What would a moderate christian standpoint on homosexuality look like?

[RDKirk]

That's the way it is now. There's nothing in the legal system about a religious significance to marriage. It's really a civil status, with lots of effects on tax, inheritance, medical responsibility. Most marriages happen in churches, but it's the church that adds the religious significance. But you can also have non-religious marriage. The idea of separate but equal civil unions for gays was solely intended as an insult to gay unions. Assuming they were really equal, there was no legal difference.

Actually, there is a difference regarding what @9Rock9 is saying.

The state can get completely out of the game of designating anything a "marriage," including enforcing any presumed "contractual" agreements the concept might entail. The state simply becomes completely agnostic to the term, such as it already is now with "godparent."

But the state does recognize and enforce "domestic partnership" contracts made between any two or more consenting adults, within the state's contract law statutes. The domestic partnership contract would stipulate all necessary legal performances expected of each party, and it would be the basis for any further joint commercial concerns, such as insurance, bank accounts, mortgages, hospital care, et cetera.

If any two or more people want to be socially known as "husband" or "wife" or whatever to anyone else, they would have find an agreeable clergycritter to hold the ceremony. Nobody outside their own social circle need be impacted or even care. There would not be a state marriage certificate for them to sign, but if they want to get something printed on their own to hang on the wall, that's their decision.

 

[hedrick]

Actually, there is a difference regarding what @9Rock9 is saying.

The state can get completely out of the game of designating anything a "marriage," including enforcing any presumed "contractual" agreements the concept might entail. The state simply becomes completely agnostic to the term, such as it already is now with "godparent."

But the state does recognize and enforce "domestic partnership" contracts made between any two or more consenting adults, within the state's contract law statutes. The domestic partnership contract would stipulate all necessary legal performances expected of each party, and it would be the basis for any further joint commercial concerns, such as insurance, bank accounts, mortgages, hospital care, et cetera.

If any two or more people want to be socially known as "husband" or "wife" or whatever to anyone else, they would have find an agreeable clergycritter to hold the ceremony. Nobody outside their own social circle need be impacted or even care. There would not be a state marriage certificate for them to sign, but if they want to get something printed on their own to hang on the wall, that's their decision.

I'm single. I don't feel strongly. But there are currently lots of implications of marriage, which would be really tedious for every couple to implement with contracts. And some couldn't be done at all, e.g. the tax implications. I can't help feeling that this is a reaction to gay marriage: if they can be married, let's abolish the whole thing. That reaction seems childish.

 

[rturner76]

It's really just another name for the same thing. When you get married in a church, you still must obtain a marriage license and marriage certificate. In essence, a person is registering their religious marriage as a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership happens to be called marriage for them.

I'm not clear on the difference between a domestic partnership and a civil union. Is it just called different things in different states or are they two different things?

 

[Psalm 27]

1 Cor. 6:9
you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
10 not thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Haven’t we all been on this list at some point in our lives?

 

[PloverWing]

I'm not clear on the difference between a domestic partnership and a civil union. Is it just called different things in different states or are they two different things?

It may vary by state. I can speak to New Jersey's situation, since that's where I live. Over the span of the last couple of decades, as the legislature wanted to offer legal status to same-sex couples, New Jersey established domestic partnerships, then civil unions a few years later, then marriage after Obergefell. Domestic partnerships offered a more limited set of legal benefits than marriage offers. Civil unions offer the same legal benefits as marriage, but only at the state level; NJ civil unions are recognized by some other states that also have civil unions, but they're not recognized by many states or by the federal government. Marriage is recognized by all 50 states and by the federal government.

I don't know if other states use the language of "domestic partnership" and "civil union" with the same nuances of meaning as NJ; I haven't followed other states as closely.

(Sources: New Jersey Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions & Domestic Partnerships - Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group , NJ Division of Taxation - The Domestic Partnership Act - New Jersey Income Tax/Inheritance Tax, and my own fallible memory)

 

[RDKirk]

I'm single. I don't feel strongly. But there are currently lots of implications of marriage, which would be really tedious for every couple to implement with contracts. And some couldn't be done at all, e.g. the tax implications. I can't help feeling that this is a reaction to gay marriage: if they can be married, let's abolish the whole thing. That reaction seems childish.

The reason divorces get to be such a mess is because "marriage" is probably the lousiest type of contract courts attempt to enforce. Both parties have a lot of assumptions about what they're going to get and give, and nothing is written down. It would be much simpler if it all was implemented by contract.

Of course all the necessary elements of a domestic partnership can be written down. The Jews did it all the time, and conservative Jews still do. Their covenants can be pretty involved--even down to enumerating the minimum number of times they have sex per week--but it's certainly possible. It wouldn't take long at all for lawyers to get the boilerplate down, just as they do with mortgages, so each couple would just have to review it and initial changes.

And, no, it's not just a reaction to gay marriages. Several groups--including Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and some others have always been doing it. They have never ascribed to the idea that their religious sacraments required the county clerk's signature to be valid.

 

[Joyous Song]

We need to love homosexual people as we love ourselves. This means not just tolerate them in Church, but giving them full rights as a member of the Church. i believe therefore that a homosexual who fights their sins and remain celibate could well be fit for leadership in Church.

Our Church community accepts then and allows them to take the Eucharist but not hold leadership positions. They believe the Eucharist is powerful enough to convict them IF this is the will of HaShem. They also leave judging them to G-d.