Defense of Gay Marriage From a Christian Worldview

[sleepthroughthestatic]

I wrote this paper for school, figured it wouldn't hurt to get outside perspective/discussion on it. Irrelevant note: I am writing this from the perspective of a staunch Christian, I personally don't know what I am.

In Defense of Homosexual Marriage from a Christian Worldview

Legal gay marriage is quickly shot down by Christians, not necessarily due to homophobia, bigotry, or any of the inflammatory words sometimes slung around by staunch gay-rights supporters. But rather, the Bible is clear that gay marriage is wrong. Most Christians believe the necessary extension of this is to be strongly against the legalization of it. However, the purpose of this essay is to demonstrate a Christian may be in favor of the legality of gay marriage while remaining wholly consistent with a fundamental Christian worldview.

For many people, it is very difficult to separate things they wouldn’t do themselves from whether or not something should be legal. Many religious people quickly jump from “my religious text says this is wrong� to “this should be illegal� and fail to see the distinction. The reality of the matter is that there is a huge distinction that many religious people recognize and accept on an intuitive level, but do not rigorously apply the logic on a conscious level and to controversial political matters. For example, a Christian will readily admit the necessary legality of religious freedom for religions other than their own--very few would deny a Hindu the legal right to practice Hinduism. Yet practicing religions other than Christianity is in stark contrast to the Bible. The reality of a fallen world is that not everyone will agree with each other, not everyone is a Christian, and laws must strive to reflect this reality in an unbiased way in order to maintain a civil, free society. When determining if something should be legal, the question is “should others have the right to do this?� and not “would I do this myself?�. Any other way of looking at the law leads to places like the Middle East, where it is illegal and punishable by law to have beliefs that do not line up with the Muslim faith.

So the question is, “should gay people have the right to get married?�. Answering yes or no need not be a religious or moral statement, it is primarily a governmental issue. One can still believe homosexuality is a sin, yet recognize that in a free society, people should be able to do things you don’t agree with. The United States is a free society. So, right away, it appears gay marriage should be legal. However, as most Americans understand, there are limits to freedoms. One cannot simply murder whom they please because America is a free society. If murder was not illegal, there would be societal chaos and absolutely no protection from harm for citizens. Restrictions are in place in order to protect the rights of others. So the next question would be “would legalizing gay marriage infringe upon the rights of others?�. The answer to this question is a simple one, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. It does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Around the time this realization begins to sink in, people begin screaming about the “sanctity of marriage�, polygamy, or even pedophilia. Any straw that can be grasped at is firmly waived in front of the face of Christians, and they are told that if they disagree they are somehow endangering society and violating their faith.

The sanctity of marriage is indeed a very important matter. For Christians, marriage should be about the unification of two people into one flesh, serving and honoring God together. This is a fantastic approach to marriage and one that should be dearly held. However, it again boils down to a fallen world needing to function in a civil manner. Not everybody who marries sees it as a matter that God is involved in. People should have the right to dedicate their lives to each other, and have it recognized by the government, even if they are not Christians. Christians do not claim that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or Jews, or Muslims, or any other faith or lack thereof. Yet, any non-Christian marriage would strictly violate the Christian interpretation of what marriage should be. However, most Christians recognize marriage as a right that people should have--even if their view of it doesn’t directly correlate to those who are marrying. At a governmental level marriage is simply the legal recognition of two individuals dedicating their lives to each other. That’s all it needs to be, and all it should be. Gay people should have all the legal ramification that marriage has for anyone else. The “sanctity of marriage� as an argument against homosexual marriage is abusing a valuable Christian concept and making it a veiled political weapon, taking it places it needn’t go. The absurdity runs deeper, as those same people beating the drum about the sanctity of marriage have no problem with the legality of divorce for non-biblical reasons, which would violate the sanctity of marriage as well. If Christians decide that the Bible is the authority on what should be legal regarding marriage, any non-Christian should be in a “civil union� and any Christian seeking divorce should only be legally allowed it in very extreme circumstances. This line of thinking is, quite obviously, not conducive to a free society and would not work in a fallen world.

The other arguments, that involve issues such as polygamy and pedophilia, are perhaps even weaker. Polygamy is an issue that can apply to heterosexual relationships, and there is no reason to bring it up as an exclusively homosexual-related matter. Polygamy is an entirely different issue with it’s own set of consequences and matters to deal with. Gay marriage is only about the marriage of two gay individuals, and the only people bringing up polygamy are the opponents of gay marriage. Pedophilia marriage as an argument against gay marriage is completely faulty--the obvious fault being that it is not between two consenting adults.

The duty of Christians is not to legislate their beliefs. The Christian Kingdom lies in Heaven, and not this world. This world is fallen, and it is necessary for Christians to recognize that fact and understand that in a fallen world, people will not always agree with Christian ideals. It is their right to deviate from Christian rules and thinking, because without that right--there would be no free will. Legal issues are matters of society at large, and the government--not an issue of which religion it happens to line up with. It is time for Christians to realize that though they may not agree with homosexual relationships, the right should be there--and with that right comes the right to marry, as it does with any other people who wish to. The Christian focus is to glorify God through the Body of Christ, and to bring others to Christ. The Christian duty is not to make anything that does not line up with the Bible illegal.

[99percentatheism]

So the Muslims are your god's answer to liberal abominations. Interesting theory. Does that mean your they got it right and you got it wrong?

Why are there so many atheists answering a Christian OP?

How does that answer anything.

It does. It shows the OP author who he is working for. ALL his positions align with non and anti Christians. Simple math.

You seem to be unable to comprehend how much you fear or gays and islam and just about anything clouds your judgement.

Look up pederasty and Jannisaries.

Well placed fear by way of reason and logic.

You make a pact with one demon if it serves fighting the other. A Christian would say you have lost your way brother.

Demons attack the Church. LGBT goals do the same thing. One plus one equals one.

[quote="99percentatheism"

I also don't need to bash Christianity. You are doing a splendid job of displaying how a religion that is apparently based on love is by the overly zealos so easily transformed to one where everything circles around hatred.

Anything Goes is the antithesis of love. It is though the very foundation of evil.

Anything Goes the Antithesis of love? You seem to define love in your very own way. I guess here we found the reason you can work this all into your distorted form of Christian faith.

Your charge is groundless. I can support all of my positions with an honest use of the Gospals and New Testamwnt letters. The OP is based on nonsense.

Hitler was also completely certain about his believes:
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

And, like the suport for gay rights, Hitler's support for Socialism was not founded on Gospel reality but, like gay activism, based on propaganda driving a hidden and diabolical agenda.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

Hitler's insanity drove him to be unable to recognize that Jesus IS A JEW!

Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

Hmm, "social justice?" Isn't that the new mantra for gay rights and same sex marriage?

Why YES it is.

I hope you understand someday that focusing all your energy on the so called evil breeds only diversion and hate. And those are the true anti-thesis of love and relationship/community.

You can try all of your liberal tactics, but you cannot label my honesty about Christian matters based on the understandable words of the Gospels and New Testament letters as hate.

