Christianity and gay marriage

[Mr. Illini]

Protestant against gay marriage.

There are those who think I fear or hate  LGBT people. That is not the case. The Bible does specifically mention homosexuality among a list of things that would keep one out of Heaven unless one came to faith in Christ and broke with their past actions that fall short of God's standards. I do know gay folk and some have been kinder to me than some "Christians". Needless I'd be negligent in following the command to love my neighbor if I didn't tell them compassionately to change their course of action and come to faith in Jesus. Phil from Duck Dynasty has expressed my personal view in a manner better than I have.

Do you take an absolutist view on the Bible then? Do you believe that adulterers should be put to death? That certain clothing blends are abominations? As Christians, we must be cautious about absolutism in the Bible.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

[Cassius]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

[Joe Republic]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Mainly because the U.S. has already moved on from silly moderate hero concepts as 'civil unions'.  Along with other popular yet stupid ideas from 2004, such as believing the Iraq War was a good idea, or that George W. Bush was a suitable choice for President, or The Notebook.

[Cassius]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Mainly because the world has already moved on from silly moderate hero concepts as 'civil unions'.  Along with other popular yet stupid ideas from 2004, such as believing the Iraq War was a good idea, or that George W. Bush was a suitable choice for President, or The Notebook.

'Do you remember that death penalty moratorium thingy they had in the seventies. Unbelieveable. God, I remember the 70', what a crazy time, thank God we've moved on since then'.

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

[Cassius]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.

Maybe if you get to know the life of a married gay couple from meeting, to settling down, to nursing each other through illness and through into death you might change your mind. If you still judge their commitment by their sexuality rather that it's inner worth then you have quite a cold heart.

[Cassius]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.

Maybe if you get to know the life of a married gay couple from meeting, to settling down, to nursing each other through illness and through into death you might change your mind. If you still judge their commitment by their sexuality rather that it's inner worth then you have quite a cold heart.

I don't deny that gays can have deeply committed relationships, but that does not really factor into my view as to whether they should be married (I would deny the same opportunity to a thrice married man who is in a genuinely committed relationship with a woman). My view is based upon what marriage is, in my view, basically for, which is to provide a core around which a family can grow. Now, I oppose gay adoptions and the provision of IVF for gays (a view which I'll probably have to go into more detail on later, and therefore, of course, gays wouldn't be able to have families under thse conditions. So, we still have civil partnerships on hand, which, if raised to provide similar benefits to marriage, offer a perfectly acceptable (in my view) alternative to marriage, which I believe is a very different institution for a very different purpose.

[Mopsus]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.

Maybe if you get to know the life of a married gay couple from meeting, to settling down, to nursing each other through illness and through into death you might change your mind. If you still judge their commitment by their sexuality rather that it's inner worth then you have quite a cold heart.

I don't deny that gays can have deeply committed relationships, but that does not really factor into my view as to whether they should be married (I would deny the same opportunity to a thrice married man who is in a genuinely committed relationship with a woman). My view is based upon what marriage is, in my view, basically for, which is to provide a core around which a family can grow. Now, I oppose gay adoptions and the provision of IVF for gays (a view which I'll probably have to go into more detail on later, and therefore, of course, gays wouldn't be able to have families under thse conditions. So, we still have civil partnerships on hand, which, if raised to provide similar benefits to marriage, offer a perfectly acceptable (in my view) alternative to marriage, which I believe is a very different institution for a very different purpose.

So you believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide a core around which a family can develop. You believe that the government should intervene into the lives of private citizens in order to prevent gay relationships from serving as that core. Therefore, since the government has prevented gay couples from raising a family, they should not be allowed to marry, as raising a family is the primary purpose of marriage.

