Christian response to homosexual marriage?

[bjs]

Should Christians in the USA support or oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state?

I put this debate topic in this sub-forum because I’m not really interested in atheists’ opinions here, but I do wonder what Christians think.

On the one hand, we do not have to look far in our world to see what happens when people try to enforce their worldview on others. The result is always disastrous. I do not like the idea of Christians trying to legal enforce their worldview.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost. Opposing or abstaining from homosexual marriage is outlawed on the charge of discrimination. If gay marriage is legalized then we should expect, at the very minimum, that those who are morally opposed to homosexual action will still be required to act in support of homosexual actions if they wish to do business in their state.

I am unsure of the right approach. What do others Christians think?

[Divine Insight]

What do others Christians think?

I'm no longer a Christian today, but I was a Christian at one time and I can give you my "Christian answer" that would be just as valid as any other "Christian".

My thinking on this matter hasn't really changed much since I was a Christian.

My answer is as follows:

The laws of the United States of America are not laws of morality. They are laws that are supposed to be put into place to protect the citizens from each other, from the state, and from large or powerful organizations such as corporations or even religious organizations. After all, the USA is based on freedom of religion therefore laws are not intended to be used to put religious morality into law.

As a citizen of the United States of America I vote for FREEDOM. And to uphold this foundational principle I should not place my "morality" into law just because I favor it. I need to place into law what is fair for everyone.

It doesn't matter if I personally believe, for religious or any other reason, that same-sex marriage is immoral. That is not sufficient to make it illegal in the USA. On the contrary if there are consenting American citizens who wish to become intimately involved in a committed personal relationship then I must vote for their FREEDOM to do that.

Especially considering the fact that it's 'not harming anyone else. If they are doing something wrong int he "eyes of God", then that will be between them and God, not between them the USA and Me. Let God be the judge of morality. That's NOT the purpose of US law.

It's simply not the purpose of US law. It's that simple.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost.

This statement above it simply untrue. There is no law that says that you need to become involved in homosexual activities. That's simply a false claim.

All you need to do is respect the the right of same-gender couples to live together as a family unit. What they might or might not do in their bedrooms is non of your concern.

Condoning their commitment to each other as a couple is NOT the same as condoning homosexual activity. You have no clue what they might do together in the bedroom. And quite frankly it's none of your business anyway.

The bottom line is simple. The Laws of the United States of America are not laws of morality. That is not their intent or purpose. They have nothing to do with morality. They are laws that are supposed to protect the citizens of the state. Period Amen.

So when considering whether or not something should be legal or illegal in the USA you shouldn't even be thinking about morality at all. You should be thinking entirely about protecting the citizens of the state including protecting their FREEDOMS.

It's not even a religious matter at all.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

bjs wrote:

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost.

This statement above it simply untrue. There is no law that says that you need to become involved in homosexual activities. That's simply a false claim.

That is simply disproven by "lawsuits" to force Christians to be a part of the gay celebration.

All you need to do is respect the the right of same-gender couples to live together as a family unit. What they might or might not do in their bedrooms is non of your concern.

By FORCE of law.

Condoning their commitment to each other as a couple is NOT the same as condoning homosexual activity. You have no clue what they might do together in the bedroom. And quite frankly it's none of your business anyway.

The L G and B all declare sexual behavior. There is no way around that. A Lesbian is not declaring how they play tennis. A "Bi-Sexual" is declaring they also want everyone to know they enjoy, or would enjoy same gender sex acts as well. That's just simply reality. Why deny truth?

Why does anyone have to "condone" the so-called commitment of a couple of individuals to one another? Unless of course there is a law forcing us to do that. The "gay pride" movement, is about pride in behavior. And forcing everyone to feel the same pride for homosexual behavior as do the homosexuals. How can that even be denied?

The bottom line is simple. The Laws of the United States of America are not laws of morality.

How are laws NOT about morality? That seems an oxymoron. There are S T O P signs because it is immoral to drive as if no one is safe from the immoral behavior of uncaring motorists.

That is not their intent or purpose. They have nothing to do with morality. They are laws that are supposed to protect the citizens of the state. Period Amen.

Laws are about morality are they not? And if not how?

So when considering whether or not something should be legal or illegal in the USA you shouldn't even be thinking about morality at all. You should be thinking entirely about protecting the citizens of the state including protecting their FREEDOMS.

It's not even a religious matter at all.

