Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[Andreusz]

There is a lot of debate, on these subforums and in other places on the Internet, on whether gay marriage should be allowed. It is clear from these forums that many Christians believe that gay marriage has no place in church. It is also clear that some Christians disagree with them. However, that is not the topic I wish to discuss.

What I would like to ask is whether there is any justification for Christians opposing gay marriage in civil (secular) society. The people of California will soon be voting on this question, and it will eventually be debated throughout the United States. Most gay people regard marriage as a civil right that has been denied to them. However, some Christians believe that gay marriage should be disallowed, even in civil society (e.g. the people of MassAction, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth, David Daubenmire). Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry, provided that the law does not force churches to marry such couples if those churches do not want to do this?

If you respond, could you please refrain from saying that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then the next step would be to allow marriage between a human and an animal? This argument is often made, and it is ridiculous. Animals cannot be consenting partners in a marriage, while two adult human beings can. And could you also refrain from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? I am talking about consensual relations between adults. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what people have to say.

 

[brightmorningstar]

For Christians there is no such thing as gay marriage so they dont need to oppose it as that. Given a democracy Christians are entitled to take part in decision making and laws and should oppose same sex unions as part of those citizens rights, nevertheless, as we see from history, societies do have such things from time to time and the world is under the influence of Satan, we should not get upset but continue to witness in love.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

For Christians there is no such thing as gay marriage so they dont need to oppose it as that. Given a democracy Christians are entitled to take part in decision making and laws and should oppose same sex unions as part of those citizens rights, nevertheless, as we see from history, societies do have such things from time to time and the world is under the influence of Satan, we should not get upset but continue to witness in love.

I wrote a long response to this BMS, but it boils down to answering the OP: "Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?"

Yes.

Based on the writings of the Apostles.

Other than that BMS, be very careful here.

I'm out on this one.

 

[Andreusz]

I wrote a long response to this BMS, but it boils down to answering the OP: "Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?"

Yes.

Based on the writings of the Apostles.

Hmmm... so it's okay for atheists to campaign to have Christianity and other religions outlawed?

 

[seeker777]

I used to be against Gay marriage, even taking the time to right a silly letter to my Prime Minister protesting the possibility. Thankfully, I've come to my senses and I'm learning to become more tolerant and learning to shed my bigoted views.

Christians should focus on poverty, famine, the development of third world countries, helping the marginalized and place alot of their energy towards social justice.

Unfortunately, American Christians are obsessed with homosexual marriage. At one time in my life, I got sucked into the silly debate.

Christians should stay out of it and keep their noses in their Church.

The state has no business in the bedroooms of the nation. ( Pierre Elliot Trudeau)

Conversley;

The Religious authorities have no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Some Christians don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. OK, in the denominations and churches that such Christians control, well, fair enough.

But in purely secular terms, why should anyone oppose homosexual marriage being recognised as a legal institution?

Can anyone come up with even the vaguest convincing reason? And no, "the Bible SEZ!" is not a convincing reason, especially when discussing what the secular government is going to do.

 

[HaloHope]

I fully intend to marry my same-sex partner (itll be a civil ceromony yep, but we'll get a Christian blessing after the ceromony) so obviously I am completely unapposed to same-sex marriages, civil or religious.

Should Christians oppose it? On the civil front definately not, I can appreciate certain churches and denominations opposing religious gay marriage and thats fine, I dont think they should be forced to hold marriage ceromonies for gay people in their churches. However if a church WANTS to marry a same-sex couple that is of course great.

 

[MrAnteater]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact people want to put spin on it and call it "civil union" doesn't change the underlying facts. It's like saying I don't support the death penalty but do support capital punishment. It's just playing a word game.

God did not design humans to be homosexuals. The evidence in scripture is so overwhelming:

Reference:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:9-11

As a Christian we are called to rebuke and correct other Christians who are on the wrong path and are deliberately changing or ignoring scripture to suit their own lifestyle. Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever other name game you want to play is not God's plan.

 

[BigBadWlf]

For Christians there is no such thing as gay marriage so they dont need to oppose it as that. Given a democracy Christians are entitled to take part in decision making and laws and should oppose same sex unions as part of those citizens rights, nevertheless, as we see from history, societies do have such things from time to time and the world is under the influence of Satan, we should not get upset but continue to witness in love.

