YES
I know this is a sensitive and weighty issue. With all the humility, love, and sincerity I have (which I know is insufficient), I affirm that homosexuality is sinful, and government should not recognize ‘homosexual marriage’ in its legislation. I find this poster emotionally intimidating because we subconsciously feel that if we assent to the 'logical' conclusions, we must also assent to the emotion behind the poster.
I want to ensure people deal with the real issues in this whole debate – partly by dismantling the abundance of straw men in this poster, and partly by highlighting true conflict where it exists. My main hope (and prayer) is that the Holy Spirit will work with my words – not to be logical, but to address the emotion and spirit, so that people will see Christ’s glory as surprisingly beautiful.
This is a relatively quick post, so it will be full of words and I will have missed a lot of pertinent verses. By all means research it yourself! And comment/question at the end!
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, skip to point 7) and the conclusion :)
1) The Bible defines marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, for life.
This is easy to defend from Scripture (Gen 2:24, Mar 10:1-12), and the purposes God designed marriage for: the raising of Godly children (Mal 2:15), and the demonstration of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:21-32). Also nature, and the history and tradition of most of humanity for most of history, testify that this is a reasonable point of view.
Polygamy (and rape) are against God’s design for marriage (1Ti 3:2, 1Co 7:2, Deut 17:17). God commanded marriage in the instances of rape or female slaves/prisoners of war, to protect women in an environment of male leadership (which He knew sinful men would abuse). It was enforcing the natural/traditional order for the good of those involved.
2) Jesus uttered many words relevant to same-sex relationships.
Its not hard to figure out Jesus’ point of view on it. He taught God's view of marriage (Mat 19:5-6), how to apply the Old Testament today (Mat 5:17, Mat 12:8, Joh 4:23-24, Mat 23:23), the importance of humility and selflessness, and ultimately finding more purpose and pleasure in God than sex (or any other earthly pleasure – Luk 18:22, Mat 19:29).
Under these principles, even the following are sinful to God: lust (Mat 5:28), adultery/fornication, polygamy, selfishness in 'traditional/natural' marriage, idolizing your spouse higher than God and His purposes. He raised the standard so high that we all need his grace - even pious 'naturally/traditionally' married people.
3) There is clear guidance in the New Testament (especially from Jesus) on how to apply the OT views of homosexuality to our lives today.
The specifics laws in the OT fulfilled several functions: to keep Israel safe and separated from surrounding nations (God's mission has shifted - for now - to be global), to point toward Christ (Heb 10:1 – we now aim to reflect Christ more directly), and to teach the character of God (intended to direct us to God rather than being a rigid legalistic program). Even the less relevant of these purposes are useful to show us what God is like. And it is easy (especially with the help of the NT) to tell which functions the various laws served.
One aspect to God's character described in the OT is that He is very holy, and jealous about his holiness. He defines good, not us (1Pe 1:16, Psa 16:2, Jas 1:17, Mat 19:16-17). Anything which clouds or muddies or opposes that 'good', is by definition bad for us and God - evil. So there really are no 'grey' zones. Natural/traditional marriage is clearly described for multiple reasons as being 'good' (Pro 18:22, Pro 19:24, Gen 2:18, 1Co 7:9) – anything which confuses this (including homosexuality) is ‘evil’.
4) Its fairly obvious what Paul’s view of homosexuality was.
Paul deliberately focuses not on the lack of commitment in a relationship, but on a lack of adherence and submission to God's character (Rom 1).
The Biblical understanding of sexual complementariansm is extremely protective of women, and challenges husbands to be the most humble, gracious, serving, sensitive, protective men on the planet (Eph 5:25). Marriage is meant to demonstrate two roles - the role of Christ (in loving leadership) and the Church (in loving submission). Both are challenging, sacrificial, and rewarding to do as Christ intends – and easy to abuse or refuse.
5) There is, in fact, an undeniable natural order of things.
The world has not evolved beyond the need for God's purposes. Especially one He thought was important enough to ingrain in our very DNA – male and female design. The only time God overrules his general purposes, is when he calls some (few) people do it out of necessity (not want!) for the sake of focusing on other areas of God’s mission. That’s why God allows people to remain single (1Co 7:34-35).
