If you are a Christian that supports gay marriage/relationships...

[Jenny in Florida]

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/12/06/what-does-the-bible-really-say-about-homosexuality-reading-texts-of-terror/2454

 

[Rebel Yell]

I support it because I think consenting adults should be free to live how they choose. It's about political freedom, which I can separate from my personal beliefs. I don't think supporting it politically has to mean that I don't think it is a sin. 

 

I still believe it is sin. I believe that if a person professes to be a Christian and is gay, they should abstain and live a celibate lifestyle. 

 

I don't believe churches and pastors should be forced to perform ceremonies. I personally have a theory that churches should just get out of the whole business of issuing marriage licenses. Leave that to the government. Church ceremonies could be performed after a legally binding ceremony has been performed by the court, and then it would be just the couple's affirmation in front of family and God. Those ceremonies could then be performed on a volunteer basis and shouldn't interfere with any laws. 

 

:iagree:

 

[Laurie4b]

I didn't realize at first that you might be talking about legal gay marriage as opposed to gay marriage within the church. I already answered the latter, but for the former some things to consider: 

 

Many (not all) Christians believe that there are two separate spheres: civil and church. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."  

 

Here are a couple points on that issue with regards to marriage: 

 

It has not always been historically true in the US that churches acted as agents of the state in performing marriages:  I recall being told by one of the re-enacters when visiting Plimouth colony that one of the objections the Puritans had with the Church of England was that the Church of England was performing marriages, which the Puritans regarded as something that belonged in the civil sphere. I found this link which details what I recall being told: http://http://people.opposingviews.com/puritan-marriage-beliefs-4508.html

 

In some other countries, the oversight of the contract of marriage in state eyes has been separate from the performance of marriage by the church for some time. It works fine. In the US, the state has delegated the overseeing of the "contract" part of marriages to churches, so all need not be done by the local magistrate. In other countries, such as Germany, everyone must be married by the equivalent of the magistrate to be legally married. People who are religious are free to add on to that a ceremony in their own religious bodies.

 

So what recently happened in the US was a change in the civil sphere about the definition of a marriage contract. The state has its own interest in promoting stable social relationships. If any religious body decided to get out of the business of acting as agents of the state and performed ceremonies solely as religious sacraments or ceremonies, I highly doubt that their religious liberties would be at risk. It is possible that if they wish to continue to act as agents of the state, however, that as agents of the state they may be required not to discriminate. As agents of a religious body, they can add whatever they want to in terms of what marriage means. 

 

A view separating the oversight of marriage contracts into the civil and state realm does not require a person with a religious conviction about the nature of marriage to change his or her viewpoint on that issue: instead, it may require them to re-evaluate their viewpoint on the relationship of the church and the civil sphere . For instance , if the state is supposed to follow the ethics of the church, would that mean that the state "turned the other cheek" if attacked by a foreign country? With all the verses dedicated to care for the poor, would that affect how much tax money the person thinks should go to programs supporting the poor? (You can start that discussion and open up all kinds of other things to argue about! ;) )  it's complicated because it gets into the application of religious principle.

 

However, I think nearly all would agree that the state should not be involved in enforcing blasphemy laws or providing penalties when a church excommunicates someone. (I think both church and state learned lessons during the Inquisition.) So that may be one wedge in the door to your friends' thinking. In some area at least, they are likely to think that church and state should be separate. The state simply took a prerogative to change its laws about what was required for a marriage contract. 

 

Personally, I think that civil partnerships should be expanded to include some relationships which aren't sexual. There are benefits an old married couple has, for instance, that are denied to two elderly sisters who live together and depend upon each other and intend to live together till death. But that is probably another topic! 

[J-rap]

Just wanted to say that this is an evolving idea for me as well, and I've really appreciated what everyone has had to say.  Your views are so articulately, beautifully, yet simply expressed here.  Thank you!

 

 

[mommaduck]

1) homosexual marriage does not affect me. It does not affect my marriage. It does not hurt my family.

