Gay marriage in the Christian world

[dthmstr254]

I was on Facebook and saw a group entitled "Christian, Conservative, and Republican, in that order." In this group there were many debates and discussion in which we could take part. One of the largest debates was on gay marriage. I want to know where the Christians here stand and what Non-Christians who know what the Bible says would have to say on this one.

Edit: notes on the poll. The limited number of options made it necessary to generalize it quite a bit. If you have another view on it, post it here in the thread. If you are undecided, it might be best to wait until you have time to read the thread and see where the evidence lies.

En el amor interminable de Cristo,

William Sculley

[loser]

As far as I know, the Bible has nothing to say on the matter of gay marriages, at least on the government supported (legal) kind. It does, however, condemn homosexuality and, therefore, homosexual unions.

I don't have a problem with gays getting married to gain the added benefits provided by law to married couples. What I do have a problem with is allowing gay couples to adopt or raise children; this should NOT be allowed. Allowing this is no different than allowing me to share the women's bathroom in public because I PREFER to sit down to pee. Our PREFERENCES should NOT be allowed to dictate laws.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Marriage in the state sanctioned sense is a sham anyway, and the state should not really be involved at all. Perhaps we should simply have civil unions, that just give the legal benefits, and no government institution of marriage.

[GHook93]

Who cares what the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. says on the issue. What matters is that marriage is more than 2 people coming together. It creates rights: (1) Marital Property, (2) Custody, (3) Maintenance, (3) Taxes, (4) Employer benefits,etc.! This matter shouldn't be decided on religious beliefs.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: GHook93 Who cares what the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. says on the issue. What matters is that marriage is more than 2 people coming together. It creates rights: (1) Marital Property, (2) Custody, (3) Maintenance, (3) Taxes, (4) Employer benefits,etc.! This matter shouldn't be decided on religious beliefs.

Definitely the best non-Christian answer I have seen thus far.

[Jack]

Gay marriage in the Christian world

I thought there was only one world. You guys are from your own world? I'm beginning to understand, now.

[RickSp]

The Biblical argument against homosexuality based on the Mosaic code is very weak. There is so much nasty and offensive in the Mosaic code that if you pick one or two verses, what do you do with the other Mosaic verses? If you rely on Leviticus 18:22, must you also follow Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 25:44-46 or even Leviticus 11:9-12?

[Kamehameha34]

Frick, when I saw the option "non-christian", I thought it was asking about my personal beliefs.

[Zhavric]

Oh, the bible is quite clear about gays as it's authors demonstrate remarkable homophobia & hatred towards homosexuality.

The problem is that Christians overstep their bounds by opposing gay marriage in the political arena. There is no demonstrable harm caused by gay marriage... nothing to protect against... thus the opposition is motivated solely by hatred. It's a wedge issue that has allowed the political right to consolidate power because huge numbers of Christians will show up & vote for people who will screw them over so long as the politician in question is anti-gay and anti-abortion.

Candidate A is
1) For greater benefits for war veterans.
2) For finding ways to reconcile business needs with enviromental issues.
3) For keeping jobs in America and helping businesses.
4) For allowing gays to marry.

Candidate B is
1) For slashing benefits for war veterans
2) For trashing local enviroments / allowing businesses to polute drinking water
3) For outsourcing and making sure jobs go overseas.
4) AGAINST gay marriage.

The sad thing about our country is the evangelical Christian who has a house on a stream where his younger kid plays... has a son in Iraq... and works at a factory that risks being moved overseas will vote for candidate B on the grounds of gay marriage or similar wedge issues.

It happened in Kansas and throug out the entire nation.

/end off-topic rant

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Frick, when I saw the option "non-christian", I thought it was asking about my personal beliefs.

Well, if it weren't for the fact that it only allows 5 options on the polls, I would have had those options on it.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood I thought there was only one world. You guys are from your own world? I'm beginning to understand, now.

Well, This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through.

On the serious side, what I meant is in our worldview as Christians. The use of the word "world" here is like it is used when saying "the Deaf world."

[rez]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Well, This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through. On the serious side, what I meant is in our worldview as Christians. The use of the word "world" here is like it is used when saying "the Deaf world."

and then you have to distinguish between the many different Christian views.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: loser As far as I know, the Bible has nothing to say on the matter of gay marriages, at least on the government supported (legal) kind. It does, however, condemn homosexuality and, therefore, homosexual unions. I don't have a problem with gays getting married to gain the added benefits provided by law to married couples. What I do have a problem with is allowing gay couples to adopt or raise children; this should NOT be allowed. Allowing this is no different than allowing me to share the women's bathroom in public because I PREFER to sit down to pee. Our PREFERENCES should NOT be allowed to dictate laws.