The fact that some animals commit homosexuality does not make it any more natural. They are usually showing signs of mental disturbance, and are obviously aberrant. There is also a clear natural selection disadvantage. Nothing natural about it. Besides, even truly 'natural' behaviors (such as many male animals eating their young) are grotesque when applied to humans. When you consider humans without a clear gender (e.g. with chromosomal abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia), applying the term 'homosexual' to them is nonsensical anyway. I'm only discussing committed homosexual relationships, as opposed to traditional/natural marriage.
The fact that some animals commit homosexuality does not make it any more natural. They are usually showing signs of mental disturbance, and are obviously aberrant. There is also a clear natural selection disadvantage. Nothing natural about it. Besides, even truly 'natural' behaviors (such as many male animals eating their young) are grotesque when applied to humans. When you consider humans without a clear gender (e.g. with chromosomal abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia), applying the term 'homosexual' to them is nonsensical anyway. I'm only discussing committed homosexual relationships, as opposed to traditional/natural marriage.
History teaches us that accepting homosexuality as a way of ‘moving forward’ and defining ‘civilized society’, is probably a bad idea. All civilizations in history, no matter how glorious, have fallen into pride and moral and financial strife just prior to their dramatic (often shameful) decline. The hallmark feature of such decline has always been an excessive and increasing focus on experimenting outside traditional/natural sexual behavior. The Bible also predicts this progression (Rom 1).
6) God is the most tolerant and loving being in the universe.
We all deserve punishment for our sins, but God is being patient and continues to show common grace to all, which is meant to draw us to repentance and trust in Him (Rom 2:4). Don't trample Him underfoot by defending the sin He died to save us from. If we fail to understand God’s ways in fullness, at least trust that He knows what’s best for us, others, and Himself. Ultimately you will only find lasting delight in the display of God’s character to you and through you.
7) The Bible does not deny homosexuals the ability to choose.
There is a difference between allowing, and condoning or defending. Government may not have the right to force morality (unless it is harming others) – we have a responsibility to let people choose. But we also have a responsibility to encourage the best (God’s character on display in traditional/natural marriage), and to NOT condone anything which muddies, confuses, or opposes this.
Legal backing cannot be given to a nonsensical entity. Marriage has a meaning – two men cannot be married to each other, just like two bachelors cannot be married to each other. Gays are welcome to marry - find one member of the opposite sex and commit yourself to them for life in love and faithfulness. There are several stories of people with continuing homosexual tendencies (some of which were at one point openly 'gay'), living well in a loving, Christ-honouring, natural/traditional marriage.
People can add legal backing to marriage if they like, but ultimately marriage is spiritual – God designed it from the beginning, and He defines, defends, and rejoices in it. The basis for opposing gays living sinfully together, is not that society or the legal system – or even Christians – think its sinful. Its that God thinks its sinful.
Finally, some notes about the emotion behind the poster.
Maybe some Christians are self-righteous, hateful, unsympathetic, and prideful. But the Bible encourages humility, grace, bearing eachother’s burdens, and respect. We are all sinners before God – we are all sexually broken in some way, and fail to delight in, pursue, or express the character of God as we ought (and need, for our satisfaction).
I don’t know where homosexual people come, what their experience of delight and struggle is, how they tick, or how broken they are. And I don’t pretend to. God alone knows that, and He cares. I just know my own struggles. But one thing I know – we will all only find true delight in God and His glory.
God alone knows ultimate outcomes, how characters will change, and what areas in life we will discover ourselves to be completely wrong about. He along has the ability to know what is ‘good’ for us. He made us so that we would find ultimate purpose and meaning and satisfaction and life and power, when we delight in the full display of His character to and through us. Marriage does this when performed God’s way – part of which means being traditional/natural.
Ultimately, homosexuality only matters because it is a sign of how we treasure Christ. To pridefully integrate homosexuality into your very identity, instead of agreeing with God about it, is evidence of (at best) a serious distraction from this, or (at worst) heartfelt prideful hatred toward Christ. Both of which condemn you like all sin outside of Christ, but both of which Christ can forgive and overcome if you will let Him!
I want God to enable Christians to come alongside homosexuals as fellow strugglers in the battle against sin and for our perfect delight in God’s glory. May we battle together with humility and love and uncompromising devotion to God.
