Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?

M

MichaelLogos

New Member
Is marriage limited to the union of a man and a woman, or is the more important issue a promise of commitment between two people who love each other? And if it is not Christian, do we as Christians have the right to enforce this religious issue in a secular government? I think love is more important then anything else, and I think freedom of religion is what this country was founded on.  Jesus Christ fought against the persecution of women, foreigners, and untouchables in the society of his time, and I feel the persecution of Gays goes against everything that our savior taught us.
 
except that our saviour taught that we should obey the law as well. and homosexuality is against that law.

Don't you think it interesting that marriage is universally between men/women not same-sex?

Marriage is an institution that we should protect, not just because of the religious overtones, but because it has extreme reprecussions socially. The fundamental reason marriage is a protected institution, is because children should be produced in a marriage only. It's truly the best environment for children.

Now, should we hate homosexuals? Of course not, they're merely sinning, but we should not endorse or accept the sin as a proper lifestyle.
 
As far as i know Jesus never really tought tolerance.... I am the Way the Truth and the Life... is a pretty exlusive verse (from John 14:8 i think).... where is the tolerance and freedom of religion in that. its pretty clear. its either Gods way or the low way. i rather go with Gods way. how about you
 
You said that homosexuality is against the law. However, is not divorce also against the law? "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Mathew 5:31-32, King James Bible. If the goal is to restore the institution of marriage, do you suggest that an amedment to ban divorce be implimented into the constitution?

Homosexuals must go through very difficult barriers in society and the community, especially those who persue a partnership. In these cases the union between two people who love each other is often made with much more conviction, because such obstacles cannot be taken lightly. In my own personal experience with friends whom I love dearly that have decided to take such a path, the foundation of a family is much more solid then many young people who take marriage more lightly. In today's society where the traditional family is no longer the majority, don't you think we should encourage couples who hold love in such high regards despite its sacrifices?
 
Kidan... First of all, I would like to say that if everyone followed the law, the country would not be as great as it is now. In fact, we would not even be a country, but rather a colony of Great Britain. At times breaking the law is necessary in order to gain our "unalienable rights" that we are promised by our forefathers. And by the way, your icon - I believe that that is Luke from Star Wars... as I recall he broke a few laws, and even resorted to violence in order to stand up for what he believed. Should you really be supporting someone such as him, fictional or not, given your beliefs?
Homosexuals are not going as far as Luke Skywalker to battle persecuting laws - they simply are resorting to non-violent demonstrations in order to gain the same rights as others - the right to marry one who they love. Is your love better than theirs because it is with a woman? Is it a sin to want to celebrate their love through marraige? Should they lie to themselves and the opposite sex? They are not sinning, they are acting upon their love for one-another that would not be there were it not for the choice of the Lord himself.
 
To say that gays can become legal partners but not wed sounds an awful lot like “separate but equal” to me. To deny gays marriage is to enforce a negative moral judgment on them. It is not our duty to judge each other, it is God's. I for one am not prepared to do it.

Also, these "extreme social repurcussions" are unfounded because we have no historical basis for comparison.
 
yes we do Sodom/Gamorah. Corinith. Rome, Most major empires in the ancient world did not die out because of weakness or lack of leadership, but rather a moral decay that took centuries, if we go by this time table the US is headed there real fast in about 50-100 years because no MAJOR empire has stood in the spotlight more than 200 years basicly.
 
If you think Gay marriage is the reason that the US "Empire" is going to fold you need to take a strong look at your foreign policy first...

At the end of the day, if Christians don't want Homosexuals getting married in Christian churches, then I support them whole heartedly. Their religious belief forbids it, neh? If Christian Homosexuals wish to change this, then they need to petition their religious leaders.

But the US State has adopted marriage as a legal condition - and US Christians have no place trying to oppose homosexual inclusivity into that condition on religious grounds. Church and State - completely seperate, neh?

Of course this is different in a state that embraces an official religion - like the UK or one of the Papist nations.
 