Convicted murderers, rapists, even CHILD MOLESTORS are allowed by law to adopt children but you say gay couples cannot? What makes them worse than molestors or rapists or murderers?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, the bible is quite clear about gays as it's authors demonstrate remarkable homophobia & hatred towards homosexuality. The problem is that Christians overstep their bounds by opposing gay marriage in the political arena. There is no demonstrable harm caused by gay marriage... nothing to protect against... thus the opposition is motivated solely by hatred. It's a wedge issue that has allowed the political right to consolidate power because huge numbers of Christians will show up & vote for people who will screw them over so long as the politician in question is anti-gay and anti-abortion. Candidate A is 1) For greater benefits for war veterans. 2) For finding ways to reconcile business needs with enviromental issues. 3) For keeping jobs in America and helping businesses. 4) For allowing gays to marry. Candidate B is 1) For slashing benefits for war veterans 2) For trashing local enviroments / allowing businesses to polute drinking water 3) For outsourcing and making sure jobs go overseas. 4) AGAINST gay marriage. The sad thing about our country is the evangelical Christian who has a house on a stream where his younger kid plays... has a son in Iraq... and works at a factory that risks being moved overseas will vote for candidate B on the grounds of gay marriage or similar wedge issues. It happened in Kansas and throug out the entire nation. /end off-topic rant

There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage. For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality. This has been done before, when a gay group tried to sue a pastor. Another thing is it would force pastors to head up the marriages, and most, like my pastor, say that he will go to prison rather than that.

Secondly, in the above situation, I would write in a vote instead of voting for the two major people in candidacy

[Gods_Mercenary]

Private people whould be able to discriminate against anyone they want (as long as they're not harming them) but as I see it, state marriage isn't really marriage, just give everybody civil unions.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rez and then you have to distinguish between the many different Christian views.

There are many differing Christian views. Then there are those who are parading as Christians like benny Hen, but really aren't. There are also many differing views from Deaf people. Your point was?

[Jack]

There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage. For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality. This has been done before, when a gay group tried to sue a pastor.

Considering many churches these days are ordaining gays, I think it would just be easier for a gay person or couple to find a church that already had turned from preaching hate and instead practiced love and fellowship, maybe even had a gay pastor, then to try to change an existing congregation.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage.

If by "demonstrable harm" you mean bruising your delicate social sensibilities, then I agree. Beyond that, you're taking a trip through fallacy land. Let's see where you went:

For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality.

First stop: a slide down the slippery slope. If X then Y where there's no causal link between the two.

Another thing is it would force pastors to head up the marriages, and most, like my pastor, say that he will go to prison rather than that.

Second stop: appeal to emotion. Those brave pastors willing to be Bubba's room mate to stop gays from marrying. Ouch! Irony...

Secondly, in the above situation, I would write in a vote instead of voting for the two major people in candidacy

Bull. You'd vote for the guy who's anti-gay and anti-abortion. You're going to vote for who ever sucks up to the religious right the most.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric If by "demonstrable harm" you mean bruising your delicate social sensibilities, then I agree. Beyond that, you're taking a trip through fallacy land. Let's see where you went: First stop: a slide down the slippery slope. If X then Y where there's no causal link between the two.

Problem is, the event spoken of has already happened before. A gay group sued a pastor because he spoke against homosexuality.

Second stop: appeal to emotion. Those brave pastors willing to be Bubba's room mate to stop gays from marrying. Ouch! Irony...

The point of this being? It is not an appeal to emotion, it is a dead on quote from many pastors. If a fact appeals to your emotions, it does not change the fact that it is a fact.

Bull. You'd vote for the guy who's anti-gay and anti-abortion. You're going to vote for who ever sucks up to the religious right the most.

Oh, so in response to my "trip through fallacy land" you follow suit and buy the first ticket to Ad Hominim, the capital city of Fallacy Land?

[Osborn F Enready]

Deathmstr said: There is a demonstrable harm in allowing gay marriage. For one, the next step is gay people demanding that pastors not preach against homosexuality. This has been done before, when a gay group tried to sue a pastor. Another thing is it would force pastors to head up the marriages, and most, like my pastor, say that he will go to prison rather than that.

Wow, kind of like responsible recreational drug users, that refuse to sacrifice their rights to consume drugs into their own bodies, of free-will, against the threats of the nanny-state with a moralist agenda?

Perhaps I should give this argument the same amount of respect, and say that once you imprison enough pastors for this "crime", perhaps we can discuss how rational it is to imprison people for others beliefs, as opposed to actions that actually harm others?

Sorry, had to make the parallel, since I see it quite relevant and equal.