Great post. I agree that homosexuals can marry if they like but when it affects others then it is becoming dangerous... for example if children are involved! I believe children should have a mother and a father, not a father and a father. If gay marriage is allowed it will lead on to having kids etc.
ReplyDeleteTalked with a couple of people today who believe you are married once you have relations with another person of the opposite sex. They think the BIble isn't that clear about it.
I was thinking if they are right, then the fornication would no longer have a meaning, right? lol
I haven't studied it properly but I would be interested to look up the greek for "marriage". Are there any key verses anyone could throw out there regarding the need for a marriage being marriage and not simply the first person you have a sexual relation with?
cheers,
DP
1) The Bible defines marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, for life.
ReplyDeleteThis is easy to defend from Scripture (Gen 2:24), history, tradition, nature, and the purposes God designed marriage for:
False. You conclude that the 'bible defines marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, for life'. First off, the Bible does not actually offer a formal definition. Given that your references (Gen 2:24) act as an implied definition rather than a formal one, you have to protect yourself against cherry picking - ie forming your conclusion and choosing scripture to support that and ignoring scripture which contradicts it, which is not limited to depictions of polygamous marriage but includes (for example) Exodus 21:10 which is a direct instruction from God as to how to best practice polygamous marriage. Notably absent from this section is any commandment for monogamous marriage, which has little basis in any OT scripture.
Also if your first point is as labeled about the "bible" definition, it is certainly *not* "easy to defend from "history, tradition, nature" as these things you chose to list have little bearing on what words are in the bible.
"Jesus uttered many words relevant to same-sex relationships."
Such as the passage on *divorce* you cite? This is utterly disingenuous - whould we outlaw divorce too? Should people in abusive relationships be required to stay married to their partner, seeing as marital unfaithfulness is the only grounds for divorce that Jesus endorses? Should the enormous number of non-christians in this country be held to that peculiar Christian interpretation of marriage?
"There is clear guidance in the New Testament (especially from Jesus) on how to apply the OT views of homosexuality to our lives today."
I'd call that a demonstrable lie. There are passages from Jesus about applying the OT in the general sense. There are passages in the NT about homosexuality. There is not a single passage where Jesus talks about how to apply the OT views of homosexuality. I think in your enthusiasm for moral certitude on this issue, you have lept to making an unsupportable claim here.
"So there really are no 'grey' zones" - what about homosexuality in over 450 species of animals? Or Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY) - who are they supposed to marry? For that matter, what are the marriage options of those with Turner's (XO) syndrome? Or those raised Fa'afafine? Or Hijra? Those born with unusual chromosome pairs or indeterminate sexual organs, that you are aware of (from your own medical training) really exist as more of a spectrum than clear categories. Remember there are no grey areas. Your supposedly self-evident 'natural order' looks remarkably as though you're simply mistaking descriptive categories (a leaky abstraction) for a prescriptive taxonomy. And your claims that God felt it was 'important enought to ingrain in our DNA' ring pretty hollow when even the DNA no longer fits your favoured provincial pigeonholes.
ReplyDelete"Its fairly obvious what Paul’s view of homosexuality was."
I actually agree on this point; I've read a number of 'liberal' defenses of homosexuality in Scripture and find them unsupportable. Some churches (ususally those that don't endorse Sola Scriptura) don't choose to endorse Paul's views, but I think it would have to be a very
peculiar reading of Paul to think he is accepting of homosexuality.
"History teaches us that accepting homosexuality as a way of ‘moving forward’ and defining ‘civilized society’, is probably a bad idea...The hallmark feature of such decline has always been an excessive and increasing focus on experimenting outside traditional/natural sexual behavior. The Bible also predicts this progression (Rom 1)."
Unsubstantiated scaremongering. No, worse than that - utterly outragous fabrication. You don't remotely confront and grapple with any instances of declining civilizations, or engage with any historical data or commentary on how gay marriage somehow relates to this. If you could actually cite any data, which you can't, the very first thing it would do is expose as a dishonest distortion any previous claims that marriage has a traditional monogamous and/or exclusively heterosexual basis. Only then could you begin the insurmountable task of actually connecting the rise and fall of your nebulous empires with societies 'experimenting outside of traditional/natural sexual behaviour'.
