We just have to be the wet blankets. If it's cloning, gambling, gay marriage, abortion, or Harry Potter, there's probably going to be some Christians getting all up in everyone's grill, raining on the parade...especially if it's a gay parade.
Well maybe you can take an item off your list of 'don'ts.'
A lot of Christians don't like the idea of gay marriage. Some stuff about how it degrades the institution and whatnot. I think I heard 'Bible' and 'Steve' and 'hell' being shouted all at once, but it was hard to hear. Everyone's got different reasons for hating.
But what if we just allowed gays to formalize what they're doing already? What if we allowed them to go through all the legal channels that heterosexuals go through to be married? You know, go to the courthouse, pay their $52 in cash, no checks, obtain a license, have a ceremony and then merge all their complicated legal, tax, and financial matters in a convoluted web of legality. Sounds romantic!
For the record, I think that's the fair thing to do. Call it a 'civil union' or whatever. We get our thing, they get theirs, and in the eyes of blind lady justice, we're all equal and eligible for tax breaks. We live in a free land where gays are shacking up anyway. Can't stop that. Aren't Christians against shacking up anyway?
Speaking of shacking up, I think dogs should start wearing pants and getting married. There's been a lot of casual sex going on among the dogs in my neighborhood, right out in the open! They have no shame. The males are all going around chasing booty rather than staying at home being dads.
Anyway, what would happen if we allowed gays to do all that? They'd live happily ever after in wedded bliss for the rest of their lives...
...until they started getting divorced.
And just like we let them go through a big glorious legal proceeding to get married, they can go through the fun of the legal divorce proceedings! Divorce Court has been getting kind of ho-hum lately anyway.One of the big reasons gays tell us they should be able to adopt children is because homosexuals are supposedly as loving and dedicated to their monogamous relationships as heterosexuals...not that that's really setting the bar very high.
Actually, we'd find out officially what people have already started to figure out. That gays would get divorced at least as much as heterosexuals. That would kind of take the wind out of that argument.
And while I'm busy being a genius, let's think this one out. Some egghead scientist is trying to find a 'gay gene,' some part of the DNA that makes someone go that way. I don't know how he can tell if a gene is gay. Maybe it's wearing a mock turtleneck or can't keep it's hands off the Y chromosome. I think the last breakthrough was someone found some 'gay' fruit flies. Doesn't surprise me. Their name is slang for gay already. Gays support gay gene research because if they did find a gay gene, it would mean Christians can shove it permanetly, because gay isn't a choice, it's in their blood. Case closed.
But I wonder what would happen...Screening unborn children for potential disorders is very common now because people see no ethical consequences about it. So disposing of imperfect fetuses also naturally follows. Today, 95% of parents who screen their unborn children and find they might have Down's Syndrome have them aborted. You see where I'm going with this. What are gays going to do with the discriminatory practice of screening and aborting gay fetuses?
See, nothing's ever 'happily ever after.' Gays hoping for a fairy tale ending can wise up and find out what the rest of us have already. Even when you solve one problem, you usually create another for yourself. That's what keeps the economy rolling. Everyone has to buy something else to solve their new problem.
What say you? Can we have a civil discussion, or have I opened a big can of worms? Can you think of any other solutions that just led to more problems?
62 people say amen!:
While i don't think Christians should conduct same sex weddings or be in a same sex marriage, i'm not to bothered if non-Christians would like to do ether. I have no expectation that non-Christians would act like Christians. Not to mention that "Turn straight!" is not exactly the gospel we are meant to be communicating.
I wrote some stuff last week that's kinda on this topic. Behaviour modification and heart transformation
I agree Matt. Even most secular heterosexual unions (I hesitate to call some marriages) don't get it right. And to be honest here, even some Christian marriages don't quite "get it right these days."
Knowing the U.S.A is not a Christian nation (despite that American flag in front of my sanctuary), why should it's laws be colored by our particular faith?
Let gay people marry, but also don't let any such law compromise Christian beliefs about the issue (i.e. don't force Christian pastors to marry gay people).
In the meantime, how about Christians work on our fidelity - premarital sex, adultry, etc etc, is just as big a problem.
Amrita, did you just suggest burning gay people? How is that not supposed to sound like genocide? Jesus loves you?
And Matt, I appreciate the post. I am a Christian who is gay and I have been in churches before that weren't in favor of gay marriage but were still very loving and accepting and I just want to bring up the thought that there are probably closeted (for whatever reason) gay people in your congregation who look to you and your words for comfort and support. No matter what the scientists eventually agree on, it certainly FEELS like it isn't a choice, and especially the meekest of these could get really confused by dismissive comments and mockery.