No more so than Tacitus 2000-plus yars ago could label Christians "enemies of mankind" at the beginning of the Church era, for rejecting the pagan sexuality of Romans. Which included MUCH homosexuality.

The gay people are much closer to what Jesus was aiming for than fundamentalists governed by fear and driven by hate (towards evil).

Prove that by using the Gospels and the NT letters. You will be frustrated in the atempt. Very frustrated. You'ld be better off just screaming at us from the sidewalk as we walk into Church with no locked doors to keep you out.

Hate is hate regardless if what you hate is evil or not.

Blah, blah, blah. The pagans have been accusing us of this for millenia. Your voice, one and the same. Your agenda, one and the same.

If I hate Hitler because my grandparents died in a KZ it doesn't make it anything else but hate. As far as I understand the teachings of Jesus he wanted people to offer the other cheek and not strike back. He wanted people to love each other not hate even if there was reason to hate.

Show me where Jesus's idea of love included sexual debauchery????? Show me where he taught that marriage is two men or two women?

He never said a word about redefining marriage. OR, sexual purity. In which, homosexual acts do not dwell.

Grab a bible and prove me wrong?

An Atheist can regard it as justified hate a true Christians should hate justified hate as much as any other kind, the way I was taught by Christians and understand the NT.

I can't believe you are being anything but disingenous, because jesus details waht a marriage is in no uncertain terms. No ambiguity and no wierdness.

Actually, as an atheist, you are not sure about anything Jesus wise.

Not 100% sure maybe but if one is 100% sure he is just a million times more likely to be wrong. An Atheist can still read the bible and know just as much objectively about the dude than you.[/quote]

Than you should be honest and declare that homosexuality and "gay marriage" are in no way acceptable in Christian life, reality AND truth.

Muslims make like 0.6-0.8% of the US population I am sure they will overtake us and force their values on us any day now.

One Iranian Nuke can change things in the blink of an eye.

Yeah sure if some terrorist might get his hands on a nuke he can make us change all our values and force anti-gay legislation on the western civilizations. One nuke won't change a thing in that regard. The only reason terrorists hold so much power is because the people pay them too much attention. If the media would ignore them and the people not shit their pants there would be no reward in it for them, it would be entirely pointless.

Have you ever heard of Christopher Hitchens? If he were alive, he would be taking you to task.

I am not saying we can entirely ignore them but you shouldn't help them by building on the fear they want to create. You only help them if you hold such fool notions.

History is mocking your point of view.

Isn't it interesting that it was YOU that compared Gays to promiscuous animals in a Zoo?

I do but do you realize I regard those bonbons as a by orders of magnitude better creature than some fundamentalist hate preacher whose teaching circle around fear, hate and diversion.

And how many fundies are masturbating in front of a watching set of tourists? For that matter, how many materialists are whacking each off when they get a bit over stressed?

I but meant to point out how ridiculous the assumption is that being gay is in any way unnatural and therefore trying to put in law the anti-gay legislation in a secularized society.

So, you ARE saying that sperm is for a stomach or a rectum?

Where'd you study biology? Hustler Tech or Debauchery University?

C'mon now, deviance, just because it can be accomplished doesn't make it natural.

I'm just going to point out how hilarious it is that some people still believe homosexuality is a choice.

Some aspects are hilarious others are just sad.

There is nothing more sad than false teachers parading around that gay behavior is OK in Christian life. It is a lie and it is helping those that desire nothing more than our destruction fuel for their vehicles. That is why soooooo many atheists jump on board the Bash Wagon and heap trash on Christians that won't reject truth and join the world in its perversions.

[99percentatheism]

Like forcing everyone to call us by our favored sex acts as "gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals" do?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Most GLBT refer to heterosexuals as "heterosexuals" or "straight." Sometimes they may jokingly call us "breeders." But as far as I can see there is no word people are being forced to use, so this baffles me.

Really?? Most people I know refer tom other people by their names. Not their sexual taste. L G B T

Excpet for the T, all refer to sexual taste. It's creepy. Especially those that use the Sappho designation. She was a female pederast.

You do realize that Black people and White people are of the same race right?

Very much so. But this was not apparent from the Biblical worldview. The trial judge in the case that led to Loving vs Virginia (which made interracial marriage legal) said "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Yet, you can disprove his "opinion" FROM the same Gospel and New Testament letters that contends agaunst same gender marriage. There is no justification in Christian reality for two guys to be married. If any one of you anti Christians would care to do the reseach, you would see that the truth I present is validated by Jesus and the writers of the Gospels and NT.

You should be for SECULAR same sex marriage and you should SUPPORT Christians that preach and live Christian reality. And there is no reality of same gender marriage FROM the New Testament. The OP is absurd.

The no-no of interracial marriage had the African-Muslim-European Slave culture to thank for that. Not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is a sex act. Not a ethnic group.

Christians back then would disagree with you.[/quote]

Typical progressive comeback. Abolitionists were Christians. And, although slavery is very much approved and approvable in Christian reality, a "Christian" should treat a "Christian slave" as he/she would a brother in Christ.

Here is a good website of the Bible verses used to justify making interracial marriage illegal.

The Muslim-European-American Slave trade is to blame for the horrors of what happened to Africans sold into slavery by OTHER AFRICANS.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. For example, you can be a vigin homosexual or a virgin heterosexual.

You can be a virgin heterosexual for a much longer time.

Obviosuly we aren't. We are "literally" folowing the teaching of Jesus that marriage is a man and a woman.

The salad theists are the ones that fear being insulted by the godless and the corrupt.

But you ignore the marriage laws of forcing a rapist to marry his victim. Or ignore the marriage law that says a non-virgin bride should be killed before her parents. That is the essence of being a salad bar theist. You pick and choose which laws you want to follow and ignore the rest.

I don't ignore any of the nastiness of the Old Testament. I wonder why anyone would believe the Bible isn't the word of God because of it. What "religion" would come along and say "Hey, we rep the ONLY Ture God and we are special because of that."

And then write that ALL of the major horoes are twisted liars, murders, cheats, adulterers, infidels etc., etc., etc..

Man, they HAD TO BE telling us al what God was telling them to write.

Look at Humanism in comparison. All the signers of the Manifesto are highly respected academics, intellectuals and elites of some kind or another. Leading all mankind into a higher way of life.

Now THAT is creepy.

Why is the sin of homosexuality worse than the sin of sloth or gluttony?

So you are REALLY employing the two-wrongs make a right tactic? Seriously?
All you're doing is proving how wrong gay behavior is.

I am showing that Christians have singled out a single "sin" as something worthy of notice while all the others are ignored.

Really? Reality shows you as either ignorant or selling snake oil. What "sins" are celebrated in a Bible believing Church?

Why that sin? It is more of a question for Christians to ask themselves to see if they understand their own biases.

Have you ever read . . . no, no you more than likely haven't. But anyway, what "sin" is there, that is tied to PRIDE????

