Gay Marriage

[Forsakenone]

1. Feelings are not reality and feelings are misleading when given preference over truth and morality.

Feeling are not reality? Some might not share those same feelings. However, since you assert that feelings are misleading when given preference over truth and morality, what principle do you use to measure the validity of truth?

2. My beliefs are very simple and very constitutional. Every state should decide that for themselves and the feds should butt out of the issue.

So you disagree with the OT principle expressed in Numbers 15:16?

One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. Numbers 15:16

Unfortunately, the federal government has exerted an unconstitutional interference in state marriage laws ever since they passed the unconstitutional anti polygamy laws targeting the Mormons.

So is your position that polygamy is acceptable?

Now it's routinely assumed that marriage is a federal government issue, regardless of the 10th Amendment which guarantees that the states have sole jurisprudence over marriage.

The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

So you consider the issue of marriage that important to the public's welfare that it is reserved to the States?

To answer your question, U.S. law should be changed by rescinding all involvement in this issue whatsoever.

That amendment would definitely be the first...

Genesis 5:1-2
5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them,.... in the day when they were created.

Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Matt 19:5-6
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And what do you conceive is the cause that the twain shall become one flesh?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I want to marry my blow-up doll but they wont let me

Blow-up dolls have rights too , they should be allowed to get married if they want

They even gave me a ticket when I took my blow-up doll in my car and used the car pool lane

Life is not fair

 

[Forsakenone]

I want to marry my blow-up doll but they wont let me

Blow-up dolls have rights too , they should be allowed to get married if they want

They even gave me a ticket when I took my blow-up doll in my car and used the car pool lane

Is that you Rob?

Life is not fair

Reminds me of John 8:59

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

...

I think my doll is rather pretty , a lot of guys want her phone number but I have to tell them the courts are holding her as evidence.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2011/05/04/man-uses-inflatable-woman-doll-for-carpool-lane/

Is it that hard to believe His Word? Homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven...Is that crystal?

We must also read the rest of the verse ....

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ... Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you.

 

[River Jordan]

1. Feelings are not reality and feelings are misleading when given preference over truth and morality.

So if "feelings are not reality", then no one really loves anyone, right?

2. My beliefs are very simple and very constitutional. Every state should decide that for themselves and the feds should butt out of the issue. Unfortunately, the federal government has exerted an unconstitutional interference in state marriage laws ever since they passed the unconstitutional anti polygamy laws targeting the Mormons. Now it's routinely assumed that marriage is a federal government issue, regardless of the 10th Amendment which guarantees that the states have sole jurisprudence over marriage. To answer your question, U.S. law should be changed by rescinding all involvement in this issue whatsoever.

States do maintain oversight of marriages. However, according to our Constitution, that oversight is subject to basic constitutional protections, such as equal protection. Thus, just as it was unconstitutional for states to prohibit interracial marriage, it is unconstitutional for them to prohibit same-sex marriage.

IOW, state oversight is not the same as "states can do whatever they want".

 

[Forsakenone]

Scripture is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin.

How many hours are there in a day?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

So if "feelings are not reality", then no one really loves anyone, right?


States do maintain oversight of marriages. However, according to our Constitution, that oversight is subject to basic constitutional protections, such as equal protection. Thus, just as it was unconstitutional for states to prohibit interracial marriage, it is unconstitutional for them to prohibit same-sex marriage.

IOW, state oversight is not the same as "states can do whatever they want".

Two men cannot love each other the way a man can love a woman and a woman a man. This is what I mean by "reality". Homosexual relationships are a hybrid of unnatural lust and romanticized fraternity. God created us male and female and only when we follow the design of the Creator can we achieve true physical, spiritual, and emotional compatibility. This cannot be achieved in an immoral union.

Race and color are listed in the 15th Amendment as criteria for discrimination that's prohibited by the Constitution. To say that "discrimination" is an open ended concept that goes beyond what is defined is to open the way for anarchy. It militates against the very nature of the Constitution which is designed to limit through lucid specificity what the federal government may or may not govern. This is why "general welfare" doesn't mean anything people want it to, but works harmoniously with those defined and enumerated powers assigned to the federal government. So no, sexual orientation is not a protected status.