And certainly the thought of getting "incinerated."
Just a thought brother.
@Amrita: Your comment pretty disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Matt, I agree with the post and have been saying this for a while. I'm a heterosexual Christian man. I can't see how on earth making gay marriage legal or illegal would affect me in any way. Thankfully the UK (where we DON'T have a separation between church and state) has seen sense and allows homosexual couples to get a "civil partnership" that has all the legal benefits of marriage.
Not to be too mean here but your blog posts are always very US-centric, which is understandable, but it's good to remember you have an international audience and maybe do a little research on topics like this as what other countries have done (particularly other "Christian" countries) can be pretty informative in the discussion.
I think the important thing to remember about any discussions about homosexuality and Christianity is that, as David said, whether it is a choice or not is kinda irrelevant so long as homosexuals don't feel it it. I have Christian homosexual friends who have prayed that God make them heterosexual and who cried regularly about it. This isn't the reactions of someone who just chose to be homosexual.
Mike, good point. I feel I have a rudimentary grasp of international attitudes at best. Be it for lack of time or whatever reason, I've neglected that research. It's not me trying to be ethno-centric or anything.
I see it as a civil rights issue to be honest and not at all as one Christians should oppose. Don't oppress your brother and all that.
As for the "gay gene" deal, I wrote a few thought about that a while back...
But that's all I got at the moment [smile].
~Luke
I am not sure Amrita's first language is English. Something may have got lost in the translation. She may have been trying to say something about correcting the gene, not eliminating the person. And then, maybe not.
I think Civil Unions should be allowed, but not call them "marriages". Because I am afraid that Churches who don't agree to marry homosexuals will be sued. I know. I have never heard of a Catholic Church being sued because they have not agreed to the marriage of a previously married couple without an annulment, but I am concerned with some other suits that homosexuals have brought against businesses (photographers) who have refused to participate in their nuptuals.
I do think Civil Unions should be allowed though, because there IS supposed to be a separation of Church and State in the country.
Are you serious? I'm sure there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, too. Yet I don't see an alcoholic rights movement OR extreme hatred for people afflicted with this difficulty.
Sigh.
I don't think there is a legit reason why homosexuals should not be able to get married.
The discrimination that occurs against homosexuals is unacceptable from both the church and the government.
I could care less what it's actually called, be it civil union, marriage, or purple monkey dishwasher.
Marriage is a legal matter. Marriage is a gov/state matter.
If we Christians are so convinced that homosexuals can't really get married, then it doesn't matter whether the state says they can or not. If we insist God doesn't recognize their marriage, why stop them from getting the legal rights of a married couple?
I just see it is stubborn, vindictive, or holding a grudge personally...
Matt,
As usual, great post. I don't understand the argument that allowing gay marriage will have some detrimental affect on straight marriages- we have been a detriment to the longevity of our marriages!
Thanks for handling this hot topic with sensitivity and respect.
I am glad my harsh comment has been deleted.I apologize if I hurt anyone 's feelings.
Maybe its a cultural thing too.In my country people look at these issues differently.
I am sorry, actually I have never met a gay person.
Dear David L lankford,
Mike Arthur and Helen,
I personally apologize to you.
I really did not mean to sound so cruel. It was an over reaction.
Amrita, i want to applaud you for coming back to apologize. :)
My husband emailed me this blog post because I always say something similar when discussions of gay marriage come up. Before I write my point, I have to say I agree with Helen-churches should always be given the choice to marry whomever they want on whatever grounds. The church my husband and I were married in required an extremely long list!
Here's what makes me sad about this issue, and why I definitely believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, whatever name it wants to be called.
What really matters is the sin. A marriage certificate is not a sin (nor does it cover up sin). What we should care about is ANY sex that is happening outside marriage. And by any sex, I mean homosexual AND heterosexual sex. It's rampant. I come across couples every week that unashamedly had sex before they were married. Many of these profess Christ as Savior. Do Christians really read the Bible and somehow come away with homosexual acts being any "more" sin than fornication or adultery? Those sins are all lumped together!
So I have to stop and think, why is there so much energy put into stopping homosexuals from marrying? I wish our hearts would instead be broken (deeply saddened) by the sin of sex outside of any marriage. I wonder how many lives could be changed and how many marriages would be saved.
I didn't mean to get so serious, but as you can tell I'm a bit passionate about this. So I can't help but wonder...are the conservatives (in Faith or Politics) in our country spending so much time and energy pushing this issue because as long as the focus stays on homosexual marriage we can stay in denial about our own heterosexual sin?
