Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

Long Term Louth

drifting wrote: »

Bad habits that don't necessarily violate the cardinal rules of morality. The Levitical law had a sliding scale of punishments for moral wickedness, just as modern criminal law.


The law of Moses, which, in fact, formed the de facto moral standard for all European and North American legal systems until the latter part of the 20th century.


Not all. John the apostle says in 1 John that there are some sins that lead to death. Others can be prayed over and forgiven. The sin of Christ rejection cannot be forgiven.




Those who believe in Christ.


Homosexuality is incompatible with belief, as it at the top of the scale of moral wickedness. Homosexuals cannot believe, unless they repent.


It is the place of law to create a society where people may believe. Homosexuality is heavily geared towards permitting the corruption of youth, but it is by no means the only repugnant social sin permitted under law. In fact the whole of society these days is geared towards the promotion of hedonistic pleasures. This is why so few believe.

Who places homsexuality at the summit of moral wickedness?

alex73

From a Cristian point of view to make it 100% cystal clear. It is not a sin to be homosexual. Its not a sin in any church or even for a Muslim.

The sticky points are about the acts. So if homosexual acts are regarded as a sin then what what is the point of considering a union of the men in the name of a marriage.

A gay couple will never get their union blessed in a catholic Church.

Zombrex

drifting wrote: »

Bad habits that don't necessarily violate the cardinal rules of morality. The Levitical law had a sliding scale of punishments for moral wickedness, just as modern criminal law.

It had a sliding scale of punishment but that has all been replaced in Christianity hasn't it? Now the punishment is hell for everyone, isn't it?

drifting wrote: »

The law of Moses, which, in fact, formed the de facto moral standard for all European and North American legal systems until the latter part of the 20th century.

Which apply only to Jews, included punishment for having mildew in your house and eating shellfish, regulated slavery and were nullified for Christians and Gentiles in the New Testament

Do you seriously still use these laws as a guide for what modern society should allow?

Are we to out law people who curse their parents, a crime also punishable by death in the Old Testament?

drifting wrote: »

Not all. John the apostle says in 1 John that there are some sins that lead to death. Others can be prayed over and forgiven. The sin of Christ rejection cannot be forgiven.

Forgiveness of a sin does not mean the sin did not warrant hell though, correct? It means the sin has been forgiven through Christ.

Isn't there only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31-32)

drifting wrote: »

Those who believe in Christ.

They still deserve spiritual death. They have been forgiven their sins, it isn't the same as saying that their sins were not bad enough to desire punishment.

Salvation is a gift, it is not something you deserve (Romans 3:23 & Romans 6:23)

drifting wrote: »

Homosexuality is incompatible with belief, as it at the top of the scale of moral wickedness. Homosexuals cannot believe, unless they repent.

What does that have to do with outlawing homosexuality? A person who has not accepted the gift of salvation is destined to go to hell even if they never carried out a homosexual act.

And you can't mandate through law that someone accept the gift. It has to be a free choice.

Homosexuality is no more deserving of hell than any other sin. According to Christian teaching all of us have sinned, all of us deserve hell. The degree we deserve hell is some what irrelevant to this.

drifting wrote: »

It is the place of law to create a society where people may believe. Homosexuality is heavily geared towards permitting the corruption of youth, but it is by no means the only repugnant social sin permitted under law. In fact the whole of society these days is geared towards the promotion of hedonistic pleasures. This is why so few believe.

And what does the law have to do with this? You can out law as many practices you like, you still can't make someone accept the gift of salvation, and thus everyone who doesn't is destined for hell.

You can't regulate people's minds and we all sin everyday.

drifting

Wicknight wrote: »

It had a sliding scale of punishment but that has all been replaced in Christianity hasn't it? Now the punishment is hell for everyone, isn't it?

This is a common misconception. The punishment for disobedience to the law was physical death, not hell, which is spiritual death. Spiritual death requires more than mere disobedience to the law, it requires rebellion against God.

