I Am Pro Gay Marriage Because I Am A Christian

After reading a thread which put the gay marriage debate into high gear, I decided to write this thread as the original seemed to be lacking in many areas that needed to be addressed. Here is the link to it, please read at your leisure:

An Appeal to Christians on Homosexuality

Okay, here’s the deal guys, what were are debating here is not the moral issue of homosexuality. What we are debating is the legal issue of whether or not gays should be allowed the cohabitation benefits that a marriage certificate provides. We talked about civil union contracts replacing the state marriage certificate. I don’t think that this would be an unreasonable thing to ask for, do you?

The institution of marriage is not something that the state has the authority to ordain, nor does it need to. When my wife and I exchanged vows, we did so in a church before God. I could care less what the state thinks about love or relationships, it is not the guiding light of our joint spiritual journey, God is. But as I have already pointed out, many other marriages that are recognized by the state are not ordained by God. So what the state essentially recognizes when it issues a marriage license is formal cohabitation which comes with certain benefits. Whether or not a marriage is blessed by God is not my concern, nor is it the state’s.

Because my family enjoys the cohabitation benefits that a marriage certificate provides, and because I do not feel that I have authority to judge and punish another man for his sexual preferences, as they only affect the adult consenting parties involved and do not distract from any other outside interest, I feel that they have as much right to these benefits as the atheist couple that receive them. The state recognizes every other type of marriage and rewards them with those benefits even though they do no serve our God, are not righteous by his laws, and do not vow before him to be faithful to only their spouse. Why not include the gays too? Well, because you say it is wrong and we should not reward sinful behavior. This is where I say that you are wrong.

God has not called upon me to punish the wicked for their sins against Him. My God is greater and wiser than I am. He knows every mans heart and in his grand design he has put in place natural and spiritual laws that enforce themselves. Those who sin are punished by God without the help of man. If a man does evil deeds, his deeds will bring him evil as his reward, but should we be the ones to punish him or take away his free will to do evil unto himself? God has not called on me to do so. What punishment has God given them you may ask? Look at the rampant AIDS epidemic that has swept the gay community. Look at the way they are treated as social outcast. Think of the sadness that they carry in living without children to love as their own.

Oh yes they are punished, not by mans laws, but by His.

But if punishment is not ours to deal, then why do we forsake Jesus’ second commandment? The way that I see it is that we are privileged to be born in a time and place where our religious beliefs are held as the standard for morality, whereas this has not always been the case. Have the righteous not been persecuted for their faith? Now we are not but, we still must do as Jesus taught us. We must do unto others as we would have done to us. If we lived in a society where heterosexuality was shunned, I still would be heterosexual. And if the gays had rights and privileges given by the government that I was denied because of my sexuality or moral beliefs, I would be unhappy. So I say give them the benefits, let them have their civil union and let the Lord bestow his punishment upon them if indeed they are wicked.

Let us render unto Uncle Sam the things which are his, and those things are taxes and the power to decide civil policies, but not the power to dictate moral law. And we will render unto God what is His, which is our hearts, our souls, and our minds which are given by our own free will. We give these because we have faith in his goodness and supreme righteousness, not because the law makes it hard to live any other way.

If a man is righteous because he is forced to be by law, he is not truly righteous. Only through submission to God’s will by our own accord are we truly righteous.

If we deny civil union benefits to those who we believe are immoral while our moral code is standard but would see it as an injustice if we were persecuted, what integrity could we claim?

Good for you....

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

reply to post by vocalyolk


Reread the post, there is no debate on the biblical stance on the issue of immorallity in homosexuality

I believe that marriage is a religious issue. It should never have been involved with government legislation in the first place. Therefore I believe marriage licences are absurd and unconstitutional.

I believe in the liberty of people to make their own religious choices as long as they are respecting the liberty of other peoples.

This is all I ask from society. Respect for Liberty.

I believe this is an illegitimate issue for these reasons. It is not my business what other people's religious beliefs are.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by vocalyolk

 

Reread the post, there is no debate on the biblical stance on the issue of immorallity in homosexuality

What I believe is the true immorality here is the actions of Government in relation to telling us all how to live. And then instituting a system of contracts and licences in order for me to "certify" that my wife and myself are bonded through our hearts.

I find all of this highly immoral and totally against the Foundation of our Constitutional Protections.

And if people think they need lower taxes and seek marriage for this reasoning well, the government shouldn't be taxing us in the first place in this manner to begin with.