Reading back over this I realize I sound really strong about this issue, but what I really care about is how much this issue distracts us from what our concern in life should be. The reason to know our sin is not to be condemn ourselves or anyone else, but to understand how much Christ did for us by dying on the cross and truly how forgiven we are. We're forgiven! Why not spend our energy shouting that?
Excellent discussion. Who'd have thought, Christians really can engage on substantive issues. :)
Um... Being Gay is a sin and God doesn't want you to do it. That's the only reason you should need to be against Gay marriage.
(don't you guys read the Bible?)
Craig, since we do have separation of Church and State in this country, we need to have a different argument besides "because it is in the Bible."
I don't think Churches should preside over Gay marriages precisely because homosexual behavior is condemned in scripture.
But in regards to a Civil ceremony giving homosexuals legal rites that people who are married enjoy, I don't see how we can argue against it without using scripture.
Amrita, as I said before, I think something got lost in the translation, and that the words you chose were not actually representing your true thoughts. While I can't claim to know what your thoughts are, I have seen enough of your comments elsewhere to believe you to be a gentle person, which is why I make the assumption I do. No need to apologize to me, since I believe your comment to have not come out as you meant it.
I think that we don't really know what marriage is anymore, and there's a lot of issues that we really need to address on all levels. I have some specific issues with civil homosexual unions, but I also have some concerns about what heterosexuals call marriage, too.
And, Craig, I would have to disagree. "Being gay" is not a sin. Whether it's genetic or whatever, the only way that it could be a sin is if it was a choice, and I don't know of anyone choosing to be homosexual. Although I do agree that acting on those feelings is not right. As a single person, I have desires and feelings, but it is not right for me to act on them.
oh, geez. this has to be the first comment i post. anyway, the bible says in several places that homosexuality is not the lifestyle people were made to live, genetic or not. but it also says to love our neighbors as ourselves. The fact that i believe homosexuality is a sin, coupled with the fact that i don't think it's very loving to encourage our neighbors to sin, is why i vote against gay marriage.
CM- I agree, somewhat, with your thought that "being gay" is not a sin in the same way that we are ALL born with the temptation to sin. It is acting on that temptation that is a sinful act.
Being "born gay" is not an acceptable excuse to act on those temptations. People can be born alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, etc.; that doesn't excuse them... yet society is tending to look the other way and accept other sins.
It's a black and white issue that society is turning into a shade of grey.
Matt, the issue is not with civil unions. The issue is when we call that "marriage", when we change the terminology.
Why is this an issue? Because if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then parts of our bible becomes anti-government. We could no longer preach Romans 1, which speaks rather harshly on homosexuality (along with other sins, for the purpose of illustrating our fallible nature rather than bashing one particular form of sin), without being directly against the government and every equal opportunity law.
In fact, if there were gay "marriage", the church would no longer be able to legally refuse to marry a gay couple in a "Christian" marriage.
I am also just fine with gay people forming civil unions. I think they are not holding themselves to the same standards we are, and even if they were, who are we to judge another's servant? It is not our place to judge.
However, when we change the terminology to "marriage" and all that it entails, we then make church, for all intents and purposes, illegal. It is scary, and some of you will completely deride me and consider me a liar, but I urge you to research.
I am a proponent of strengthening the Civil Union, giving them the same rights as a married couple, but not infringing on the church and it's rights. This is a very personal subject to many people, and this would have to be done delicately and diplomatically. Still, I believe it is the only hope for mutually beneficial resolution, which is hopefully the goal of both sides.
However, there are so many people who are polarized on this subject, so a mutually beneficial resolution may be too much to ask for a large segment of the population on both sides of the argument.
I've been saying for years, let the Christians get married (it's a sacrement of the church) and the nonchristians (including gays) get civil unions so they get benefits.
It's simple and it keeps marriage as it should be
Richard, I agree. Civil Unions already exist in California... rights are the same for gay couples and married couples (as far as I know.) What much of the gay population is fighting for is the term "marriage."
I think Christians are opposed to it because "legalizing" it would, to them, seem to be legitimizing AND enabling behavior that Christians believe to be sinful.
Pick another sin that currently isn't legal, try to reverse the legality, and people would be up in arms about it as well.
Amrita - thanks a bunch for the apology. I hope your spirit is open to the courageous gay men and women in India who are battling for their rights and dignity. Christ says that as you treat the least of these (the subaltern, the ignored, the disenfranchised, the shamed and stigmatized), so you treat him.
