Are Christians supposed to fight to keep our laws godly?

[Gretchen in NJ]

I'd rep you if I could. *visualize green squares*

 

Thank you SolaMichella. I am so glad you are asking me to *visualize green squares* and not the red ones.;):D:lol:

[theresatwist]

In general, I agree with you here Bill. To respond specifically to this question, I'll tell you my concern.

 

IMO, marriage is an institution designed first and foremost to protect children.

 

My reservation about gay marriage centers around giving gay couples equal footing for adoption with heterosexual couples. If we acknowledge gay marriage and gay families as equal to or the same as traditional families, how then can we then give favor to heterosexual couples wanting to adopt?

 

I believe that parenting is best when a child has a woman for a mother and a man for a father. I will never ever be convinced that having same sex parents is equal to having a traditional family assuming all four potential parents are good people.

 

I am not against gay adoptions, either. I am sure many gay couples are excellent parents and wonderful people. I just don't think, all things being equal, a family with two same sex parents is equal to or better than a traditional one.

 

Legitimizing gay marriage says same sex couples and traditional couples are equally good for children; biology tells us otherwise.

 

Deep breathe. Hit submit. Await need to delete!

 

KJB, I disagree with you about homosexual parents being inferior in any way to heterosexual parents. That said, I feel like we have a shortage of people who want to adopt! I assume we can agree that a loving home of any kind is superior to none at all or an aborted pregnancy. I don't think allowing homosexual couples to marry and adopt is going to mean that there is going to mean that there is going to be a shortage of children for heterosexual couples to adopt anytime in the near future.

 

I also don't think that biology is telling us that homosexual couples are inferior parents. Although I'm glad that we seem to agree that homosexuality is about science and not about choices. But, I think the presence of homosexuality in humans and in animals is telling us that it is not in our species' best interest for all of us to reproduce perhaps to do a lack of resources or perhaps for other reasons.

[KingM]

Legitimizing gay marriage says same sex couples and traditional couples are equally good for children; biology tells us otherwise.

 

But a lot of marriages don't involve children anyway. Some people can't have them, or choose not to, or maybe they had children that are now grown and with lives of their own, so technically, the biological reason for their marriage is now over.

 

I'm not saying that children aren't an important component of marriage (got four of 'em myself), but I don't think this is the only important feature of marriage.

 

Deep breathe. Hit submit. Await need to delete!

 

LOL. Boy, have I had that feeling recently.

 

But no worries, it was a reasonable position, argued calmly. :)

[KJB]

KJB, I disagree with you about homosexual parents being inferior in any way to heterosexual parents. That said, I feel like we have a shortage of people who want to adopt! I assume we can agree that a loving home of any kind is superior to none at all or an aborted pregnancy. I don't think allowing homosexual couples to marry and adopt is going to mean that there is going to mean that there is going to be a shortage of children for heterosexual couples to adopt anytime in the near future.

 

I also don't think that biology is telling us that homosexual couples are inferior parents. Although I'm glad that we seem to agree that homosexuality is about science and not about choices. But, I think the presence of homosexuality in humans and in animals is telling us that it is not in our species' best interest for all of us to reproduce perhaps to do a lack of resources or perhaps for other reasons.

 

You misread me. I am not saying an *individual* homosexual parent is inferior to an *individual* heterosexual parent.

 

I am saying that as a couple, a woman and a man function better to raise a child than two same gender parents. I can give things as a woman to my children my husband never will and likewise he imparts molding to my children as a man that I am unable to replicate no matter how much I love them.

 

And if same sex couples were intended to create and raise children, then logically they should be biologically capable.

 

And the question isn't rather or not gays should be able to parent. I wholeheartedly support gay adoption and gay parenting. I just believe ALL THINGS EQUAL (ie two couples, one gay and one straight all four excellent people) the heterosexual couple should be given preference for adoption.

 

Recognizing marriages legally removes that impetus.

[KJB]

But a lot of marriages don't involve children anyway. Some people can't have them, or choose not to, or maybe they had children that are now grown and with lives of their own, so technically, the biological reason for their marriage is now over.

 

I'm not saying that children aren't an important component of marriage (got four of 'em myself), but I don't think this is the only important feature of marriage.

 

No question. I would be in favor of legalizing gay marriage if heterosexual couples were given preference in cases of adoption.

 

LOL. Boy, have I had that feeling recently.

 

But no worries, it was a reasonable position, argued calmly. :)

 

Thanks. I'm not outta the doghouse yet. :D

 

((KJB, ready to jump ship at any indicator of impending crisis))

[Impish]

You misread me. I am not saying an *individual* homosexual parent is inferior to an *individual* heterosexual parent.

 

I am saying that as a couple, a woman and a man function better to raise a child than two same gender parents. I can give things as a woman to my children my husband never will and likewise he imparts molding to my children as a man that I am unable to replicate no matter how much I love them.

 

And if same sex couples were intended to create and raise children, then logically they should be biologically capable.

 

And the question isn't rather or not gays should be able to parent. I wholeheartedly support gay adoption and gay parenting. I just believe ALL THINGS EQUAL (ie two couples, one gay and one straight all four excellent people) the heterosexual couple should be given preference for adoption.

 

Recognizing marriages legally removes that impetus.

I believe that the birth mother has say in who adopts her child, if we're discussing an infant adoption. In that case, its her decision, and therefore whatever preference SHE has is what counts, period. As far as a social service adoption goes, I believe its what is the best fit for the child, as well as what the prospective parents are willing to accept, as far as race,age, potential exposure to drugs and alcohol, disabilities, etc goes. Far more goes into deciding placement of a child than gay/straight. There are hundreds of children available for adoption in foster care, waiting and waiting and waiting. Its never down to the wire here as to 'there's only one child left, who shall we place them with??'

[Rosy]

Going back to the OP:

Are Christians supposed to fight to keep our laws godly?

 

What if we changed the question to: "Are people supposed to fight to keep our laws moral?"

 

I think few of us would disagree that we should. We have and would fight for the right to educate our children, the right of black people to live free and equal lives, the right of women to vote, etc. because we believe these things are right. If the mainstream did not believe we should have these rights, they would not stop being right.

 

Everyone votes (and fights when necessary) according to what they believe is right. And at some point, we support things that we believe are right for society, even if they might not directly effect us, because we believe they're right.

 

Everyone does that. Why shouldn't Christians?

[KJB]

I believe that the birth mother has say in who adopts her child, if we're discussing an infant adoption. In that case, its her decision, and therefore whatever preference SHE has is what counts, period. As far as a social service adoption goes, I believe its what is the best fit for the child, as well as what the prospective parents are willing to accept, as far as race,age, potential exposure to drugs and alcohol, disabilities, etc goes. Far more goes into deciding placement of a child than gay/straight. There are hundreds of children available for adoption in foster care, waiting and waiting and waiting. Its never down to the wire here as to 'there's only one child left, who shall we place them with??'

 

 

I am sure there are people who are much better versed in how adoption works than I am. However, as a matter of law or state policy, my preference is that heterosexual couples should be favored in cases where other criteria place couples on even footing.