Sodomy. Not just the backdoor sex variety, I'm talking about the Ezekiel kind.

HAUHTINESS WAS THEIR SIN . . .

And it still is. I dare say that atheists are an extremely haughty bunch as well.

We don't see Christians kicking fat or lazy people out of church.

We don't see them kicking homosexuals out of the Church either. Last time I looked, no one was cheering on the lazy and the junk-food junkies. Either.

Eight year old boy is kicked out of Catholic school because his parents are gay. Baptist convention kicks out a church that accepts gay parishioners.Gay man talks about his preacher kicking him out of church.

# 1 is wrong. # 2 is very much OK. # 3, I'd have to see what it is the gay guy is doing in the Church. If he is humble, OK. If he is "out and proud" I'd have to say the Preacher should have jsut identified him as a backslidden believer not to be trusted in any way IN the Church. But kicking him out is only for extreme harmfulness that he could do to the body of believers. All of my positions are backed up by the Gospel and letters of the NT.

We don't see preachers calling up members of the church and telling them to stop their slothful, vain, prideful ways or they are out of the church.

We do in several scenarios. But, it's best to highlight these backsliders, relagate them to a pew somewhere, and if they don't accept the authority of the Clergy, OUT they go OF THEIR OWN choosing!

I have to believe that even the most ignorant atheist knows that there are guidelines for what is and what isn't "Christian."

Why would they do that? Food has been dealt with theologicaly and allowed. The gay sex thing stayed bad, bad, bad.

If you like to prove things for yourself, grab a New Testament and find out.

You can easily play the same game. You say something like "The Old Testament had a dietary law. But we have come to understand food well enough that we can ignore that part of the Bible now." You can likewise say, "The Old Testament had simplistic views on relationships because it pushed for population growth and tribalism. But we have a better understanding of relationships now so we can ignore that part of the Bible."

NOPE. You don't have any honest legs to stand on there. The NT deals very succinctly with food. It stays strong on what is and what isn't sexual holiness. Homosexuality is still "out" of Christian purity.

Again, you atheists that do not have a dog in this hunt should be honest enough to say that the anti-gay positions of Bible affirming Christians is nothing BUT honesty and integrity.

The liberal view is the bad theology. Dishonest to the core.

But you, as an atheist, are telling us to celebrate gay-ism? Wierd.

I am saying if you are in for a penny, then you should in for a pound. You already ignore laws on killing gays. Why not ignore the rest?

Jesus doesn't allow for it. As can be seen by an honest approach to it, the Apsostles practiced what Jesus preached. There is no violence connected to the Gospel, or the preaching, teaching and living of it. And, there is no room for gay pride in a Christian life. No more so than selling prostitutes out the back side of the Church because you would be helping a poor woman make a kiving.

SThere is only one kind of "marriage" in the New Testament. Per Jesus. Man and woman.

So why ignore what God said about good marriages in the Old Testament? Looks like moral relativism.

Jesus defined what God had planned for marriage. That men didn't follow God?

Same old historic song and dance.

Why do you atheists blame God for what men do? It's so odd they way you all cling to that absurdity.

If you are for that, then keep going and you will find out that gay marriage is not so horrible.

It's abomination. And abomination isn't horrible to the lost. I never said once that you can't practice abominations to your hearts content. But you should be honest and be able to read well written versions of the New testament that WE Christians cannpt live like non believers, anti believers and pagans. ANYMORE!!!

If that's your logic, then marrying a pig is OK as well. I mean a real pig. The Bible is silent on that as well. And, some STD's came from sex with animals so you can't say it's never been done.

I advocate letting adults find happiness in any union with each other that makes them happy.

OK. Just don't push your beliefs on me and mine! If pigs turn you on, uh, whuh OK. I lived in a dorm once too. Got out the first day I was allowed.

I don't give a super nova if two same gender people want to live their lives together as pals. But to say that we Christians are somehow bigoted or hateful because we oppose that AS Christians . . . that's hate filled.

That is like saying that you don't care if a white and a black are friends, just don't let them marry. And you assume people will not see that as hateful or bigoted.

Christ teaches that there are no "black people and white people." Just people. In fact, Jesus was not black OR white.

But Black Churches are staunchly anti gay marriage. And, have no probloem with inter-racial marriage. You keep leaving that part out.

Per Jesus. The Conservative Preacher. And, many other conservative preachers in the New Testament letters.

Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality. These preachers also tell women to shut up in church and slaves to obey their masters. Why reject some of these and not others?

Jesus was quoted as saying that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
Homosexuality stays wrong, as does murder and adultery. Per Jesus. That canard fails your kind every time you employ it.

Please, now, post what JESUS says a marriage is? AND in context. Jesus was preaching about DIVORCE to a bunch of other religious guys. So, the pro-gay crowd cannot say Jesus was ambiguosu an WHAT a marriage is comprised. Man and woman. No charge of bigotry otr hatred can stick to a Christian that will not support gay aims and goals.

The "one flesh" thing is not about marriage. It is about sex because it is mentioned that a person can become "one flesh" with a prostitute.

OK. You get an A there. Now continue in the truth and agree that a "marriage" is a man and a woman PER JESUS. And, in context.

Say that the Old Testament stuff was just for the Jews and not for Christians.

You seriously do not know that ALL of the "Christians" were once ALL Jews????

I assume you mean before Jesus.

Oooh, good one young padawan. Jesus never heard the word "Christian" this side of the Ascension.

You have proven that ONLY Jews were "believers in Jesus as Messiah (Christ) at one time. But, that bodes very badly for your gay activism. Thoise "Jews" were all orthodox Jews.

But modern Christians tend to see Judiasm as a different religion.

Judaism is a different "religion" than what Moses brought the Israelites. Let's not go there OK?

I have talked to many Christians who believe the Old Testament was rules for Jews while Jesus changed all of that for people who would be Christians.

Not really. It was Peter, Paul and some other Jewish Christians that hammered out what non-Jews should and shouldn't do and believe in. And unfortunately for your gay activism, it doesn't fly even in Gentile-Christian reality either. Per the guidelines written down for those Gentile-Christians.

Are you seriously positing that if you are gay that your digestive track magically becomes sex organs?

Logic and reason are not on your side here.

I am not sure where you don't follow. I am saying that some people are born with a sexual desire for their same gender. You could interpret this passage as saying that people who were not born that way should not have same sex.

Do you have any idea what that does for homosexuals that hit on "straight" people? It makes them even more monstous than anything. And, LGBT's take great insult at your position there anyway. They do not see homosexual as anything wrong. So, everyone is fair game.

And there is nothing magical about the digestive tract being used in sex. It happens as well with heterosexuals all the time.

As unnatural sex acts.

Once again, logic is not on your side.

And again, seriously, you are lecturing a Christian on how to use the New testament on sexual holiness issues? Since the "marriage bed" should be kept undefiled, and the "marriage bed" is immutably a man and a woman, AND homosexual acts are detestable acts . . . well. let's just say that ignorance is not bliss.

I am offering some possibilities for Christians to have their faith and their conscience.

