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?

[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.

[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. ...

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.

The website you link to is entirely polemical and a gabbled potted version of history. For instance, it's stated as a reproach that there were discussions about whether the Indians of the New World were human, while forgetting the outcome of that discussion. Pope Paul III stated in 1537 in his Sublimis Dei that the Indians should not "be treated like irrational animals and used exclusively for our profit and our service…[They] must not be deprived of their freedom and their possessions.. even if they are not Christians; and on the contrary, they mast be left to enjoy their freedom and possessions." He emphasised that "Every person is my brother or sister". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimus_Dei It must be imagined that at that time the New World to them was almost like another planet and no one had ever met an Indian before in their life.

In no way am I saying that Christians have not been racist. Of course they have. What I meant by my post is that racism has never been a teaching of the Church and never been endorsed as acceptable behaviour. Obviously I can't speak for the thousands and thousands of protestant denominations that have an extremely wide spectrum of beliefs and include the notorious KKK - I'm referring to the Catholic church and as far as I know Orthodox church that have maintained consistent doctrine over time.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 21 by dbohm]

Racism has touched every institution in the United States—the armed forces, public schools and universities and, yes, even the church. After the civil rights movement, a number of religious denominations began to racially integrate. In the 21st century, several Christian factions have apologized for their role in supporting slavery, segregation and other forms of racial injustice. The Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and the United Methodist Church are just a few of the Christian denominations that have admitted to engaging in discriminatory practices and announced that they would instead strive to promote social justice.

http://racerelations.about.com/od/histo ... Racism.htm
In my opinion sexual orientation is fixed very early in life and there is mounting evidence there is a genetic basis for it. If this is correct then 'homophobia' for want of a better term, is today's racism. If the church or the Bible or any form of theism maintains otherwise then, for me at least, they offer proof they do not represent God, because they are railing against people who have an immutable characteristic. I want to be very clear, in my opinion, for the reason stated, opposition to full and complete rights, respect, and privilege for others, based on their sexual orientation is the equivalent of racism.
Pope Francis is to be commended for at least trying to change the tone of the debate within 'the' church, asking the faithful to not be so 'obsessed' with gay issues.

[dbohm]

In my opinion sexual orientation is fixed very early in life and there is mounting evidence there is a genetic basis for it. If this is correct then 'homophobia' for want of a better term, is today's racism.

Whether sexual orientation is fixed early in life or genetic, bears no relation to the morality of actions per se. There are sexual acts that every sane person rightly judges as immoral. These would include rape, paedaphilia, bestiality and necrophilia. The morality of these acts is not based on whether the person has that sexual orientation fixed early in life or is based on genetics. Whether there is a genetic basis for their sexual orientation or not, people who have such urges have an absolute imperative to restrain themselves.

Modern society mainly judges these acts as immoral because of lack of consent. Then there are acts that are much more divisive and debatable because consent is not the obvious issue. These include sexual promiscuity, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, polygamy, divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, adultery et al. Yet none of these with the exception of homosexuality are ever debated as moral or immoral due to innate sexual preference. Most men have an innate urge to have sex with any beautiful women they see. Even if consensual, does the innate desire make promiscuous sex inherently moral or immoral?

Being a certain skin colour, and having certain facial features does not make one moral or immoral. Our actions form our character. Our genes and our environment influence but do not determine our actions or our character. As Martin Luther King said, 'I have a dream that [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' The fundamental premise of racism is that our born physical features and genetic makeup determine who we are and what we do. A racist will judge a group of people with shared genetic traits as fundamentally superior or inferior. And that people with those shared traits are inclined if not predetermined to act in a certain way. Yet as King says himself it's what people actually do; what their actual character is, that is important and what needs to be judged. Not the colour of their skin. Not their shared genetic traits. Not even any possible innate urges. But the content of their character.

In light of this it would seem that arguing that people with inborn homosexual urges, must of necessity act on their sexual inclinations is basically saying that they cannot do otherwise. That they have no freewill in their actions and that we must be slaves to our genetic predispositions. Just like in the dark days when a great many white Americans thought that African negroes were destined or born for slavery. You tell me what side is closer to racism?

[dbohm]

[If the church or the Bible or any form of theism maintains otherwise then, for me at least, they offer proof they do not represent God, because they are railing against people who have an immutable characteristic. I want to be very clear, in my opinion, for the reason stated, opposition to full and complete rights, respect, and privilege for others, based on their sexual orientation is the equivalent of racism.
Pope Francis is to be commended for at least trying to change the tone of the debate within 'the' church, asking the faithful to not be so 'obsessed' with gay issues.

The media portrayal of Pope Francis is always interesting. Francis has encouraged a compassionate approach to homosexuals and others who the Church sees as living in irregular situations. This does not mean that he is willing or able to change Church teachings. The deposit of the faith doesn't change over time.