It's very easy for the straight majority, who have never had to question whether they were condemned for just being who they are, to see this as a "black and white" issue. Again, think about the closeted kids in your congrgations who are deeply ashamed of something they can't control and yet feels like an absolute core of who they are... does "simplifying the issue" treat them like you'd like to be treated?
Great discussion everyone.
Richard, I like your passion, and your points deserve research. However, I'm going to tenatively disagree with the idea that the government can force clergy to marry gays.
Clergy are an amorphous profession. When they perform a wedding, they are acting as an agent of the church performing a holy marriage. They are also a temporary agent of the state performing a legal marriage. The government does not force clergy to perform heterosexual marriages even though they are perfectly legal. Some clergy don't perform marriages at all. That's because the state doesn't really care about the holy aspect of it, as long as the legal aspect is fulfilled and the license is signed. That's why two people can just as easily go to a justice of the peace rather than a preacher.
All I'm saying is that it would take much more than legalizing gay civil marriages for clergy to be forced to perform them. It would take a radical shift and outright enslavement of part of the population. We just aren't there yet. Besides, there's plenty of clergy who would be willing, that the guys who don't probably wouldn't have a problem.
And as for our culture clash on this, let's remember that it's really hard to remove ourselves from our culture and see it another way.
In the west, we look at regimented eastern societies and say to ourselves 'how terrible!' While the eastern societies look at what the sexual revolution, rampant greed and selfishness have wrought in the west and say 'how terrible!'
PS the problem that I have with the civil union language is simply that it creates a "seperate but equal" situation.
If the state gives straight folks "marriage", it should give gay folks "marriage" too. Obviously no church should be forced to perform a marriage that they are opposed to (the Catholic example is perfect - nobody in the US would force a Catholic priest to marry non-Catholics), but there are plenty of churches who do and would perform marriage ceremonies to gay couples.
We in the church must stand against sin.
All of us are sinners, and all are welcome in the church...but we do not sanction sin.
We must uphold the Word of God, even if the culture puts pressure on us to lighten up.
@Kold_Kadavr_flatliner
Your comment has been duly noted, but I have a new rule, and actually it's the first rule I've had to make - I don't allow commentors to personally attack other readers on my blog. You can attack me, you can disagree with everyone, but you can't make ad hominem attacks.
"In the west, we look at regimented eastern societies and say to ourselves 'how terrible!' While the eastern societies look at what the sexual revolution, rampant greed and selfishness have wrought in the west and say 'how terrible!'"
Very well stated Matt. Christians in the eastern world have to deal with this.
People believe that all white people are Christians which is not true.Our faith is mocked because of this.
In my part of the world homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Hindus, Muslims, Christians ,Sikhs, Buddhists and other religions.
First of all, great blog. Secondly, I am still in the middle of determining my stance on this issue, so that if it seems that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, I am.
I do not believe that marriage is a right. It is a sacred covenant made before God between two people who promise to love and honor each other, forsaking all others NO MATTER WHAT. Therefore it is primarily a responsibility. When two people live out the covenant, it can be a total blessing at times. There is definitely something wonderful about knowing that there is a person, besides God, who will love you, no matter what happens and no matter what you do.
However, I have been thinking that allowing homosexuals to participate in civil unions in which they receive the same legal status as heterosexual unions because it shows that we respect their wishes, even if we don't agree with them.
Mike, you stated that you are concerned that civil unions are the equivalent of the "separate but equal" laws that segregated blacks from whites. I disagree with that statement because, even now, pastors and rabbis have the ability to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple. My non-Jewish cousin (male) married a Jewish girl at a wedding banquet hall and one of their friends told me that they had trouble finding a rabbi to perform the ceremony because my cousin wouldn't convert. I wonder if my Christian sister-in-law was not married in her family church because the pastor refused to marry her to a non-Christian, although it could have been due to the fact that the church was BEAUTIFUL. My former pastor refused to marry a couple because he saw problems in the relationship and wanted them to work on the problems before getting married. When they refused, so did he. In each situation, the couples found ways around it, mainly by going to someone else until they found someone who would perform the ceremony. So if heterosexual couples are being refused by pastors/rabbis/etc., then homosexuals are in good company.
Furthermore, there are churches that will perform marriage ceremonies between both heterosexual and homosexual couples, further negating your concerns about "separate but equal."
Agree!!
This post is a breath of fresh air, especially the last paragraph.
