in which it is found. But even if, IF we were designed, as we exist, by God, then apparently that included 5-10% of the population being homosexual, AS PER HIS DESIGN... oterwise it simply wouldn't be a stable, recurring trait. As for a "design of family being obvious" well, I'm sorry, but I just gotta disagree. Look around the world, there are literally dozens of stable family models in existence in different cultures, all of which achieve family goals admirably well. I should also like to point out that what YOU think of as the family model (nuclear, voluntarily loving mum and dad with kids) is a relatively new concept, and utterly non-Biblical.

Lastly... TEH AIDS, TEH AIDS!

Yes. Homosexual men, in developed Western nations, have a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. But so what? If the conclusion you draw from this is that sinfulness=disease, well, then I'm afraid you are drawing eroneous conclusions...

First of all, HIV/AIDS transmission is unknown among female homosexual population, so if disease rates equate to sinfulness, apparently lesbians are the chosen people.

Second, Outstripping homosexual HIV transmission by orders of magnitude, is heterosexual HIV transmission in Africa and parts of Asia. Any way you cut the statistical deck, HIV is a predominantly heterosexual disease. The only way to maintain the absolute fantasy that AIDS is a homosexual disaease, is if you dismiss 98% of the world's AIDS cases. So, if God really is using HIV to destroy homosexuals, it seems like a really sloppy method on his part, since for every homosexual in California who dies of HIV related illness, about 10 heterosexuals die of it in Africa.

Please remember that when discussing morality and ethics, sometimes it is necesary to remember that America is NOT the be all and end all of world wide trends and norms.

 

[Dogbean]

Woah... WOAH!

Now, I'm sorry, but every time I see AIDS/HIV thrown out from someone on the "teh gay sex is rong!" side, I just sort of see red. You also say a couple of other things I'd like to address first...

"Science has spoken"... indeed... and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that homosexuality is perfectly natural, an inherent biological condition, and that the human body has evolved, "designed", if you will, to accomodate both homo AND heterosexual intimacy. But I fear that the only science you will accept is the science that says what you want it to say. Never mind that genetics and biology strongly support the inherent naturalness of homosexuality, and its existence as a beneficial trait with in populations, THAT science, I'm sure you will say is flawed or biased. But science that says the anus is fragile? Well THAT science is obviously infalible, right?
Never mind the brutal, blunt fact that not all homosexuality intimacy, male OR female, involves the anus.

"God's design for sex/family is obvious" Argument from design cuts very little ice with me. Again, "science has spoken", and what it says is that we evolved, not that we were designed. Therefore, widespread traits that exist across a wide range of populations implies a beneficial trait. Since homosexuality qualifies, science tells us that homosexuality confers a benefit to the populations in which it is found. But even if, IF we were designed, as we exist, by God, then apparently that included 5-10% of the population being homosexual, AS PER HIS DESIGN... oterwise it simply wouldn't be a stable, recurring trait. As for a "design of family being obvious" well, I'm sorry, but I just gotta disagree. Look around the world, there are literally dozens of stable family models in existence in different cultures, all of which achieve family goals admirably well. I should also like to point out that what YOU think of as the family model (nuclear, voluntarily loving mum and dad with kids) is a relatively new concept, and utterly non-Biblical.

Lastly... TEH AIDS, TEH AIDS!

Yes. Homosexual men, in developed Western nations, have a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. But so what? If the conclusion you draw from this is that sinfulness=disease, well, then I'm afraid you are drawing eroneous conclusions...

First of all, HIV/AIDS transmission is unknown among female homosexual population, so if disease rates equate to sinfulness, apparently lesbians are the chosen people.

Second, Outstripping homosexual HIV transmission by orders of magnitude, is heterosexual HIV transmission in Africa and parts of Asia. Any way you cut the statistical deck, HIV is a predominantly heterosexual disease. The only way to maintain the absolute fantasy that AIDS is a homosexual disaease, is if you dismiss 98% of the world's AIDS cases. So, if God really is using HIV to destroy homosexuals, it seems like a really sloppy method on his part, since for every homosexual in California who dies of HIV related illness, about 10 heterosexuals die of it in Africa.

Please remember that when discussing morality and ethics, sometimes it is necesary to remember that America is NOT the be all and end all of world wide trends and norms.

A well written post. Too bad it's unscriptural and I disagree with a large majority of it. The Bible says that people lost in sin do not know the error of their ways. I pray you see it before it is too late.

This should be renamed "The Brick Wall Forum" since neither side is willing to budge. It's sometimes fun though. Helps sharpen my faith and writing skills. It's incredibly frustrating, but fun too. I'm going to continue to stand on the rock of truth and you are going to continue in your ways, but I'll continue to reach out in love to you guys and gals. Thank you, EP2, for being civil through it all and not calling me any of the forbidden words listed in the rules.

d

 

[Dogbean]

And we have a government where all people are supposed to be equal, not just the people you choose to like

You know, I am sick and tired of you misquoting me and accusing me of things I didn't say/do. Cite ONE TIME where I said "I do not like gay people." You won't find it in any of my posts. Why? Because it is not true. I like gay people just as much as anybody else. I never think less of them. Why do you think I'm reaching out to try to spread the truth to them? If you do not stop accusing me of things I didn't do, I am going to have corrective action taken. You are destroying the spirit of debate here. You must stop accusing people of things they did not say or do!!!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A well written post. Too bad it's unscriptural and I disagree with a large majority of it. The Bible says that people lost in sin do not know the error of their ways. I pray you see it before it is too late.