 

I will say again, I am in no way suggesting gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt or parent. I am fully supportive of anyone taking on this monumental task of raising little humans. And of course there is much more to the decision than sexual orientation, which is why I made a point of saying "all things equal".

 

And you're right, it isn't as if there's one child left, but there is a high demand for adoption of healthy infants. Many people look outside the US for adoption because of the relative scarcity of young babies.

[nlmullen]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I think that we have to pray for our country, specifically our leaders, that they would have wisdom and that the people of our country will humble themselves and pray and turn to God.

 

If opportunity arises, like an email asking us to make a call to our senators about a specific law, it would be prudent of us to take action on this.

[mommaduck]

Going back to the OP:

 

 

What if we changed the question to: "Are people supposed to fight to keep our laws moral?"

 

I think few of us would disagree that we should. We have and would fight for the right to educate our children, the right of black people to live free and equal lives, the right of women to vote, etc. because we believe these things are right. If the mainstream did not believe we should have these rights, they would not stop being right.

 

Everyone votes (and fights when necessary) according to what they believe is right. And at some point, we support things that we believe are right for society, even if they might not directly effect us, because we believe they're right.

 

Everyone does that. Why shouldn't Christians?

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Janna]

I have a serious internal battle going on here and want biblical backing for or against fighting this. I know from scripture of course that gay marriage is not godly. However I'm not so sure that as a Christian, I am supposed to fight against legalizing gay marriage. I haven't seen one scripture as of yet that tells us to fight government to keep laws godly. I know that as a Christian, that when I read a particular scripture about one sin or another, that I am not to do said sin. But is it my commission to go about telling others what they're doing is sin? I really don't think so.

 

 

 

I think that 1 Corinthians 5 answers this, Carli. Basically what it says is that you are only to judge and hold accountable people who call themselves "a brother", meaning someone who says they too are followers of Christ. Paul makes very clear that to separate yourself from *everyone* who is sexually immoral would mean you would have to leave this world. He says in vs. 12-13: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside of the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."

 

There are many verses that talk about giving Godly wisdom to the foolish, throwing pearls to the swine etc...It is my belief that people who don't profess to be Christians are not held to the same standard as those who do. Of course that doesn't make homosexuality right, but unbelievers aren't on the same playing field and therefore to fight or argue with them makes it unfair from the beginning.

 

I absolutely think, based on scripture, that if you, a professing Christian, know someone who is a professing Christian and is participating in sexual immorality, that you have the right - I would even say the responsibility - to judge them and hold them accountable for their actions.

 

Participating in protests, group fights, whatever it is, does not take the above into consideration and therefore, I would not partake in it.

 

Read 1 Cor. 5.

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

[theresatwist]

You misread me. I am not saying an *individual* homosexual parent is inferior to an *individual* heterosexual parent.

 

I am saying that as a couple, a woman and a man function better to raise a child than two same gender parents. I can give things as a woman to my children my husband never will and likewise he imparts molding to my children as a man that I am unable to replicate no matter how much I love them.

 

And if same sex couples were intended to create and raise children, then logically they should be biologically capable.

 

And the question isn't rather or not gays should be able to parent. I wholeheartedly support gay adoption and gay parenting. I just believe ALL THINGS EQUAL (ie two couples, one gay and one straight all four excellent people) the heterosexual couple should be given preference for adoption.

 

Recognizing marriages legally removes that impetus.

 

Got it. Sorry about that.

 

I understand where you're coming from, although I still disagree. I do think it's good for little boys to have a male role model(s) and little girls to have a female role model(s). However, I think people other than the mother and father (or mother and mother and father and father) can play those roles.

 

For adoption, I think people should simply have to prove that they can provide a stable and loving household. I don't think heterosexual couples should be given preference. Although, I also don't think we're in danger of there being any lack of children available for adoption.

[Dirtroad]

You are to surrender to the government in matters that DO NOT conflict with scripture.

 

If this was a dictatorship, you are to be a humble servant instead of a rebel and only refuse if it goes against God (remember Daniel).

 

However, we are a representative republic. We are a part of the government & it is dependant upon our voice and our votes. We are "supposed" to be their authority, their bosses, and they are supposed to answer to us.

 

With that in mind... how can you NOT participate? And especially on the issues that conflict God and scripture.

[Rosy]

I think that 1 Corinthians 5 answers this, Carli. Basically what it says is that you are only to judge and hold accountable people who call themselves "a brother", meaning someone who says they too are followers of Christ. Paul makes very clear that to separate yourself from *everyone* who is sexually immoral would mean you would have to leave this world. He says in vs. 12-13: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside of the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."

 

There are many verses that talk about giving Godly wisdom to the foolish, throwing pearls to the swine etc...It is my belief that people who don't profess to be Christians are not held to the same standard as those who do. Of course that doesn't make homosexuality right, but unbelievers aren't on the same playing field and therefore to fight or argue with them makes it unfair from the beginning.

 

I absolutely think, based on scripture, that if you, a professing Christian, know someone who is a professing Christian and is participating in sexual immorality, that you have the right - I would even say the responsibility - to judge them and hold them accountable for their actions.

 

Participating in protests, group fights, whatever it is, does not take the above into consideration and therefore, I would not partake in it.

 

Read 1 Cor. 5.

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

 

1 Corinthians 5 isn't saying anything about society, though--it's referring to how the *church* is to handle a *church member* who is behaving immorally.

 

Can a Christian participate in a peaceful protest about slavery? What about an anti-war demonstration? Why would a Christian need to stay silent, just because something is thought of as a "Christian issue"? Christians were some of the most passionate supporters of ending slavery.

 

I know that people who are not followers of Christ are not accountable to me, nor do I expect them to live the way God has called me to live. That doesn't mean I can't act on what I believe is best for society, whether it's ending abortion or homelessness or war or child abuse.

[Pretty in Pink]

I am a Christian and I struggle with this as well. We should all be free to practice our faiths so long as they do not infringe upon the personal freedoms of others. I just do not see how homosexual marriage infringes upon my personal freedoms. I'd be willing to go so far as to say that it simply does not.

 

I've heard the ol' slippery slope argument a thousand times (not sure if that has been mentioned here yet or not, I didn't read the whole thread) but I honestly cannot reconcile that argument with my beliefs.

 

I would not want somebody else's faith dictating what I can or cannot legally do.

[Hapax Legomena]

John Newton, most known for penning Amazing Grace, wrote a letter you might find of interest (http://www.gracegems.org/Newton/135.htm):

 

Dear friend,

 

Allow me to say, that it excites both my wonder and concern, that a Christian minister such as yourself, should think it worth his while to attempt political reforms. When I look around upon the present state of the nation, such an attempt appears to me, to be no less vain and foolish, than it would be to paint the cabin—while the ship is sinking! Or to decorate the parlor—while the house is on fire!