Moreover, state marriage laws do not discriminate, even by sexual orientation. A law that says any adult can marry an unrelated adult of the opposite sex violates nobody's civil rights so long as it's applied regardless of race, national origin, religion, or previous condition of servitude. These laws apply even regardless of sexual orientation, though it's not a protected status. The error of the Left is to assume that the right to marry translates into a right to marry whomever or whatever one wants, a legal argument that is completely lacking in merit. Not only is this not a right under our Constitutional republic, it has never been a recognized right in any civilization or society in the history of mankind.

All of the Left's arguments in support of the perversion of society defy morality, natural law, constitutional jurisprudence, and historical precedence.

 

[River Jordan]

Two men cannot love each other the way a man can love a woman and a woman a man. This is what I mean by "reality".

So we're back to what I said earlier. You would tell a gay person that you know their feelings better than they do.

Homosexual relationships are a hybrid of unnatural lust and romanticized fraternity. God created us male and female and only when we follow the design of the Creator can we achieve true physical, spiritual, and emotional compatibility. This cannot be achieved in an immoral union.

Humans are created in a lot more shades of gray than I think you realize. For a lot of people, "male and female" are not 100% applicable.

Race and color are listed in the 15th Amendment as criteria for discrimination that's prohibited by the Constitution.

The 15th Amendment is 100% about voting. Nice try though.

To say that "discrimination" is an open ended concept that goes beyond what is defined is to open the way for anarchy.

No one has argued that it is open ended.

It militates against the very nature of the Constitution which is designed to limit through lucid specificity what the federal government may or may not govern. This is why "general welfare" doesn't mean anything people want it to, but works harmoniously with those defined and enumerated powers assigned to the federal government. So no, sexual orientation is not a protected status.

I think what you're missing is the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. It specifies that states cannot deny any citizen equal protection under the law. So if a state allows an opposite-sex couple to marry, they must also allow a same-sex couple to marry.

Moreover, state marriage laws do not discriminate, even by sexual orientation. A law that says any adult can marry an unrelated adult of the opposite sex violates nobody's civil rights so long as it's applied regardless of race, national origin, religion, or previous condition of servitude. These laws apply even regardless of sexual orientation, though it's not a protected status. The error of the Left is to assume that the right to marry translates into a right to marry whomever or whatever one wants, a legal argument that is completely lacking in merit. Not only is this not a right under our Constitutional republic, it has never been a recognized right in any civilization or society in the history of mankind.

From the government's perspective, there is no legal difference between a same-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage. They are both legal arrangements between consenting adults.

Can you give one purely legal reason why it is in the government's interest to prohibit two gay women adults from entering into a marriage agreement?

All of the Left's arguments in support of the perversion of society defy morality, natural law, constitutional jurisprudence, and historical precedence.

Polygamy is both historical and Biblical. Should it be permitted?

 

[Wormwood]

Nothing like nit-picking the constitution to justify and protect actions that are egregious to God. It wouldn't make any difference to me if all the founding fathers were in homosexual relationships and wrote in favor of such things. It doesn't make it right, nor does it make the behavior worth defending. Why cant we focus on the issues that build believers up rather than protecting actions that grieve God?

 

[Floyd]

Nothing like nit-picking the constitution to justify and protect actions that are egregious to God. It wouldn't make any difference to me if all the founding fathers were in homosexual relationships and wrote in favor of such things. It doesn't make it right, nor does it make the behavior worth defending. Why cant we focus on the issues that build believers up rather than protecting actions that grieve God?

Good comment Wormwood.
Floyd.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

So we're back to what I said earlier. You would tell a gay person that you know their feelings better than they do.
This is a lame argument about what I would tell a gay person that has nothing to do with my philosophical argument.

Humans are created in a lot more shades of gray than I think you realize. For a lot of people, "male and female" are not 100% applicable.

Birth defects are but one of the many consequences of the fall of Man and the ensuing death, suffering, and corruption that entered the world. It isn't a justification for deviant behavior that God forbids
The 15th Amendment is 100% about voting. Nice try though.
No it isn't, not in context with the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause. Government may not discriminate based on race, color, religion, or previous condition of servitude, and this applies to far more than just voting. Even so, it doesn't help your case because your argument that sexual orientation and lifestyle are protected statuses finds no purchase in the wording of the Constitution, whether we're talking about the 14th and 15th Amendments or any other part.