 

2) I no longer believe that being LGB is a choice. I do believe people are born on a spectrum. I do not believe that people on certain parts of the spectrum are abominations as many have claimed and are proclaimed to be in many churches. I do not believe that they are more likely to be sexual offenders, pedophiles, etc. My experience has been much the opposite. I believe many are monogamous, many would castrate anyone that sexually assaulted any child, and many are fairly conservative and just want to be left alone to live their lives.

 

3) I believe when Scripture is talking about homosexuality, it is referring to the act. I found a link above to be interesting. I also acknowledge that there are various views on what this means and refers to. I no longer claim to be all-knowing in this area.

 

4) I know in MY faith, homosexual marriage is not permitted. That is for those of MY faith. I acknowledge that not everyone is of my faith and we have no say outside of our own faith. Other people will follow the traditions of their faith or no faith. If their faith permits such, then that is fine. I respect their faith in that regard. If they referred to themselves as married, I respect that. I refer to their spouse appropriately.

 

5) In MY faith, homosexuals are not seen as abominations (except by some more fundamentalist people...generally of certain Jurisdictions or converts that have brought their views in with them from Protestantism). Again, it is the act that is forbidden. As stated by another poster, we do have LGBTA. Some choose to marry the opposite gender (with their spouse knowing that they aren't all the way at one end of the spectrum) and others choose celibacy. We have had a monastic that was known to be gay and his writings are revered by many. But then, we have many Saints that have much more colourful histories than simply being gay :)

 

5) From a secular, legal point, I have no problem with the protections afforded a legal marriage to these couples. It protects them, it protects any children they may have. The ones in my life have their own biological children. Adoption, surrogacy, etc, is another issue altogether and I have opinions on that...but my opinions are the same for both heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. And again, my view is not everyone else's views. Either way, I feel it's an unrelated topic.

 

6) From a personal standpoint, my business is not whether a person is LGBTA or any other orientation or gender identity, other than if they believe it will help me to understand their view on something or they are letting me know how they prefer to be referred to or not referred to. Their relationships are not my business. I do not believe that shoving my beliefs or my views on them nor trying to convince them is my place nor "loving" to them. I'm to accept them as they are. I want to be accepted as I am. They are in my life for a reason and I can learn from them as much as I can learn from anyone else. I don't worry about what they can learn from me. Lord have mercy, I am a sinner. Anything they learn from me is not because I went out there and tried to teach them something. I have a gay friend and a gay acquaintance...one in a relationship and one celibate....that I can ask questions and they understand that I am awkward and do not always word things well. They know about my fundamentalist background and they have been loving and understanding in our conversations. I have LBA family members, so I do have questions and they are my safe place to ask. Beyond that, eyes on my own plate...I have my own life to muck through and do the best I can with that. I really have no business trying to arrange other people's lives.

[Guest]

As the mother of a queer person who very well may choose a same sex marriage someday, I do not and cannot believe being queer (any identity or orientation under that umbrella) is a choice. It is not. Because I believe in a loving, merciful God who values each of us as individuals, I cannot believe that God would make someone gay and then say that person should be alone. That would be cruel. I do not believe God is cruel. I believe God is love. It is not loving to tell a person that a core part of their identity is sinful in a way that a heterosexual, cisgender person is not.

 

I see sin not as a list of things we must avoid "because God said so." I see sin as any deliberate act that harms another child of God. It would be a sin for me for me to cheat on my husband because of how deeply that would hurt him and our family. It is not a sin for two people to formally and legally codify their love into a marital relationship, regardless of their individual sexual orientations or gender identities.

 

I see scripture such as the Bible as a record of human attempts to interact with the divine. There are some Truths in it, but I do not see divinity in any edict that violates the commandment Christ gave to love.

So very well-said, Veritaserum. ITA.

 

I was one of the first people I knew of amongst in my largely conservative, Christian circle of aquaintance who did not understand what was such a big deal about Same Sex Marriage. I was never if favor of a Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage = one man to one woman. I was also not passionately in favor of legalized SSM, but I could not see the slightest shred of logic in preventing consenting adults from marrying because they are the same gender or some variation of typical gender. Preventing SSM plainly had obvious similarities to preventing inter-racial marriage.

 

Besides which it has become increasingly obvious and evident to me that sexual mapping is not "chosen" in the way one chooses to have long hair or short.