Eon, look back over the US over the past 50 years, * i know you may not like the US, but hey who does
laugh.gif
)and conisder what was socially acceptable and moral 50 years ago to today, most people not even Christians, that i know when they have truely put some thought into it do agree that the country has been heading down hill morally. will this one issue make the nation fold, i doubt it but it could be at a pivitual point where the leadership of this country says stop. or just lets us keep going down the rabbit hole
 
This is true, to a degree.  As Christians we don't have much control over the government, as this is how the US was established (but I believe that's due partly to the religious status of our forefathers, they were Deists, not really Christians, but that's another story).  However, as Christians we have to maintain what God has commanded us, and that is to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We in no way can condone gay marraiges - that's not at all what God intended in creation, and to say that gay marriages are His fault is pure blasphemy - but we can and SHOULD act out love towards them.  For us to support the ban of gay marriages is proper and justifiable.  For us to condemn gays due to their want of marriage is retarded and certainly not Christlike.
 
Going back to the obeying the Law of the Land thing, what if the US Government were to all of a sudden say Civil Unions between gays was alright throughout the country would you then have any claim for opposing it? Wouldn't that be the same as the rebellion that is being condemned already?
 
michael- yes divorce is against the law, and I for one believe that the concept of no-fault divorces is morally reprehensible.  Abuse and Adultery are really the only reasons I can think of where I would not try to talk someone out of getting a divorce, and even the adultery part I think I would probably try to talk them into taking another stab at the marriage. As well, you specifically asked how the teachings of Christ related to the sin of homosexuality. I then went on to discuss how the institution of marriage should be protected from this attack for entirely social reasons.

pikajuw - No, they're not resorting to non-violent demonstrations. They're having elected and non-elected officials of our government violate their oaths of office to issue this quite illegal marriage licenses. Take California for example, California voted a few years ago that marriage was solely between a man and a woman. For an elected official to ignore that law, is tantamount to rebellion against the state of California and the US, and he should be taken from office (and if you read the California Oath of Office closely, you'll see that the governor would be within his rights to do so).

Eon - this completely seperate thing is utter nonsense formulated in the past 50 years. The actual amendment says that Congress will make no law respecting a religion

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [/QUOTE]

As I stated before, marriage between a men/women is a fairly universal human institution. Who are we to destroy such a tradition?


Besides, I never said a gay couldn't marry. I just said that their marriage has to be between a man and a woman.
 
Firstly, as stated before, homosexuality is immoral, and if you believe EVERYTHING the Bible says, then you would in no way support it. Aside from that, its not natural, its a choice, an immoral one, that people make. They are not born that way, so it IS their fault that they choose to live their lives in sin, and in no way will I allow for accomodations that seek to promote and try to make "moral" in the eyes of the world. Rather I fight against by any and all available means, much as I have fought against abortion issues in the past. So far, enough people here in Michigan have been able to have enough influence in the state government to keep gay marriages from being legalized, even with a very liberal governor, and my prayer is that it will never be leagalized here, or elsewhere, and places that do would reverse their legislation.
 
if we're going to take a Scriptural stance here (which I should hope we're trying to see), then this is what the Word says:

Matthew 19:3 (NLT) - Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4 "Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' 5 And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.' 6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together." 7 "Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?" they asked. 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9 And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery – unless his wife has been unfaithful."

Right from Christ's mouth we're told the standard. However, I believe that also abuse is a standard with which divorce is appropriate, based on other Scripture.

gg@Jesus
 
The Supreme Court has three tests to apply to legislation under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The first, the Lemon Test (1971), determines that in order to be a legal law, legislation must be secular in nature, be neutral towards religion (neither hindering nor advancing it) and that it should not result in excessive entanglements between law and religion.

It seems to me that any law banning Gay marriages would fail the Lemon Test for the following reasons:

1. It is not a law based on a secular purpose. The President has said that he believes law should be founded on a base of Christian morals, and that marriage is a god sanctified state.

2. It imposes Christian religious law on non-Christians. Should the precepts of Sharia Law be imposed on non-Muslims in the same way, you'd hear a massive outcry. And rightly so.

3. For the reason given in argument 1, adopting this law would advance the adoption of Christian morals. This would be in direct contravention of the second clause of the Lemon Test - that new legislation not favour or advance the cause of a religion.