Great, so now instead of asking for equal treatment under the law, Gay people should be begging forgiveness for destroying civilizations! - and apparently destroying them so completely and frequently than you can't even seem to name them.
"There is a difference between allowing, and condoning or defending. Government may not have the right to force morality (unless it is harming others) – we have a responsibility to let people choose. But we also have a responsibility to encourage the best (God’s character on display in traditional/natural marriage), and to NOT condone anything which muddies, confuses, or opposes this."
ReplyDeleteIndeed there is. There is an excellent parallel in our nations' divorce legislation. AS you can see from your own scripture above, Jesus
thought divorces shouldn't be allowed in cases other than marital unfaithfulness. We as a society need to choose whether we will base our divorce legislation on that passage, or whether Christians should follow their principles as they wish without demaning through legal coersion that others follow this passage.
"6) God is the most tolerant and loving being in the universe."
That is as relevant to the gay marriage legalization debate as the fact that "Krsna is the most tolerant and loving being in the universe".
. But we also have a responsibility to encourage the best (God’s character on display in traditional/natural marriage), and to NOT condone anything which muddies, confuses, or opposes this.
I think it's disingenuous to pretend that 'encouraging the best (your)God (purportedly) wants' is remotely the same thing as endorsing a legal prohibition. Oh, I'm not 'preventing Christians from worshipping', I'm just 'encouraging them' to worship Ba'al or go to jail. There is a particularly Orwellian strand to your thinking here that gets only worse when you move on to suggest that gay people can still get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. I think that your endorsement of that hysterical response is telling: for all your posturing about the importance of selflessness and humility and character, you think that a gay person in a bloodless relationship with someone they don't love "still counts". That line of though is honestly the most heartbreaking thing I have encountered in the discourse on gay marriage - the way the virtues and maturity and noble self-sacrafice and humility that it takes to make a deep, real, meaningful, lasting marriage are happily jettisoned in such a cavalier reply. To think that such an arrangement would still counts as a 'marriage' ... If you think it's gay people that are devaluing marriage, you should take a look in a mirror.
And I don't mean in the general sense, the way that so many heterosexual marriages (celebrity or otherwise) are utter travesties- I mean: you, right here, with that comment. You're married yourself; I would expect you to respect the institution better than that.
"People can add legal backing to marriage if they like, but ultimately marriage is spiritual – God designed it from the beginning, and He defines, defends, and rejoices in it."
ReplyDeleteYou had the chance to engage here with the fact that marriage is not Christian, and Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian and secular marriages are all legal and haven't the least thing to do with your God. You could have tried to make a case here for why the presence of these isn't a "dangerous" threat to Marriage, the way gay marriage supposedly would be.
"Ultimately, homosexuality only matters because it is a sign of how we treasure Christ. "
And we are not requried to treasure Christ in our laws, and it's a damned good thing, too.
Firstly it is a peculiar idea that Christ is somehow honored by unwilling restraint caused by laws, when his teachings on earth go out of their way to emphasise that it is the mindset and the intent that dishonor God, (eg with hatred/murder, lust/adultery), and the physical action not being the point so much as the mindset.
And secondly your cheerful endorsement of theocracy brings to mind Daniel 3 and Nebuchudnezzar II, with a population forced to bow down before a golden idol under threat of legal penalties. Do you think the King's only mistake in this was that he had the wrong God?
If you want Christian Scripture to set our secular laws, I am forced to conclude that the only reason you're not asking to have homosexuals and adulterers, Hindus and disobedient children taken out into the street and stoned is because you think it unlikely to pass in Parliament, not because you don't want it. And under Jesus' model of the intent trumping the action (taken or otherwise), you'll have to forgive me if I treat you as culpable for that.
I think overall your article suffers from two massive problems: you never engage with the idea that Christianity should be used to run our country -which has significant number of non-christians - you tacitly endorse it all over, but never actually go through any arguments for or against or examine other theocracies and scrutinize them for problems. And you never engage with the idea that if it's okay for you to coerce non-Christians to live by your rules, how is it not okay for them to do the same to you? Why shouldn't they invalidate *your* marriage? Why shouldn't they ban worshipping *your* God?
