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?

[KCKID]

Even though I believe the entire event is just a fable,

It never fails , first is ( no the Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong , God or Jesus does not oppose it etc... ) and then , if the debate goes on long enough , comes the ( how do you know the Bible is true or , the Bible is a fable etc... ) . Talk about * SIGH * .

Well, I said that I believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a fable. If you can show me archaeological evidence that they ever existed, plus proof that the story contained in the Bible (including Lot's wife having been turned to a pillar of salt ...I mean . . .really!) actually occurred, then I'll obviously change my belief. Incidentally, all of those questions you refer to pertaining to whether or not homosexuality is wrong, where in scripture does God/Jesus oppose homosexuality, how do we know the Bible is true and not a fable, etc. ARE legitimate ones. So, no need to *SIGH* with frustration ...just try to answer the questions that are asked.

[Nickman]

I am arguing that for practical purposes a law is constitutional when the Supreme Court says it is, even if you and I happen to disagree. A law is not unconstitutional just because you or I think it is. You and I can be wrong just as the Supreme Court may be wrong. Nick, what you are arguing is that the Constitution means whatever YOU claim it means. Why is your interpretation superior to mine, or to the Court's?

The only way that an interpretation can be superior is if it is fully in-line with the Constitution and (in this case) doesn't allow one group to take the rights of one's own property.

Back to the issue of interstate commerce and Heart of Atlanta, Jashwell's last post reminded me of another reason why property owners do NOT own their businesses and commercial properties absolutely, and should not:

They do not buy and sell in a vacuum. They are able to conduct business because of the infrastructure the government provides: roadways, public airways, police and fire protection. In other words, they are dependant upon the services of the government, in addition to the Constitution. By their use of the services the government provides, they have made a pact with the government whether they acknowledge it or not.

These services are required by the Constitution from our government and paid by those who use them in the form of taxes. These services are generally owned by the public. The buildings that property owners buy are not a part of those services. They are individually owned property.

I'm sorry Nick, but your opinion of what the Constitution says is not what the Constitution says. You continue to ignore the fact that no one owns property absolutely. We own certain rights in property only, particularly real property.

I suppose if you owned an island in the middle of the Pacific, one that no one else laid a claim on, you might for the moment own it absolutely. Maintaining that right would depend on your ability to defend your ownership right. As soon as another person or country with greater forces at its command decided to take your island, your right to it would go to zero. You may think this criminal or immoral, but that is the history of land. Essentially it comes down to who stole it last.

But, back to the U.S. Without the force of government both in law and in enforcement, your 'right' to your land would be useless. The continued ownership and use of your property depends on the government's willingness to defend your property rights from usurpation from others.

Therefore ultimately your statements: "The buildings that property owners buy are not a part of those services. They are individually owned property," are false in that the right to the property is not absolute, but depends upon the services of the government to to help you enforce your rights in regard to the property. Without the government's help, your 'rights' would be no more valuable than your your ability to defend them with arms.

In short, the idea that one owns property absolutely is a fantasy. It is just an idea that people assume is true, but upon examination is false.

I finally understand your position, but based on our Constitution, property is supposed to be eternal. No one is supposed to be allowed to take it from you by force and that is something that the government is supposed to protect. So, in this understanding of law, property is the right of the owner. Commandeering property is not what the government is supposed to do or allowed to do, unless it is done through compensation and for the public good. Again, a property owner who has not had their property taken from them has full rights to it. That also includes what they do with that property. We can keep going in circles about "if the government or another country takes it" scenarios, but the fact of the matter is that a property owner maintains full rights to their property until such things happen. That includes disallowing customers from their property.

[Danmark]

I finally understand your position, but based on our Constitution, property is supposed to be eternal. No one is supposed to be allowed to take it from you by force and that is something that the government is supposed to protect. So, in this understanding of law, property is the right of the owner. Commandeering property is not what the government is supposed to do or allowed to do, unless it is done through compensation and for the public good. Again, a property owner who has not had their property taken from them has full rights to it. That also includes what they do with that property. We can keep going in circles about "if the government or another country takes it" scenarios, but the fact of the matter is that a property owner maintains full rights to their property until such things happen. That includes disallowing customers from their property.

You mean after all this you still don't understand that the owner of a bank or a grocery or a hotel cannot refuse service because of a patron's race? That is simply a matter of law. If you still maintain that this belief in absolute property rights, I suggest you do two things:
1. Try not paying your property taxes.
2. Go to the largest real estate developer in your area and ask him about all the hoops he had to jump thru and all the permits he had to obtain before he could develop "his" property. And god help him if 'his' property is anywhere near water or in any way could affect the environment, even if it is only in the mind of some bureaucratic 'ABC" agency.

[Nickman]

I finally understand your position, but based on our Constitution, property is supposed to be eternal. No one is supposed to be allowed to take it from you by force and that is something that the government is supposed to protect. So, in this understanding of law, property is the right of the owner. Commandeering property is not what the government is supposed to do or allowed to do, unless it is done through compensation and for the public good. Again, a property owner who has not had their property taken from them has full rights to it. That also includes what they do with that property. We can keep going in circles about "if the government or another country takes it" scenarios, but the fact of the matter is that a property owner maintains full rights to their property until such things happen. That includes disallowing customers from their property.