It is a religious mater to those that want to declare their religious rights to oppose homosexuality.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 12 by 99percentatheism]

Every complaint you have, if accurate, could be laid at heterosexuals.
Since you clearly don't think they're valid for heterosexuals, but are for those of other sexualities, and only one of those addresses differences between sexualities, that's the only one I will address. (It would be wasting my time to address arguments that you don't believe work)

This idea about LGBT pride. It is because of a long history of oppression and depression of LGBT people. It can be a place to meet others of the same sexuality, which is no different from meeting those of the same interest. It is merely the movement that can be considered to be unique to LGBT, as what you perceive as a problem would also apply to a heterosexual pride movement, were there such a thing.

But people aren't stopped from organising a heterosexual pride movement, it's just nobody is interested or particularly cares in organising or hosting such a thing - except for those that don't want to express pride in their sexuality but want to express their views in shame of others (which wouldn't be a heterosexual pride movement, it would be an LGBT shame movement).

Similarly, the existence of star trek conventions aren't wrong, shouldn't be illegal and don't force people to take pride in star trek. It's possible that they might expect attendants to go, but this would be completely reasonable of a privately funded event (and why would you go if you thought it shameful?).

Nobody is forcing you to approve of LGBT behaviour, or to specially condone LGBT behaviour. People in general may be encouraged to do so, as acceptance of LGBT behaviour is considered a good thing by most. They are not forced to, nor required by law to. Those of LGBT have the same rights as heterosexuals, and so you aren't being forced to condone LGBT when you're asked to respect those rights.

Even for these problems, they can be compared to racism and the civil rights movement. People aren't forced to approve (i.e. believe) in racial equality, they're forced to respect the rights of all people - which includes other races. Whether or not they disagree with those rights is beyond the point.


You don't need to respect the right by force of law - you are simply not allowed to express uncommon or uncontroversial discriminatory views in most public places in such a way that other people can't avoid listening or seeing. You are allowed to believe what you want, say what you want in private property or in books or over the internet, find any place that will host your views (not many, and that is not because of law) and express them to an audience, etc.

It is like saying that because a man or woman generally cannot shout racial slander in public, that they are being forced to personally approve of racial equality.

[99percentatheism]

Jashwell
[Replying to post 12 by 99percentatheism]

Every complaint you have, if accurate, could be laid at heterosexuals.
Since you clearly don't think they're valid for heterosexuals, but are for those of other sexualities, and only one of those addresses differences between sexualities, that's the only one I will address. (It would be wasting my time to address arguments that you don't believe work)

I've never seen a sexual behavior "movement" about the sex acts of normal people being their identity. Can you imagine meeting someone that says "Hi, I'm a Reverse Cowgirl rights activist. And you need to respect, affirm and allow me to teach your children about my sexual preferences as part of my civil rights."

What? By what right do people get to proclaim their sexual proclivities get forced on us?

There are sexual positions labeled, sexual "tastes," but I don't think I have ever read or heard of any non homosexual labeling themselves by their sexual behavior. Except for maybe swingers, wife swappers, and people into bondage and S and M. And even those "sexual minorities," have no support for their identity from the Bible, either. L G B's s demand that we "respect" their sex acts? What kind of morality is this?

This idea about LGBT pride. It is because of a long history of oppression and depression of LGBT people.

AND WHY IS THAT? Why are homosexuals and their behaviors driven from societies throughout history?

It can be a place to meet others of the same sexuality, which is no different from meeting those of the same interest. It is merely the movement that can be considered to be unique to LGBT, as what you perceive as a problem would also apply to a heterosexual pride movement, were there such a thing.

Blah, blah, blah, buh, blah-blah-blah. So what? Still, the "Christian response to homosexual marriage" remains: It is not a Christian concept. And those demanding it ot be ARE THE INTOLERANT ONES. Not Bible-affirming Christians.

But people aren't stopped from organising a heterosexual pride movement, it's just nobody is interested or particularly cares in organising or hosting such a thing - except for those that don't want to express pride in their sexuality but want to express their views in shame of others (which wouldn't be a heterosexual pride movement, it would be an LGBT shame movement).

The Porn community, swingers, S & M, the promiscuous ALL have cultural gatherings. And none of them are demanding affirmation from Christians OR try desperately to prove they have support from scripture for their sexual behavior or identity for such. Christians are not targeted as promiscuophobes, haters of Porn stars, etc., etc.. It is only the gay agenda that targets Christians for conversion into gay pride right?

Similarly, the existence of star trek conventions aren't wrong, shouldn't be illegal and don't force people to take pride in star trek. It's possible that they might expect attendants to go, but this would be completely reasonable of a privately funded event (and why would you go if you thought it shameful?).

Do you see what thread this is?

