Civil Unions For All Gay Couples or For All

[gurneyhalleck1]

Simple with this issue: scripture, tradition, reason. Scripture is opposed to homosexuality, tradition is opposed to it, and the very reality that not only is it a vile act but the fact that it is 100% non-procreative at all times and is disordered, etc is a good starting place.

Clearly, there exists objective Truth. The alternative is chaos.

The open question is how do we agree with regard to what is True.

 

[file13]

Simple with this issue: scripture, tradition, reason. Scripture is opposed to homosexuality, tradition is opposed to it, and the very reality that not only is it a vile act but the fact that it is 100% non-procreative at all times and is disordered, etc is a good starting place.

Well amen!

So would you say that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason are all equally authoritative when it comes to claims of objective morals and duties? I mean, does the application of human reason have any bearing on an objective truth?

 

[mark46]

There is a cultural crisis in the US. Yes, there are those who do not believe in objective Truth, and there are those who do. In addition, there are many non-Christian believers in objective Truth who agree with Christians regarding much of what we call objective Truth regarding morality.

There are many levels of this arguments made on this thread.

For example, if I want to say that stealing is objectively wrong, do I need to be a bible-believing Christian to give this statement credibility?

They might be clear to you and I brother. But are they clear to everyone arguing here? Do folks who think that gay marriage is swell actually believe in objective morals and duties? Or are they rather just making it up as they go along? Do they accept objective truth and know how they know objective truth? Or do they rather think that they determine if something is right or wrong solely based on the situation because, after all, the Bible was written by old bronze age dudes who had no clue about iPhones?

Of course, due to the extreme nature of my example, I don't know anyone who will reject the existence of objective morals and duties, at least in that case--and thus the rhetoric behind the choice. But the next question of "how do they know that?" goes to the heart of what it means to acquire a Christian worldview.

 

[brightmorningstar]

file13,

So it's safe to say that you do believe that objective morals and duties do exist and that the source of these objective truths are to be found in Scripture?

It is safe to say that scripture throughout excludes and condemns same sex relations and the testimony of the one who claimed to be the truth.
So the answer to your question must be yes Jesus Christ is the objective truth according to His Biblical testimony.
Of course to many neither Christ nor His Biblical testimony will be the objective truth.

 

[brightmorningstar]

file13,

I mean, does the application of human reason have any bearing on an objective truth?

It has bearing on the objective truth, but it doesnt change the objective truth. Would it depend on whom you asked>

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Elaborate, please....

This issue is much complicated that Christian believers deciding which Scriptures that we take more seriously and attempting to make civil laws to punish those who disagree with us.

 

[MKJ]

Ha, File13 said `groovy`.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think reason plays a part in how we carry out objective morality. It plays a role in economia for sure. But when we read that homosexuality is plainly sinful in the Scriptures, look at what tradition has to say about it, and we use reason to see why it is sinful, the entire picture is clear. I think the Catholics have done a splendid job in describing why the gay lifestyle is wrong. Their choice of the term "disordered" is about as perfect a descriptor as they come. I would say Scripture is more important and influential, or at least it should be, in making moral judgments. But sometimes some moral issues are not in Scripture like in vitro fertilization, transgenders, fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, and a ton of technological issues in our age. So in those cases we rely on the Church and reason guided by the Church to help us see morality and ethics. That is where I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are strongest. Anglicanism is lagging and is pandering to the age, which truly truly bothers me.

Well amen!

So would you say that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason are all equally authoritative when it comes to claims of objective morals and duties? I mean, does the application of human reason have any bearing on an objective truth?

 

[mark46]

There are two related issues.

WHICH VERSES TO TAKE MORE SERIOUSLY
We don't take the command of Jesus with regard to remarriage of divorced folks very seriously at all. We pay lip service to commands regarding premarital sex and gossip. We are willing to split churches on the definition of predestination (1600's) or marriage (today). Of course, we all are sure we are right and have the Scriptural view.

Clearly there are also many other passages that we ignore because they seem to only apply to the churches of the day.

CIVIL LAWS
Many US evangelicals are willing to fight exceedingly to make sure that their (and our) definition of marriage is the law of the land. There can be no marriage for two of the same sex, even though many other Christians, those in other faith traditions and many without a faith traditions disagree with our definition. In fact, even the state recognizing of civil unions is unacceptable to most evangelicals. To be clear, I do not think that the Church should perform such marriages or blessings. That being said, I personally believe that it is a violation of our position regarding religious freedom to prohibit these marriages or civil unions.

As has been posted elsewhere, the solution is for the state to get out of the marriage business. In the US, that is not going to happen. There would be waaaay to many statutes to change. So the issue is whether Christians should allow those of other faith traditions to have freedom to follow their faith path (including other Christians) or whether we will continue to use the state to enforce our views of the definition of who the state should accord the benefits of marriage and civil unions.

Elaborate, please....

 

[GodIsLove1]

I think our discussion here about Objective Truth / Subjective Truth has missed the very foundational aspect. That we are a people of Revealed Truth.