People are special and important because they are people no matter what sins they have committed or struggle with. Pope Francis is reminding the faithful of this truth. This doesn't mean he is about to condone actions that the Church has always seen gravely immoral or change truths the Church has always held. You may hate what the Catholic Church teaches especially in regard to homosexual acts but its teaching on this issue are based on rational bases in natural law as well as in scripture. It has held the position consistently over time. Just as it has held teachings in regard to the brotherhood and equality of all humans consistently over time - regardless of what certain groups or individual Christians have done in the past. When the anti-miscegenation laws were in effect in American priests would officiate mixed couple marriages secretly despite the racist laws. The Church has held a consistent approach both about race and the nature of marriage regardless of contemporary public opinion.
See
http://ccgaction.org/node/1011

[Danmark]

Whether sexual orientation is fixed early in life or genetic, bears no relation to the morality of actions per se. There are sexual acts that every sane person rightly judges as immoral. These would include rape, paedaphilia, bestiality and necrophilia.

I have heard that fallacious argument more than once on this site. The fallacy is based on comparing only criminal acts to a selected trait which is not criminal.

There are two primary reasons [at least] for this egregious error of logic:

1. No one is injured by the consensual private sexual acts of two fully consenting adults whether they are of the same, opposite, or indeterminate sex.
2. In most civilized countries those same acts are not deemed criminal. In the past certainly some secular laws were influenced by religion in the U.S. just as they are today in Islamic States.

The Bible holds that masturbation is a sin; that adultery should be punished by death, that husbands and wives shall restrict their sex acts. The Bible has a long list of supposedly 'immoral' acts that are 'sins,' many of which are punishable by death.

Some of these are so absolutely NOT moral issues to argue otherwise is laughable. Wearing fabrics that are blends of two fibers comes to mind. Even the most devout of Christians has long ago discarded much of this nonsense. But when it comes to sex, they make the business of others their business.

[Danmark]

[If the church or the Bible or any form of theism maintains otherwise then, for me at least, they offer proof they do not represent God, because they are railing against people who have an immutable characteristic. I want to be very clear, in my opinion, for the reason stated, opposition to full and complete rights, respect, and privilege for others, based on their sexual orientation is the equivalent of racism.
Pope Francis is to be commended for at least trying to change the tone of the debate within 'the' church, asking the faithful to not be so 'obsessed' with gay issues.

The media portrayal of Pope Francis is always interesting. Francis has encouraged a compassionate approach to homosexuals and others who the Church sees as living in irregular situations. This does not mean that he is willing or able to change Church teachings. The deposit of the faith doesn't change over time.

That is why I used the word 'tone.' I do not 'hate' the Catholic church. They are simply wrong. They have been wrong frequently. What I consider moral and intellectual weakness is to get my morality from a book or from a single person, without applying moral principles. Blindly following the church's lead would have, at least in times past, made one ignore scientific truth, create genocide, engage in racism, and even today to deny others all of the same rights and privileges based on immutable traits that have nothing to do with either immorality or criminality.

[dbohm]

[If the church or the Bible or any form of theism maintains otherwise then, for me at least, they offer proof they do not represent God, because they are railing against people who have an immutable characteristic. I want to be very clear, in my opinion, for the reason stated, opposition to full and complete rights, respect, and privilege for others, based on their sexual orientation is the equivalent of racism.
Pope Francis is to be commended for at least trying to change the tone of the debate within 'the' church, asking the faithful to not be so 'obsessed' with gay issues.

The media portrayal of Pope Francis is always interesting. Francis has encouraged a compassionate approach to homosexuals and others who the Church sees as living in irregular situations. This does not mean that he is willing or able to change Church teachings. The deposit of the faith doesn't change over time.

That is why I used the word 'tone.' I do not 'hate' the Catholic church. They are simply wrong. They have been wrong frequently. What I consider moral and intellectual weakness is to get my morality from a book or from a single person, without applying moral principles.

The Catholic Church is not literalist, nor do they build their system of morality from a single book. It was St Aquinas a doctor of the Church who wrote, 'beware of the man of one book.' The Catholic Church has a system of morality that is based on natural law not 'command and obey' morality without any philosophical principles. In fact it was a Catholic theologian and neo-Thomist Jacque Maritain who helped charter the United Nations' work on Human Rights and Political Philosophy. The basis of his work was natural law.

Blindly following the church's lead would have, at least in times past, made one ignore scientific truth, create genocide, engage in racism, and even today to deny others all of the same rights and privileges based on immutable traits that have nothing to do with either immorality or criminality.

Can you provide examples where the Church has taught genocide, racism or opposition to scientific truth?

[Danmark]

Can you provide examples where the Church has taught genocide, racism or opposition to scientific truth?

You don't need to take my word for it. Here's what John Paul II had to say:

Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.

Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these supposed wrongdoings, including:

The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church

The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).

Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).

The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).

The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a "letter to women").

The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague).

When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.

For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).

For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ap ... hn_Paul_II