Thanks,
It takes way more than a mere comment on a blog to address this subject but I'll say a couple of things. First of all, marriage is a picture of the very nature of God. The husband represents Christ, the wife, the church. The union of a man and woman that results in children are parallel to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Homosexuality is a perversion and mockery of that holiness and that is why God calls it indecent in Romans 1. In verse 32 Paul continues: "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
We cannot give approval to that which leads to death. We must be courageous enough to tell the truth no matter how unloving we seem to homosexuals who want to practice their sin. All of us desperately want our weakness to be overlooked and we make excuses for ourselves and justify our behavior when we know it's wrong. I don't want my brothers and sisters to let me face Jesus and have Him say to me, "I never knew you," and I won't let practicing homosexuals be deluded into thinking they will be welcomed into His arms. Anyone who truly loves Christ will want to please Him and will want to obey His commands. Of course we all fail, but getting married to someone of the same sex is not an attempt to obey God.
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 fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you...." Notice the past tense were, not are. (I don't know how to use italics in the comment box.)
One more point and I'll be done. If we make homosexual marriage legal, it affects all of society. Our vulnerable children, who we are trying to teach how to abstain from sin, will be taught in public schools that it isn't even a sin. There will be classes on how to have safe sex. They will be taught even more than they are now that all families are equally valid. We need to consider the effects further than just the immediate pleasure of homosexuals and release from the pressure they are exerting on Christians. This is our life on earth, to be pressed on all sides but to persevere. Stand for the Truth.
There is much more to say, but I'm afraid the length will discourage reading.
Wow Matt, I'll be back with my comment later...
Blessings.
tandemingtroll... I also mentioned the "seperate but equal" thing, so I wanted to address what you said. First off, thanks for mentioning that you are still thinking about things - it means a lot to me as a gay Christian that you wouldn't just outrightly refuse to consider my relationship valid, etc. etc., so thanks.
I still maintain though that, since insurance and visitation benefits are distributed based on who the state calls "married" (not the church), the state should not discriminate against gay folks in assigning that designation. Chruches can discriminate all they want (like they currently do) - the only difference is, when the church discriminates, it doesn't nullify my right to visit my partner in the hospital, claim them on insurance, etc. etc.
That make sense? I agree that it would be very dangerous to require churches to marry people they didn't want to marry, but when people talk about "legalizing gay marriage," most of them aren't nearly as concerned with the churches "legalizing" it as they are with the state recognizing it. Matt has already explained this distinction in the responsibilities of American clergy.
Besides, God recognizes my relationship even if His church doesn't :P.
And as for condemning homosexuality as a sin - keep in mind that the Bible, read a certain way, says it's wrong for a woman to speak in church. Where would we be if we din't contextualize passages like this?
As for the children, I am equally scared that your children - a percentage of whom WILL experience gay attractions - are being taught the damnable lie that God would condemn someone to hell simply for being who they are.
Matt,
What if we let gays have civil unions -- but only if they get their DNA tested and prove that they have the gay gene?
If it's biologically predetermined, that shouldn't be a problem, should it? Or should this be a freedom of choice issue?
I am very willing to take a look at the context in which the Bible declares homosexuality a sin. It is easy to say it must be taken in context, but people say that and then don't examine it. Let me hear your take on Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.
Again, the best way to make moral decisions is to examine the very nature of God. Every part of creation is an expression of His glory and a revelation of Himself. That is why Paul tells us in Romans that the Gentiles who did not have God's special revelation of Himself have no excuse because what is known about God can be discovered by examining His creation. It is an auto biography.
God is holy and perfect. It's not like He had a panoply of choices to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Every matter of obedience is due to His own nature. We are not to lie because He is Truth. We are to be faithful because He is faithful. We are to be sexually pure because He is pure. The Ten Commandments are not merely a check off list of what not to do, but are a skeletal base for us to obey with Zaccheus-like extravagance. (That expression comes from Mark Buchanan in his book,The Rest of God. Remember Zaccheus wanted to repay all that he had stolen four times over.)
John 14:21 He who has my commmandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me, and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and disclose Myself to him.
When we won't obey Him, we are saying that our passions and desires are worth more to us than He is. We must count the cost of being His disciples.
Let me add this. I am not better than a homosexual. My sin condemns me as well. God has condemned all of us to hell. Not because He wanted to, but because He can not look on our sin. But consider what He did. The only way our infinite debt could be paid was for a perfect, infinite Being to take our punishment. Talk about an abomination! That He would do such a thing for you and for me! And that He would plan it before the foundation of the world! Before we even sinned. Ponder that! That action demands that I give up my ugly passions and serve Him.
Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. Only do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather serve one another in love.