No one has argued that it is open ended.
Oh, good. You admit then that discrimination follows a defined criteria and not just any criteria that people dream up. We're in agreement.

I think what you're missing is the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. It specifies that states cannot deny any citizen equal protection under the law. So if a state allows an opposite-sex couple to marry, they must also allow a same-sex couple to marry.

Wrong. "Equal protection of the laws" is no more open ended than "general welfare" to be made to justify anything you want it to. It applies only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution that govern what the federal government may control, outside of which is the jurisprudence of the states. Nowhere is Congress authorized to regulate marriage. It's exclusively a state issue. To say otherwise is to nullify the 10th Amendment.


From the government's perspective, there is no legal difference between a same-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage. They are both legal arrangements between consenting adults.

Can you give one purely legal reason why it is in the government's interest to prohibit two gay women adults from entering into a marriage agreement?

Societies and civilizations have always determined what marriage is and that didn't change with the dawning of the American nation. We were founded by people fleeing from an oligarchy where a few people made the laws and governed and set up a government, right from the start based on the concept of self rule. States have the right to set the laws under which they live by popular vote. Many states have overwhelmingly approved referendum measures to ban gay marriage; it has been the people's choice. You speak of government as if it were some foreign entity, but it's supposed to be an expression of the will of the people. A better question would be to ask you by what right you would have courts overturning the will of the people without specific justification in the Constitution.


Polygamy is both historical and Biblical. Should it be permitted?
Polygamy is not biblical and to claim so shows the same ignorant, unfamiliarity with Scripture as displayed by non believers; which for all I know, you might be. Citing Abraham's and King Solomon's practice of polygamy as God's approval of the practice is a breakdown in logic. And in fact, Abraham suffered consequences for failing to trust God's plan and attempting to bring about God's promise on his own. Solomon's wives enticed him into idolatry and he fell into grievous sin. At no point does God condone or bless this practice and in fact God specifies that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his (singular) wife, and set the model for this in the Garden of Eden when he made just one wife for Adam. The practice of concubines was a Canaanite tradition, among many that were condemned by a holy God. So no, Polygamy is not "biblical".

Nothing like nit-picking the constitution to justify and protect actions that are egregious to God. It wouldn't make any difference to me if all the founding fathers were in homosexual relationships and wrote in favor of such things. It doesn't make it right, nor does it make the behavior worth defending. Why cant we focus on the issues that build believers up rather than protecting actions that grieve God?

It grieves me that satanic lies are making inroads into Christian belief. We have to go no further than the beginning chapters of Revelation to see that the Christian church has always struggled with the temptation to be influenced by the world around it. Christians are called to be the salt of the earth, to be light in the midst of darkness, to be distinctly different than the world. So when you see some "Christians" trying to make the Church more like the world, it's easy to conclude they are tares sown among the wheat; that they don't belong to Christ. And to anyone else reading this post, if the shoe fits, wear it. I don't apologize for drawing a line between genuine Christianity and the clever counterfeits.

 

[River Jordan]

Nothing like nit-picking the constitution to justify and protect actions that are egregious to God. It wouldn't make any difference to me if all the founding fathers were in homosexual relationships and wrote in favor of such things. It doesn't make it right, nor does it make the behavior worth defending. Why cant we focus on the issues that build believers up rather than protecting actions that grieve God?

We don't live in a theocracy, where our laws are dictated by any one religion. Can you imagine what it would be like if our government was run that way? Who would make the final decisions on what "actions are egregious to God"? Catholics? Mormons? Baptists? Jehovah's Witnesses? And what would that mean to citizens who aren't Christians?

Our government was deliberately set up to be secular, and I think that was very wise.

 

[Wormwood]

We don't live in a theocracy, where our laws are dictated by any one religion. Can you imagine what it would be like if our government was run that way? Who would make the final decisions on what "actions are egregious to God"? Catholics? Mormons? Baptists? Jehovah's Witnesses? And what would that mean to citizens who aren't Christians?

Our government was deliberately set up to be secular, and I think that was very wise.