You are asking and demanding, that we not only violate Christian truth, but thsat we celebrate sin and sinners.

That's horrible man.

I see too many Christians bothered by all the homophobia in their religion. These were some of the ways they have found to reconcile this.

That would classify them as backsliders back into the world and its ways. "They" are mentioned in the Gospels and New Testament letters. And not in good terms. I wouldn't follow them either.

Personally, I think religion is a hindrance towards good morality and this is just one example of it.

Perfect example of convoluted atheist ideology.

I also encourage you to keep up the fight along with Fred Phelps, Catholic, Baptist and Mormon churches. I have talked to many deconverted Christians who left because they originally thought Jesus was about love, but they later was told that the religion focuses more on the hate.

That canard and that ploy is useless. Those people that leave the Church to agree with the world are the property of the world and its ways. No True Scotsman says they are an Irishman. And certainly, an Irishman and a Scotsman are recognizeably different.

Why is it, that atheists truly believe that it is OK to demand that Christians live like atheists?

Seems dishonest to me that atheists do this.

[99percentatheism]

Like forcing everyone to call us by our favored sex acts as "gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals" do?

So if someone tells you that she's a lesbian, you think in terms of sex acts?

Duh. Their not talking about the girls night out at the Y. Well, maybe . . .

Wow, that's really an intensely sexual worldview.

You really don't know where the concept of lesbianism comes from?

Sappho's eroticism towards her female students.

I think of who she loves. For all I know, she may have never had sex in her life.

Why does the word love mean anything goes to you secularists?

If someone tells you they're married, do you think they're telling you about their sex life?

C'mon now. Serioulsy? You think that's employing logic? "Marriage" has ALWAYS included sex in the deal.

"Has the marriage been "consumated?"

That's not talking about the couple finishing a game of Chess on their honeymoon.

[micatala]

First off, I should say I am a Christian. I also support legalizing gay marriage, and agree with many of the points and arguments given in the OP. In a country that professes religious freedom, religious rationale for banning gay marriage should not really be relevant.

In addition, the secular reasons sometimes offered for banning gay marriage are either very weak, or are reasons that we would never apply to other groups or individuals, and thus, applying them to gay marriage runs afoul of the concept of equal protection under the law.

Like forcing everyone to call us by our favored sex acts as "gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals" do?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Most GLBT refer to heterosexuals as "heterosexuals" or "straight." Sometimes they may jokingly call us "breeders." But as far as I can see there is no word people are being forced to use, so this baffles me.

Really?? Most people I know refer tom other people by their names. Not their sexual taste. L G B T

Excpet for the T, all refer to sexual taste. It's creepy. Especially those that use the Sappho designation. She was a female pederast.

You do realize that Black people and White people are of the same race right?

Very much so. But this was not apparent from the Biblical worldview. The trial judge in the case that led to Loving vs Virginia (which made interracial marriage legal) said "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Yet, you can disprove his "opinion" FROM the same Gospel and New Testament letters that contends agaunst same gender marriage. There is no justification in Christian reality for two guys to be married. If any one of you anti Christians would care to do the reseach, you would see that the truth I present is validated by Jesus and the writers of the Gospels and NT.

First off, neither the NT or the OT mentions gay marriage per se.

Secondly, as noted above, what the NT or OT does say about homosexuality in general, if anything, should be considered irrelevant with respect to the law.


Finally, while there is not specific endorsement of gay marriage in the Bible, there is most certainly a case that can be made, biblically speaking, that it should be legally allowed, and even that it should not necessarily be considered sinful (which is a separate issue from legality).


The case is as follows:

1. Nearly all, if not all, of the passages that might be construed as applying to homosexuality are in the larger context of idolatry. It is the idolatry that is the major issue, not "gayness."
2. The Bible has many teachings and laws that Christians do not follow. Many of these are in the OT, but not all. Any rationale that a Christian uses for not following, say, dietary or clothing laws arguably can be applied to homosexaulity.
3. The Bible specifically endorses the idea that it is matters of the heart and faith that are essential, not doctrine. In addition, the Bible specifically endorses the notion that what is considered sinful can change over time, and is relative to the person. For an example of the former, see Acts Ch. 15 where it is decided that Gentiles need not follow almost all of the Law of Moses. For the latter, see Romans Ch. 14 where Paul specifically points out that particular acts might be sinful for one believer but not another.


So, yes, one can make a case, based on the Bible, that individual believers, or groups of believers, can consider gay marriage not to be sinful.




But again, if the issue is legality, the sin question is irrelevant.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. For example, you can be a vigin homosexual or a virgin heterosexual.

You can be a virgin heterosexual for a much longer time.

I fail to see the point in this comment, or any evidence for it.

NOPE. You don't have any honest legs to stand on there. The NT deals very succinctly with food. It stays strong on what is and what isn't sexual holiness. Homosexuality is still "out" of Christian purity.

THe NT mentions of "homosexuality" are arguably not about homosexuality per se, and in addition, are in the larger context of idolatry.

Yes, the NT does deal with food, but notice that it takes time and there is some ambiguity. Jesus does say all the law should be upheld. Then, there is a mention in Mark that Jesus declared all food clean. Why the ambuiguity? And why, if Jesus declared all food clean supposedly right in front of the disciples (see the Gospel of Mark), does God have to provide a vision to Peter in order to get that message across? If you read Acts chapter 10, you would think that Peter had never heard that Jesus had decared all foods clean.

Again, you atheists that do not have a dog in this hunt should be honest enough to say that the anti-gay positions of Bible affirming Christians is nothing BUT honesty and integrity.

The liberal view is the bad theology. Dishonest to the core.

Well, I don't consider myself a liberal per se, but I will disagree with this statement. In my view the anti-gay position being promoted here is based on a lot of questionable theological assumptions and a selective and inconsistent reading of the Bible.

SThere is only one kind of "marriage" in the New Testament. Per Jesus. Man and woman.

So why ignore what God said about good marriages in the Old Testament? Looks like moral relativism.

Jesus defined what God had planned for marriage. That men didn't follow God?

Jesus held up one man and one woman as the ideal. This does not mean all other options are forbiddent.

In addition, elsewhere in the NT, specifically in Paul, polygamy is condoned. Paul teaches monogamy is to be recommended for deacons or church elders. Clearly, it is not a requirement for all believers.

If you are for that, then keep going and you will find out that gay marriage is not so horrible.

It's abomination. And abomination isn't horrible to the lost. I never said once that you can't practice abominations to your hearts content. But you should be honest and be able to read well written versions of the New testament that WE Christians cannpt live like non believers, anti believers and pagans. ANYMORE!!!

Eating shellfish or wearing clothes of two different fibers is also an abomination. If you look at the OT law, it is all one law. There is no division anywhere into dietary, ceremonial, moral, etc. If you consider homosexuality an abomination but not eating shellfish, based on the OT, you are being inconsistent.

If that's your logic, then marrying a pig is OK as well. I mean a real pig. The Bible is silent on that as well. And, some STD's came from sex with animals so you can't say it's never been done.