The same ‘argument’ was made in opposition to interracial marriage a generation ago. It didn’t work then why should anyone be more willing to accept it as valid now?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I wrote a long response to this BMS, but it boils down to answering the OP: "Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?"

Yes.

Based on the writings of the Apostles.

Other than that BMS, be very careful here.

I'm out on this one.

The same ‘argument’ was made in opposition to interracial marriage a generation ago. (“the bible sez…”) It didn’t work then why should anyone be more willing to accept it as valid now?

 

[jad123]

Some Christians don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. OK, in the denominations and churches that such Christians control, well, fair enough.

But in purely secular terms, why should anyone oppose homosexual marriage being recognised as a legal institution?

Can anyone come up with even the vaguest convincing reason? And no, "the Bible SEZ!" is not a convincing reason, especially when discussing what the secular government is going to do.

Marriage is heavily regulated, and homosexuals are not the only group of people who cannot marry. State recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways. About half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all states prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to marry more than one person. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.So gays are not the only people who have restrictions on marriage.

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. Allowing gay marriage gives the notion that sexual love, is the sole reason for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two gays simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact people want to put spin on it and call it "civil union" doesn't change the underlying facts. It's like saying I don't support the death penalty but do support capital punishment. It's just playing a word game.

Except that the typical “marriage” in the bible was polygamous and often rape was used to force a woman into marriage

God did not design humans to be homosexuals. The evidence in scripture is so overwhelming:

Yet all the evidence says that people are born heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual.

Can you cite legitimately published research that shows that homosexuality is a choice?

Reference:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus? I doubt it.

I’m more than willing to bet that you shave, wear clothing made of mixed fabrics, don’t keep slaves and so on. It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.




Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving mo matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20



A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Romans 1:18-32

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:9-11

translation issues are again at the forefront, here the problem is with the Greek word arsenokoites. It is a compound word that was rarely used in the time Paul wrote.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

There is no reason or justification for the translation of arsenokoites to mean homoseuxal

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. Specifically koitai is feminine. Thus making arsenokoites (if one accepts the compound origin of the definition) a reference to a man in a woman’s bed, not a man in the bed of another man.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside… the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

As a Christian we are called to rebuke and correct other Christians who are on the wrong path and are deliberately changing or ignoring scripture to suit their own lifestyle.

Consider yourself rebuked

Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever other name game you want to play is not God's plan.

Your entire post presents the same ‘argument’ was made in opposition to interracial marriage a generation ago. (“the bible sez…”) It didn’t work then why should anyone be more willing to accept it as valid now?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Marriage is heavily regulated, and homosexuals are not the only group of people who cannot marry. State recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways. About half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all states prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to marry more than one person. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.So gays are not the only people who have restrictions on marriage.

Can you identify any other minority that is denied the constitutionally protected right? (yes the Supreme Court ruled marriage to be a constitutionally protected right in 1968 when it struck down Virginia’s laws prohibiting interracial marriage)

The incestuous restrictions you bring up were in place when interracial marriage was illegal. Did that justify discrimination against interracial marriage?

The polygamous restrictions you bring up were in place when interracial marriage was illegal. Did that justify discrimination against interracial marriage?

Why are you suggesting that such restrictions justify discrimination against same gendered couples?

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage.

If your argument justify in discrimination is economic…should ALL marriage be outlawed as doing so will save the government a significant amount of money? Or are you suggesting that such considerations should only apply to minorities?

Allowing gay marriage gives the notion that sexual love, is the sole reason for marriage.

Was the only reason you got married because of lust?

No?

Please explain why you limit the reasons why gay and lesbian couples wish ot marry to that?

If the state must recognize a marriage of two gays simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five?

Sadly this same argument was (and still is) presented time and again in defense of racism. To justify racism individuals would reduce people of color to base sexual beasts. (better hide the white women) it is a sick and shameful defense of prejudice whether it is used to justify racism or homophobia.