David: Would you consider the "separate but equal" issue resolved if all people, heterosexuals and homosexuals, wanting their commmitment legally recognized, perform a civil ceremony outside of a church and then, if they wanted their union recognized by the church, to get married in a church ceremony?
By "legally recognized," I mean that the couple is given the full rights of inheritence, visitation rights, divorce, etc. that married couples currently enjoy. In other words, change the language of the civil code from "marriage" to "civil unions." This is, I believe, the system that Germany has adopted.
tandemingtroll - yeah I understand that there are places where that is the setup. And while I think that seperating the two functions might be a little less confusing, it is a generally helpful tradition in the US to have clergy take on the role of civil servant when marrying people...
I just think that, however you do it, if you have one legal status for straight people and one legal status for gay people, the resulting situation is a tad too Orwellian for my comfort.
The fight that gay folks are fighting isn't to "indoctrinate your children" or destroy the leigitimacy of your straight marriages, rather it is to be recognized as something more than second class citizens.
As long as we continue to be told that we are sick and sinful and that our loving relationships are illegitimate, we suffer oppression - usually at the hands of people who claim to act in the name of God. In that situation, who does Jesus identify with? The righteous power-holders or the least of these?
I have a theology of gay love too, you know. Men and women aren't the only ones who can show forth the love of God. Jesus said that He no longer treats us as servants (in a power-based relationship), but rather as friends (equals). Isn't it possible that the relationship of equality and mutuality that I share with my partner might somehow flow from that same God who became like us in order to show His love for us?
Ha! :)
john alan turner -
genetic testing to qualify for marriage? Left and right would probably both agree that it would be immoral and invasive. I know that was just a joke, but it could be made to sound like a pretty dangerous one, eh mein freund?
Agreed, David. My point is that too many folks are trying to make this into a biological or genetic issue (I think Matt hinted at that in the post) when it seems counterproductive to do so.
This should remain an issue of personal freedom, but that freedom would necessarily carry with it some personal responsibility as well.
Hey Matt great post, and great arguments going back and forth here, I myself have learnt a lot, and probably strengthen where I stand on this issue, which isn't too dissimilar to Richard (quite a few post back from here).
Just to add my two cents worth.
David L Lankford wrote this comment "...taught the damnable lie that God would condemn someone to hell simply for being who they are." and I think Chris Denning addressed it indirectly with the verse Gal 5:13.
I just want to say that I don't think it's a lie at all, simply because God will damn you to hell for being who you are, because who you are is sadly by default a sinful (wo)man. The only way out of it is by accepting Christ, and when you do, you die to your sins and make your new identity in Christ. That is having to accept the fact that you were a fallen man, but now redeemed and thus live your life like that without compromises. As Paul writes it in Romans, yes we are now no longer slaves to sin, but now we are slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:15)
And just one more point on a slightly less biblical note. Last year I had a guest lecturer discussing about genetics and psychology, (excuse my hazy memory), his argument which he backed up with some incredible support was that anything that you want to link with genetics can be link with genetics. He showed it to us with some ridiculous example but, by the end of it demonstrated a link with genetics. And remember a link is only correlational, and doest not establish causality. Once again I apologise to the shoddy lack of valid support. Nonetheless it's interesting then that with an extreme vested interest in money, I'm not surprise that the "gay gene" can be found inasmuch as a bestiality gene too...
hope i didn't let the horses loose on that one (terrible distasteful pun completely intended)
well if you're wondering, then yes, comparing consentual romantic activity between two consenting adults to bestiality IS pretty unfair and definately won't win you points if you're trying to persuade anyone here with the love of Christ... I know this is the internet, but you're talking about real people here.
If you want to believe that being gay or choosing to engage in gay love is sinful, of course that's your right and you should be allowed to have it. I like that Matt's post doesn't hit that nail on the head insomuch as address the funky way that our Christian brothers and sisters try to make the laws of the state line up with our capricious, personal, circumstantial moral codes (remember when it was wrong for balck folks to marry white folks? Glad we're on this side of history, eh?)
Why does you thinking it's wrong for me to be gay mean that me and my partner are not eligible to the same rights and responsibilities as you and your spouse?
Would you support laws that would criminalize sexual activity between members of the same gender? Kissing and holding hands? What about if we made laws that criminalized women speaking in church? Remember that scripture? Think and believe what you want (hopefully not to much to your harm!), but also be aware that you will be accountable for any part you play in a system that oppresses and dehumanizes God's gay children.
john alan turner -
I get ya. Good call.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS
This poll is interesting. A few months after same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, 92% of Iowans said it had NO effect on their lives. HOWEVER...of those 92%, 41% would vote for a ban on it.