We discover Objective Truth through our human experience and we can extrapolate Common Morality from it. It's objectively "bad" for me to hold my hand in a fire until all I have left to pull out is a stump. It's equally objectively bad for you to do so. Thus it is morally wrong for me to hold Your hand in that same fire, and vice versa. Truth such as this requires no Faith on our part (though the shared morality of it indeed requires communal assent... or something more).

Revealed Truth is what God has given us in Scripture. This is surely a greater foundation for our agreed-upon morality, 'cause, well, you just can't always trust humans to figure everything out. The Lord had to give specific instruction to the Israelites Not to pass their children through the Fire in sacrificial worship to Molech (Lev. 18).

Is Revealed Truth Objective? We may say that Revealed Truth that has proven accurate over a period of millennia approaches as near as possible to Objective Truth, but the very fact that it was needed to be Revealed, of itself, proves as well that it is not innate. The Lord provided His Truth (whether that be in Scripture or merely "creation itself" --Romans 1) for our Minds -- to seek our "Truer" experience ("taste") of Him.

I see only that Subjective Truth is discovered by the human mind and spirit seeking to formulate, for ourselves, God's meaning for us in both Objective Truth (laws, let's say, of the very physics he created in this world and of our neurology which interacts with those laws) and in the Revealed Truth for which he used "language" (Logos, The Word) and thus demanded we use our capacity of mind and spirit to suss-out His Reality.

I'm not saying that what we Do with Revealed Truth is "Our Personal Business, and ours alone." But when it's dropped into the hearts of humans, some wrangling between ourselves, as to interpretation(s), was likely part of His plan.

Blessings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bottom line is this: The U.S. is based on Judeo-Christian values, which both prohibit gay "marriage." While we're at it, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other mainstream religion for centuries has never permitted it.

In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was rampant and accepted as a part of life. It was no big woop; everyone did it. But notice, even these libertine Greeks and Romans never sought to consider gay living a "marriage." Not for an instant. There were gay Roman emperors, plenty, yet they never sought to make homosexual relationships elevated to the level of marriage.

If we deviate from the normal heterosexual model, why not say that polygamy is a genuine institution that should deserve marriage? If love is the only requirement, who are we to judge polygamists with 30 wives as not really loving their flock of ladies? Or beastiality? They love animals. Who am I to judge them? Or a man wanting to marry two women and another male all together. Can I judge that as abnormal?

At what point can we say NO to people and their own individual values about what constitutes a marriage? What makes a gay couple's claim more valid than a polygamist or a beastiality dude? At what point is there a "normality" to things? This isn't even a church-state issue, it's really a slippery slope absurdity issue IMHO.

There are two related issues.

WHICH VERSES TO TAKE MORE SERIOUSLY
We don't take the command of Jesus with regard to remarriage of divorced folks very seriously at all. We pay lip service to commands regarding premarital sex and gossip. We are willing to split churches on the definition of predestination (1600's) or marriage (today). Of course, we all are sure we are right and have the Scriptural view.

Clearly there are also many other passages that we ignore because they seem to only apply to the churches of the day.

CIVIL LAWS
Many US evangelicals are willing to fight exceedingly to make sure that their (and our) definition of marriage is the law of the land. There can be no marriage for two of the same sex, even though many other Christians, those in other faith traditions and many without a faith traditions disagree with our definition. In fact, even the state recognizing of civil unions is unacceptable to most evangelicals. To be clear, I do not think that the Church should perform such marriages or blessings. That being said, I personally believe that it is a violation of our position regarding religious freedom to prohibit these marriages or civil unions.

As has been posted elsewhere, the solution is for the state to get out of the marriage business. In the US, that is not going to happen. There would be waaaay to many statutes to change. So the issue is whether Christians should allow those of other faith traditions to have freedom to follow their faith path (including other Christians) or whether we will continue to use the state to enforce our views of the definition of who the state should accord the benefits of marriage and civil unions.

 

[mark46]

Are you now arguing that we do not allow polygamy in the US because of scriptural reasons? As you well know, polygamy was accepted in the OT and in the Middle East until relatively recently. There is no biblical prohibition. This is part of the point. We use our interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to decide what laws we should all have.

As you know, I agree with your position regarding marriage. I agree precisely because the definition is NOT about Judeo-Christian values, but rather than the general good of society. And yes, the fact that Muslims and Hindus agree is important.

Scripture tells us to stone those found in adultery. Is that Judeo-Christian value OK? At minimum a scarlet letter seems right. Or so Christians thought at the time.

However, civil unions are a different issue. Do you agree or not?

Bottom line is this: The U.S. is based on Judeo-Christian values, which both prohibit gay "marriage." While we're at it, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other mainstream religion for centuries has never permitted it.

In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was rampant and accepted as a part of life. It was no big woop; everyone did it. But notice, even these libertine Greeks and Romans never sought to consider gay living a "marriage." Not for an instant. There were gay Roman emperors, plenty, yet they never sought to make homosexual relationships elevated to the level of marriage.

