Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[darkshadow]

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.

The highest statisic for HIV/AIDS is actually black females, of a straight or bi-sexual nature. Bi-sexual do to the male/female partnership. Not homosexuals. It is not a curse on homosexuals otherwise the heterosexual population would not have it. It is the same as cancer a disease brought on by the fall of man bringing death and disease into the world.

 

[darkshadow]

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

The first verse is not regarding divorce, and even when Jesus is speaking of divorce, it still holds that he is against divorce and that marriage is to be between a man and woman, and all in context.

 

[Andreusz]

I suppose I look at it that way because legislation outlawing other religions would never come to a vote in the US. There is a very real possibility that a Constitutional amendment would come to a vote, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

So, are you saying that you only oppose unbiblical things if it's likely that there'll be a lot of other people supporting you?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
When Jesus was asked about divorcing a wife they werent discussing divorcing a man. Jesus responded that God made male and female it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. He used this to show that what God had joined man should not separate. The Genesis 2 creation account doesnt specifically address divorce, what Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees was they hadnt understood it properly. This is the same with the pro-gay lobbies, they have understood it even less than the Pharisees.
A man cannot leave his father and father and be united with his husband, nor can the two become one flesh. Same sex unions are dysfucntional thinking.
The alternative Jesus gives when they grumbled about faithfullness, was celibacy which is an absense of a union.

 

[Andreusz]

Isn't it hypocritical for Christians to oppose gay civil marriage, and not to oppose remarriage after divorce, or in fact any non-Christian marriage, with equal fervor?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Isn't it hypocritical for Christians to oppose gay civil marriage, and not to oppose remarriage after divorce, or in fact any non-Christian marriage, with equal fervor?

Thats a very good question and the answer is yes and no.
The Bible teaches that marriage is a faithful union between a man and a woman as in God's created order (Genesis 2, Matt 19 etc) so gay civil unions isnt even marriage. Christians would normally point out that born again believers should not be separating and certainly not remarying. For those who were nominal Christians or unbelievers when they married and divorced, a marriage committed to God with Christ as the head is often allowed. One might argue thats hypocritical but the church points out that Jesus does forgive those who come to believe and repent, ist a new life, so one can argue its not hypocritical.
Nevertheless they are two unrealted issues as marriage is man and woman and gay or same sex union isnt.

 

[OllieFranz]

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.
(emphasis mine)

Looking back? Have you found examples of the word being used before Paul's letters that no one else has ever been able to find? Why have you not shared this discovery of great historical import with the academic community?

Context? Does this mean that those lost documents you have of the usage of this word before Paul include usage of the word in full context, rather than just another in a list of diverse sins as in Paul's letters and in every ancient text which comes after Paul and which, whether the writings of early Church fathers or the Sibylline Oracles, show clear evidence of Paul's influence? From the context in these, we can tell that the writers considered arsenokoites to be sin, just as murder and deceit are sins, but the context does nothing as far as defining what the activity was that they considered to be sin or why it was sinful. (Yes, we can can break it down etymologically into "man" and "coitus," but etymology is not context, and there are caveats in relying on etymology over context. Does the English compound word "lady-killer" describe a murderous woman? Or a person who murders women? Or does it have a definition which is totally unanticipated by its etymology?

Concordance? Are you claiming that there are instances in the Bible of this word other than the two sin-lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11?

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,

Thats a very good question and the answer is yes and no.
The Bible teaches that marriage is a faithful union between a man and a woman as in God's created order (Genesis 2, Matt 19 etc) so gay civil unions isnt even marriage. Christians would normally point out that born again believers should not be separating and certainly not remarying. For those who were nominal Christians or unbelievers when they married and divorced, a marriage committed to God with Christ as the head is often allowed. One might argue thats hypocritical but the church points out that Jesus does forgive those who come to believe and repent, ist a new life, so one can argue its not hypocritical.
Nevertheless they are two unrealted issues as marriage is man and woman and gay or same sex union isnt.

But Matthew 19:9 says "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." It says nothing about this applying to Christians only. Now we are constantly being told that gay sex is no worse a sin than adultery; so, again, shouldn't Christians be just as fiercely opposed to remarriage after divorce ... for anyone? I don't see that the issues are unrelated, as they both deal with sin.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

But Matthew 19:9 says "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." It says nothing about this applying to Christians only.

Well it does in a way if you appreciate that Jesus refers the teachers of the law, those who had read what God had told them, to the very thing God had told them, Jesus wasnt addressing pagans here. This is why Jesus asks His followers to make disciples obeying all He taught.

Now we are constantly being told that gay sex is no worse a sin than adultery; so, again, shouldn't Christians be just as fiercely opposed to remarriage after divorce ... for anyone? I don't see that the issues are unrelated, as they both deal with sin.