The reason this doesn't come up is that they've committed to living in a secular society - and committed to it so wholly that they can barely conceive of such questions. They base this on J.S. Mill's principle of harm, and on treating others how they themselves want to be treated (I think I've heard that idea somewhere before...). And now they're mired in a discussion with Theocrats who want us all to live in Iran.
You have a very well thought out response. Very articulate. You can tell that you are well educated. And you can tell that you are an atheist as well. But I think you over stated some things. Yes, one can find items in Joshua’s post to pick apart such as you have done. But, I don’t think his purpose was what you concluded. I believe his purpose was to point out that the poster basically says the only answer that is acceptable in today’s secular society is that you have to agree same-sex marriage is okay and anyone who disagrees is sexist, chauvinistic, judgmental, xenophobic, discriminatory, and ancient. In other words, Christians are not allowed to have their opinion or share their faith without being ridiculed for it, which is now evident from your post. There are many things you say that are nicely put and somewhat accurate as well as hateful and just as in accurate.
ReplyDeleteFrom reply #2 (your 1st) You are somewhat correct. The Bible does not say “one man/one woman for life” word for word. It is implied. Although if you look deep at the words in Genesis 2:24 does say in Hebrew man shall cleave to his wife. Wife means woman since there is no word for wife. It is just the way English has translated it for simplicity. If you did a study on Hebrew language you would see that the literal word for word meaning in Hebrew of Genesis 2:24 can be translated as: Therefore, a man will leave his father and his mother and he will adhere to his woman and they will become a unified person. So, if you become “unified”, you are implying “for life”. But in our day and age we do not understand what for life means. We have no concept of total commitment.
As for Exodus 21:10 it is not condoning polygamy. By this time in history it had become a custom to take on many wives, concubines and such. The wording is “IF” a man takes another wife, then you better at least treat both of them right. If you read Romans 1:20-26 with this then you can see what I mean. The Genesis verse is before the fall of man. The Exodus verse is 2000 years later after man has distorted every law that God had laid for His creation. Genesis 3 talks about how they have desire for each other but man would of course distort that too. So to say that even the OT is absent of monogamous life is not quite true.
Divorce is not a good thing. Is it needed? In today’s time unfortunately. But the problem is not about divorce. It is about marrying the wrong person. No one takes marriage seriously anymore. We marry people we don’t love. We marry people out of “necessity”. Or even in a more upward trend today is the fact that we don’t even make the commitment. Jesus said unfaithfulness is the only thing that is acceptable. Faithfulness is a commitment, a covenant. But the above list I gave is not one of faithfulness. Abuse is not part of your marriage vows. Neglect is not part of your marriage vows. All of these actions in a marriage have been detrimental to the institution. You put words in Joshua’s mouth here.
Actually there is a passage where Jesus does reinstate Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4. But He also knew that if people did not accept what Moses was commanded to write down that we wouldn’t believe His words either (John 5). So I do not expect you to be satisfied with that conclusion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom reply #3 (your 2nd) No one including me, you, or science can say why nature has added chromosomes or anything like. However after the fall of man physical deformities have multiplied. We are no longer perfect beings. Why are some people born without sight? Or an arm? Or short? Go bald? Who knows?
ReplyDeleteIf there are 450 animals that practice homosexuality are you saying we are like animals or that this must be a natural thing for all life? Even nature would disagree with you, for if you were a believer in evolutionary science then you would believe nature would have found a way to procreate by same-sex action. Of course there are those species who reproduce asexually but no science has ever found them to ever have done it differently anyway.
Paul never endorsed homosexuality.
Joshua never said that a society fell due to homosexuality. He said they fall due to moral, pride, and financial strife. I am assuming he meant all types of morality. If he did mean just homosexuality then he is wrong. But either way both of us have either added or taken words out of his mouth.
From reply #4 (your 3rd) Joshua did not say that those is a gay lifestyle can choose marriage only if they choose someone from the opposite sex. You read him wrong or once again are adding to what he said. Either way the point is we can define marriage legally all we want but it is still not an appropriate action. It can happen in the physical sense all it wants and can change with the times or whatever but it still comes down to a commitment based on God’s plan. You will not accept that and that is your prerogative.
