Editorial From a Christian: A question to conservative Christians on gay marriage: Why draw the line here?

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

 

A good article highlighting the issues I've always had with the anti-Gay marriage folks. That they rarely ever have as big of an issue with marrital 'sins' that apply to hertosexuals and to many in Christian Churches today. Adulatory, divorce, multiple marriages, etc are of course frowned on in plenty of Churches, but in many other cases they are either ignored or waved off as individual sins, and almost always can be quickly forgiven by personal prayers and or with a quick public confession and request for forgiveness from the congregation...then all is good even... in marriages that are the result of unbiblical divorces/relationships

Christians in unbiblical marriages and unbiblical divorces are rarely ever asked to abstain from sex the rest of their lives or live the rest of their lives single like the bible commands or like they demand of Gay and lgbtq people....things are just "different" when it comes to heterosexual christians and marital sins....heteros are more easily forgiven, they are granted greater leniency in biblical interpretation, and they just aren't seen a 'dirt' or 'evil' like their lgbtq counterparts. 

people in gay relationships are living in sin. opposite sex couples in sinful relationships are just making 'mistakes' that can be easily forgiven. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/11/gay-marriage-conservative-christians-lgbtq-plea/

“I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love,” the Psalmist wrote. The sentiment was directed toward God, but the passage also reflects the appreciation we human beings have for dedication, commitment and affection here on earth.

 

This is why the victory of marriage equality last week — by way of the Respect for Marriage Act granting protections to same-sex and interracial couples — became inevitable once LGBTQ Americans came out in large numbers. Suddenly, even the most traditionally minded discovered that people they loved, respected and cared about were not heterosexual. Given a choice between abruptly abandoning relatives, co-workers and friends or opening our hearts, most of us chose the better option. It’s why support for same-sex marriage has skyrocketed, reaching 71 percent in the most recent Gallup numbers.

 

That word “inevitable” is laughable to those who spent years fighting for marriage equality against what once seemed prohibitive odds. This outcome did not look foreordained when writers such as Andrew Sullivan in the 1990s and, later, Jonathan Rauch laid out the moral case for same-sex marriage. The idea seemed doomed in 1996 when Congress, with votes in the House from 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats, passed the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as being between a man and woman.

And in truth, opposition to marriage equality has not disappeared. Most Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. And the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined during oral arguments last week to rule in favor of a graphic artist who is an evangelical Christian and does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply. Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?

 

But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?

That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view. Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.

But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?

What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions. American attitudes toward homosexuality have certainly changed radically but so have our attitudes toward racial and gender equality. Are not these moves toward greater openness all expressions of the equal, God-given dignity of every person?

We hear from our conservative friends about the importance of family values, and I heartily agree. Healthy families are good for society, for children and for social justice. But we straight people have done a heck of a job of wrecking the family all by ourselves and, in any event, supporting same-sex marriage is to stand for, not against, stable, loving, lifetime relationships.

I hold religious freedom as a high value and see religion as, on balance, a positive social force. (Yes, the latter view is increasingly controversial among people who share my politics.) I support well-crafted legal exemptions to protect the autonomy of religious institutions and the free exercise of religion. But these cannot become a defense of discrimination — in the marketplace or in our legal system.

So I have a respectful suggestion for traditionalist Christians who run businesses that cater weddings: Joyfully do the work that same-sex couples hire you to do, and witness your faith by gifting them a copy of the New Testament. It teaches us that “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.”

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

But,,, our tribe needs an enemy.  And,,, our duty is to impose OUR will upon all.  We are called to be a political force, to control society.

How can we feel special, how do we feel superior if,,, we do not have someone to look down on.

[autigeremt 6,569]

God will do the judging. We already have enough of them to go around. 

[DKW 86 7,411]

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

But,,, our tribe needs an enemy.  And,,, our duty is to impose OUR will upon all.  We are called to be a political force, to control society.

How can we feel special, how do we feel superior if,,, we do not have someone to look down on.

Every tribe in the US now does the Goebbels-Alinsky and find a villain to name as an enemy. We are so broken in this area, we may never be healed.

9 hours ago, autigeremt said:

God will do the judging. We already have enough of them to go around. 

We humans, are all sinners. If we cant recognize that fact then we are doomed. So many of my evangelical brethren have LONG ago forgotten that fact. 

One true fact of life for America is this, few know or understand the bible. We have been politicized by the pulpit and leaders that themselves do not understand the bible either. Folks, Zealots died for no reason at Masada. Unfortunately, they did not all die there. Read Josephus. It will break your heart.