Yes. for those who know what the truth is, and I think we can see in a few recent cases in free churches where leaders who have sinned in adultery have said sorry and willingly resigned from their positions, whereas leaders in the Anglican Communion who have sinned in same sex unions have done neither.
But you are missing one vital point, God made woman to be united with man faithfully in the first place, not man with man, and two wrongs dont make a right anyway.

 

[Andreusz]

and two wrongs dont make a right anyway.

I'm not really sure how your reply addresses my question. I am not saying that Christians shouldn't oppose gay marriage because the law allows remarriage after divorce; I am asking whether Christians who oppose same-sex marriage should not be opposing remarriage after divorce with equal fervor.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To Andreusz,
Well it does in a way if you appreciate that Jesus refers the teachers of the law, those who had read what God had told them, to the very thing God had told them, Jesus wasnt addressing pagans here. This is why Jesus asks His followers to make disciples obeying all He taught.
Yes. for those who know what the truth is, and I think we can see in a few recent cases in free churches where leaders who have sinned in adultery have said sorry and willingly resigned from their positions, whereas leaders in the Anglican Communion who have sinned in same sex unions have done neither.
But you are missing one vital point, God made woman to be united with man faithfully in the first place, not man with man, and two wrongs dont make a right anyway.

Would you like to see Hindu husbands and wives denied recognition of their marital status?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Would you like to see Hindu husbands and wives denied recognition of their marital status?

No, I have given you the answer, God made male and female, that’s husband and wife, but I would like to see those husbands and wives come to know the Lord Jesus Christ and become Christians.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

I'm not really sure how your reply addresses my question. I am not saying that Christians shouldn't oppose gay marriage because the law allows remarriage after divorce; I am asking whether Christians who oppose same-sex marriage should not be opposing remarriage after divorce with equal fervor.

My appolgies Andreusz, you did deserve a straight yes or no on that question, my answer is no, as marriage and divorce are at least man and woman who God created to be together, there is no such things as gay marriage. Having said that born again Christians should not be divorcing and remarrying, that should be opposed with equal fervour.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
No, I have given you the answer, God made male and female, that’s husband and wife, but I would like to see those husbands and wives come to know the Lord Jesus Christ and become Christians.[/color]

As I suspected.

It isn't non-biblical marriages you oppose, its homosexuals.

 

[KCKID]

I'm not really sure how your reply addresses my question. I am not saying that Christians shouldn't oppose gay marriage because the law allows remarriage after divorce; I am asking whether Christians who oppose same-sex marriage should not be opposing remarriage after divorce with equal fervor.

Right on brother! You're right. Your question has merely been addressed with a red herring. Divorce and remarriage even within the church (there are six such examples in my local church that I know of) is almost a common occurrence. Yet few if any Christians bat an eye. If there were six examples of homosexual couples within my church we would certainly hear about it!

So many Christians are little more than hypocrites, sad to say. And, we know what Jesus thought about them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

It isn't non-biblical marriages you oppose, its homosexuals.

I don’t oppose homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals, as in having same sex attraction and unions, you keep asking questions and refusing to accept the answers.
Biblical marriage is man and woman, same sex unions aren’t marriage.

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
My appolgies Andreusz, you did deserve a straight yes or no on that question,

Thank you.

my answer is no, as marriage and divorce are at least man and woman who God created to be together, there is no such things as gay marriage.

And yet several posters on these forums have told me that homosexual sex is no worse a sin than adultery ... but remarriage after divorce is adultery, yet you seem to be saying that it is better than homosexual marriage because at least it involves a man anad a woman. So are you saying that homosexual sex is a worse sin than adultery?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

And, we know what Jesus thought about them.

We know what we are going to have to account for to Jesus, I suspect you are comfortable too.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
I don’t oppose homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals, as in having same sex attraction and unions, you keep asking questions and refusing to accept the answers.
Biblical marriage is man and woman, same sex unions aren’t marriage.

same sex marriage is just as "biblical" as Hindu marriage, yet you only oppose same sex marriage. This speaks louder to me than any of your claimed homosexual friends

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

And yet several posters on these forums have told me that homosexual sex is no worse a sin than adultery ... but remarriage after divorce is adultery, yet you seem to be saying that it is better than homosexual marriage because at least it involves a man anad a woman. So are you saying that homosexual sex is a worse sin than adultry?

No its not a worse sin than adultery, all sin is falling short of God's glory, but God created man and woman to be united, not man and man, so there is no such thing as the gay marriage being cited. You see sin came to man and woman through disobedience, it did not come to man and man through disobedience.