I advocate letting adults find happiness in any union with each other that makes them happy.

OK. Just don't push your beliefs on me and mine! If pigs turn you on, uh, whuh OK. I lived in a dorm once too. Got out the first day I was allowed.

Legalizing gay marriage pushes beliefs on no one. Banning gay marriage does.

Per Jesus. The Conservative Preacher. And, many other conservative preachers in the New Testament letters.

Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality. These preachers also tell women to shut up in church and slaves to obey their masters. Why reject some of these and not others?

Jesus was quoted as saying that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
Homosexuality stays wrong, as does murder and adultery. Per Jesus. That canard fails your kind every time you employ it.

Again, this shows the ambiguity even in Jesus' own words. If Jesus is upholding all the law, that includes the whole thing, all 600 plus ordinances. If you pick some laws but not others, you are arguably being inconsistent and un-Biblical. Except, of course, if you take the larger teachings based on heart and relationship, and abandon the idea that the "lists of rules" are relevant or to be taken as more than advisory.

I have talked to many Christians who believe the Old Testament was rules for Jews while Jesus changed all of that for people who would be Christians.

Not really. It was Peter, Paul and some other Jewish Christians that hammered out what non-Jews should and shouldn't do and believe in. And unfortunately for your gay activism, it doesn't fly even in Gentile-Christian reality either. Per the guidelines written down for those Gentile-Christians.

But, if Peter, James and Paul can change the rules, why not today's Christians?

I see too many Christians bothered by all the homophobia in their religion. These were some of the ways they have found to reconcile this.

That would classify them as backsliders back into the world and its ways. "They" are mentioned in the Gospels and New Testament letters. And not in good terms. I wouldn't follow them either.

This is an un-Biblical statement on your part. See Romans chapter 14. Who are you to judge another man's servant? It is to his own master that he stands or falls?

You are free to practice your faith as you see fit. Biblically speaking, you are not free to decide what Christian faith means for other people.

[Autodidact]

Yet, you can disprove his "opinion" FROM the same Gospel and New Testament letters that contends agaunst same gender marriage.

What there are letters that speak against same-sex marriage? Would you quote the verses, please? I'm not familiar with them.

There is no justification in Christian reality for two guys to be married

. Well, there's not justification for you typing on your computer, but that's no reason why not to do it.

If any one of you anti Christians would care to do the reseach, you would see that the truth I present is validated by Jesus and the writers of the Gospels and NT.

Jesus? Really? Says something about same-sex marriage? What? Please quote it for us.

You should be for SECULAR same sex marriage and you should SUPPORT Christians that preach and live Christian reality. And there is no reality of same gender marriage FROM the New Testament. The OP is absurd.

You keep saying that, but you don't actually make an argument to support it.

The no-no of interracial marriage had the African-Muslim-European Slave culture to thank for that. Not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is a sex act. Not a ethnic group.

And yet American Christians opposed it, based on their understanding of the Bible. Now that secular society overcame their resistance, suddenly it was fine all along. I predict the same course for same-sex marriage.

Christians back then would disagree with you.

Typical progressive comeback. Abolitionists were Christians. And, although slavery is very much approved and approvable in Christian reality, a "Christian" should treat a "Christian slave" as he/she would a brother in Christ.

Some were, some were not. Meanwhile, thousands of other Christians advocated in favor of slavery, citing their Bible all the time. And in reality, thousands of Christian slave-owners beat, sold, raped, chained and abused their slaves, Christian and non.

Here is a good website of the Bible verses used to justify making interracial marriage illegal.

The Muslim-European-American Slave trade is to blame for the horrors of what happened to Africans sold into slavery by OTHER AFRICANS.

What's to blame for the Christians who bought them?

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. For example, you can be a vigin homosexual or a virgin heterosexual.

You can be a virgin heterosexual for a much longer time.

Why would that be? What an odd, not to mention irrelevant, remark.

Obviosuly we aren't. We are "literally" folowing the teaching of Jesus that marriage is a man and a woman.

The salad theists are the ones that fear being insulted by the godless and the corrupt.

Could you quote that teaching please? Thanks.

[Autodidact]

Like forcing everyone to call us by our favored sex acts as "gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals" do?

So if someone tells you that she's a lesbian, you think in terms of sex acts?

Duh. Their not talking about the girls night out at the Y. Well, maybe . . .

Wow, that's really an intensely sexual worldview.

You really don't know where the concept of lesbianism comes from?

Sappho's eroticism towards her female students.

You have a very sexually skewed worldview. When I say that I'm a lesbian, that doesn't even tell you whether I'm having sex at all. All that you know from that statement is that my adult romantic attraction is toward women, much like yours.

I think of who she loves. For all I know, she may have never had sex in her life.

Why does the word love mean anything goes to you secularists?

It doesn't. It means "an emotion of strong affection and personal attachment.[1] Love is also a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection; and "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".[2] Love may also be described as actions towards others or oneself based on compassion, or as actions towards others based on affection. [wiki] And I thought I heard that Jesus was in favor of it." That's pretty much what I mean by the word, and I think it's a good thing, do you?

If someone tells you they're married, do you think they're telling you about their sex life?

C'mon now. Serioulsy? You think that's employing logic? "Marriage" has ALWAYS included sex in the deal.

"Has the marriage been "consumated?"

That's not talking about the couple finishing a game of Chess on their honeymoon.

It usually does, but when someone tells me they got engaged, I don't think, "They're talking to me about their sex life, that's inappropriate." I assume that they express their love for their spouse physically. When someone tells me that they're gay, I assume they have those kinds of feelings for people of the same sex. If heterosexual, then for the opposite sex. The two are exactly parallel.

I guess I'm just not as sexually obsessed as you.

[99percentatheism]

First off, I should say I am a Christian.

So did Adolph Hitler. Just ask the atheists here.

I also support legalizing gay marriage, and agree with many of the points and arguments given in the OP.

As do the atheists that celebrate and champion its anti-Christian morality. You are yoking yourself to not only UN believers, but anti-Christians. And you don't see the evil in that?

In a country that professes religious freedom, religious rationale for banning gay marriage should not really be relevant.

Christians know how hostile the gay movement is to their freedoms. it's no different than voting for communists to take the House and Senate. And in the spritual view, it's even worse. A dog returning to its vomit as Jesus said.

In addition, the secular reasons sometimes offered for banning gay marriage are either very weak, or are reasons that we would never apply to other groups or individuals, and thus, applying them to gay marriage runs afoul of the concept of equal protection under the law.

How is a man "equal" to a woman as being a man's "wife?" You're equating insanity with health.

Like forcing everyone to call us by our favored sex acts as "gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals" do?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Most GLBT refer to heterosexuals as "heterosexuals" or "straight." Sometimes they may jokingly call us "breeders." But as far as I can see there is no word people are being forced to use, so this baffles me.

Really?? Most people I know refer tom other people by their names. Not their sexual taste. L G B T

Excpet for the T, all refer to sexual taste. It's creepy. Especially those that use the Sappho designation. She was a female pederast.