Edited December 13, 2022 by DKW 86

[PUB78 1,354]

21 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

A good article highlighting the issues I've always had with the anti-Gay marriage folks. That they rarely ever have as big of an issue with marrital 'sins' that apply to hertosexuals and to many in Christian Churches today. Adulatory, divorce, multiple marriages, etc are of course frowned on in plenty of Churches, but in many other cases they are either ignored or waved off as individual sins, and almost always can be quickly forgiven by personal prayers and or with a quick public confession and request for forgiveness from the congregation...then all is good even... in marriages that are the result of unbiblical divorces/relationships

Christians in unbiblical marriages and unbiblical divorces are rarely ever asked to abstain from sex the rest of their lives or live the rest of their lives single like the bible commands or like they demand of Gay and lgbtq people....things are just "different" when it comes to heterosexual christians and marital sins....heteros are more easily forgiven, they are granted greater leniency in biblical interpretation, and they just aren't seen a 'dirt' or 'evil' like their lgbtq counterparts. 

people in gay relationships are living in sin. opposite sex couples in sinful relationships are just making 'mistakes' that can be easily forgiven. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/11/gay-marriage-conservative-christians-lgbtq-plea/

“I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love,” the Psalmist wrote. The sentiment was directed toward God, but the passage also reflects the appreciation we human beings have for dedication, commitment and affection here on earth.

 

This is why the victory of marriage equality last week — by way of the Respect for Marriage Act granting protections to same-sex and interracial couples — became inevitable once LGBTQ Americans came out in large numbers. Suddenly, even the most traditionally minded discovered that people they loved, respected and cared about were not heterosexual. Given a choice between abruptly abandoning relatives, co-workers and friends or opening our hearts, most of us chose the better option. It’s why support for same-sex marriage has skyrocketed, reaching 71 percent in the most recent Gallup numbers.

 

That word “inevitable” is laughable to those who spent years fighting for marriage equality against what once seemed prohibitive odds. This outcome did not look foreordained when writers such as Andrew Sullivan in the 1990s and, later, Jonathan Rauch laid out the moral case for same-sex marriage. The idea seemed doomed in 1996 when Congress, with votes in the House from 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats, passed the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as being between a man and woman.

And in truth, opposition to marriage equality has not disappeared. Most Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. And the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined during oral arguments last week to rule in favor of a graphic artist who is an evangelical Christian and does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply. Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?

 

But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?

That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view. Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.

But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?

What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions. American attitudes toward homosexuality have certainly changed radically but so have our attitudes toward racial and gender equality. Are not these moves toward greater openness all expressions of the equal, God-given dignity of every person?

We hear from our conservative friends about the importance of family values, and I heartily agree. Healthy families are good for society, for children and for social justice. But we straight people have done a heck of a job of wrecking the family all by ourselves and, in any event, supporting same-sex marriage is to stand for, not against, stable, loving, lifetime relationships.

I hold religious freedom as a high value and see religion as, on balance, a positive social force. (Yes, the latter view is increasingly controversial among people who share my politics.) I support well-crafted legal exemptions to protect the autonomy of religious institutions and the free exercise of religion. But these cannot become a defense of discrimination — in the marketplace or in our legal system.

So I have a respectful suggestion for traditionalist Christians who run businesses that cater weddings: Joyfully do the work that same-sex couples hire you to do, and witness your faith by gifting them a copy of the New Testament. It teaches us that “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.”

 

God ordained marriage between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex.

Homosexuality is not normal or part of God’s plan for humanity. It exists because of sin. That is why God made a way for us to escape his judgement for our sins by sending his son to died on the cross so we can be “ born again” or become a new person with the Holy Spirit living in us to guide our thoughts, words and actions.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

22 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

God ordained marriage between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex.

Homosexuality is not normal or part of God’s plan for humanity. It exists because of sin. That is why God made a way for us to escape his judgement for our sins by sending his son to died on the cross so we can be “ born again” or become a new person with the Holy Spirit living in us to guide our thoughts, words and actions.

 

 

That's not the point of the article. The author agrees with you that homosexuality is a sin. 

 

If you have any friends or family or church colleagues who have had more than one marriage or divorce that wasn't a result of their original partner's adultery or death, i hope you are as committed to telling them that they are living in continual sin and they musty exit their 2nd or 3rd marriage and live single and celibate the rest of their lives as the Bible commands or else they will face judgement. 

 

 

[PUB78 1,354]

12 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

That's not the point of the article. The author agrees with you that homosexuality is a sin. 

 

If you have any friends or family or church colleagues who have had more than one marriage or divorce that wasn't a result of their original partner's adultery or death, i hope you are as committed to telling them that they are living in continual sin and they musty exit their 2nd or 3rd marriage and live single and celibate the rest of their lives as the Bible commands or else they will face judgement. 