Eliminate the taxes and the regulations. Mind our own business, problem solved.

reply to post by muzzleflash


It is an issue of equality, not morallity. I agree that the state has no bussiness being involved, but it is for the legal reasons that arise with marriage, like next of kin status.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

It is an issue of equality, not morallity. I agree that the state has no bussiness being involved, but it is for the legal reasons that arise with marriage, like next of kin status.

Why cannot people utilize their religious organizations to mediate for them if indeed such issues are the core reasoning behind this?

If they believe in such organizations and are beholden to them, I don't see any problem with internal mediation practices in relation to these types of issues.

I admit I don't know all the specifics on this but I am pretty certain that there are alternatives that would be much more promotional of personal liberty than our current paradigm.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


yeah i really don't like how close minded many so-called christians are. christianity is about love and acceptance not ignorance and bigotry. makes me sick!

but no... must spread love vibes

reply to post by muzzleflash


there are, but lets deal with things one step at a time... what you said about restoring liberties and abolishing taxes is much more unattainable than just changing social policy. lets not restrain others by tyying those to issues together.

one we could easily change now, the other will take alot of hard work over a long period of time, reallistically speaking, of course.

Please don't forget that the Bible also says you can be put to death for picking up sticks on a Saturday. So yeah, lets not use the Bible to make laws in our society.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


God's law 101:
"You shall not lie with another man, as you would a woman", and although God calls for these people to be put to death, i don't have the heart to do it. I'm perfectly fine to just leave em be and let God sort this mess out. I don't care what you do, i just don't want to see you do it! Not in my presence because i puke rather easily.

Originally posted by zerotime
Please don't forget that the Bible also says you can be put to death for picking up sticks on a Saturday. So yeah, lets not use the Bible to make laws in our society.

Yeah but how many christians know that the Sabbath is actually saturday and not sunday? Not very many. Ah those damned Romans and their tinkering with the Lord's adopted children and his teachings.

Originally posted by zerotime
Please don't forget that the Bible also says you can be put to death for picking up sticks on a Saturday. So yeah, lets not use the Bible to make laws in our society.

So is this where the term "faggotry" came from?

I Am Anti Gay Marriage Because I Am A Christian! The judgement upon Sodom was an example! Shall it take another to open blind eye's?

Homosexual behavior is worse behavior than that of animals. Even animals know better. God did not make the anus of a man for another man to put his penis in. And God did not make the tongue for a woman to lick another woman. My God! know wonder Sodom burned!

Wake up! The next judgement will not be by a flood! IT WILL BE BY FIRE!

God loves the homosexual! God hates the sin! Repent while there is yet time! Be not deceived! God is not mocked!

Talk your way into believeing what you want. Choose life!

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


Gay people are going to be gay whether or not the government has any say so or not. Actually there are still sodomy laws, but those are by city and town ordinances. We just don't see people charged on them today. They were back in the 1960s and prior.

If a gay person decides to have a civil union within the county they reside then let the discussion be taken up at that level. The Federal government does not issue marriages and marriage in this country is a privilege, but not a right. There are no Constitutional laws that say the Federal government issues marriage licenses anyway. If we want to take this to the Federal level, then that means the Federal government will be issuing the licenses. That happened in communist Russia.

If we want the Federal government to issue licenses then the government has the ability to say who we should marry. I think the only other marriage debate brought up to the Federal government at the Supreme Court level was Loving Vs. The State of Virginia, in which a white man and black woman were married against the law of Virginia. That marriage was also deemed inappropriate by many clergy as well.

But we have to ask ourselves this, where would the line be drawn? What if adults wanted to marry infants? They use the same arguments of "It's our business" and "Who are you to decide for us what love is?"

I believe the question posted here is if the government should allow gay marriage through Constitutional protection. The Federal government does not issue marriage licenses, so no. Actually marriage is defined as a religious rite, and we want separation of church and state.

So the Federal government cannot perform religious rites, but through civil unions, those are done at the county level but recognized by the state in which you live.If a majority of the people within a state do not like the laws of their state, either they change them or move away.

But that being said, marriage is a privilege not a right. Do we have moral rights in the Constitution? If we do, then we allow the Federal government to define what those moral rights are. So we have the right to have abortions, and yet the Federal government is not paying for those abortions and neither does it pay the doctors who perform those abortions. Those are also licensed by the state in which the doctor practices.