 

When our Lord Jesus was upon earth, He refused to get involved in disputes or politics, "Friend, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?" Luke 12:14. "My kingdom is not of this world! If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight!" John 18:36. God's children belong to a kingdom which is not of this world; they are strangers and pilgrims upon earth, and a part of their Scriptural character is, that they are the "quiet in the land." Psalm 35:19.

 

Satan has many contrivances to amuse people, and to divert their thoughts from their real danger!

 

My dear sir, my prayer to God for you is—that He may induce you to employ the talents He has given you, in pointing out sin as the great cause and source of every existing evil; and to engage those who love and fear Him, (instead of wasting time in political speculations, for which very few of them are competent,) to sigh and cry for our abounding abominations, and to stand in the breach, by prayer, that God's wrath may yet be averted, and our national mercies prolonged! This, I think, is true patriotism—the best way in which people in private life may serve their country.

 

I consider the ungodly as saws and hammers in the hand of the Lord. So far as they are His instruments, they will succeed—but not an inch further! Their wrath shall praise Him, and be subservient to His designs!

 

If our lot is so cast that we can exercise our ministry free from stripes, fines, imprisonments, and death—it is more than the gospel has promised to us! If Christians were quiet when under the cruel governments of Nero and other wicked persecutors, when they were hunted down like wild beasts—then we ought to be not only quiet but very thankful now! It was then accounted an honor to suffer for Christ and the 'offence of the cross'!

 

Those are to be greatly pitied, who boast of their 'liberty'—and yet they do not consider that they are in the most deplorable bondage as the slaves of sin and Satan, under the curse of God's law and His eternal wrath! Oh! for a voice to reach their hearts, that they may know their true and dreadful state—and seek deliverance from their horrific thraldom! May you and I labor to direct them to the one thing, which is absolutely needful, and abundantly sufficient.

 

If I had the wisdom or influence to soothe the angry passions of mankind—I would gladly employ them! But I am a stranger and a pilgrim here in this world. My charter, my rights and my treasures, are all in heaven—and there my heart ought to be. In a very short time, I may be removed (and perhaps suddenly) into the unseen and eternal world—where all that now causes so much bustle upon earth—will be of no more importance to me—than the events which took place among the antediluvians!

 

In the hour, when death shall open the door into eternity—many things which now assume an 'air of importance', will be found as light and unsubstantial as a child's dream!

 

How crucial then, is it for me—to be found watching, with my lamp burning, diligently engaged in my proper calling! For the Lord has not called me to set governments right—but to preach the gospel, to proclaim the glory of His name, and to endeavor to win souls! "Let the dead bury their own dead—but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God!" Luke 9:60. Happy is that servant, whom his Master finds so doing, when He returns!

 

As you have forced me to respond—both duty and love have obliged me to be faithful and free in giving you my thoughts.

 

I recommend you to the care and blessing of the great Shepherd and Savior; and remain for His sake, your affectionate friend and brother,

John Newton

[theresatwist]

You are to surrender to the government in matters that DO NOT conflict with scripture.

 

If this was a dictatorship, you are to be a humble servant instead of a rebel and only refuse if it goes against God (remember Daniel).

 

However, we are a representative republic. We are a part of the government & it is dependant upon our voice and our votes. We are "supposed" to be their authority, their bosses, and they are supposed to answer to us.

 

With that in mind... how can you NOT participate? And especially on the issues that conflict God and scripture.

 

Dirtroad, I sort of agree with you. I think we disagree on the question of gay marriage and homosexuals in general, but of course people should fight for what they believe is right in this society. I think that's equally true whether you are doing so because of what scripture says or just out of personal convictions. Civic participation is a big part of what makes a democracy a democracy.

 

However, why shouldn't gays be allowed civil unions? Nobody is asking the church to recognize these marriages. Why should other people's lives be limited by one groups interpretation of scripture. Yes, other activities (such as murder) that scripture condemns are illegal. But murder hurts others in society. Civil unions don't hurt anyone.

[Elaine]

We have a petition going around in WA state to defend marriage as between one man and one woman, even to the point that gay couples cannot have basic civil rights that are given to a hetero couple.

 

I have a serious internal battle going on here and want biblical backing for or against fighting this. I know from scripture of course that gay marriage is not godly. However I'm not so sure that as a Christian, I am supposed to fight against legalizing gay marriage. I haven't seen one scripture as of yet that tells us to fight government to keep laws godly. I know that as a Christian, that when I read a particular scripture about one sin or another, that I am not to do said sin. But is it my commission to go about telling others what they're doing is sin? I really don't think so.

 

Dh heard a sermon recently where the pastor said we are not to fight our government.

 

All of this to say, help! I want to do the right thing and am moreso on the side of keeping my nose out of others' business unless I come face to face with it and am urged by the Holy Spirit to speak up. :bigear:

 

I think that you would be hard-pressed to find an actual scripture that says homosexuals should not marry. All I know is that in the garden of Eden, God in instituted the first marriage.

 

The Bible says, in Genesis 2:

 

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

 

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

 

Clearly, this is God's design is for marriage. This is all the proof that I need, as a Christian, to fight to keep the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. If you don't share those convictions, then don't fight for it. But, honestly, I don't see how a person who calls themself a Bible believing Christian would not fight for it. (I am not throwing tomatoes at you, Carli, that is just my opinion of anyone who calls themself a Bible believing Christian.)

 

Here is an interesting article related to the topic of gay marriage.

[Melinda in VT]

You are to surrender to the government in matters that DO NOT conflict with scripture.

 

If this was a dictatorship, you are to be a humble servant instead of a rebel and only refuse if it goes against God (remember Daniel).

 

However, we are a representative republic. We are a part of the government & it is dependant upon our voice and our votes. We are "supposed" to be their authority, their bosses, and they are supposed to answer to us.

 

With that in mind... how can you NOT participate? And especially on the issues that conflict God and scripture.

 

Does this mean that you think it would have been wrong to be on the side of the colonies in the American Revolution? (This is not meant in a snarky way. I'm curious to understand.)

[lionfamily1999]

I'm planning on reading all the pages of responses in a few...

 

IMO, if it's a law to protect someone else (ie, laws concerning murder, theft, etc) then, yes, vote for it, because those are sins against someone else, BUT if it's a law to keep someone from sinning against themself, iykwIm, then no. God gave us free-will, again imho, and we should not interfere in someone else's life to prevent them from sin. It won't stop them, anyway, and in some ways (again, imho) it almost FORCES them to sin even more, by making them break the laws of the land as well as God's laws.

[bella_gitana]

I have a serious internal battle going on here and want biblical backing for or against fighting this. I know from scripture of course that gay marriage is not godly. However I'm not so sure that as a Christian, I am supposed to fight against legalizing gay marriage. I haven't seen one scripture as of yet that tells us to fight government to keep laws godly. I know that as a Christian, that when I read a particular scripture about one sin or another, that I am not to do said sin. But is it my commission to go about telling others what they're doing is sin? I really don't think so.

 

I was just reading an article a few days ago which said that the Bible never condemns same sex marriage and only directly mentions homosexuality five times.

 

Can you point out where it says anything against gay marriage? I am really curious.