 

 

I can tell you every church I have been a member of, Baptist, Bible and PCA, don’t tolerate divorce without Biblical reasons or members committing adultery without sanctions , repentance or removed from membership.

[DKW 86 7,411]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I can tell you every church I have been a member of, Baptist, Bible and PCA, don’t tolerate divorce without Biblical reasons or members committing adultery without sanctions , repentance or removed from membership.

You need to find a church that can forgive then. 

[PUB78 1,354]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You need to find a church that can forgive then. 

They are forgiven if they are remorseful and repent.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

11 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I can tell you every church I have been a member of, Baptist, Bible and PCA, don’t tolerate divorce without Biblical reasons or members committing adultery without sanctions , repentance or removed from membership.

Does that include requiring them to never remarry again under threat of membership revocation or sanction? It's one thing to ask for forgiveness/repentance for an unscriptural divorce, its another to then ignore the Bibles command that that person who committed the unscriptural divorce to never remarry. 

That's my question. Those churches would see gay marriages and gay relationships as a continual sin that can't be forgiven until the relationship/marriage is ended. Do they hold adulteries straight people to the exact same standards if the marriage wasn't scriptural? 

 

I'm legitimately asking. I know that the Church I grew up in WOULD consider it a sinful marriage even between straight people, but I also know that that isn't a popular stance among many other denominations or Churches in the evangelical world. 

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

5 hours ago, PUB78 said:

They are forgiven if they are remorseful and repent

If they accept JC as Lord, they are forgiven.  

[jj3jordan 2,040]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Does that include requiring them to never remarry again under threat of membership revocation or sanction? It's one thing to ask for forgiveness/repentance for an unscriptural divorce, its another to then ignore the Bibles command that that person who committed the unscriptural divorce to never remarry. 

That's my question. Those churches would see gay marriages and gay relationships as a continual sin that can't be forgiven until the relationship/marriage is ended. Do they hold adulteries straight people to the exact same standards if the marriage wasn't scriptural? 

 

I'm legitimately asking. I know that the Church I grew up in WOULD consider it a sinful marriage even between straight people, but I also know that that isn't a popular stance among many other denominations or Churches in the evangelical world. 

 

The short answer is yes. A lot of churches do exactly that. Do they all do that? Probably not.  Calling out sin is not always popular, but it must be done.  Comparing gay and straight marriage however is not equal ground.

[PUB78 1,354]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Does that include requiring them to never remarry again under threat of membership revocation or sanction? It's one thing to ask for forgiveness/repentance for an unscriptural divorce, its another to then ignore the Bibles command that that person who committed the unscriptural divorce to never remarry. 

That's my question. Those churches would see gay marriages and gay relationships as a continual sin that can't be forgiven until the relationship/marriage is ended. Do they hold adulteries straight people to the exact same standards if the marriage wasn't scriptural? 

 

I'm legitimately asking. I know that the Church I grew up in WOULD consider it a sinful marriage even between straight people, but I also know that that isn't a popular stance among many other denominations or Churches in the evangelical world. 

 

Your stance in the last paragraph is the same as ours

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The message of Jesus has been lost to many.  The Calvinist just aren't having any of it.

Love, salvation, mercy,,, no way.  Condemnation, judgment, division are the calling.

Sinners have no place in "christianity", only the hypocrites.

[GoAU 1,599]

I do find it ironic that many of those who are criticizing some Christians for not recognizing gay marriage are equally intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.  I’m not sure what the morbid fascination of trying to force something down someone’s throat (no pun intended) that they are religiously opposed to.  Don’t misunderstand my position, I have no issue at all with gay marriage - I’d rather people experience the stability and fulfillment of a committed lifetime relationship than not.  But I don’t understand why both sides can’t live and let live - no need to force people to do something they’re  opposed to.   I wouldn’t want to spend money at a business that was opposed to my beliefs anyway.  

[Son of A Tiger 555]

On 12/13/2022 at 8:35 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

That's not the point of the article. The author agrees with you that homosexuality is a sin. 

 

If you have any friends or family or church colleagues who have had more than one marriage or divorce that wasn't a result of their original partner's adultery or death, i hope you are as committed to telling them that they are living in continual sin and they musty exit their 2nd or 3rd marriage and live single and celibate the rest of their lives as the Bible commands or else they will face judgement. 