From reply #5 (your 4th) The reason marriage is not Christian or anything else is because humans are not the ones who instituted it. It came from God. All people were meant to worship God. Man is the one who changed the ways we believe. This is where the distortions of other “faiths” come in. A marriage is legal even in God’s eyes as long as it follows His plan, a true commitment of man and woman vowing complete faithfulness to each other.
Actually Jesus added that the mindset is just as important as the physical action. You have to remember who He was telling His new covenant to. They were people who thought there was only the physical concept. He told them no it starts in the mind.
Your postings make it look like Joshua is using the topic of homosexuality as a flag ship for all of Christianity. It is just one topic. He claimed Christians aren’t perfect. Many are hateful. They are wrong in their actions. It doesn’t make them wrong in their ideas. They need to practice more of what they preach but even more importantly they need to practice what they read.
Again, you sound like a very intelligent person, and I am sure that once I post this and you read it that you will “debunk” anything I say and will find some other clever way to put me in my place. But clever words will not replace the wisdom of God. It is not me who is your enemy. Nor is it Joshua or other Christians. Your fight is with God Almighty when it shouldn’t be. You can hammer me all you want now, I will not respond to it because I will not engage with a word fight.
Sorry for the deleted comment, I duplicated it.
ReplyDeleteHi again Paul :) Thank you for your usual character and method advice. I actually do need calling up on these things. Its important to avoid the appearance of evil – even if there is very little basis for that perceived appearance. But I think there were areas i could have been clearer on. What follows is a point by point response to you Paul. Hope it helps you understand me clearly.
ReplyDeleteHi also to Gozreht! Thanks for clarifying some things on my behalf.
1) I think Mark 10:1-12 deals with most of your objections. I supply other verses later, also in support of singularity in marriage. I know ‘Marriage’ is clearly not mentioned in the Bible since it is not written in English. But the point is that God designed human sexuality (with all the essential elements of what has traditionally and naturally called ‘marriage’) with clear purposes, right from the beginning. ‘Marriage’ is not a social construct.
My mention of history, nature, and tradition was to show that it is generally historical, traditional, and natural for humans to define marriage this way – not that this makes it right, but hopefully it makes me seem a little less insane.
2) If you read the rest of my post, I’m not suggesting we ‘outlaw same-sex relationships’ or divorce. I’m suggesting we develop a culture which supports natural/traditional marriages (by definition, an environment which generally discourages divorce except in exceptional circumstances), and call divorce and homosexuality what they are (rather than find a word with an existing opposing meaning, such as ‘faithfulness’, and applying it to divorce.)
Regarding exceptional circumstances, Homosexuality will never be NECESSARY for the sake of safety. And incidentally, even through divorce for marital unfaithfulness, both partners are called to pursue Christ’s character in all things. The most Christ-like response (albeit an almost impossible calling), is to continue to love and pursue His bride even though she is repeatedly unfaithful.
3) I’m glad you acknowledge the NT verses on homosexuality. I did not claim that Jesus tells us how to apply the specific OT laws relating to homosexuality. Just that He said enough for us to easily figure out what He would have said. It’s not hard. This may have been part of what was going through the NT author’s minds.
4) Homosexuality in over 450 species of animals does not make it a ‘grey’ zone morally, please refer to my definition. Now that you mention it, however, I would say that these species would also defend the traditional/natural view of sexuality. The others are obvious aberrants and have a very poor natural selection prognosis. Also, does the fact that many male animals eat their young (not merely as aberrant, but as a norm), make it natural/acceptable for human males to do the same?
Regarding chromosomal abnormalities, I see these as deviations from the norm, for which exceptional laws might apply. In fact, the term ‘homosexuality’ cannot meaningfully apply to them either. Which is, really, what I’m discussing here. But my conclusion applies to them also – what matters ultimately is that you pursue Christ as your greatest treasure.
5) Paul – I admit I am basing this on a vague recollection of my previous (fairly in-depth) studies of ancient civilisations. My claims remain unsubstantiated. However, if you believe I’m wrong, please find evidence for the contrary – that most civilisations did NOT have this as a feature of their society during their decline. If this was a hallmark, however, in no way does it imply that the prevailing view of marriage throughout history was somehow disturbed, or that gays were responsible for the downfall. We both know the difference between causal and temporal relationships. It just states that a move in this direction is not a sign of society’s advance, but probably a sign of its decline.