[Lovedtodeath]

No. Two atheists who get married would probably not be considered to have a "Godly" marriage by most Christians. I guess it depends on how you define "Godly." Without inviting God into it I would imagine most would say that "Godly" isn't the right adjective. That doesn't mean that it's not a happy marriage, a legitimate, loving, honorable, and good marriage that we should honor and support and give legal protection to.

 

I *think* I am in agreement with you - that our society recognizes the legitimacy and social utility of many marriages that are not church sanctioned and blessed, and I would say that's exactly what Government should do.

Adam and Eve turned out to not have a Godly marriage. They did not use their married life to glorify God. Two atheists who get a civil marriage could later decide to come into the Christian congregation and their marital status is perfectly acceptable.

 

I disagree with this. We (well, many here!) are citizens of the United States so we have a duty to our country to vote and be involved in the political process. God has ordained the governments that exist and that is the form of government we have. I don't think Jesus ever said Christians should not be part of the world. Jesus had a specific purpose--to die for us. It was not to establish an earthly kingdom and over throw Roman rule. I think it is a huge jump to assume that because Jesus didn't establish a kingdom while he was here, Christians should not participate in a political process. Sure, governments will never be perfect and I think it is wrong when Christians look to a particular candidate or political party as our country's salvation. It is like a previous poster stated there is this notion that if we just vote in the right people, God will continue to bless our country. God has blessed this country *in spite of* our leaders and ourselves for many years now. We haven't earned his blessing because we are so wonderful. But because those governments are imperfect is not a reason to not be involved. I think governments are a necessary evil. They (hopefully!) restrain evil and allow us to live our lives in a little security at least. I don't think that because we participate in a political process we will come under the wrath of God.

This idea of being no part of the world came from reading John 15:19, 17:16, John 18:36, James 4:4, 1 John 5:19, Daniel 2:44, 7:27. Sorry so blunt, NAKING

 

I think that 1 Corinthians 5 answers this, Carli. Basically what it says is that you are only to judge and hold accountable people who call themselves "a brother", meaning someone who says they too are followers of Christ. Paul makes very clear that to separate yourself from *everyone* who is sexually immoral would mean you would have to leave this world. He says in vs. 12-13: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside of the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."

 

There are many verses that talk about giving Godly wisdom to the foolish, throwing pearls to the swine etc...It is my belief that people who don't profess to be Christians are not held to the same standard as those who do. Of course that doesn't make homosexuality right, but unbelievers aren't on the same playing field and therefore to fight or argue with them makes it unfair from the beginning.

:grouphug::grouphug:

:iagree: Edited July 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[lionfamily1999]

Is any civil marriage godly, even if between a man and a woman? It's my understanding that the answer is "no," but I could be misinformed.

Depends on your pov. IOW, when dh and I got married, we did it twice :) Once infront of God and our families and the second time at the court house. A Godly marraige depends on the people in it, how they behave and how "Godly" their union is. A Godly marriage, if you mean like God sanctioned, imo, could be performed by anyone and is as simple as making a covenant to God and your s.o., to be together as one and to be as righteous and upright as you can.

This is a good question! I don't think that Christians *must* stand up politically for this sort of thing, but I think there are good reasons for doing so, if someone choose to go that route. I personally believe that this battle over homosexuality is a bit of a benchmark, in terms of the US moving toward a postmodern, "post-Christianity" culture. For many people I think it does go beyond simply getting benefits for gay couples (hence the resistance to accept merely civil unions as opposed to marriage itself)-- it has to do with gaining society's stamp of approval, and showing that we have "progressed" past the moral and religious standards of the past. For a society to officially sanction what the Bible teaches to be completely wrong (Romans 1), that is clearly not what many Christians would want to see happen. In that sense, I can see feeling the imperative to be the salt of the earth, seeking to preserve and uphold that which is good and right, even in the midst of a sinful world. And isn't that what all of us are doing, when we seek to stand up for various political causes, on either side, standing up for what is right? So I don't see why those who support gay marriage should be the only ones standing in this case (other than that is much, much easier to take that position in today's culture!)

Coming from the other direction, I have seen these civil unions more as an attempt to include other people in an institution that has proven, for many, to be healthier and more productive. From an American pov, I think open civil union, promisary scenerios between the state and whomever signs the contract, as a possible boon to society. One group, one home, one electric bill, combined taxes.... But then, I do think that there could be limits in place (renew every five to ten years), and I think it should be open to most any humans of voting age. IOW, poligamy, knock yourself out! At least you've made a commitment to the state not to reak havoc and to take care of each other. Same sex, closely related (here I'm thinking spinsters, lol), go right ahead, as long as you plan to be together and not to break the contract, knock yourself out!

This is not a civil rights issue. People are being mislead into believing it is one. I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

 

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

 

Gays have the same rights as anyone else does This is not a race issue. It is a behavioral issue. Yes, to the OP's question. IMHO, you should keep your faith in mind when deciding which laws to support.

Interesting idea. I can definitely see where you are coming from. How would you feel about 'civil unions' instead? Contracts between the state and the persons involved, versus marraige (which I do dislike including this).

I think there should be legal unions that have nothing to do with marriage, per se. That way people could legally join together for health benefits, survivor benefits, financial stuff. It wouldn't be limited to gay couples, but to anyone--elderly sisters, a widowed mother and adult child, etc. I've known lots of people who aren't in love or a couple who would benefit from this type of arrangement and it's protections. The legal benefits of marriage should be available for all.

 

(Of course, I'm sure my lil' plan doesn't have all the kinks worked out, but you get the basic idea.)

:iagree:

I disagree. A gay person who marries a straight person in order to be afforded legal rights is, to my mind, the equivalent of someone who marries to obtain a green card. If two consenting adults wish to form a civil marriage bond, it makes no sense to say that they're welcome to do so if they choose an alternate partner. This is exactly what inter-racial couples used to be told. This is a civil rights issue.

 

Polygamists...I have issues there, but they center around closed communities and underage marriages. Pedophilia is clearly a separate issue, for the same reason. A child is not capable of consent. Period. Neither of those issues have anything to do with legal issues surrounding homosexuality; they are lumped together by folks who argue against gay marriage, and there's great shock value there, but that doesn't mean the comparison makes sense.

 

Which brings us back around to the IP's question. I agree with several other posters. Typically, my conscience dictates that I vote in a way that doesn't impose what I would do on others. However, "Harm none" is my other rule of thumb. If the issue I'm voting on has the potential to be harmful to others, that's the critical factor. So, if NAMBLA got an issue on the ballot, I'd vote against it. However, I don't see who would be hurt by homosexual civil unions. I understand folks who find such a concept counter to their beliefs would be upset, but I don't see how they'd be *hurt*. Whereas I have had plenty of friends who have been actively hurt by the lack of civil marriage rights.

:iagree:

In general, I agree with you here Bill. To respond specifically to this question, I'll tell you my concern.

 

IMO, marriage is an institution designed first and foremost to protect children.