You do realize that Black people and White people are of the same race right?

Very much so. But this was not apparent from the Biblical worldview. The trial judge in the case that led to Loving vs Virginia (which made interracial marriage legal) said "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Yet, you can disprove his "opinion" FROM the same Gospel and New Testament letters that contends agaunst same gender marriage. There is no justification in Christian reality for two guys to be married. If any one of you anti Christians would care to do the reseach, you would see that the truth I present is validated by Jesus and the writers of the Gospels and NT.

First off, neither the NT or the OT mentions gay marriage per se.

It doesn't mention Molech worship either. Are we to allow for burning killing our children for the betterment of their parents? Oh wait, we do. We call abortion on demand.

Secondly, as noted above, what the NT or OT does say about homosexuality in general, if anything, should be considered irrelevant with respect to the law.

Then your position is not just "let the dead the bury the dead," but is: Christians should become onc again yoked to the sinful past they chose to leave behind?

A dog returning to its vomit because of political correctness.

Finally, while there is not specific endorsement of gay marriage in the Bible, there is most certainly a case that can be made, biblically speaking, that it should be legally allowed, and even that it should not necessarily be considered sinful (which is a separate issue from legality).

Whatever the pagans do that is their fate.

You're saying that the lamp Jesus spoke about should be shoved into a dung heap.

The case is as follows:

1. Nearly all, if not all, of the passages that might be construed as applying to homosexuality are in the larger context of idolatry. It is the idolatry that is the major issue, not "gayness."

"Gayness?" Show anything even remotely approving of this 20th century political capaign tactic FROM the Bible.

2. The Bible has many teachings and laws that Christians do not follow.

Good luck on judgment day with that: Two wrongs make a right," theology.

t didn't help Ananias ans Sapphira. I sorry, I won't be attending your Church.

Many of these are in the OT, but not all. Any rationale that a Christian uses for not following, say, dietary or clothing laws arguably can be applied to homosexaulity.

Eating shellfish and wearing a cotten-blend jeans does not seduce others into having sex with you. But once again, you are just proving that homosexuality IS a sn as is the other two SINS you presnt as sins.

Two wrongs make a wrong.

3. The Bible specifically endorses the idea that it is matters of the heart and faith that are essential, not doctrine.

Really? Where? Without fidelity, there is chaos. Just like you see desired in the gay agenda. The atheists here challenge we Christians to accept homosexuality as mocking us. They know corruption causes harm to the Church. In the LGBT theology, the only sin is being against "anything goes,"

In addition, the Bible specifically endorses the notion that what is considered sinful can change over time, and is relative to the person.

So, those "Christian Churches" that do not believe that Jesus ever existed are just as genuine as the original version?

You are litersally saying that popular culture can change truth.

For an example of the former, see Acts Ch. 15 where it is decided that Gentiles need not follow almost all of the Law of Moses. For the latter, see Romans Ch. 14 where Paul specifically points out that particular acts might be sinful for one believer but not another.

Then you will have no problem keeping your gay parishioners as far away from mine as they can get? You should be welcoming of diversity. It is sinful to engage in homosexual acts.

So, yes, one can make a case, based on the Bible, that individual believers, or groups of believers, can consider gay marriage not to be sinful.

OK. And Mormonism is right that Jesus and Satan are brothers and not God and subordinate?

You're advocating the demise of Christian truth. Via, popular culture that however of "If it feels good, do it."

Jesus put limits to licentiousness. As we can see clearly supported by doctrine, by the writers of the New Testament.

But again, if the issue is legality, the sin question is irrelevant.

Not when the movement is to force Christians to allow homosexuals to rule them AS leaders in the Church.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. For example, you can be a vigin homosexual or a virgin heterosexual.

You can be a virgin heterosexual for a much longer time. [/quote]

I fail to see the point in this comment, or any evidence for it.

The promiscuity of homosexual life is historic. The term "turned out" is synonymous to the "outing" process. AIDS should have your eyes open there.

In the documentary: The Most Dangerous Places to be Gay, as the gay reporter was talking to a Pastor in Uganda about the anti-gay movement in that country, which of course he blamed Christians for, when the pastor he spoke with asked him "How many sex partners have you been with?" the guy just chuckled "a lot, I have no idea."

Christian sexuality has no agreement of promiscuity and corruption as part of the lifestyle.

NOPE. You don't have any honest legs to stand on there. The NT deals very succinctly with food. It stays strong on what is and what isn't sexual holiness. Homosexuality is still "out" of Christian purity.

THe NT mentions of "homosexuality" are arguably not about homosexuality per se, and in addition, are in the larger context of idolatry.

Homosexuals are always more about the LGBT movement than the Gospel. Idolatry is one and the same thing as the culture. Look at Peter's letters. They teach about LEAVING the world and its ways, not attaching it to some wierdness called Gay life.

Yes, the NT does deal with food, but notice that it takes time and there is some ambiguity.

Ambiguity? hardly.

Since as you gay activists present, if gay is so OK, and the condemenation of homosexuality is ANYTHING BUT ambigous, there should be much written about a sexual practice so commonplace in Romand and Greek culture. But, what youn have in the NT is Christian sexuality being either celibacy or marriage. And I am not going to dignify same sex marriage with a comparison.

There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" in Christian truth. No matter the date are screams of the popular mob.

Why can't you found your own religion if going to a Church is so important to LGBT's? Why the obsessive need to corrupt Christianity? There are many pagan religions already established, and, as we see with Hollywood movies, you can start a cult over just a novel.

Jesus does say all the law should be upheld. Then, there is a mention in Mark that Jesus declared all food clean. Why the ambuiguity?

That's not "ambiguity." It's is contradiction.

Like trying to be a "good Christian" in a fallen world. It's incredibly difficult. BUT, we don't join with anti-Christians to make them feel warm and fuzzy. WE repent and turn away from sin. Over and over and over again.

Jesus never preaches that we are to become the sinners once again to spread the Gospel. JUST THE OPPOSITE.

And why, if Jesus declared all food clean supposedly right in front of the disciples (see the Gospel of Mark), does God have to provide a vision to Peter in order to get that message across?

Peter??? Serioulsy???

Peter was quite the hard-headed weak individual. THERE is a perfect example of NOT siding with the corrupt world to honor Christ. Peter needed firm affirmation of grace and CHRISTIAN tolerance of diversity.

But then again, notice that Paul teaches about the limits to freedom of actions in that?

You gay activists should learn that your demands that we celebrate sexual sin, sinfulness and sinners, is not very Christian.

If you read Acts chapter 10, you would think that Peter had never heard that Jesus had decared all foods clean.

PETER SAW JESUS TRANSFIGURED. He saw Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah!!! And denied Jesus three times!!!

C'mon man!!

Again, you atheists that do not have a dog in this hunt should be honest enough to say that the anti-gay positions of Bible affirming Christians is nothing BUT honesty and integrity.

The liberal view is the bad theology. Dishonest to the core.