Which apply only to Jews, included punishment for having mildew in your house and eating shellfish, regulated slavery and were nullified for Christians and Gentiles in the New Testament

Do you seriously still use these laws as a guide for what modern society should allow?

Paul distinguishes the "rudiments" that have passed away, which are the do nots, from the spiritual law. Christ himself imbued law with grades of importance, thus he said charity was more important than tithing, and loving God with all your heart and mind and soul, and loving your neighbour as yourself the most important.

Are we to out law people who curse their parents, a crime also punishable by death in the Old Testament?

Modern law is made by man for man. It is a product of modern society, and bear no necessary relation to divine law.

Forgiveness of a sin does not mean the sin did not warrant hell though, correct? It means the sin has been forgiven through Christ.

Not all sin warrants hell, i.e. spiritual death, but all sin warrants physical death. That is why the flesh remains cursed.

Isn't there only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31-32)

I suppose so, but this encompasses all forms of wilful rebellion against God.

They still deserve spiritual death. They have been forgiven their sins, it isn't the same as saying that their sins were not bad enough to desire punishment.

Not all sin warrants spiritual death, as sins may be atoned for even in this life. Therefore, if a parent is harsh with their child, it does not warrant spiritual death, because of the love of the parent for the child. The bible says that love covers over many sins. It is possible to atone for sin in this life and so avoid spiritual death. Christ died to help those who were incapable of atoning for their own sin. That is why he said that he had come to call not good men but sinners.

Salvation is a gift, it is not something you deserve (Romans 3:23 & Romans 6:23)

True, but consider than men like Cornelius found it far easier to come to Christ than men like Simon Magus. The gift is easier to accept for the righteous, and many sinners never accept it. How many homosexuals repent? Not many, it seems.

What does that have to do with outlawing homosexuality? A person who has not accepted the gift of salvation is destined to go to hell even if they never carried out a homosexual act.

Many people are corrupted from virtue by sinners. A main purpose of outlawing homosexuality would be to save the young from being corrupted, not the already corrupt from corrupting themselves further.

And you can't mandate through law that someone accept the gift. It has to be a free choice.

But you can make the choice much easier by outlawing the most heinous of sinful acts, thereby making the gift much easier to accept than it otherwise would be if one was corrupted by sin. To be saved by being pulled from the fire is not an ideal way to be saved:

"And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." Jude 1:23

Homosexuality is no more deserving of hell than any other sin. According to Christian teaching all of us have sinned, all of us deserve hell. The degree we deserve hell is some what irrelevant to this.

That is a fallacy and is not true. To pretend that all sins are equivalent is a major heresy. The law says that they are not, and not all sins warrant hell, even if they warrant physical death.

And what does the law have to do with this? You can out law as many practices you like, you still can't make someone accept the gift of salvation, and thus everyone who doesn't is destined for hell.

You can't regulate people's minds and we all sin everyday.

The greater the prevalence of sin, the greater the prevalence of unregenerate sinners. Jesus said that in the last days the faith of many will grow cold because of sin. To allow sin is to court the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrha which, as the bible points out, is the ultimate destination for the world.

Ush1

Just a question on threads of this nature in here.

The forum charter says this:

3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.

Surely what is being talked about here encompasses this?

Fanny Cradock

Do you mean the entire thread or specific posts?

Ush1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you mean the entire thread or specific posts?

The fact people are openly saying homosexuality is wrong.

Fanny Cradock

People say things I don't agree with all the time. Do you suppose I should make them stop because I don't like their opinion?

I haven't yet had a chance to read the last page or so of this thread, but if there is anything that you find particularly offensive, please use the report function.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

The fact people are openly saying homosexuality is wrong.

Moderating Note:

If you think a post is in breach of the Forum Charter then please use the Report Post button rather than complaining inthread.