Its a farce to argue that secularism is void of religious proposition. "Rights" and laws are based on a moral framework, not simply a matter of convenience. In any event, none of that matters. What if our "secular" government decides to declare war as a means to get out of an economic pinch? What if the government decides to approve of the murder of the unborn because of individual "rights" (which are somehow a-religious in your mind)? Are you going to continue to defend and support actions that grieve the heart of God because they are deemed to be the best interests of the American social machinery? I'm a Christian first, not an American first. My citizenship is in heaven and I could really care less what works for the kingdoms of this world...America included. Our founding fathers sought to give people freedom so they could worship God, not freedom so they could worship their freedom.

 

[River Jordan]

This is a lame argument about what I would tell a gay person that has nothing to do with my philosophical argument.

I think it's entirely relevant. If a person, gay or not, tells me they love someone, I try and not be so arrogant as to act as if I know their feelings better than they do.

Birth defects are but one of the many consequences of the fall of Man and the ensuing death, suffering, and corruption that entered the world. It isn't a justification for deviant behavior that God forbids

Nevertheless, they exist.

No it isn't, not in context with the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause. Government may not discriminate based on race, color, religion, or previous condition of servitude, and this applies to far more than just voting.

????????? The 15th Amendment states in its entirety...

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

That's 100% about voting.

Even so, it doesn't help your case because your argument that sexual orientation and lifestyle are protected statuses finds no purchase in the wording of the Constitution, whether we're talking about the 14th and 15th Amendments or any other part.

The 15th Amendment doesn't say anything about religion either. So does that mean Catholics can be discriminated against?

Wrong. "Equal protection of the laws" is no more open ended than "general welfare" to be made to justify anything you want it to.

No one is saying the equal protection clause is open ended. But you have yet to give a legal reason why it doesn't apply to gay citizens.

It applies only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution that govern what the federal government may control, outside of which is the jurisprudence of the states. Nowhere is Congress authorized to regulate marriage. It's exclusively a state issue. To say otherwise is to nullify the 10th Amendment.

No state can regulate marriage in such a way that is in violation of the Constitution. It's the same as how states are allowed to regulate voting, as long as they don't violate the Constitution in doing so. Just as a state cannot deny Catholics the ability to vote, they cannot deny gays the ability to marry.

You seem to have this notion that "states rights" = "states are free to do whatever they want".

States have the right to set the laws under which they live by popular vote. Many states have overwhelmingly approved referendum measures to ban gay marriage; it has been the people's choice.

So if a state had a vote and decided that Christians cannot vote or hold elected office, that would be 100% legal in your view?

You speak of government as if it were some foreign entity, but it's supposed to be an expression of the will of the people.

Are you aware that support for gay marriage is now a majority view? So given what you just said, shouldn't you be supporting the legalization of gay marriage across the country? After all, it's the will of the people.

A better question would be to ask you by what right you would have courts overturning the will of the people without specific justification in the Constitution.

There is specific justification in the Constitution. From a legal perspective, a state can't grant a marriage license to one pair of consenting adults while denying it to another. That violates the Equal Protection Clause. And just as a state use the results of a referendum as justification to discriminate against Christians, it can't use the results of a referendum to discriminate against gays.

Polygamy is not biblical and to claim so shows the same ignorant, unfamiliarity with Scripture as displayed by non believers; which for all I know, you might be. Citing Abraham's and King Solomon's practice of polygamy as God's approval of the practice is a breakdown in logic. And in fact, Abraham suffered consequences for failing to trust God's plan and attempting to bring about God's promise on his own. Solomon's wives enticed him into idolatry and he fell into grievous sin. At no point does God condone or bless this practice and in fact God specifies that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his (singular) wife, and set the model for this in the Garden of Eden when he made just one wife for Adam. The practice of concubines was a Canaanite tradition, among many that were condemned by a holy God. So no, Polygamy is not "biblical".

Oh brother...fundamentalist apologetics are just bizarre.

Its a farce to argue that secularism is void of religious proposition. "Rights" and laws are based on a moral framework, not simply a matter of convenience. In any event, none of that matters. What if our "secular" government decides to declare war as a means to get out of an economic pinch? What if the government decides to approve of the murder of the unborn because of individual "rights" (which are somehow a-religious in your mind)? Are you going to continue to defend and support actions that grieve the heart of God because they are deemed to be the best interests of the American social machinery? I'm a Christian first, not an American first. My citizenship is in heaven and I could really care less what works for the kingdoms of this world...America included. Our founding fathers sought to give people freedom so they could worship God, not freedom so they could worship their freedom.