Well, I don't consider myself a liberal per se, but I will disagree with this statement.

Calling your views "liberal" is being generous. You're actually siding with anti-Christians. Look at the posts by these people in this thread. The atheists are championing homosexuality INTO the Church. If there was a shred of intellectulat honesty, you would see Christians being supported that are opposed to homosexuality. But you see the world bashing its way into the Church. That's persecution defined.

In my view the anti-gay position being promoted here is based on a lot of questionable theological assumptions and a selective and inconsistent reading of the Bible.

In your view, there are no questionable theological positions at all. EVERYTHING can be changed by whatever culture comes along and likes their behaviors whatever way they choose.

Jesus is not the same yesterday, today and forever in your view. You just said so.

SThere is only one kind of "marriage" in the New Testament. Per Jesus. Man and woman.

So why ignore what God said about good marriages in the Old Testament? Looks like moral relativism.

Jesus defined what God had planned for marriage. That men didn't follow God?

Jesus held up one man and one woman as the ideal. This does not mean all other options are forbiddent.

Read His words again, IN context. He psoition is FROM THE BEGINNING. There is no ambiguity about what a Godly marriage is to Jesus.

In addition, elsewhere in the NT, specifically in Paul, polygamy is condoned. Paul teaches monogamy is to be recommended for deacons or church elders. Clearly, it is not a requirement for all believers.

Jesus does not mention "wives" he taught that it is wife.

You're back to wrongs making a right. All that absolutely proves is what is wrong.

It's like telling the Judge at your trial: "Hey, they did TOO."

You just admitted to a crime. And, the two wrongs make a right, morality, doesn't even work in kindergarten.

If you are for that, then keep going and you will find out that gay marriage is not so horrible.

It's abomination. And abomination isn't horrible to the lost. I never said once that you can't practice abominations to your hearts content. But you should be honest and be able to read well written versions of the New testament that WE Christians cannpt live like non believers, anti believers and pagans. ANYMORE!!!

Eating shellfish or wearing clothes of two different fibers is also an abomination. If you look at the OT law, it is all one law. There is no division anywhere into dietary, ceremonial, moral, etc. If you consider homosexuality an abomination but not eating shellfish, based on the OT, you are being inconsistent.

You have just proven that homosexuality is an abomination. OT and NT. Now, repent of your sin and move on to other sinners. THAT'S the formula. Unless of course you want it changed per pop culture?

If that's your logic, then marrying a pig is OK as well. I mean a real pig. The Bible is silent on that as well. And, some STD's came from sex with animals so you can't say it's never been done.

I advocate letting adults find happiness in any union with each other that makes them happy.

OK. Just don't push your beliefs on me and mine! If pigs turn you on, uh, whuh OK. I lived in a dorm once too. Got out the first day I was allowed.

Legalizing gay marriage pushes beliefs on no one. Banning gay marriage does.

First off, "gay marriage" has never been legal. So that red herring can either be cooked and eaten or thrown back into the water. Secondly, have I ever presented being involved in the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage?

I'm not invloved with paganism anymore. Let the dead marry the dead. BUT, as a Christian, there are limits to what I can support.

But of course, not in your cultural theology. That can change with whatever fad comes along.

Per Jesus. The Conservative Preacher. And, many other conservative preachers in the New Testament letters.

Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality. These preachers also tell women to shut up in church and slaves to obey their masters. Why reject some of these and not others?

Jesus was quoted as saying that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
Homosexuality stays wrong, as does murder and adultery. Per Jesus. That canard fails your kind every time you employ it.

Not ambiguos. Contradictory. The very behaviors of man is contrary to the nature of holiness. Haven't you ever read the Bible? Lot's of contradictory things in the history of the people in it.

A wobbling train always put back on the track stable through repentance and forgiveness. NOT ACCEPTANCE AND CELEBRATION OF SINFULNESS.

Again, this shows the ambiguity even in Jesus' own words. If Jesus is upholding all the law, that includes the whole thing, all 600 plus ordinances. If you pick some laws but not others, you are arguably being inconsistent and un-Biblical.

Jesus was inconsistent and un-Biblical. The woman caught in the act of adultery SHOULD have been stoned. Well, except for the fact that the people executing her would be jailed by Roman authority. Jesus saved the lives of many people that day.

And TOLD the woman to "Go, and SIN NO MORE."

He didn't legalize adultery. He didn't call for "equality" of adultery and sex within a proper marriage.

Except, of course, if you take the larger teachings based on heart and relationship, and abandon the idea that the "lists of rules" are relevant or to be taken as more than advisory.

The fidelity and holiness of Christian reality will not be suitable for LGBT culture. Look atheir gretest voices for support! Atheists.

But if you want to try some kind of wierd denomination experiement, I cannot stop you. Per Jesus and the Apsotles.

I have talked to many Christians who believe the Old Testament was rules for Jews while Jesus changed all of that for people who would be Christians.

Not really. It was Peter, Paul and some other Jewish Christians that hammered out what non-Jews should and shouldn't do and believe in. And unfortunately for your gay activism, it doesn't fly even in Gentile-Christian reality either. Per the guidelines written down for those Gentile-Christians.

But, if Peter, James and Paul can change the rules, why not today's Christians?

They had limits. Today's culture doesn't.

Good luck with your religion of licentiousness. It will fit in well with the churches of prosperity.

I see too many Christians bothered by all the homophobia in their religion. These were some of the ways they have found to reconcile this.

That would classify them as backsliders back into the world and its ways. "They" are mentioned in the Gospels and New Testament letters. And not in good terms. I wouldn't follow them either.

This is an un-Biblical statement on your part. See Romans chapter 14. Who are you to judge another man's servant? It is to his own master that he stands or falls?

Jesus says "Judge not OR IN THE SAME WAY you judge YOU will be judged."

I'm not celebrating homosexuality. I am not engaging in homosexuality. THIS ISSUE is homosexuality.

You are free to practice your faith as you see fit. Biblically speaking, you are not free to decide what Christian faith means for other people.

Tell that to your atheist and homosexual life-partners will you?

[connermt]

I wrote this paper for school, figured it wouldn't hurt to get outside perspective/discussion on it. Irrelevant note: I am writing this from the perspective of a staunch Christian, I personally don't know what I am.

In Defense of Homosexual Marriage from a Christian Worldview

Legal gay marriage is quickly shot down by Christians, not necessarily due to homophobia, bigotry, or any of the inflammatory words sometimes slung around by staunch gay-rights supporters. But rather, the Bible is clear that gay marriage is wrong. Most Christians believe the necessary extension of this is to be strongly against the legalization of it. However, the purpose of this essay is to demonstrate a Christian may be in favor of the legality of gay marriage while remaining wholly consistent with a fundamental Christian worldview.