Does anyone else get a heavy "evil genius" vibe off this post?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

[© tweed]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

to be fair most Christians who cite the Bible as a justification for opposition to homosexuality do so based on the Pauline letters and not based on the Law of Moses, which expired (or "was fulfilled") when Christ was crucified (and contains all sorts of things patently absurd to our contemporary sensibilities).  the NT is much more nuanced on the issue of slavery on the occasions when it comes up at all.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

to be fair most Christians who cite the Bible as a justification for opposition to homosexuality do so based on the Pauline letters and not based on the Law of Moses, which expired when Christ was crucified (and contains all sorts of things patently absurd to our contemporary sensibilities).  the NT is much more nuanced on the issue of slavery on the occasions when it comes up at all.

True, but...

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[© tweed]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

to be fair most Christians who cite the Bible as a justification for opposition to homosexuality do so based on the Pauline letters and not based on the Law of Moses, which expired when Christ was crucified (and contains all sorts of things patently absurd to our contemporary sensibilities).  the NT is much more nuanced on the issue of slavery on the occasions when it comes up at all.

True, but...

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

for certain.  but this cannot be read to mandate support of the state sanctioning of habitual sins.

to be clear, my own position on this is that the decided right-Christian interest in LGBT issues is at best a massive misallocation of resources.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

to be fair most Christians who cite the Bible as a justification for opposition to homosexuality do so based on the Pauline letters and not based on the Law of Moses, which expired when Christ was crucified (and contains all sorts of things patently absurd to our contemporary sensibilities).  the NT is much more nuanced on the issue of slavery on the occasions when it comes up at all.

True, but...

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

for certain.  but this cannot be read to mandate support of the state sanctioning of habitual sins.

to be clear, my own position on this is that the decided right-Christian interest in LGBT issues is at best a massive misallocation of resources.

Well it's to be expected when individualistic, peculiarly American, Protestant (or Protestant-influenced, at least) faith communities and right-wing politics get integrated into one.

[ilikeverin]

I'm a Protestant Christian who would like to get married in a church someday to another dude.  So, yeah.

[PJ]

Catholic supportive of gay marriage.

[Vern]

I don't support SSM, it goes against the bible. That is my view and proud of it. But I do not hate nor do I look down on homosexuals but love them.

[Thomas_S_Richard106]

I'm Catholic. Strongly support same sex marriage.

[Mr. Illini]

I hope the good Christians who oppose homosexuality based on the Bible also support slavery.

Gotta be consistent.

to be fair most Christians who cite the Bible as a justification for opposition to homosexuality do so based on the Pauline letters and not based on the Law of Moses, which expired (or "was fulfilled") when Christ was crucified (and contains all sorts of things patently absurd to our contemporary sensibilities).  the NT is much more nuanced on the issue of slavery on the occasions when it comes up at all.

Hmm...I disagree. They most often use Leviticus because it is most blunt about the subject. They don't realize that the same code outlaws certain blends of clothing, outlaws shellfish, and says other stuff that we find unapplicable, which is because it is an old Jewish code of law and not intended to be used as our law.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, Anglican (hence ostensibly Reformed and Catholic at the same time, but voted Protestant); strongly in favor of civil same-sex marriage; in favor of religious same-sex marriage but would like to see a better quality of theological argumentation for it.

[afleitch]

Anyway, Anglican (hence ostensibly Reformed and Catholic at the same time, but voted Protestant); strongly in favor of civil same-sex marriage; in favor of religious same-sex marriage but would like to see a better quality of theological argumentation for it.

Hmm. You've never voiced that caveat before. I hope that give a few years you'll not have argued yourself into opposing it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, Anglican (hence ostensibly Reformed and Catholic at the same time, but voted Protestant); strongly in favor of civil same-sex marriage; in favor of religious same-sex marriage but would like to see a better quality of theological argumentation for it.

Hmm. You've never voiced that caveat before. I hope that give a few years you'll not have argued yourself into opposing it.

Oh, no, no, my desire for a better quality of theological argumentation is out of frustration at my cobelligerents within the Church on this, not because I myself am not thoroughly convinced, I assure you. If I weren't thoroughly convinced--or if the subject weren't so personal to me--this wouldn't frustrate me nearly as much. (In any case I've just started reading what seems so far like it will be a very good theological argument in favor of it, or at least against most of the arguments against it, that was recommended to me a few months ago.)

[7,052,770]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?