 

My reservation about gay marriage centers around giving gay couples equal footing for adoption with heterosexual couples. If we acknowledge gay marriage and gay families as equal to or the same as traditional families, how then can we then give favor to heterosexual couples wanting to adopt?

 

I believe that parenting is best when a child has a woman for a mother and a man for a father. I will never ever be convinced that having same sex parents is equal to having a traditional family assuming all four potential parents are good people.

 

I am not against gay adoptions, either. I am sure many gay couples are excellent parents and wonderful people. I just don't think, all things being equal, a family with two same sex parents is equal to or better than a traditional one.

 

Legitimizing gay marriage says same sex couples and traditional couples are equally good for children; biology tells us otherwise.

 

Deep breathe. Hit submit. Await need to delete!

There are plenty of marraiges wherein children are not, cannot and will not be a part of it. The "children" route is a dangerous one where many people can get very, very hurt.

You misread me. I am not saying an *individual* homosexual parent is inferior to an *individual* heterosexual parent.

 

I am saying that as a couple, a woman and a man function better to raise a child than two same gender parents. I can give things as a woman to my children my husband never will and likewise he imparts molding to my children as a man that I am unable to replicate no matter how much I love them.

 

And if same sex couples were intended to create and raise children, then logically they should be biologically capable.

 

And the question isn't rather or not gays should be able to parent. I wholeheartedly support gay adoption and gay parenting. I just believe ALL THINGS EQUAL (ie two couples, one gay and one straight all four excellent people) the heterosexual couple should be given preference for adoption.

 

Recognizing marriages legally removes that impetus.

Nope, there's plenty of straight couples that can't adopt. There is a screening process.

[kmacnchs]

Considered Godly by whom? If the church has at some point developed rituals around marriage, then are you asking if all marriages performed before that time were "ungodly" or if any marriage that is entered into civilly is "ungodly?" In the eyes of whom? Everyone? Some? Certain denominations?

 

I've never really known any Protestant that believed that only church weddings were legitimate and Godly. Of course many people prefer them (especially mothers of the bride!) but that doesn't mean that civil marriages are "ungodly." I would guess that the majority of evangelical protestants would say that a marriage entered into prayerfully with a mutual desire to Glorify God in the marriage and in the raising of children is "godly" whether it was church blessed or not.

 

Back in the day (OT times), sex=marriage=sex. The bride and groom would go into the tent, become "married", the bride would present the cloth to her father for proof that she was a virgin, and there would be a celebration. This is still my belief (sex=marriage=sex).

 

I do vote but otherwise stay out of politics for 2 reasons: 1 because sinners are going to act like sinners and me trying to keep them from sinning by law is not going to save them and 2 because it frustrates me that "Christians" are against homosexual marriage but not against divorce (hello, look at our divorce rates!), which is just as wrong (with few exceptions). I could go on and on about point 2 but because of point 1, there is not point :D (pun intended)

[Kathy in MD]

In general, I agree with you here Bill. To respond specifically to this question, I'll tell you my concern.

 

IMO, marriage is an institution designed first and foremost to protect children.

 

My reservation about gay marriage centers around giving gay couples equal footing for adoption with heterosexual couples. If we acknowledge gay marriage and gay families as equal to or the same as traditional families, how then can we then give favor to heterosexual couples wanting to adopt?

 

I believe that parenting is best when a child has a woman for a mother and a man for a father. I will never ever be convinced that having same sex parents is equal to having a traditional family assuming all four potential parents are good people.

 

I am not against gay adoptions, either. I am sure many gay couples are excellent parents and wonderful people. I just don't think, all things being equal, a family with two same sex parents is equal to or better than a traditional one.

 

Legitimizing gay marriage says same sex couples and traditional couples are equally good for children; biology tells us otherwise.

 

Deep breathe. Hit submit. Await need to delete!

 

I have two issues, or perhaps I should say I'm not worried about one of your concerns. I've taken adoption classes, known singles who've adopted and those who've considered it. I've also had a placement fall through and had one successful adoption.

 

There are thousands upon thousands of children looking for a permanent home. They aren't always of the type that are in high demand, but they're there. It's hard to accept when you're desperately wanting a child, but it's better for there to more demand than supply. But from what I've seen, there's still more supply.

 

Adoption is also a highly subjective process. One of the reasons my dh and I didn't even try to adopt in the US was because of the stories of how birth mothers would arbitrarily reject hopeful parents because of the couple's age. Religion, lifestyle, race and other factors can also come into the decision. Here and in some foreign countries, birth mothers do select the adoptive parents. So allowing gays to marry doesn't automatically put them at the front of the adoption lines.

 

Also it is very acceptable for single women to adopt. How they have the courage is beyond me, but some do and they are able to start their family with a child looking for a home. Now single male who adopted at the time were adopting ran into far more prejudice -- from the social workers preparing his home study.

 

And I would add that single women and lesbians in stable family situations are usually able to have their own children. And life is uncertain. Many children start out with a traditional family only to have something go wrong. So by denying marriage to gays, you aren't really keeping children from from being raised in non-traditional families. Don't let anyone's ideal get in the way of finding a good, loving home for these children.

 

Now, the item I do take issue with you is that the primary reason for getting married is for the welfare of the children. If that is true, then a couple who doesn't want to have children should just live together? In sin? I can just see the reactions of many to that. Or if an elderly couple want to get married, they should just shack up instead? In fact, if they aren't careful with their wills and soforth, they could actually harm their children from a previous marriage by by marrying a second time (having their children lose the inheritance from the first marriage when their second spouse survives them.) At one time, marriage primarily for children may have been true, but there is far more reasons for a marriage today than only raising children.

[Krista in LA]

Wasn't too long ago that in many states an inter-racial marriage was taboo.

 

Separation of church and state, remember? Gay folks should be able to get a civil marriage in all 50 states. Whether or not any religions also let them wed can be up to the religion.

 

I may very well be wrong on this, but if it's a civil rights issue, then will churches legally be allowed to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple? If I understand correctly, when they made inter-racial marriage a civil rights issue, a church could not refuse to marry them. I would hate to see a church that morally opposes gay marriage be forced to perform the ceremony for a gay marriage. It's no longer a civil marriage issue. It's a slippery slope we go down...

[Gretchen in NJ]

Interesting idea. I can definitely see where you are coming from. How would you feel about 'civil unions' instead? Contracts between the state and the persons involved, versus marraige (which I do dislike including this).

 

 

Civil unions are a matter of state which is different then marraige. The state should stay out of the church and marriage.

[lionfamily1999]

Civil unions are a matter of state which is different then marraige. The state should stay out of the church and marriage.

Then we agree :)

 

I don't like the use of the word "marraige," because it does seem, imo, to step on the toes of those that feel marraige is based in religion. I think the most obvious answer is for the states to step in and change their policy, allowing marraiges to be church business and civil unions to be the states' business.

 

I do not understand people that demand "marraige" be used... It seems to be more based in wanting to force a shift in morals/perspective/acceptance than in actually wanting to have access to everything traditionally married couples have.