Don't confuse my pointing out the legal justifications for gay marriage with my saying it is Biblical or not sinful. I believe it is a sin, so I don't do it. But I also recognize that what I believe is a sin doesn't get to dictate what everyone else can or can't do.

The Bible is very clear that greed and love of money is a sin...so much so that it says waaaaaaaay more about it than homosexuality. Yet greed and love of money is the entire basis for our economic system.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

That's 100% about voting.

That's not how the Constitution is interpreted, treating each amendment, clause, or stanza as a separate entity independent of the rest of the document. The courts have never interpreted it that way.





No one is saying the equal protection clause is open ended. But you have yet to give a legal reason why it doesn't apply to gay citizens.
I can't argue from absence which is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Constitution protects lifestyle choices. Don't try to put this on me. It's all yours.

No state can regulate marriage in such a way that is in violation of the Constitution. It's the same as how states are allowed to regulate voting, as long as they don't violate the Constitution in doing so. Just as a state cannot deny Catholics the ability to vote, they cannot deny gays the ability to marry.

You have yet to demonstrate the Constitution is being violated. Where did homosexuals get rights to be able to redefine marriage?


You seem to have this notion that "states rights" = "states are free to do whatever they want".

So if a state had a vote and decided that Christians cannot vote or hold elected office, that would be 100% legal in your view?
They can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate specifically protected civil rights in the Constitution, which is why your second sentence is just ridiculous.

Are you aware that support for gay marriage is now a majority view? So given what you just said, shouldn't you be supporting the legalization of gay marriage across the country? After all, it's the will of the people.

Wrong. Homosexuals have failed to pass their agenda by popular referendum. Polls can be misleading, but elections cannot, nor the laws that passed in many states, including my own Idaho, by overwhelming majorities. Even New York's legalization of the practice was done using tricks of the legislature to pass it overnight before opposition could be mounted to it. There's no sign that the homosexual marriage movement has actually gained democratic favor as evidenced by the passage of law when compared to the laws passed banning the practice.


There is specific justification in the Constitution. From a legal perspective, a state can't grant a marriage license to one pair of consenting adults while denying it to another. That violates the Equal Protection Clause. And just as a state use the results of a referendum as justification to discriminate against Christians, it can't use the results of a referendum to discriminate against gays.
Yes states can and do routinely. You can't marry your sibling or your mother. You can't marry when you're already married. There's never been a constitutionally recognized "right" to marry whoever you want.




Don't confuse my pointing out the legal justifications for gay marriage with my saying it is Biblical or not sinful. I believe it is a sin, so I don't do it. But I also recognize that what I believe is a sin doesn't get to dictate what everyone else can or can't do.

The Bible is very clear that greed and love of money is a sin...so much so that it says waaaaaaaay more about it than homosexuality. Yet greed and love of money is the entire basis for our economic system.
You just tried to make the case that polygamy was "biblical", a claim I soundly refuted. Now you think that the Bible can be interpreted by proportion, that the number of mentions indicates how important God thought the issue was; a ridiculous and indefensible exegetical method.

 

[River Jordan]

That's not how the Constitution is interpreted, treating each amendment, clause, or stanza as a separate entity independent of the rest of the document. The courts have never interpreted it that way.

Do you really want to cite "how the courts have interpreted the Constitution" in this discussion? Cuz they sure are interpreting it consistent with what I've been saying.

I can't argue from absence which is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Constitution protects lifestyle choices. Don't try to put this on me. It's all yours.

I've already done that. From the government's perspective, marriage is a civil arrangement between consenting adults that confers a suite of civil benefits. There is no legal, legitimate government interest in denying gays access to those benefits. Denying them such access in the absence of legal justification amounts to discrimination and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You have yet to demonstrate the Constitution is being violated.

Yes I have, and the courts agree with me.

Where did homosexuals get rights to be able to redefine marriage?

When did Christians get special rights to define it in the first place?

They can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate specifically protected civil rights in the Constitution, which is why your second sentence is just ridiculous.

And denying gay couples access to the civil benefits of marriage violates their civil rights. That's why these state laws are being overturned at a rapid pace.

Wrong.

Yes, the conservative approach to data that isn't what they want..."It's just wrong then!"

Homosexuals have failed to pass their agenda by popular referendum.

Look next door...Washington State.