For many people, it is very difficult to separate things they wouldn’t do themselves from whether or not something should be legal. Many religious people quickly jump from “my religious text says this is wrong� to “this should be illegal� and fail to see the distinction. The reality of the matter is that there is a huge distinction that many religious people recognize and accept on an intuitive level, but do not rigorously apply the logic on a conscious level and to controversial political matters. For example, a Christian will readily admit the necessary legality of religious freedom for religions other than their own--very few would deny a Hindu the legal right to practice Hinduism. Yet practicing religions other than Christianity is in stark contrast to the Bible. The reality of a fallen world is that not everyone will agree with each other, not everyone is a Christian, and laws must strive to reflect this reality in an unbiased way in order to maintain a civil, free society. When determining if something should be legal, the question is “should others have the right to do this?� and not “would I do this myself?�. Any other way of looking at the law leads to places like the Middle East, where it is illegal and punishable by law to have beliefs that do not line up with the Muslim faith.

So the question is, “should gay people have the right to get married?�. Answering yes or no need not be a religious or moral statement, it is primarily a governmental issue. One can still believe homosexuality is a sin, yet recognize that in a free society, people should be able to do things you don’t agree with. The United States is a free society. So, right away, it appears gay marriage should be legal. However, as most Americans understand, there are limits to freedoms. One cannot simply murder whom they please because America is a free society. If murder was not illegal, there would be societal chaos and absolutely no protection from harm for citizens. Restrictions are in place in order to protect the rights of others. So the next question would be “would legalizing gay marriage infringe upon the rights of others?�. The answer to this question is a simple one, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. It does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Around the time this realization begins to sink in, people begin screaming about the “sanctity of marriage�, polygamy, or even pedophilia. Any straw that can be grasped at is firmly waived in front of the face of Christians, and they are told that if they disagree they are somehow endangering society and violating their faith.

The sanctity of marriage is indeed a very important matter. For Christians, marriage should be about the unification of two people into one flesh, serving and honoring God together. This is a fantastic approach to marriage and one that should be dearly held. However, it again boils down to a fallen world needing to function in a civil manner. Not everybody who marries sees it as a matter that God is involved in. People should have the right to dedicate their lives to each other, and have it recognized by the government, even if they are not Christians. Christians do not claim that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or Jews, or Muslims, or any other faith or lack thereof. Yet, any non-Christian marriage would strictly violate the Christian interpretation of what marriage should be. However, most Christians recognize marriage as a right that people should have--even if their view of it doesn’t directly correlate to those who are marrying. At a governmental level marriage is simply the legal recognition of two individuals dedicating their lives to each other. That’s all it needs to be, and all it should be. Gay people should have all the legal ramification that marriage has for anyone else. The “sanctity of marriage� as an argument against homosexual marriage is abusing a valuable Christian concept and making it a veiled political weapon, taking it places it needn’t go. The absurdity runs deeper, as those same people beating the drum about the sanctity of marriage have no problem with the legality of divorce for non-biblical reasons, which would violate the sanctity of marriage as well. If Christians decide that the Bible is the authority on what should be legal regarding marriage, any non-Christian should be in a “civil union� and any Christian seeking divorce should only be legally allowed it in very extreme circumstances. This line of thinking is, quite obviously, not conducive to a free society and would not work in a fallen world.

The other arguments, that involve issues such as polygamy and pedophilia, are perhaps even weaker. Polygamy is an issue that can apply to heterosexual relationships, and there is no reason to bring it up as an exclusively homosexual-related matter. Polygamy is an entirely different issue with it’s own set of consequences and matters to deal with. Gay marriage is only about the marriage of two gay individuals, and the only people bringing up polygamy are the opponents of gay marriage. Pedophilia marriage as an argument against gay marriage is completely faulty--the obvious fault being that it is not between two consenting adults.

The duty of Christians is not to legislate their beliefs. The Christian Kingdom lies in Heaven, and not this world. This world is fallen, and it is necessary for Christians to recognize that fact and understand that in a fallen world, people will not always agree with Christian ideals. It is their right to deviate from Christian rules and thinking, because without that right--there would be no free will. Legal issues are matters of society at large, and the government--not an issue of which religion it happens to line up with. It is time for Christians to realize that though they may not agree with homosexual relationships, the right should be there--and with that right comes the right to marry, as it does with any other people who wish to. The Christian focus is to glorify God through the Body of Christ, and to bring others to Christ. The Christian duty is not to make anything that does not line up with the Bible illegal.

I don't know of any place in the bible that says "gay marriage is wrong" in that manner. Beyond that, the bible is a book of stories edited together for political purposes veiled in an effort to preach a belief system. It's not a legal binding document.
Gay marriage isn't about making churches agree to this or that, or changing the biblical view of homosexuality, it's about independent gay people wanting equal protection under the law of the land, not biblical law.
Bob and Morty getting married will have no more negative affects on Bill and Mary's marriage than Steve and Brenda's marriage will. Bob and Morty's marriage (should) have no negative impact on the spirituality of Steve, Brenda, Bill, Mary or anyone else other than Bob and Morty. If it does, that's not an issue of Bob or Morty.
For sure there are extremists in every camp, however, the vast majority of pro-gay marriage people aren't interested in changing anyone's religious views by force or by law. This concept is a smoke-screen created by the anti-gay marriage sects.
Unless gay marraige can be shown to be a negative force on society, culture, individual freedoms and religious rights, there's no legitimate reason why it should be kept illegal.
This is only a religious issue because religious people made it a religious issue.

[connermt]

There are extremist in every camp. And it seems those extremists are intent on getting everyone on their side.
Here are the facts of the matter:
1) Most gay people don't give a flying cr*p if a church marries them or not (fact is, there are a lot of christian churches that will marry a gay couple currently). Those that DO care have their own spiritual issues to address, and are in the minority
2) Religion has nothing to do with legal rights, which is the main issue here
3) Gay marriage hasn't and won't destroy society
4) Gay marriage can't, unless you allow it, hinder your faith
5) Chuches marrying couples (gay or straight) have no legal binding related to it
6) Being gay is a personal issue and, if it's a sin, that person will have to answer for it, no one else
7) The majority of pro-gay groups have no "agenda" to force people to like gay people. That is one of the last ditch efforts of the anti-gay groups

I understand why religious people are anti-gay marriage. But most will not openly admit it. Instead, they hid behind scriptures pulled together by "think tanks" and twist legalities.
There is no "protection of marriage" past the groups trying to make gay marriage illegal. If there was a "protection of marriage" movement, divorce would be almost 100% illegal, for starters.
Like ID, the anit-gay marriage people are trying to force their belief system onto the whole legally. That never works. It, many times, does the exact opposite of its design.

[dusk]

Like ID, the anit-gay marriage people are trying to force their belief system onto the whole legally. That never works. It, many times, does the exact opposite of its design.

It did work somewhat. They somehow managed to say that marriage is a religious word and they got a trade mark on it. Therefore it is many countries called legal partnership simple because the politicians found it a compromise that didn't piss off their conservative voters. With religion it has very little to do. Being Anti-Gay is a cultural thing more than a religious and the religions only give an excuse for most of these people. In Russia, in Africa it wasn't the Christians who really are responsible for it, but they are to blame for building on it.