The Christian response to homosexual "marriage."

There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere IN the Bible nor encouraged or supported IN the Bible. So then why aren't the gay pride activists labeled as the bad guys? There is absolutely nothing wrong or bad that Christians are doing when opposing homosexuality and those that desire it. Not one thing. They are just being honest, historic and "real" to their faith.

Nobody is forcing you to approve of LGBT behaviour, or to specially condone LGBT behaviour. People in general may be encouraged to do so, as acceptance of LGBT behaviour is considered a good thing by most.

What is good about male to male sex acts? What is good about female to female sex acts? Why does anyone need to be encouraged to even care about gay and lesbian sex acts? And remember, "Bi-Sexuality" is only about homosexual behavior.

They are not forced to, nor required by law to. Those of LGBT have the same rights as heterosexuals, and so you aren't being forced to condone LGBT when you're asked to respect those rights.

Why is the law being used to force the acceptance of those that engage in and desire gay sex in schools, Churches and society at large? How is that a moral activity? Why not teach kindergartners to "respect" Porn and BDSM? Pandora's Box is a metaphor with real life consequences as its reality.

Even for these problems, they can be compared to racism and the civil rights movement.

Only by an agenda to do so.

People aren't forced to approve (i.e. believe) in racial equality, they're forced to respect the rights of all people - which includes other races. Whether or not they disagree with those rights is beyond the point.

All human beings are of the same race. This canard does not bear up under logic and scrutiny. Sex acts and sexual desires are not the same thing as race. Christians need to be protected from the sexually obsessed. And they need to gain this protection for themselves. Quickly.

You don't need to respect the right by force of law - you are simply not allowed to express uncommon or uncontroversial discriminatory views in most public places in such a way that other people can't avoid listening or seeing. You are allowed to believe what you want, say what you want in private property or in books or over the internet, find any place that will host your views (not many, and that is not because of law) and express them to an audience, etc.

So the gay agenda includes ghettoizing Christians that do not submit to its authority over them? Didn't we see this act played out in 20th century Europe?

It is like saying that because a man or woman generally cannot shout racial slander in public, that they are being forced to personally approve of racial equality.

This thread is about the Christian response to homosexual marriage. Start a canard thread to promote your other tactics.

The Christian response to homosexuality, as well as same gender marriage, has no support from the history of Christian life or scripture. Otherwise, the gay activists here at this website and in the real world would flood us with the examples. Right now, they have moved on to destroying sxcripture and redefining it. That's because there is no support for homosexual marriage. That is an honest Christian response to homosexual marriage.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 14 by 99percentatheism]

The Christian response to homosexuality

Not ALL Christians do though, right? You may want to amend that statment to show this fact.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 4 by EduChris]

I agree.

We should not be fighting legal battles with non-believers. We should not be fighting legal battles with each other in secular courts either. If a secular state wants to remove marriage, let it. Let the state deprive itself of a healthy institution that benefits it. Maybe this will lead to the state infringing the rights of Christians someday. Maybe we'll be persecuted. All I know is, Christ is glorified in the weakness of man. The longer we fight this in the courts of the Earth, the less we glorify God.

There are some battles that we should be fighting though. I believe that the Church needs to retain its traditions. Within the Church, we need to debate this, keeping in mind the sovereignty of God, and acknowledging the limits of human understanding. Just because man cannot think of a good reason does not mean that there is no reason. Tradition and precedent are legitimate arguments. There are plenty of things that seem unreasonable to us, not for God's error, but for our own shortsightedness.

That said, though, I am still willing to do the unthinkable here, and actually provide some credible sources of evidence. I know that's rare for such an emotive, non-scientific topic, but hey, I'm a rebel.

One more thing: always, always, always check people's sources when debating this. Then check their sources' sources. Keep looking until you find an actual scientific study: one that was actually done. Check their methodology. No one does this. This is very dangerous.

Marriage & Religion research:
http://marri.us/

Survey on perceived root causes of homosexuality, by homosexuals:
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php

LGBTdata:
http://www.lgbtdata.com

Dale O'Leary talks about the spread of diseases, and why "MSM" should not be allowed to donate blood:
https://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... od-supply/

A seemlingly unbiased source
http://borngay.procon.org/

Centers for Disease Control
HIV: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Hepatitis: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm

A well-cited source. Notably, it cites Bell & Weinberg of 1978:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/

Awareness of suicide risk, citing Bell and Weinberg:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/homos ... inberg.htm

Homosexuals have older fathers and later births
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... eid=170553

Bell & Weinberg study: this is cited by both sides. The APA lauds it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _and_Women

And finally... the guy who started it all was hardly scientific. How many modern assertions are based on 'scientific evidence' like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ki ... al_aspects

I also have some library book citations here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=120

[Haven]

I agree.