 

[jad123]

Can you identify any other minority that is denied the constitutionally protected right? (yes the Supreme Court ruled marriage to be a constitutionally protected right in 1968 when it struck down Virginia’s laws prohibiting interracial marriage)

The incestuous restrictions you bring up were in place when interracial marriage was illegal. Did that justify discrimination against interracial marriage?

The polygamous restrictions you bring up were in place when interracial marriage was illegal. Did that justify discrimination against interracial marriage?

Why are you suggesting that such restrictions justify discrimination against same gendered couples?



If your argument justify in discrimination is economic…should ALL marriage be outlawed as doing so will save the government a significant amount of money? Or are you suggesting that such considerations should only apply to minorities?



Was the only reason you got married because of lust?

No?

Please explain why you limit the reasons why gay and lesbian couples wish ot marry to that?






Sadly this same argument was (and still is) presented time and again in defense of racism. To justify racism individuals would reduce people of color to base sexual beasts. (better hide the white women) it is a sick and shameful defense of prejudice whether it is used to justify racism or homophobia.

I really don't believe the mumble jumble I typed, it was nothing more than attempt to answer the question from a secular perspective although I can see the validity of the argument when comparing to polygamy. I am against it because God is, but those who prefer to justify their own sins do not want a biblical argument. Bottom line - we have equal rights. You and I have the exactly the same freedom, we can marry any woman whose chooses to marry us and vice versa.

 

[dies-l]

Should we oppose it? Certainly not! I don't see a reason to oppose gay civil marriage under any circumstances. There are much more important things than in this world for us to focus on than gay marriage, like poverty and injustice. Once we have overcome these things, I might be willing to buy an argument that gay marriage is somehow important enough to justify the type of activism that we often see from the "religious right" on the issue of gay marriage.

Should we support it? I don't think so, but this is a far more complicated question imho, and not one that the OP has asked.

 

[seeker777]

The world will go it's own way and I will go mine. .

Good, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact people want to put spin on it and call it "civil union" doesn't change the underlying facts. It's like saying I don't support the death penalty but do support capital punishment. It's just playing a word game.

God did not design humans to be homosexuals. The evidence in scripture is so overwhelming:

Reference:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:9-11

As a Christian we are called to rebuke and correct other Christians who are on the wrong path and are deliberately changing or ignoring scripture to suit their own lifestyle. Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever other name game you want to play is not God's plan.

All of which has what to do with SECULAR civil unions?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. Allowing gay marriage gives the notion that sexual love, is the sole reason for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two gays simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five?

If you can find a polygamous group of equals who want marriage rights, I'd support that too. Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones entitled to the cited benefits?

 

[Bellicus]

Here in Norway homosexuals get be priests, and homosexuals can get married in church if they want to, and if homosexuals want children, they can get that from fertility clinics, or adopt them if they are a male couple. Personally I would not think I could follow the Spirit and the same time marry a man and live in a sexual relationship with a man, but I don't judge those that do. This is something people should be able to choose for them self. This is the same thing about mosques in the country. I think Islam is not a way to salvation, but if anyone want to be a Muslim, then I am not the one to judge.

 

[prettyfly4awhiteguy]

There is a lot of debate, on these subforums and in other places on the Internet, on whether gay marriage should be allowed. It is clear from these forums that many Christians believe that gay marriage has no place in church. It is also clear that some Christians disagree with them. However, that is not the topic I wish to discuss.

What I would like to ask is whether there is any justification for Christians opposing gay marriage in civil (secular) society. The people of California will soon be voting on this question, and it will eventually be debated throughout the United States. Most gay people regard marriage as a civil right that has been denied to them. However, some Christians believe that gay marriage should be disallowed, even in civil society (e.g. the people of MassAction, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth, David Daubenmire). Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry, provided that the law does not force churches to marry such couples if those churches do not want to do this?

If you respond, could you please refrain from saying that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then the next step would be to allow marriage between a human and an animal? This argument is often made, and it is ridiculous. Animals cannot be consenting partners in a marriage, while two adult human beings can. And could you also refrain from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? I am talking about consensual relations between adults. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what people have to say.

I don't think it's any of our business what they do, honsetly. Doesn't affect me or you in any way.