This should be renamed "The Brick Wall Forum" since neither side is willing to budge. It's sometimes fun though. Helps sharpen my faith and writing skills. It's incredibly frustrating, but fun too. I'm going to continue to stand on the rock of truth and you are going to continue in your ways, but I'll continue to reach out in love to you guys and gals. Thank you, EP2, for being civil through it all and not calling me any of the forbidden words listed in the rules.

d

You can call what I wrote "unscriptural" if you like... but was any of it contrary to empirical evidence?

Because, and I realise this is just me, but, it seems to me, that if someone's interpretation of what scripture says, goes against all available empirical evidence of the nature of reality, then maybe, just maybe, its time for that person to re-evaluate their idea of what scripture says, or how it should be interpreted?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Gays are not discriminated against. They can get jobs, housing, all the stuff we can. They are also free to obtain marriage benefits, if they marry someone of the opposite gender. Nobody is holding them back from doing that.

Now if someone came along and said they were not allowed to marry anyone, then yes, you have a point in saying they are being discriminated against.

Can you wrap your mind around this? LOL

Lets come at this a different way...

Are Christians in Saudi Arabia or Iran discriminated against because they are not allowed to practice their religion as they wish?

Of course not. They are free to worship Allah in Mosques just like everyone else, so they aren't being discrimnated against.

Exact same argument, only the variables of the group being discrimnated against changes.

You are free to marry the person you want, assuming her consent, I am not. That is discrimination.

 

[darkshadow]

And you know this how?

I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative -- I believe it dos have something to do with same-sex acts, as well. But let's cover a few facts:

1. Greek language was rife with terms for homosexual behaviors -- Socrates, Plato, Aristophanes, the Ganymede myth, were all hundreds of years in place at the time Paul wrote.

2. Paul uses none of those terms; he coins a new one. And he coins it from the roots arseno- and koit-, the terms that evoke the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22.

3. Leviticus 18 is a series of commandments regarding sexual and sex-related practices of the Canaanites from which the Children of Israel are to keep themselves apart.

4. Corinth, the location of the church to which this letter was written, was a wide-open port city, one infamous even in those days for its licentiousness. There's an old line that, "if it exists, you can buy it there" of such communities -- Corinth was the first to be described that way. In particular, there was a thriving 'underground' industry, to which the city government turned as blind eye, in the hiring out of enslaved boys as catamites for prostitution. Many competent scholars think that arsenokaites references those who hired them for bed partners, in much the way that priests of Astarte among the Canaanites hired themselves out as 'sacred prostitutes' in Ba'alite fertility rites.

As for your other parallels, I can cheerfully say that if you suggested my (M+F) marriage was equivalent to necrophilia or bestiality, I'd be reporting you to the moderators as having been intentionally offensive. It's a measure of the courtesy and restraint of our gay Christian members that they have not done so. I have frankly been in real life situations where suggesting that of someone else's marriage would be construed as asking for a punch in the mouth. Of course, on the Internet, you can be just as offensive as you choose without consequence. Nobody is going to judge you for it.

Except God.

If you read the post again you will see I said, that there had to be marriage and therefore, bestiality and necrophilia were eliminated from the equation. The entire point was that all Biblical references were of a man and a woman, and that the verse was not referring just to men, as some claimed. I did not compare yours or anyone else's marriage to the examples given, and in fact just the opposite. If taken that way I apoligize.

Now to the main point, Yes Corinth was a major hub and for what? Trade, and with trade comes a common language. Just as English is very common in the world, so was the, as it was called, the Vulger Greek. Paul being a Jew and a learned man, would have know the language and used it in his letters. He used words that we would call "slang", just as they would. If my black friend tells someone I am his bro, which has happened so not being racist, that does not mean I am his brother, but his friend, confidant, or pal. So was with Paul, he used a word that the people he was speaking to would know exactly what he was saying. I know the terms of the word because I have studied the word looking back, using such items as a conordance, at the original word, how it is used, and in the context it is being used in. I also look at other Scriptures to see what they say on the topic at hand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, just to get back to the OP... has anyone come up with a coherent reason why anyone should mind homosexual couples being given the same recognition as heterosexual couples, or why Christians should oppose such recognition, while not opposing equal recognition of, say, Hindu couples?

 

[darkshadow]

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.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew - 19:4-6

Since wife is referring to a female, then there is a limiting to who may marry. Before, you start your mumbo jumbo, wife here can in both Aramaic and Greek, refer only to a female, not a partner.

 

[darkshadow]

God also ordained marriage to be until death and yet we still allow divorce, not just in the secular state but in the church.

Yes, and it is looked down upon by God just the same, yet not unforgivable.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew - 19:4-6

Since wife is referring to a female, then there is a limiting to who may marry. Before, you start your mumbo jumbo, wife here can in both Aramaic and Greek, refer only to a female, not a partner.

Except that in context, this passage is discussing divorce, not who caan and cannot get married

 

[darkshadow]

I guess that not being a Christian can also be seen as "unbiblical". So why aren't you and other conservative Christians voting to outlaw other religions?

Because we do have the "freedom of religion" and God does not want mindless robots, therefore gives us free will to choose to have a relationship with him or not. Making it a law that you must believe this way, is just as wrong as those who make laws that you can not be a christian. Stealing from Shakespeare, "To be or not to be that is the question", to be a "christian" or not that is each and everyone's own personal question. Along with that is to be a "true christian" or just someone trying to get to heaven, but not give there evil ways up. God does not force us, so we should not force anyone else.