We should not be fighting legal battles with non-believers. We should not be fighting legal battles with each other in secular courts either. If a secular state wants to remove marriage, let it. Let the state deprive itself of a healthy institution that benefits it.

How is granting 15-30 million Americans access to marriage "removing marriage?" Did getting rid of Jim-Crow restrictions on blacks using "white" water fountains "remove water fountains?"

In reality, marriage equality expands the benefits and protections of marriage to everyone who wants them, which will only strengthen the institution and the families it supports. Same-sex couples getting married won't do anything to harm heterosexual unions, and they will strengthen the millions of families who until recently were without legal protection or societal sanction.

Maybe this will lead to the state infringing the rights of Christians someday. Maybe we'll be persecuted.

This gay atheist has no intention of persecuting anyone, Christian or not. As an aside, please keep in mind that the inability to persecute others does not constitute persecution.

All I know is, Christ is glorified in the weakness of man. The longer we fight this in the courts of the Earth, the less we glorify God.

At least you're recognizing that it's pointless to stand in the way of equality under the law. Kudos for that .

There are some battles that we should be fighting though. I believe that the Church needs to retain its traditions. Within the Church, we need to debate this, keeping in mind the sovereignty of God, and acknowledging the limits of human understanding. Just because man cannot think of a good reason does not mean that there is no reason. Tradition and precedent are legitimate arguments. There are plenty of things that seem unreasonable to us, not for God's error, but for our own shortsightedness.

Fine. But just keep in mind that the more Christianity digs in its heels and supports bigotry, the faster the religion moves toward irrelevancy. Opposing gay rights is a fabulous way to consign the Christian religion to the garbage dump of history.

People are leaving churches in droves over anti-gay doctrines and policies:
http://www.alternet.org/story/155462/ho ... ung_people

One more thing: always, always, always check people's sources when debating this. Then check their sources' sources. Keep looking until you find an actual scientific study: one that was actually done.

I agree 100%.

Marriage & Religion research:
http://marri.us/

Survey on perceived root causes of homosexuality, by homosexuals:
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php

LGBTdata:
http://www.lgbtdata.com

Wow. Anti-gay hate sites? Propaganda from hate groups? These are what you consider "scientific sources?"

Citing sources like these as evidence against gay rights is like citing the American Renaissance Association (a racist "think-tank") or 'Jim Bob's White Power Hub' as evidence against the equality of African-Americans.

I'll cite a real scientific source: the American Psychological Association (APA) has found that there is nothing disordered about homosexuality or same-sex relationships. The DSM-IV also contains nothing about homosexuality. A recent study by Crouch et al. showed that kids raised by same-sex parents were more well adapted to life than those raised by different-sex parents.

By the way, not to toot my own horn or sound arrogant (apologies if it comes off that way), but this is my field. I'm pursuing a PhD in the sociology of sexualities and gender identities, and homosexuality and LGBT identities in particular are my main emphases of study. There's nothing in the recent literature (aside from Regnerus' two articles, which were based on faulty analysis) suggesting that homosexuality is inherently harmful.

Centers for Disease Control
HIV: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Hepatitis: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm

The statistics that show disparities between LGBT people and CH (cisgender-heterosexual) people are best explained by bigotry and discrimination against queer individuals, not some inherent defect in LGBT people.

The risk of HIV transmission between MSM who are committed to each other in a monogamous relationship is zero. The risk of HIV transmission between MSM who get regularly tested and use protective measures (condoms, etc.) is nearly zero.

Your "people can change" link has also been debunked -- there is zero evidence that people can change their sexual orientations. None at all. There is nothing in the recent literature that suggests this.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/10/orientation.aspx

Dale O'Leary talks about the spread of diseases, and why "MSM" should not be allowed to donate blood:
https://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... od-supply/

Dale O'Leary? You may as well have cited David Duke. O'Leary is a sexist and homophobic blogger who has absolutely zero academic qualifications whatsoever, let alone any experience in the study of sexualities. Citing unqualified professional hatemongers like this isn't helping your case.

Here is some actual data on risk from MSM donating blood:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/experts-urg ... y-gay-men/

A seemlingly unbiased source
http://borngay.procon.org/

ProCon is a conservative public charity, hardly an unbiased source.