[Erica in PA]

Going back to the OP:

 

 

What if we changed the question to: "Are people supposed to fight to keep our laws moral?"

 

I think few of us would disagree that we should. We have and would fight for the right to educate our children, the right of black people to live free and equal lives, the right of women to vote, etc. because we believe these things are right. If the mainstream did not believe we should have these rights, they would not stop being right.

 

Everyone votes (and fights when necessary) according to what they believe is right. And at some point, we support things that we believe are right for society, even if they might not directly effect us, because we believe they're right.

 

Everyone does that. Why shouldn't Christians?

 

:iagree: I've been thinking about this question throughout the day, and this is what I keep coming back to. If we say that people of faith should not vote in accordance with their faith, because faith and government must be separate, then who will decide the laws of our country-- only the secular among us? Are only viewpoints devoid of religious influence valid?

 

Our founding fathers certainly didn't think so. They claimed when founding the US that the basis for our freedom was in God ("endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," etc.).

 

The point is that everyone should stand up for what they think is right. Those who are religious will be influenced by their faith to determine what they think is right. Those who are not will have other criteria to use. But to say that religion must be put aside when determining what is right just doesn't make sense, imo.

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree: I've been thinking about this question throughout the day, and this is what I keep coming back to. If we say that people of faith should not vote in accordance with their faith, because faith and government must be separate, then who will decide the laws of our country-- only the secular among us? Are only viewpoints devoid of religious influence valid?

 

Our founding fathers certainly didn't think so. They claimed when founding the US that the basis for our freedom was in God ("endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," etc.).

 

The point is that everyone should stand up for what they think is right. Those who are religious will be influenced by their faith to determine what they think is right. Those who are not will have other criteria to use. But to say that religion must be put aside when determining what is right just doesn't make sense, imo.

You're right, it does not make sense to ask someone to ignore their own opinions and beliefs when it comes time to vote. I've heard this same tired argument so often, and I wonder, do the people that throw it out there really realize what they're asking someone do?

 

I can understand some issues being more an American issue than a Christian issue, but imo, the beauty of our system is that you can vote based on any rediculous thing you want, it's your right and your responsibilty. IOW, if you want to vote Republican on days it rains, versus Democrat on sunny days, Independant during other weather, and Green during extreme weather, go to it!

[Gretchen in NJ]

Then we agree :)

 

I don't like the use of the word "marraige," because it does seem, imo, to step on the toes of those that feel marraige is based in religion. I think the most obvious answer is for the states to step in and change their policy, allowing marraiges to be church business and civil unions to be the states' business.

 

I do not understand people that demand "marraige" be used... It seems to be more based in wanting to force a shift in morals/perspective/acceptance than in actually wanting to have access to everything traditionally married couples have.

 

Exactly!:D

[nmoira]

 

Civil unions are a matter of state which is different then marraige. The state should stay out of the church and marriage.

But I'm an atheist and I'm married to another atheist. Am I to take it that I shouldn't be married if not sanctioned by a church?

[Mommyof4ks]

:iagree: I've been thinking about this question throughout the day, and this is what I keep coming back to. If we say that people of faith should not vote in accordance with their faith, because faith and government must be separate, then who will decide the laws of our country-- only the secular among us? Are only viewpoints devoid of religious influence valid?

 

Our founding fathers certainly didn't think so. They claimed when founding the US that the basis for our freedom was in God ("endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," etc.).

 

The point is that everyone should stand up for what they think is right. Those who are religious will be influenced by their faith to determine what they think is right. Those who are not will have other criteria to use. But to say that religion must be put aside when determining what is right just doesn't make sense, imo.

 

:iagree: If Christians in my state did not stand up for our right to homeschool there would be a mess of laws at this point to make it difficult. We are a large population of the homeschool community here. I know the original question was concerning marriage, but you get the idea. We have to vote and petition based on our own beliefs. If a law passes that we don't agree with, well we have to abide by that and in the case of marriage at least it does not effect us the way some other laws would if we 'stayed out of it' KWIM. When political winds change so will the laws.

[Janna]

1 Corinthians 5 isn't saying anything about society, though--it's referring to how the *church* is to handle a *church member* who is behaving immorally.

 

Can a Christian participate in a peaceful protest about slavery? What about an anti-war demonstration? Why would a Christian need to stay silent, just because something is thought of as a "Christian issue"? Christians were some of the most passionate supporters of ending slavery.

 

I know that people who are not followers of Christ are not accountable to me, nor do I expect them to live the way God has called me to live. That doesn't mean I can't act on what I believe is best for society, whether it's ending abortion or homelessness or war or child abuse.

 

Hi Rosy!

 

I hear what you're saying and I understand what you're saying. However, I disagree. I understand that Paul is writing to the "church" at Corinth, but I don't take that to mean "church" in the same way church is defined today. I take it to mean anyone who is a believer which makes up the body of Christ. Therefore, when Paul refers to a "brother", he is referring to a fellow professing believer. I still hold what I posted to Carli (the OP) because I think it *does* apply.

 

I think, in response to the other part of your message, that there are a number of things at play.

 

First, the examples you listed (slavery, ending abortion, homelessness, war and child abuse) are different from homosexual marriage, to which the OP was addressing. Your examples are injustices on the lowly - the poor, the weak, the suffering etc. Homosexuality is not an injustice on suffering. It's a behavior that seeks justification.

 

Second, I think Christians *can* passionately be supportive for godly laws. I just think we differ in how that support is shown. Christians can have a mighty impact on "society" simply by holding each other (believers to believers) accountable- something I think is sorely missing these days- and by encouraging and loving each other. There is no need, in my opinion, for protesting to unbelievers who don't have a listening ear anyway. I repeat what I said in my op - they aren't on the same playing field.

 

I hope I haven't misunderstood your post, and I hope this response is taken in kind. I am not as gifted with writing as others on this board are, so I sincerely hope my tone is not misread. I say this with gentleness and a complete understanding that I may have misunderstood.

[KarenNC]

I may very well be wrong on this, but if it's a civil rights issue, then will churches legally be allowed to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple? If I understand correctly, when they made inter-racial marriage a civil rights issue, a church could not refuse to marry them. I would hate to see a church that morally opposes gay marriage be forced to perform the ceremony for a gay marriage. It's no longer a civil marriage issue. It's a slippery slope we go down...

 

No church of which I am aware in the US is required to either provide or refuse to provide a religious marriage ceremony to anyone. That doesn't mean that the marriage in question is a legal one.

 

For example, it is not illegal for a Baptist minister to refuse to marry a couple because of cohabitation or pregnancy. It is not illegal for a Catholic priest to refuse to marry a couple in which one of the parties is divorced. It is not illegal for a minister to refuse to provide a religious marriage ceremony for an interracial or interfaith couple. It is not illegal for a minister to refuse to marry someone who wants to include their dog as a wedding attendant or because he doesn't like their choice of music. The minister can refuse on any grounds s/he so desires.