ReplyDelete6) Please see my note above regarding legislation, and divorce.
7) One of the main points of my post was to deal with the emotion. I think even you can see it ooze from behind the poster. People think that a God with this view is intolerant and unloving. So it is very relevant – although I hardly touched the surface with my comment. That one was more of a token gesture.
8) I think the gay community is closer to demanding acceptance or jail, than the Christian community. I’ve never heard a Christian mention jail as an alternative to refusing the marry Biblically, but I’ve heard plenty from the other side.
Ok, wow, I had never thought of my statements about gays marrying biblically, being taken that way. Please do not go and get married if you don’t love the person. That is also against God’s definition of marriage, as I mention elsewhere. Maybe the statement allows for certain dispositions to interpret it that way, but I think the point I was trying to make is still clear. Marriage has a meaning – which gay people are welcome to appropriate to themselves. We are not forcing it on anyone, or denying it to anyone. I’m just sticking to its meaning. By the way, I know of several people with homosexual tendancies (some of which were openly gay in the past), who are now happily (yes, lovingly) married – i.e. man + woman for life.
9) My discussion is not about Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian, or secular marriages. Its about homosexual marriages. Also, such marriages (while still having much room for greater pursuit of the display of God’s character) are closer, in my opinion, than homosexual relationships.
I don’t have time to engage with everything remotely relevant to this issue. Especially when, as a philosopher like me, you see everything as intimately and intricately related. If you want a discussion on something I don’t think is relevant enough to cover here and now, I would still welcome a phone call or face to face talk next time we see eachother.
We are not required to treasure Christ in our laws (not just because it won’t ever work). And its not about restraint or coercion. But government has a responsibility before God to create an environment where treasuring Christ is supported. Please see my other point about legislation and divorce.
Secular society is turning into a militant organisation commited to forcing us to accept changes in our very understanding of sacred aspects in our lives. We are not allowed to speak of marriage as if it means what it actually does mean – 1 man + 1 woman for life. We have to talk of it as if it is a legal contract with no reference to God’s intention for sexuality. Its not asking too much for homosexuals to respect that same understanding – shared by most of humanity for most of history (not just Christians, by the way) – and find their own language of discussion so that God’s intentions are not confused or lost.
I have updated the post to be slightly clearer in some areas :)
ReplyDeleteGood read guys :) It appears the core debates are over the two main suggestions that the flow chart entitles. That is:
ReplyDelete1. Should the state enforce God's values i.e. should the church look to control state policy. It is similar to the debate about legalizing prostitution.
2. Is homosexuality morally "wrong"
My two cents... I believe that before God, morally speaking, that homosexuality and prostitution are "wrong". Yet God seems to have allowed each one his own path.
The christian stance I believe should be on deciding what impact these legalizations may have on society and whether it will lead people nearer to God or further away.
For example, will homosexuals who adopt children into their family have a heavy influence on them to be homosexual also... this influence could turn the children away from their natural selves as God would have them to be.
cheers.
And before this gets into another topic it should be stated that homosexuality is no more wrong than heterosexuality OUTSIDE of marriage. Any for of promiscuity, perversion (as in "distortion of the truth"), or sexual acts that are not in God's plan are as bad as anything else on the list. We here in the US have outlawed polygamy (except Utah). No one has a problem with that. We have outlawed prostitution (except Nevada) and I do not see a lawsuit defining that. We have outlawed sexual actions with a minor, again no arguments (except maybe Kentucky).
ReplyDeleteThe reason why this sexual action is the problem is because this is the one that is making a stink about changing marriage laws. And if this passes then those who practice homosexuality would HAVE to allow the other types of actions to be legal because then it would be discrimination and then they would be just like Christians...hypocrites who do not show mercy or comapssion for someone's feelings.
Now of course most of that was sacrastic but there is a lot of truth in what I just said.
Quite right Gozreht, in the end a moral line has to be drawn somewhere. Who decides? In the end it will be God who decides and we will be judged accordingly.
ReplyDelete