4. It is an entaglement based on religion in legislation - thus failing the third clause of the Lemon Test.
 
eon-but that still leaves the thought of why would we change this institition that's universal among humans (one of a very few that traveses cultures) and modify it based upon the choices some of us make. Marriage as an institution is based upon children, and the best way/environment to raise those children. Homosexuality is not that, nor can it EVER be. Can it be better than some options, possibly, but by it's very nature it cannot be the ideal environment for raising children.

And again, there's nothing stopping homosexuals from getting married. They're just not allowed to marry those of the same sex.
 
Please note that the pikajuw and jesuswasnotchristian accounts have been deleted from our forums. This is a Christian forum and anti-semitic and anti-Christian usernames will not be permitted.

The debate here, thus far, is civil. I ask that the users who created the accounts under those usernames create new accounts with names that abide by the rules of this forum. If they do not, the will be banned permanently.

Again, I have no problem with religious discussion and civil debate. Should you decide to create new accounts and respect others, and their faith, on these forums, I welcome you to stay.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Mar. 19 2004,12:02)]except that our saviour taught that we should obey the law as well. and homosexuality is against that law.
Click to expand...
Is it not also a "law" that one should not wear clothes made of more than one material? Check the tag on your shirt -- I'm willing to bet you're sinning right now. Leviticus 19:19


Oh, and stay away from girls when they're having their period. Leviticus 15:19 - 24

Your neighbor, the one who works on Sunday, be sure to kill him. Exodus 35:2

Shellfish is an abomination in the same way that homosexuality is. Stay away from Red Lobster. Lev. 11:10

I'd stay away from the barber shop, too, just to be safe. Leviticus 19:27

What about farmers who mix the seeds in their field? They're asking for trouble. Leviticus 19:19

I think I've made my point. I also suggest you check out this link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Very short and to the point. So...which is it? Are you to obey the old laws or not?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dr. Tek @ Mar. 19 2004,9:21)]Firstly, as stated before, homosexuality is immoral, and if you believe EVERYTHING the Bible says, then you would in no way support it. Aside from that, its not natural, its a choice, an immoral one, that people make. They are not born that way, so it IS their fault that they choose to live their lives in sin, and in no way will I allow for accomodations that seek to promote and try to make "moral" in the eyes of the world. Rather I fight against by any and all available means, much as I have fought against abortion issues in the past. So far, enough people here in Michigan have been able to have enough influence in the state government to keep gay marriages from being legalized, even with a very liberal governor, and my prayer is that it will never be leagalized here, or elsewhere, and places that do would reverse their legislation.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I'd just like to say that people like you make me....well, they make me feel unwell. I'm all for religious tolerance, but once the religious types begin trying to impose their book-wrought "morals" upon other people, that's where I draw the line.
 
You guys are making the assumption that the Government should be an authority in the Christian practice of marriage.

The Civil union of two people (remember those documents people sign when they get married) is DIFFERENT than the marriage ceremony. But we are calling the registration of a marriage.... Marriage. It is not so.

This is why all the confusion and fuss.

The state should not force churches to marry homosexuals.  The civil union part should not be called marriage, that is a religious word.  Call it a civil union.  While I do not believe it is a healthy lifestyle, I believe that God gave man a free will.  If God allows you to sin, I guess so must I, but I may still call it SIN without you sueing me.

Trust me when I say, this issue is not about Survivor benefits, pensions, or Legal staus.

This issue is about eliminating a Christian point of view and muzzling peoples right to call Sin... Sin! It is more about freedom of expression than religious interferance.

I should be allowed to tell my children, That is not a good way to Live. They are MY children, God entrusted ME to raise them. I should not have to raise them the way SOMEONE ELSE wants them to be raised.

I think that most Gays think that if there is State mandated acceptance of homosexual marriage, they will start feeling good about their lifestyle choice. The fact is, God's word says you never will feel fully fulfilled living in sin.

It is not about me trying to push my beliefs on anyone else, the opposite is true here. The gay agenda is pushing their beliefs on ME. Telling me, our lifestyle choice is AS good as yours. I don't believe this to be true. I am not mad at anyone... I just disagree.

Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve niether Liberty or Safety
- Benjamin Franklin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top