You mean after all this you still don't understand that the owner of a bank or a grocery or a hotel cannot refuse service because of a patron's race? That is simply a matter of law. If you still maintain that this belief in absolute property rights, I suggest you do two things:
1. Try not paying your property taxes.
2. Go to the largest real estate developer in your area and ask him about all the hoops he had to jump thru and all the permits he had to obtain before he could develop "his" property. And god help him if 'his' property is anywhere near water or in any way could affect the environment, even if it is only in the mind of some bureaucratic 'ABC" agency.

They can't currently, but for over 180 years they could because it was a constitutional right at the behest of the owner. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution grants limited rights to the government and puts the power in the hands of the citizens. Unfortunately, today that weight has shifted into the opposite intent. The government was to be run by the people and for the people. This was a Revolutionary idea (pun intended) compared to governments past. It gave American citizens the rights to own land indefinitely. The laws we have today would be abolished if our founders were still around. Income taxes, property taxes, mandatory healthcare, and numerous other laws were not part of the new world plan that our founders gave us. Collecting rainwater is a crime in many states now. So just because a law is passed, does not mean it is Constitutional. Most of which have been done through corporate greed to force us to rely on their services and not on our own abilities to provide for ourselves. I hate discrimination, but it is a right to do so. According to the constitution prior to 1964, a person held the right to deny service to anyone they wish to deny it to for any reason. Had this been a concern at the origin of our founding document, it would have been addressed. It wasn't, because property rights solve the problem. This sense of entitlement to anything and everything makes people think they have a stake in someone else's property. They don't.

[Danmark]

I finally understand your position, but based on our Constitution, property is supposed to be eternal. No one is supposed to be allowed to take it from you by force and that is something that the government is supposed to protect. So, in this understanding of law, property is the right of the owner. Commandeering property is not what the government is supposed to do or allowed to do, unless it is done through compensation and for the public good. Again, a property owner who has not had their property taken from them has full rights to it. That also includes what they do with that property. We can keep going in circles about "if the government or another country takes it" scenarios, but the fact of the matter is that a property owner maintains full rights to their property until such things happen. That includes disallowing customers from their property.

You mean after all this you still don't understand that the owner of a bank or a grocery or a hotel cannot refuse service because of a patron's race? That is simply a matter of law. If you still maintain that this belief in absolute property rights, I suggest you do two things:
1. Try not paying your property taxes.
2. Go to the largest real estate developer in your area and ask him about all the hoops he had to jump thru and all the permits he had to obtain before he could develop "his" property. And god help him if 'his' property is anywhere near water or in any way could affect the environment, even if it is only in the mind of some bureaucratic 'ABC" agency.

They can't currently, but for over 180 years they could because it was a constitutional right at the behest of the owner. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution grants limited rights to the government and puts the power in the hands of the citizens. Unfortunately, today that weight has shifted into the opposite intent. The government was to be run by the people and for the people. This was a Revolutionary idea (pun intended) compared to governments past. It gave American citizens the rights to own land indefinitely. The laws we have today would be abolished if our founders were still around. Income taxes, property taxes, mandatory healthcare, and numerous other laws were not part of the new world plan that our founders gave us. Collecting rainwater is a crime in many states now. So just because a law is passed, does not mean it is Constitutional. Most of which have been done through corporate greed to force us to rely on their services and not on our own abilities to provide for ourselves. I hate discrimination, but it is a right to do so. According to the constitution prior to 1964, a person held the right to deny service to anyone they wish to deny it to for any reason. Had this been a concern at the origin of our founding document, it would have been addressed. It wasn't, because property rights solve the problem. This sense of entitlement to anything and everything makes people think they have a stake in someone else's property. They don't.

The misunderstanding of the Constitution you speak of comes from the idea that your interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong.
I too have an ideal about what the Constitution means; however, I have been making the pragmatic argument that as of this moment [and for the last 50 years or so] the Constitution means exactly what I have been claiming, from a pragmatic point of view; that is, it means what the courts have ruled and have continued to rule.

Nick, our basic disagreement is that you only admit to your personal ideal of what YOU think the Constitution SHOULD mean. I understand that, but also recognize that at any given time one should at least be aware of how the courts have ruled.

I think your error comes from a religious point of view, as if you were treating the Constitution like you used to treat the Bible or the BoM, that it is some absolute. The problem with this is that what it really does is set the believer up as the final arbiter, AKA God.

My approach to this issue is the same one I'd have if a client came to me for advice. No matter what he told me about what HIS view of the Constitution and what it allows him to do with "his" property, my duty would be to tell him what the Court will most likely rule based on current case law. That opinion would have nothing to do with what either he or I thought the Constitution means or should mean.

[no1special]

[Replying to post 107 by Goat]

Can you show where Jesus said anything at all about Gay marriage or not gay marriage? I am not talking about the mistranlations and out of context quotes about 'men laying with men' in Leviticus either.. but words specifically attributed to Jesus.

No and He does not have to . He defines marriage as between a man and a woman .

[no1special]

[Replying to post 109 by KCKID]

That quote from Jesus has NOTHING to do with homosexuality but is merely Jesus' response to a question asked of Him about divorce.

No , it just defines marriage as between a man and a woman not between consenting adults . If you do not care about what the Bible says why do you debate it ?

[no1special]

[Replying to post 108 by KCKID]

I’m really not interested in playing this game of whether or not Jesus would approve or not approve of gay marriage.

Proves my point in post #106 .

[no1special]

[Replying to post 110 by KCKID]

just try to answer the questions that are asked.

You mean like you answered my last question in your post #108 ?

[no1special]

[Replying to post 110 by KCKID]

So, no need to *SIGH* with frustration

NO ? Read your first answer in your post # 103 .