Should a Christian attend a gay wedding ?

Gay wedding? Run for your lives!

Carl Emerson said:

Yes - because they were responding to His Word.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't die for people who were responding to his word; he died for sinners.

Carl Emerson said:

Jesus died for both - but not all respond.

Those who were responding He fellowshipped with.

Click to expand...

That sounds dangerously close to saying that Jesus only died for those he knew would believe in him.

"If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even the pagans do that. ...... You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", Matthew 5:46-47.

rockytopva said:

Gay wedding? Run for your lives!

Click to expand...

I'm certain it's not contagious.

Strong in Him said:

Jesus did.
Not only did he associate, and eat with, sinners; he gave his life for them.

Click to expand...

When Jesus was asked why he ate with sinners, he said that it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick, so if you are going to use his example, so the only relationship that that example justifies us as having with the world is as its physician. Jesus did not affirm the lives of people who were living in sin.

Carl Emerson said:

Actually it represents one of the most rampant philosophical diseases known to man today.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting use of "philosophical." No gay person I know has ever referred to being gay as a philosophy. I don't consider being heterosexual a philosophy. Philosophies are always a matter of choice, and I did not- nay, could not- simply choose to be heterosexual. And I know that because I could not simply choose to be gay. So I would not associate being gay with holding a particular philosophy. I'm not gay, but I am told it is very much like being heterosexual: it's just the way one is. That makes sense to me.

I know some won't find that line of reason acceptable. For my own part, I try to avoid making a judgment on this, mostly because it's not my business. I know my business, and that ain't it. I'm not the one getting married. Under no circumstances would I desire anything but the best for anyone who gets married, includung two gay dudes. If two heterosexuals get married, I pray it's good and they truly love each other and have joy in life. If two adulterers get married, my desire for them is going to be exactly the same. Two adults who consent to live together as a couple, without ever getting married, are going to bring about the same desire for their good, their love, that they find joy. Why would it ever be any different? Am I supposed to wish their harm? What devil has taught us that?

What I approve or dont approve amounts to a hill of beans. But at what point do I begin not wishing anyone the very best, regardless of whatever sin is their burden to bear? I don't get that. The moment I start wishing anyone in any circumstances anything less than the best- the moment I loose that desire and the ability to act on it regardless of what others do- is precisely the moment I no longer abide in the love of Christ.

Soyeong said:

When Jesus was asked why he ate with sinners, he said that it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick, so if you are going to use his example, so the only relationship that that example justifies us as having with the world is as its physician. Jesus did not affirm the lives of people who were living in sin.

Click to expand...

But neither did he avoid, and have nothing to do with, them.

To attend an ungodly wedding is not something a Christian should partake in. Just like bar evangelism is not right. The gospel cannot be a part of condoning something that is ungodly, such as drinking and witnessing in a bar, or going to a gay wedding. If we refer to a well-known passage, presented to us by the Apostle Paul, being present at a gay wedding does not glorify GOD.

31 Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31)

I wrote a book review in my undergraduate studies on a book written by Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and Christian? I will provide my review for your review. Then we can add or take away our opinions on this controversial topic of this dark world that we live in.


Michael L. Brown positions his argument, through his book Can You Be Gay and Christian, that Jesus did address homosexuality in an indirect manner. I liked the way Brown first referred to the cultural setting in Israel during the time of Jesus’ ministry. This is something that someone, as a proponent of the concept of Gay Christians, will conveniently ignore. Brown mentions that homosexuality was not an issue in Israel, because it was such an abominable sin; it brought the death penalty (Lev. 20:13). Brown concludes that just because someone does not speak against something specific, does not mean they are in favor of it.[1] Brown continues to support Jesus’s position against sexual immorality, as he refers to Jesus’s comments in Matthew 15:20 and Mark 7:21-23. Both of those passages give Jesus’ remarks about evil thoughts (which include sexual immorality), which proceed from the heart. I like Brown’s explanation, in which he pointed out, that sexual immorality does include homosexuality.[2] Jesus comments in Matthew 5:17: “Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Since homosexuality was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13), it was definitely something Jesus would not change and accept as being righteous behavior. In addition, Brown pointed out Jesus’ comments towards divorce in Matthew 5:31-32. Jesus made His point, which declares anyone having sex outside of marriage is guilty of sexual immorality; His comments come from setting the Jews straight on divorce, but revealed fornication and adultery, which result from the acts committed after the divorce.

The definition of marriage is key to Brown’s position. As Brown continued with his explanation, he utilized passages that refer to Jesus’ comments towards the creation.[3] In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus pointed out God’s intent for man and woman to be joined together as one flesh; this is God’s institution of marriage, which He intended from the beginning. Neither man with man, nor woman with woman, is acknowledged to be the intent of God. Jesus’ words speak loudly of God’s intent that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.

When Brown presented his case against those that twist the passage about eunuchs, he referred to the original definitions of what a eunuch actually is.[4] Jesus commented on eunuchs in Matthew 19:11-12; this passage is twisted, by gay pastors, into support for Jesus accepting gays into the ministry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matt. 19:11-12)

Jesus pointed out that there are three variations to what a eunuch was. Someone born incapable of marriage/sexual relationship, due to a birth defect, is the first example. The second example would be someone that was castrated by another person, therefore incapable of a marriage/sexual relationship. The third example is the person who has taken on the life of celibacy, in order to be committed 100% to the kingdom of God. As Brown pointed out the definitions of a eunuch, from the Greek lexicon, he concluded that the definition for the eunuch has nothing to do with being gay. Truly, these gay pastors have an agenda and blindness from the truth.

Jesus has given His requirements for righteous living. He confirmed and supported the Old Covenant laws and made reference to this. A Christian must understand and live out the standards, which their Lord has declared, otherwise, they are walking in willful sin. If a self-proclaimed Christian walks in disobedience to Jesus’ standards, maybe they are not really a Christian.


Brown, Michael L. Can You Be Gay and Christian. Lake Mary: Frontline, 2014.

---

[1] Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and Christian (Lake Mary: Frontline, 2014), 129.
[2] Ibid. 131-132.
[3] Ibid. 133.
[4] Ibid. 135-139.

I disagree, when attending a wedding, you are celebrating the joining between man and woman. When attending a gay marriage, you are celebrating the joining of an abomination. If you go to a wedding, out of a feeling of obligation, then maybe you should not be going.

Aldebaran said:

Then what's the point of asking if anyone objects if they're just going to go ahead with it anyway?

Click to expand...

The opportunity to object was originally for legal reasons, say the groom was already married. It gave others, like his wife, an opportunity to come out with it. It would be odd to use that opportunity at a gay wedding if it's legal.

I wouldn't, but then I've purposely declined attending weddings between heterosexuals that I did not think were a good idea, including a friend from high school who was getting married to a man she had only known for two or three months, and that of my own father for reasons I'm not going to go in to here. That's the thing about having principles (not to say that I'm great at it or anything; just making a general statement here): if they only show up when gay people want to do a thing, then you shouldn't be surprised when your objections get dismissed as being more about being against gays than about being against sinful unions more generally (or whatever alternative conception you can present to make it seem like it's not about being against gays).

Personally I would like to see Christians around the world follow much stricter marriage and divorce laws than many in the west tend to, though that's neither here or nor there with regard to the OP, I suppose.

Aldebaran said:

Legality is hardly the only reason for a mockery of marriage to be objectionable.

Click to expand...

I noticed you suggested it. Would you object, given the opportunity? If so, why?