I don't get that...how can you admit it doesn't affect you, and still want to ban it?
I was not highlighting that I think or do not think that it's wrong for you to be gay, rather that I think it's wrong to think it's a lie that God will condemn you for being who you are.
I said your identity is found in Christ, and that is up to to you and God to discover who that person is and be a slave then to that righteousness and dying to your oldself. That is as much applicable to me as it is to you, because regardlesss of whatever sin you and I have (or what you believe to be is sin) it's up to you, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to deal with it personally.
And yes I know I don't win any points for making the comment of bestiality. but what I was trying to point out is how ridiculous genetic linking can be and so yes by that you can replace bestialitiy with any other links you wish that may be less unfair or offensive.
I hardly think that interracial marriage and homosexuality can be compared from a Biblical stance: one is mentioned explicitly in the Bible as sin (repeatedly, in both Old and New Testaments). The other isn't. Also, women speaking in church is only addressed once in the Bible (to my knowledge), and it's in a letter to the Corinthians. Even then, Paul never says that women speaking in church is a sin. And if there's anything I know about Paul's letters, they generally addressed specific issues at the churches they were going to (including taking social/ cultural norms of the communities into account). Having said that, I agree that much of what he writes to the churches are applicable in our lives, as they line up with what the rest of scripture says.
If someone is sincerely seeking the truth, he or she will find it. God promises in Proverbs 2 that if you make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding; for if you cry for discernment, lift your voice for understanding; if you seek for her as silver and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will discern the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
I suggest instead of debating the issue here on a blog, you soak yourself in God's word and know Him. If you truly want acceptance from God, seek it there. My arguments will not convince you because you have already decided that homosexual love is pleasing to God. Ask God to prove it to you.
I would still like to hear your contextual take on Romans 1. God doesn't let us sin forever without consequences. There will come a time when He gives us over to our sin, to the point of no return. That is a dreadful judgment which I pray no one here will suffer.
Chris, thanks for the suggestions - I appreciate that you aren't villifying anyone and that you clearly care about both people AND the issue.
If you're curious about how I read Romans 1, let me first say that when I read it, I don't see anything in there that says gay folks should be legally prevented from enjoying marriage rights and responsibilities.
Secondly, I'll admit that most gay Christians who take the Bible seriously have to make a conscious effort to properly contextualize it, making the same distinction Jesus made between the scriptures and the One who brings life. They are His words, but He is distinct from them.
Having said that, I simply find my loving, mutual relationship with my partner to be a very different thing than the "unnatural desires" Paul was referring to... He wasn't talking about lives lived with dignity, he was referring to abomnable temple-prostitution practices that exploited people in a misguided effort to appease the gods.
The lesson isn't that gay sex is bad, rather that sex is for people, not for appeasing God or whatever. It's a cry against using natural means to religiously manipulate God.
So basically, it's like perfect for the children's sermon this Sunday ;)
Anyways, my point in taking the time to explain this and in mentioning the verse about women speaking in church is simply to say that different Christians use different tools and views to hear the voice of God from the scriptures. Sadly, we too often use our hermaneutic as a witch trial instead of focusing on the greater work of God in the world.
And again, all this debate still hasn't answered Matt's original question...
Amriti -
You've read your Bible! I agree that it is preposterous to find a reason to condone interracial marriage in the Bible, but the verses are there. Go instructed the Israelites not to do it multiple times before during and after the conquest of Canaan.
And if you take Paul's verse about women speaking in church and explain it away using the idea that he is speaking to "specific issues" and not the universe at large, then why is it so preposterous to do so with the verses that seem to condemn gay romantic activity? If mainstream evangelicals do it with the women verse, they consider themselves to be progressive but if I do it with verses that really only refer to prostitution anyway, I'm wrong somehow?
How arbitrary can we be in deciding what of Paul's letters is applicable to the church at large and what is specific to a historical context? Or could it be that it's ALL specific to historical context and we have to actually DO the hard work of talking to the Guy in order to, what did He say? "find eternal life?"
It's frustrating for gay Christians because it's just another way that we feel judged before we're considered.
And Bible interpretations aside, there still isn't a compelling reason to make gay relationships second-class in the eyes of the law by forbidding the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
David-
I think you meant "ban" interracial marriage?
I agree that REASONS can be found in the Bible to condone... alot of things. But when the Bible is explicit in saying something is a sin, I don't think there's any reasoning around that.
God never told the Israelites not to marry other races simply because they were other races. It was more like "don't marry these people because they worship other gods..." or some other kind of evil. Alot of things are in the Old Testament don't make it to the New because of the new covenant we have through Christ, in which Jews and non- Jews are all part of God's family. But when something is repeated in both New and Old Testament, it's probably pretty important.