 

 

I very much disagree. You forget that God forgives ALL sin if one repents and asks for forgiveness in Jesus name. That includes adultery. But yes we will ALL face judgement.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

14 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I very much disagree. You forget that God forgives ALL sin if one repents and asks for forgiveness in Jesus name. That includes adultery. But yes we will ALL face judgement.

of course. But the point is that if you believe that gay partners cant be biblically married because it would be a continual sin then you also must beleive that unscriptural marriages between straight people must be continual sins too until the unbiblical marriage ends. 

[homersapien 11,354]

For better or worse, marriage is a legal (government) institution or ("status" if you prefer).

Individuals are of course free to assign whatever moral or religious view to their marriage in addition to the legality of it, they cannot nullify the legal right of others to marry because they have a religious objection to it.  That is unconstitutional. 

[Son of A Tiger 555]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

of course. But the point is that if you believe that gay partners cant be biblically married because it would be a continual sin then you also must beleive that unscriptural marriages between straight people must be continual sins too until the unbiblical marriage ends. 

Again I disagree. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm OK with "civil unions" between same sex people but just don't call it marriage.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I like doing the judgement now.  Jesus will likely go by his own thoughts, not the bible.  We can't count on Jesus to do the right thing.

[homersapien 11,354]

6 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Again I disagree. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm OK with "civil unions" between same sex people but just don't call it marriage.

Sorry, that ship has sailed.  A long time ago.

[AEAugirl 9,623]

On 12/21/2022 at 11:09 AM, homersapien said:

For better or worse, marriage is a legal (government) institution or ("status" if you prefer).

Individuals are of course free to assign whatever moral or religious view to their marriage in addition to the legality of it, they cannot nullify the legal right of others to marry because they have a religious objection to it.  That is unconstitutional. 

And that is the problem.  The government should be out of the marriage business, period. 

No one in this country should have to look to a monstrous, overbloated government for validation on who they spend their life with, if we are actually adhering to constitutional principles.   

Government creates the problem, then government swoops in to solve the problem thus dividing the nation into factions and pitting them against each other to assist in retaining their power structure.  Rinse and repeat. 

Just remember that while you tear each other apart for thinking differently.  

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by AEAugirl

[AUDub 11,131]

13 minutes ago, AEAugirl said:

And that is the problem.  The government should be out of the marriage business, period. 

No one in this country should have to look to a monstrous, overbloated government for validation on who they spend their life with, if we are actually adhering to constitutional principles.   

Government creates the problem, then government swoops in to solve the problem thus dividing the nation into factions and pitting them against each other to assist in retaining their power structure.  Rinse and repeat. 

Just remember that while you tear each other apart for thinking differently.  

 

Whether you like it or not marriage is basically a form of contract and we have to have some sort of default rules to make them enforceable. That's falls within the government's purview. People co-habitating, having kids and co-mingling their assets has all sorts of legal and financial ramifications that won't be resolved because people want to eliminate the institution because they think gay people are icky.  

Eliminating these defaults would only lead to more bureaucracy within the legal system.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:08 AM, AEAugirl said:

And that is the problem.  The government should be out of the marriage business, period. 

No one in this country should have to look to a monstrous, overbloated government for validation on who they spend their life with, if we are actually adhering to constitutional principles.   

Government creates the problem, then government swoops in to solve the problem thus dividing the nation into factions and pitting them against each other to assist in retaining their power structure.  Rinse and repeat. 

Just remember that while you tear each other apart for thinking differently.  

 

Nonsense. 

Civil marriage is a historical legal institution that promotes stability in civilized societies. (It protects women in particular.)

"If a couple is in a civil union they get inheritance rights, employment benefits, property, parental rights, and more. Marriage is also a lawful relationship between two people that provides legal protection to a couple."  https://www.brides.com/the-difference-between-marriage-and-civil-unions-2170860

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,411]

On 12/28/2022 at 8:08 AM, AEAugirl said:

And that is the problem.  The government should be out of the marriage business, period. 

No one in this country should have to look to a monstrous, overbloated government for validation on who they spend their life with, if we are actually adhering to constitutional principles.   

Government creates the problem, then government swoops in to solve the problem thus dividing the nation into factions and pitting them against each other to assist in retaining their power structure.  Rinse and repeat. 

Just remember that while you tear each other apart for thinking differently.  

 

Marriage is a govt thing. Govt was ordained of God by God to keep man from killing each other and to justly rule.  I am a dedicated Christian. But my so calls Brothers and Sisters have completely lost the Spirit. They LOVE the condemnation and judgment they find in the OT. They do not like the Love they see in the NT. They forsake Christ for political thinking. I truly believe that if Christ were to give an opinion on the parties, and I hate both parties, He would condemn both but would at least see that Team Blue has  some compassion. Team Red has been warped by RushHannity to the point that they have all but forsaken Christ.