 

Ministers may perform any and all religious marriage ceremonies that they choose (and only those), but that doesn't automatically make those marriages legally recognized. Ministers are licensed by the state to perform legally binding marriages as a representative of the state *not* because they are representatives of their religious authority. A minister from out of state, for instance, would not be able to perform a legally binding marriage in our area without jumping through the regulatory hoops to be so authorized by our state, even if s/he was so authorized by his/her religious authority and to do so in another state. Religious marriages are legal only to the extent that the officiant is legally authorized by the state to perform marriages that are consistent with state law in that location.

[KarenNC]

I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:.......The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

 

 

I am not aware that it is currently illegal for pedophiles or child molesters to enter into legal marriages. According to http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html 77% of child molesters are legally married. It is also not illegal for polygamists to be married, they can only marry one spouse, however. It isn't illegal for a person who is cheating on their fiance(e) to be married, for felons to be married, etc.

 

These are the same things that were said (as well as worse) about allowing interracial marriage.

Edited July 8, 2009 by KarenNC

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Religious marriages are legal only to the extent that the officiant is legally authorized by the state to perform marriages that are consistent with state law in that location.

And the paperwork gets filed. ;)

[KarenNC]

And the paperwork gets filed. ;)

 

Very true.

[Rosy]

Hi Rosy!

 

I hear what you're saying and I understand what you're saying. However, I disagree. I understand that Paul is writing to the "church" at Corinth, but I don't take that to mean "church" in the same way church is defined today. I take it to mean anyone who is a believer which makes up the body of Christ. Therefore, when Paul refers to a "brother", he is referring to a fellow professing believer. I still hold what I posted to Carli (the OP) because I think it *does* apply.

 

I think, in response to the other part of your message, that there are a number of things at play.

 

First, the examples you listed (slavery, ending abortion, homelessness, war and child abuse) are different from homosexual marriage, to which the OP was addressing. Your examples are injustices on the lowly - the poor, the weak, the suffering etc. Homosexuality is not an injustice on suffering. It's a behavior that seeks justification.

 

Second, I think Christians *can* passionately be supportive for godly laws. I just think we differ in how that support is shown. Christians can have a mighty impact on "society" simply by holding each other (believers to believers) accountable- something I think is sorely missing these days- and by encouraging and loving each other. There is no need, in my opinion, for protesting to unbelievers who don't have a listening ear anyway. I repeat what I said in my op - they aren't on the same playing field.

 

I hope I haven't misunderstood your post, and I hope this response is taken in kind. I am not as gifted with writing as others on this board are, so I sincerely hope my tone is not misread. I say this with gentleness and a complete understanding that I may have misunderstood.

 

I appreciate your post, Janna! I do believe that believers should hold ourselves and our brothers and sisters accountable--honestly, what happens inside the church is more important to me than what happens outside of it, when it comes to moral behavior.

 

I've avoided the same-sex marriage issue in this post because I think it complicates what was in the original post. I understand your point about casting pearls before swine, etc., and agree with it to a point...but I also think it is right to make the world better for all of us (including unbelievers). I also think holding up the standard of holiness can lead people to an understanding of their need for Jesus Christ.

 

But there are many Christians I deeply respect (including my hero John MacArthur) who would side with you and encourage people to invest their passion and resources into soul-winning and discipleship, rather than politics. :)

[theresatwist]

But as I understand it, what people believe is immoral is being homosexual in and of itself. Denying homosexuals the right to marry (or civil unions, whatever term you'd prefer) doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual. All it does is deny them the benefits of tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, property inheritance rights, and other benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy. You can exclude homosexuals from your congregation, but I don't think it is moral or legal to deny homosexuals their rights as citizens.

 

I don't see any homosexuals saying "Oh, we don't have the right to get married so something must be wrong with us. I changed my mind, I'm heterosexual now!" I'm not sure what this tactic is supposed to accomplish except to voice your disapproval of their lifestyle, which with all due respect I don't think is anybody's business. Would you want your marriage to be any of their business?

[Krista in LA]

It is not illegal for a minister to refuse to provide a religious marriage ceremony for an interracial or interfaith couple.

 

I'll take your word for it. I heard somewhere that it was illegal to refuse to marry interracial couples because it was a violation of civil rights but since it was some time ago, I don't recall the source to even know how valid it was. That's why I was asking the question. :)

[Alenee]

I want to thank everyone for submitting their opinion here. I don't have time to reply to each so from the things that stuck out at me, here is my reply:

 

One thing that has me confused is the scripture that tells us to live separately while living in the world. That one in particular has kept me on the fence.

 

What has me leaning toward signing the petition is that undoubtedly I know gay marriage is wrong. Not because God said in His Word that gay marriage is wrong, but because of the examples given as to what is *right*, what His design is. A pp asked where in scripture does it say it's wrong so that is my answer to the question.

 

I am swayed to sign because of the arguments given about the kind of government we have and that we should all vote based on our belief system.

 

I also do not want anyone, whether it be homosexuals, heterosexuals, black, or white to potentially become a protected class. A pp mentioned that a minister can choose who he/she performs a ceremony for but that brought to mind a problem that was posted last year about a particular venue that refused to allow a party because it was a wedding/reception for a gay couple and they found themselves in court for that refusal. We should be free to decide who we serve. Ministers should be free to decide to whom they will perform ceremonies. Doctors should be free to decide what acts they will perform...and so on and so on...that slippery slope.

 

One thing that came to mind was a debate class I took in college. Our class debated whether or not to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. Both sides presented their arguments but the teacher's decision was that there were not enough reasons or good enough reasons given to change the law as it stood. I think that's where I'm at now...that and based on my belief in God and His Word. What is right and what is wrong. I have to hold true to my beliefs. I cannot have my feet in both worlds.

[KarenNC]

I'll take your word for it. I heard somewhere that it was illegal to refuse to marry interracial couples because it was a violation of civil rights but since it was some time ago, I don't recall the source to even know how valid it was. That's why I was asking the question. :)

 

Let me know if you ever do turn up any such legislation. I would be interested to see it.

[Krista in LA]

I don't see any homosexuals saying "Oh, we don't have the right to get married so something must be wrong with us. I changed my mind, I'm heterosexual now!" I'm not sure what this tactic is supposed to accomplish except to voice your disapproval of their lifestyle, which with all due respect I don't think is anybody's business. Would you want your marriage to be any of their business?

 

I don't know if this was directed at me since it was under my post, or if it was just a general question, but I'll respond. My only concern is that churches aren't required by law to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. I was married in the Catholic church, but I'm not Catholic. I had to do certain things for them to agree to perform the ceremony. I could have very easily refused and gotten married at another church or by a JP, but because it was important to my dh, I did what the church asked even though I didn't like certain parts of it. I respected what the church required. I think anybody wanting to get married in a church needs to respect the wishes and requirements of the church they choose regardless of color, sexual orientation, or anything else.

 

I haven't truly decided on where I stand on the issue. I think homosexuality is unnatural and not right according to the religion I believe in, but I don't harbor disdain for people who live that lifestyle. I think that homosexuals who choose to make a commitment to each other should have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. I guess I just kind of wish they would call it something else.