Alot of things can be used to justify alot of things, but I find it hard to Biblically justify something that is specifically listed as a sin multiple times.
The debate on what should or should not be approached as cultural/ historical law continues, and while Christians aren't bound to Old Testament Jewish law, that doesn't mean that some of it isn't wise counsel.
Oh.. and no, we haven't answered Matt's question. But i have a feeling this discussion is more important? My answer? Matt, you opened a can of worms, and yes, we can have a civil discussion :)
Umm... I think the marriage issue is really a question of who owns the right to sanction marriages: the government or God. I happen to think that God owns the ultimate right to that term, and when it's against what He has set up... it isn't really marriage. Including gay relationships in the definition of marriage changes the definition from a God- made one to a man- made one.
In the interest of fairness to the gay community, giving them the same legal, tax, etc. rights as married couples isn't a problem to me. That's the government's business (reminds me of when Jesus says "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's...)Calling it "marriage" is.
About that last part of your post, Christians are supposed to be held accountable by other Christians (1 Cor 5:12)... in Christian love, of course. But if there are differing opinions on what is and what is not sin, that can become difficult.
I admit I didn't spend the time reading all the comments, but I am going back to my standby: the plank in my eye. (Which, in His whacky and divine sense of humor, God saw fit for me to marry a "Plank" so I have a constant reminder.) If you read homosexuality as a sin, it is only one of MANY sins...and I may be hetero, but I am not sinless. Maybe if I work on the ones I struggle with while loving others, well, maybe they will find the freedom to work on their own as well.
Amriti -
oh how embarassing of course I meant "ban." The word "condone" wins the user smart-points in my house, so sorry for the pretentious typo! :)
And yes I also appreciate that we can have a civil discussion about this topic. I totally just bombed in here with the comments on this topic, and I really appreciate the gracious patience y'all have with me jumping right in here!
When will gays be happy with government policy? Will marriage be enough? I submit that offering civil unions was a compromise for people who hold the belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don't know of any movement by Christians to take civil unions away from homosexuals in California, where I live. Civil unions give every benefit that married couples enjoy. Live and let live. Isn't that the motto? But it isn't enough to compromise, it's all or nothing. So it won't end with letting them live happily ever after; they will push their agenda in the schools--they already are doing it. They will push the limits for Christian business owners like wedding photographers, landlords, or those not directly called a church, if the church is even exempted. It has to be in your face aggressiveness. They don't leave people alone who don't want to approve their behavior. They won't just take their business to someone else who doesn't care one way or the other, they must bring legal action to gain compliance from all sectors. Christians will be persecuted and made into criminals. I don't see the fairness there, do you?
Gay folks could say the same thing about the aggressive ways we've been treated too. I don't see too many straight children committing suicide because someone told them the gay parents next door were as good as their own parents... Gay folks get vocal because for years our voices have been silenced.
And come on, there are extremists everywhere. It never crossed my mind to lump anyone posting on this comment board in with the "God Hates Fags" straight people, now did it? Straight folks I guess have the benefit of nuance and subtlety, but I guess all gay people act, live, vote, and worship as one homogeneous mass?
And I still maintain that if you have two different designations - straight folks get marriage and gay folks get civil unions - it necessarily sets things up to get discriminatory. Again, it's a seperate but equal situation.
Look, of course I'm glad that we even have civil unions in some states (not where I live, for whatever it's worth). I'm thankful that the government isn't actively rounding us up and stringing us behind trucks. But there still exists in the US systematic, destructive prejudice and discrimination agains gay folks and I personally can't keep a clean conscience without working toward the recognition of the dignity of all God's kids.
Civil rights isn't a "compromise" kind of issue. Would you accept a "compromise" measure doled out by the powerholding majority that dictated Catholic priests being forced to marry non-Catholics? Of course not. There are some things you fight for because it's just right to do.
Just a small point that bothered me a bit reading through the posts:
God does NOT condemn people to hell. Our own sinful actions condemn us to hell. God offers us a way out. It may seem like "potato/potahto" but it's really not. By structuring it as "God condemns," it mentally places the responsibilty on God when someone goes to hell, rather than placing the responsibilty on the person for behaving in ways contrary to God's law. In cases where people don't have God's law, Paul says that they betray their own consciences.
It is OUR actions that place us on the road to destruction; it is HIS grace that puts us on a path toward righteousness.
Just my little pet peeve of the day.
Post a Comment