Yes states can and do routinely. You can't marry your sibling or your mother. You can't marry when you're already married. There's never been a constitutionally recognized "right" to marry whoever you want.

The only times when the government is able to do those things is when it has a legitimate, objective interest in doing so, e.g., incest.

You just tried to make the case that polygamy was "biblical", a claim I soundly refuted.

You posted some fundamentalist claptrap which isn't even worth responding to.

Now you think that the Bible can be interpreted by proportion, that the number of mentions indicates how important God thought the issue was; a ridiculous and indefensible exegetical method.

Is greed and love of money a sin? What did Jesus say about it? What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

 

[Wormwood]

Don't confuse my pointing out the legal justifications for gay marriage with my saying it is Biblical or not sinful. I believe it is a sin, so I don't do it. But I also recognize that what I believe is a sin doesn't get to dictate what everyone else can or can't do.

The Bible is very clear that greed and love of money is a sin...so much so that it says waaaaaaaay more about it than homosexuality. Yet greed and love of money is the entire basis for our economic system.

Well of course. I agree with most of what you are saying here. However, I find many Christians are at a place today where they are more concerned promoting people's "rights" to do whatever they want than they are expressing grief over some of the ways people choose to live.

I understand your issue with greed as well. Certainly it is deplorable. I am just as disturbed with books written by prominent Christians that promote greed and selfish gain as I am the new flood of arguments from prominent Christians that are coming out in defense of homosexuality. I think we all should be disturbed by this. However, one wrong doesn't make another right. I just don't see the point in spending great time and energy defending people's right to greed, murder of the unborn or homosexual practices.

I think as Christians we should be fixed on pursuing righteousness and encouraging others to do the same. I think its a waste of time for Christians to use their energy defending the actions of our culture and their "right" to indulge in acts that bring God's wrath upon the entire world...whether those acts are greed, lust, homosexual acts, violence or anything else.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

I agree with what you said. Most of what I've been posting is a result of having met and interacted with gays and listened to what they have to say. When Christians tell them, no matter how nicely and from a loving perspective, that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, they usually respond with something like "So? I'm not a Christian so I don't care what that book says any more than I care what the Quran says". Then they usually point out that the US isn't a theocracy and is instead a secular democratic republic, so what one scripture or another says about anything is irrelevant to what they can or can't do under the law.

That's why Christian groups are losing these court cases so rapidly. They can't cite a purely legal reason to justify the government prohibiting gays from getting married. Sure, they have scriptural reasons, but in a court those are irrelevant.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, in my mind, these are two separate issues. One has to do with how Christians interact with homosexuals on an individual level and another has to do with our response to the legal and cultural trajectory of our nation.

Issue #1: I think the idea of Christians are sitting down with homosexuals to discuss whether or not their lifestyle should be "legal" is ridiculous. I think we shouldn't be afraid to discuss the matter in a loving way, but the issue should be about the individual and their purpose and need to be reconciled to God, not the politics or laws of our nation. A person may have the legal "right" to chop their own hand off, but if I care for them, I will encourage them to do what is best for them...regardless of how "rights" are determined or laws are drawn up.

Issue #2: Ultimately, Christians are going to lose this culture battle. People are going to do what they desire to do. In a democratic system, the majority will win the day and clearly the majority of Americans are more concerned with pleasing themselves rather than pleasing God. I don't think we should be surprised by this. America has been a sort of anomaly for some time in many areas where laws have been developed around Biblical principles. This does not mean we stop rejecting the demand of our culture to concede that homosexuals or any type of sexual immorality should be embraced or ignored (John the Baptist sure didn't feel the need to do so in his confrontation with Herod!).

Yet, I think the issue I have with your second comment is that these issues require "purely legal reason." Secularism is a religion. It is not a neutral middle ground that is developed when all religious propositions are stripped away. Secularists would love for you to think that, but this is simply not the case. All issues involving purpose, life, "rights", justice, and so forth are based on religious propositions. To suggest that all people are ontologically independent from any divine being and that reason is self-derived is a belief system, not something derived from the scientific method.