If we deviate from the normal heterosexual model, why not say that polygamy is a genuine institution that should deserve marriage? If love is the only requirement, who are we to judge polygamists with 30 wives as not really loving their flock of ladies? Or beastiality? They love animals. Who am I to judge them? Or a man wanting to marry two women and another male all together. Can I judge that as abnormal?

At what point can we say NO to people and their own individual values about what constitutes a marriage? What makes a gay couple's claim more valid than a polygamist or a beastiality dude? At what point is there a "normality" to things? This isn't even a church-state issue, it's really a slippery slope absurdity issue IMHO.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark1,
I think one has to qualify saying poligamy was accepted in the OT, the NT makes it clear it is not and was not God’s purpose. One might say God allowed discretion because their hearts were hard, the same as with divorce.
Nor do I fully agree with you about your remarks on remarriage, divorce, premarital sex and gossip, in a way you are right but we still teach it is wrong and we challenge brothers and sisters on it, I a not aware of anyone promoting or blessing them. NB. If one is going to discuss the position on remarriage one must have already have accepted sss is error, otherwise its picking and choosing bits of scripture.

We are willing to split churches on the definition of predestination (1600's) or marriage (today). Of course, we all are sure we are right and have the Scriptural view.

Err no, we are not willing to split churches on marriage, rather it is no longer the faith once delivered if its not marriage. There is no scripture to support anything other than man/woman marriage whereas predestination or not, is interpretation from scripture.

 

[kiwimac]

The US was never based on Judeo-Christian values. It was based on Deistic and Enlightenment values.

 

[MKJ]

The US was never based on Judeo-Christian values. It was based on Deistic and Enlightenment values.

I think that is a very over-sweeping statement - it's not like the framers of the American nation to a man were deists.

In any case, the Enlightenment came out of Judeo-Christian values.

 

[artybloke]

What makes a gay couple's claim more valid than a polygamist or a beastiality dude?

And this is where you let go of any pretence and reason and enter the la-la land of the homophobe.

As has no doubt been pointed out to you before, beastiality has no possibility of consent in on the part of the abused animal. Mutual love is the reason for gay people getting married, as it is for straight couples.

The problem with 'objective truth' is not whether it exists or not; it's that one group claims their truth is more 'objective' than another group, and thus think they're entitled to the moral high ground, when their truth is every bit as culturally determined as the other group. But the group with all the power tells the group without the power what 'objective' truths they're supposed to follow.

That's what's called Western Imperialist hegemony round these parts...

 

[dandylion1984]

We don't take the command of Jesus with regard to remarriage of divorced folks very seriously at all. We pay lip service to commands regarding premarital sex and gossip. We are willing to split churches on the definition of predestination (1600's) or marriage (today). Of course, we all are sure we are right and have the Scriptural view.

I suppose this is what upsets me most about the debate around the sinfulness of being gay. There are only about 3 verses in the NT that are used to outright condemn homosexuality. They are not in the gospels and they are ambigous at best.

However, take the issue of divorce and remarriage. Something Jesus himself spoke out against and is recorded in multiple gospels. Yet, so many denominations permit divorce and remarriage (which is basically church accepted adultary).

And, I suppose, that goes back to the original question. There is a difference between civil marriage and marriage before God. A civil marriage is simply the government acknowledging that two people are joined and they can get divorced and remarried as often as they want (and can afford). But true marriage, the marriage before God, can only happen once and it can only be broken with death. A couple may seperate and even have a civil divorce but they are still married in the eyes of God. And should one of them start a new relationship (even under the guise of marriage), it is adultry.

Personally, I would rather have the church bless same-sex couples than permit a person who was married in the church to remarry after a divorce.

 

[dandylion1984]

The problem with 'objective truth' is not whether it exists or not; it's that one group claims their truth is more 'objective' than another group, and thus think they're entitled to the moral high ground, when their truth is every bit as culturally determined as the other group. But the group with all the power tells the group without the power what 'objective' truths they're supposed to follow.

For a Christian, there is objective truth. God created the universe and, therefore, God created what is true. And that truth is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. And the bible tells us of Jesus and his disicples. Through the bible, we can discern some objective truth. For example, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If we believe even the tiniest bit that the bible is the inspired word of God, all people who profess to follow Christ can believe these commands to be objective. However, when it comes to acting on these objective truths, we tend to divide into denominations. Our interprutation of this objective truth is influenced by our culture, our priviledge, our status, our belief systems, etc.

 

[artybloke]

Our interprutation of this objective truth is influenced by our culture, our priviledge, our status, our belief systems, etc.

Aye, there's the rub...

Of course objective truth exists... but no-one but God can see it completely. And, however inspired it is, the Bible is as much a product of the culture that produced it as is the Book of Common Prayer or the writing of Richard Dawkins.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

Of course objective truth exists... but no-one but God can see it completely.

Who said? Jesus Christ said He is the truth and when we do what He says we know the truth and the truth sets us free.
Again now you seem to be saying no-one knows the truth when Jesus says when we do what He says we also know the truth.
You keep denying what Jesus said.