Also, note that ProCon doesn't cite any study newer than 10 years old. None of the recent literature on sexualities was included, and the "pro" side included statements from religious organizations, not scientific entities.
http://www.livescience.com/25082-gay-co ... facts.html

A well-cited source. Notably, it cites Bell & Weinberg of 1978:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/

Awareness of suicide risk, citing Bell and Weinberg:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/homos ... inberg.htm

These sources are from more than 20 years ago, and have been superseded by later studies.

Also, the link between LGBT identities and suicide is likely explained via bigotry, not some inherent flaw in LGBT people. The same higher suicide incidence exists in African-Americans, and is also best explained by oppression (unless you also want to claim blacks are naturally inferior?). LGBT people are in an even more precarious situation, because we usually aren't born into families or communities that are LGBT, so we have limited to no support from others, and are often subjected to bullying based on our identities. That can play a massive role in suicide risk, especially among youth.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ty-bigotry

Homosexuals have older fathers and later births
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... eid=170553

How does this ancient study show that something is wrong with gay people? If anything, this goes against your case, as it would seem to indicate a biological root to homosexual orientation.

Bell & Weinberg study: this is cited by both sides. The APA lauds it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _and_Women

Again, do you have anything more recent than 1978 to cite? Again, I could find studies from 1930 that show non-whites are inherently less intelligent than the white "race," but I doubt you'd accept that.

The current literature shows these disparities between LGBT people and CH people are closing:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

And finally... the guy who started it all was hardly scientific. How many modern assertions are based on 'scientific evidence' like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ki ... al_aspects

Kinsey is hardly cited in the current literature on sexualities, and his scale is used far more by the popular media (including pro-LGBT media) than the scientific community.

Maybe a read through the current literature might help. The Journal of Homosexuality is a good place to start: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjhm20/c ... ERzXIvF9PQ

Also, you'd do well to take your own advice, friend:

One more thing: always, always, always check people's sources when debating this. Then check their sources' sources. Keep looking until you find an actual scientific study: one that was actually done.

[dbohm]

I'd like to think that there is neutral ground on this issue, but I believe there is none. There is no neutral ground on racial equality either. You can't say that people should or shouldn't be excluded because of their race and not be pro or anti-equality. Just in case anyone wants to call me bigoted - let me respond that I'm pro-racial equality and state from the outset that the Church has always been pro-racial equality.

A lot of Christians seem stuck on the fence. They just don't realise that if they accept homosexual "marriage" then they do water down the meaning of marriage. It does have social consequences. It does weaken the concept of the biological family. By passing laws allowing homosexual marriage, the state does by definition legitimise homosexuality. By legitimatising it, it makes a moral judgement accepting homosexual relationships as valid and praiseworthy. It also means criticism of homosexuality amounts to criticism of a legal institution. Make no mistake gay "marriage" is not so much about marriage as it is about affirming the legitimacy of a lifestyle and the silence of its critics. Canada is a clear example of this.

[dbohm]

Fine. But just keep in mind that the more Christianity digs in its heels and supports bigotry, the faster the religion moves toward irrelevancy. Opposing gay rights is a fabulous way to consign the Christian religion to the garbage dump of history.

People are leaving churches in droves over anti-gay doctrines and policies:
http://www.alternet.org/story/155462/ho ... ung_people

Really? I would have thought otherwise. Mainstream Protestantism doesn't seem to be doing so terrific after accepting just about every liberal ideology.

If the church just accepts the opinions of the age, how is it different and thereby relevant to its time? It might as well not exist at all.

Your viewpoint also seems very Westocentric. The very opposite of what you say is happening in Africa and Asia.

[Danmark]

I'd like to think that there is neutral ground on this issue, but I believe there is none. There is no neutral ground on racial equality either. You can't say that people should or shouldn't be excluded because of their race and not be pro or anti-equality. Just in case anyone wants to call me bigoted - let me respond that I'm pro-racial equality and state from the outset that the Church has always been pro-racial equality. ...

This statement reveals a complete ignorance of church history and history in general. Tho' there have perhaps always been those with within the church who have not been racist, the church has a deplorable history of racism.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm documents some of the history of 'Christian' racism. The Dake Bible is still being published and it argues for a Biblical basis to support racist slavery. It is equally true that some Christian denominations split from their parent churches over the issue of abolition of slavery. The Free Methodist church is one that comes to mind. But it is simply untrue to claim "the Church has always been pro-racial equality."

The same is true today with factions of the church being opposed to same sex marriage, while other factions represent freedom and love. The plain ugly truth is that those who claim to be 'Christian' have been on both sides of moral issues. Today there are many who remain on the side of the oppression of rights for some because of their gender preference just as they were on the side of racism in the past.