[KarenNC]

I also do not want anyone, whether it be homosexuals, heterosexuals, black, or white to potentially become a protected class. A pp mentioned that a minister can choose who he/she performs a ceremony for but that brought to mind a problem that was posted last year about a particular venue that refused to allow a party because it was a wedding/reception for a gay couple and they found themselves in court for that refusal. We should be free to decide who we serve. Ministers should be free to decide to whom they will perform ceremonies. Doctors should be free to decide what acts they will perform...and so on and so on...that slippery slope.

 

I would love to see that thread if you remember any more details---I can't seem to find it using the search function. The issue may or may not be similar at all. Doctors can perform what acts they will and choose which patients to accept *unless they are accepting public funds* at which point they have agreed to accept the legal restrictions as to discrimination that go along with that funding. Ministries can hire whom they will *unless they are using public funds to do so* at which point they have agreed to accept the legal restrictions on discrimination that go along with that funding. It would be interesting to see the details on whether the venue in question was a private or publicly funded one and so which laws applied. Accuracy in the details matters a lot in this sort of discussion (hence my reply about marriage laws earlier). Otherwise one is attempting to compare apples to oranges.

 

In this instance, it is not actually a "protected class" in that they would be given rights superior to any other group---simply that they should not be *denied* the rights given to all citizens and to equal treatment under the law. Religious institutions actually are already a very large protected class in the US because they receive the benefit of not having to pay taxes while being exempt from some of the restrictions that apply to other institutions. They are indeed therefore given rights that are not given to other institutions.

[Alenee]

I would love to see that thread if you remember any more details---I can't seem to find it using the search function. The issue may or may not be similar at all. Doctors can perform what acts they will and choose which patients to accept *unless they are accepting public funds* at which point they have agreed to accept the legal restrictions as to discrimination that go along with that funding. Ministries can hire whom they will *unless they are using public funds to do so* at which point they have agreed to accept the legal restrictions on discrimination that go along with that funding. It would be interesting to see the details on whether the venue in question was a private or publicly funded one and so which laws applied. Accuracy in the details matters a lot in this sort of discussion (hence my reply about marriage laws earlier). Otherwise one is attempting to compare apples to oranges.

 

In this instance, it is not actually a "protected class" in that they would be given rights superior to any other group---simply that they should not be *denied* the rights given to all citizens and to equal treatment under the law. Religious institutions actually are already a very large protected class in the US because they receive the benefit of not having to pay taxes while being exempt from some of the restrictions that apply to other institutions. They are indeed therefore given rights that are not given to other institutions.

 

I don't remember any more of the details other than that it was a privately owned business. Sorry I cannot point you to a particular thread.

 

I also want to point out that I do not harbor ill-will on those who do not believe as I do or act as I do. I do not however believe that a homosexual is 'just made that way'. I believe it's a choice and in this country where the laws are now, if you make a choice, you deal with the consequences of that choice. The way I understand God and the way He created man was in accordance with His holy design. He says in His Word that certain things are wrong but He also promised that when we are tempted to do the wrong thing, He will provide a way out to stand up under that temptation.

[Peek a Boo]

I thought (stipulating that I'm not religious and outside the faith) the prime directive was to love your neighbor?

 

 

No --that's the second directive.

The prime directive is to love The Lord Your God w/ all your heart/soul/mind. ;)

 

But this is an issue where I have NOT tracked down a complete scriptural list and do think there is some freedom based on what i have studied so far and read in this thread so far.

 

give to caesar what is caesar's....

In this country what Caesar requests of us is citizenship: active participation in our gvt. It does not penalize us if we choose to abstain [Amish/laziness/whatever] but it does expect and request active participation. So I consider myself free to participate as far as i believe my own convictions will let me. As w/ baptism/ communion/alcohol/etc i think this comes down to personal convictions.

 

give to God what is God's....

Even tho this country deems abortion a "civil right" i simply will NOT support that, and will actively fight to eliminate that as a "right." killing developing humans is the OPPOSITE of love, and the antithesis of CIVIL. or as SpyCar has put it:

Denying ones neighbors the same civil rights we enjoy ourselves strikes me as wrong.... it's quite another thing to actively deny civil rights, including civil marriage, to people we've decided don't merit them. I think love is also about not doing what would be hateful to ourselves to other people. I'd find it hateful if my rights were voted away. I'm betting most would find it hateful if we were legally killed for convenience too.

So just calling something a civil right doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

I can't support [even civilly] homosexual marriage/civil union, but neither am I driven to campaign AGAINST it for the same reason listed earlier about focusing on pro-active/ more productive/ higher priority causes. This is kind of an "eh." subject for me.

 

As it is now, homosexuals already have the right to love each other and live with each other. Polygamists can legally marry one person and still be religiously married to a dozen or more spouses. If it really is just a matter of getting the legal rights, then homosexuals should be looking for ANY terminology that will get that "right." I'm not seeing that. i also think that religious folk should pick a new terminology if THEY feel so threatened. Any suggestions? "One Flesh Covenant" just doesn't sound catchy...:) I do agree w/impish in that i don't feel my marriage [w/ x-dh?:confused::D:lol:] is threatened at. all. even if homosexuals do get the right to a legal marriage, as atheists currently have the right to marry. There's No Difference in God's eyes.

 

As for legal rights [death bed/taxes/etc] well i think THAT industry/gvt rules is screwed up anyway. i think THAT should be reformed so that family/marriage doesn't really matter when it comes to stuff like that: people should be allowed to write off family and include friends. But health care and taxes are a *&^%$ pit.

 

so would I support gay marriage? no.

would I actively vote against it? yes.

would i campaign against it? no.

do i think Christians have an obligation to vote or campaign? not necessarily: personal conviction.

do i think Christians have an obligation to abstain? ditto above.

 

 

man I'm tired. that post looks like it's rambling, but i don't care right now, lol....

[Peek a Boo]

What has me leaning toward signing the petition is that undoubtedly I know gay marriage is wrong. Not because God said in His Word that gay marriage is wrong, but because of the examples given as to what is *right*, what His design is. A pp asked where in scripture does it say it's wrong so that is my answer to the question.

 

ayup.

Romans chapter 1 is pretty explicit tho.

[Peek a Boo]

But as I understand it, what people believe is immoral is being homosexual in and of itself. Denying homosexuals the right to marry (or civil unions, whatever term you'd prefer) doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

 

This is NOT universal in the Christian community. many differentiate between the nature and the act. i think the Catholic church takes the official stance that just being a homosexual is NOT a sin, so one could google their position to get more specifics and explanations.

[Alenee]

This is NOT universal in the Christian community. many differentiate between the nature and the act. i think the Catholic church takes the official stance that just being a homosexual is NOT a sin, so one could google their position to get more specifics and explanations.

 

:iagree:

 

And thanks Peek for adding to the conversation! I've been waiting all day to hear your take on things!:D Where you stated above that you would vote according to your belief but not necessarily spend your time campaigning against it...this is where I'm at, at this point.