And marriage itself is the religious rite, everyone who is married has done so through the civil union process as well as the religion of choice. So all married people are in civil unions anyway because they all had to get a state issued license. Getting married at the courthouse carries the same legal weight as being married in a church. So are they really wanting their marriage to be recognized by clergy? Should the Federal government say what clergy should perform the rites?

reply to post by Cor Leonis


No one has asked you to engage in homosexual activities! READ THE OP!!! Will God destroy you because you live in a world where homosexuallity exist? No, you will not be damned for the sins of others. The issue is not morallity of homosexuals, the issue is the integrity of our christian government.

"Christian government"... what an oxymoron that phrase is when you really think about it.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by TheThirdAdam

 

Gay people are going to be gay whether or not the government has any say so or not. Actually there are still sodomy laws, but those are by city and town ordinances. We just don't see people charged on them today. They were back in the 1960s and prior.

If a gay person decides to have a civil union within the county they reside then let the discussion be taken up at that level. The Federal government does not issue marriages and marriage in this country is a privilege, but not a right. There are no Constitutional laws that say the Federal government issues marriage licenses anyway. If we want to take this to the Federal level, then that means the Federal government will be issuing the licenses. That happened in communist Russia.

If we want the Federal government to issue licenses then the government has the ability to say who we should marry. I think the only other marriage debate brought up to the Federal government at the Supreme Court level was Loving Vs. The State of Virginia, in which a white man and black woman were married against the law of Virginia. That marriage was also deemed inappropriate by many clergy as well.

Could you please quote me as saying the words "federal government" in my OP? I know that I used the word "state" quite a few times, but I don't believe I even mentioned the federal government, but I digress.

But we have to ask ourselves this, where would the line be drawn? What if adults wanted to marry infants? They use the same arguments of "It's our business" and "Who are you to decide for us what love is?"

You really went there? Umm... How about laws that protect against coersion, the illegallity of minors to enter into binding contracts, or I think that I remember reading something about some crazy law against SEX WITH MINORS!

I believe the question posted here is if the government should allow gay marriage through Constitutional protection. The Federal government does not issue marriage licenses, so no. Actually marriage is defined as a religious rite, and we want separation of church and state.

So the Federal government cannot perform religious rites, but through civil unions, those are done at the county level but recognized by the state in which you live.If a majority of the people within a state do not like the laws of their state, either they change them or move away.

I am 100% in favor of restoring power to the states, but when did I say anything about the federal government?

But that being said, marriage is a privilege not a right. Do we have moral rights in the Constitution? If we do, then we allow the Federal government to define what those moral rights are. So we have the right to have abortions, and yet the Federal government is not paying for those abortions and neither does it pay the doctors who perform those abortions. Those are also licensed by the state in which the doctor practices.

Umm... I believe I do have a constitutional right to enter into contract with another person of my choosing as long as the other party is of legal consenting age. Once again, not a moral issue, but civil. You are right, when you say that marriage (in terms of love and devotion) is a religious rite. A wedding is a religious event, to be taken seriously, I might add. But the marriage certificate is a legal partnership contract with no religious meaning whatsoever. Gays can have a wedding and exchange vows, there is no law against that. So what is this about then? The fact that every other domestic partnership is recognized except gay marriage.

And marriage itself is the religious rite, everyone who is married has done so through the civil union process as well as the religion of choice. So all married people are in civil unions anyway because they all had to get a state issued license. Getting married at the courthouse carries the same legal weight as being married in a church. So are they really wanting their marriage to be recognized by clergy? Should the Federal government say what clergy should perform the rites?

Yes you are right, the government has no say in what goes on between two people on an intimate level, but a marriage certificate is a LEGAL PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT!

Edit to add:

Think about it this way:

Lets take sex out of the equation, because it is already being had within the law. Then take out ceremonial act of gay marriage, because this too is being done legally. Also take morality out of the equation because the law does not mandate moral sexual between consenting adults.

What is left is the partnership agreement that is recognized by non-domestic institutions such as banks, hospitals, insurance companies, and well you get the point. How many times has your spouse used your partnership agreement in order to act as a proxy on your behalf?

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" -Matthew 7:21;23

Just because you say you are a Christian doesn't mean you are truly one. You come off as a cultural Christian. You ignore theology and what the scripture teaches. You want a feel good Christianity which is a false Christianity.