Finally, I think we should not minimize the power of the truth. If I share the truth of God's Word with someone and they say, "So, I don't believe the Bible is God's Word" that does not mean that the Word or my approach is necessarily ineffective. Some people just reject the truth. Our job is not to convert the world, but to proclaim the truth. Now, certainly we should do it with love, gentleness and in a way that people will really understand it. However, when the Jews rejected the preaching of Paul, Paul did not say, "Wow, Im being ineffective here. I better do some more community service so they will accept what I have to say." No, he declared that since they felt themselves unworthy to receive eternal life, he would go to the Gentiles.

Effectiveness is not always about numbers of response. It is about walking a fine line of proclaiming truth in a loving and wise manner. Perhaps Christians wont win this issue because it cannot be won. Maybe most of the people in America will not be converted because the hardness of their own hearts...not because Christians are approaching this issue improperly. I think perhaps it is a little of both. In any event, just because you have a homosexual friend who has rejected the message they have heard from Christians, does not mean Christians are going about it all wrong. Maybe they are, but not necessarily.

 

[River Jordan]

Issue #1: I think the idea of Christians are sitting down with homosexuals to discuss whether or not their lifestyle should be "legal" is ridiculous. I think we shouldn't be afraid to discuss the matter in a loving way, but the issue should be about the individual and their purpose and need to be reconciled to God, not the politics or laws of our nation. A person may have the legal "right" to chop their own hand off, but if I care for them, I will encourage them to do what is best for them...regardless of how "rights" are determined or laws are drawn up.

That kinda takes the wind out of the sails of many of the Christian groups who have spend countless dollars and time trying to pass laws regarding homosexuality. Related to your second issue, imagine the good that could have been done had those resources been directed towards helping the poor. Talk about getting Christ's message out!

Issue #2: Ultimately, Christians are going to lose this culture battle. People are going to do what they desire to do. In a democratic system, the majority will win the day and clearly the majority of Americans are more concerned with pleasing themselves rather than pleasing God. I don't think we should be surprised by this. America has been a sort of anomaly for some time in many areas where laws have been developed around Biblical principles. This does not mean we stop rejecting the demand of our culture to concede that homosexuals or any type of sexual immorality should be embraced or ignored (John the Baptist sure didn't feel the need to do so in his confrontation with Herod!).

Agreed.

Yet, I think the issue I have with your second comment is that these issues require "purely legal reason." Secularism is a religion. It is not a neutral middle ground that is developed when all religious propositions are stripped away. Secularists would love for you to think that, but this is simply not the case. All issues involving purpose, life, "rights", justice, and so forth are based on religious propositions. To suggest that all people are ontologically independent from any divine being and that reason is self-derived is a belief system, not something derived from the scientific method.

Well, we've been over this before and I obviously still disagree.

Finally, I think we should not minimize the power of the truth. If I share the truth of God's Word with someone and they say, "So, I don't believe the Bible is God's Word" that does not mean that the Word or my approach is necessarily ineffective. Some people just reject the truth. Our job is not to convert the world, but to proclaim the truth. Now, certainly we should do it with love, gentleness and in a way that people will really understand it. However, when the Jews rejected the preaching of Paul, Paul did not say, "Wow, Im being ineffective here. I better do some more community service so they will accept what I have to say." No, he declared that since they felt themselves unworthy to receive eternal life, he would go to the Gentiles.

Effectiveness is not always about numbers of response. It is about walking a fine line of proclaiming truth in a loving and wise manner. Perhaps Christians wont win this issue because it cannot be won. Maybe most of the people in America will not be converted because the hardness of their own hearts...not because Christians are approaching this issue improperly. I think perhaps it is a little of both. In any event, just because you have a homosexual friend who has rejected the message they have heard from Christians, does not mean Christians are going about it all wrong. Maybe they are, but not necessarily.

Again, I agree. My main concern is over having the opposite effect by doing things like trying to deny gays basic civil rights (protection from discrimination in employment for example). Or when I share what the Bible says to a gay person and they say "This is who I am. It's as much a part of me as heterosexuality is to you. It's not something I can just decide to change." Do we tell them "Well, you're wrong" and act like we know their innermost feelings better than they do? IMO, that would drive them further away from God.

IMO, the best thing to do is not focus so much on their homosexuality. I don't do that with other non-Christians. I don't confront a fat person about gluttony. I don't confront a rich person about greed. I don't confront an egotist about pride. I instead try and focus on the positive aspects of our faith, and emulate what I believe to be Christ-like behavior and love.