(And, in this case, I'll probably ignore the report since the complaint is without merit).

Ush1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

People say things I don't agree with all the time. Do you suppose I should make them stop because I don't like their opinion?

I haven't yet had a chance to read the last page or so of this thread, but if there is anything that you find particularly offensive, please use the report function.

Erm, I didn't write the charter. Didn't say I was offended either.

If saying homosexuality is wrong, which is bigotry, does not violate the charter tell me what does?

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

Moderating Note:

If you think a post is in breach of the Forum Charter then please use the Report Post button rather than complaining inthread.

(And, in this case, I'll probably ignore the report since the complaint is without merit).

Okay, will it be explained to me why it is without merit exactly?

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

Erm, I didn't write the charter. Didn't say I was offended either.

If saying homosexuality is wrong, which is bigotry, does not violate the charter tell me what does?

For the last time, if you have a problem with a post then use the report post button.

If you have a problem with the moderating then communicate with the Mods by PM and, if that does not resolve things to your satisfaction, then use the Helpdesk. Discussing it inthread is backseat modding, which is a serious no-no across the entire boards.ie site.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

No, because homosexual 'marriage' in my view, denies the fundamental basis of what constitutes marriage - therefore redefining the word 'marriage'. My consistent position is that, if such a redefinition takes place, then Christians should drop the word altogether and put clear blue water between what the biblical permanent joining of a man and woman as one flesh and an unrelated temporary civic contract between two or more individuals of any gender.

In other words, I am content for us to use the term 'marriage' in churches and for the State to recognise same-sex unions that are called something else.

I can live with the State calling same-sex unions 'marriage' if we in the Church call our husband/wife unions something else.

I am not prepared to go along with a situation where we all use the same word (marriage) and thereby pretend that same-sex unions conducted by the State are the same thing as husband/wife unions that we conduct in Church.

So, you may or may not agree with my position, but I think it is consistent.

You might have missed this from much earlier..

antiskeptic wrote:

Spot on PDN. That takes care of things from a Chrisian perspective. But what are your view on things from a social-change perspective: assuming that gay marriage represents a thicker section of the wedge than previously. You may have a view on the rights of children to be brought up by their biological parents being structurally dissolved. Or polygamous marriages having a detrimental effect on society. Would you see it as your place to defend societies structures in a way you consider healthy - or is it a case of simply letting the World have at it

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might have missed this from much earlier..

Yes, I had missed it. I think we should do all we can to promote healthy models of marriage within our society, but by reason and peaceful persuasion rather than by legislation. Also, if we expect unbelievers to listen to us, we need to present better reasons than "because the Bible says so".

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I had missed it. I think we should do all we can to promote healthy models of marriage within our society, but by reason and peaceful persuasion rather than by legislation.

Why not by legislation? If you were of the opinion that society would be better served by x form of marriage and not by y then why not work towards having legislation ensure so. Surely it's everybodies democratic right/duty to attempt to form the society that they think is best for everyone (recognising that you can't please all of the people all of the time)

Also, if we expect unbelievers to listen to us, we need to present better reasons than "because the Bible says so".

Agreed.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why not by legislation? If you were of the opinion that society would be better served by x form of marriage and not by y then why not work towards having legislation ensure so. Surely it's everybodies democratic right/duty to attempt to form the society that they think is best for everyone (recognising that you can't please all of the people all of the time)

Because, once again, people have the right to do stupid things, even when I think society would be better without those things.

I think society would be better if nobody read the Daily Star, if nobody voted for Sinn Fein, and if there were no X-Factor type reality shows on TV. But I think that a society that used legislation to ban those things would not be a better society.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Because, once again, people have the right to do stupid things, even when I think society would be better without those things.

I think society would be better if nobody read the Daily Star, if nobody voted for Sinn Fein, and if there were no X-Factor type reality shows on TV. But I think that a society that used legislation to ban those things would not be a better society.

How do you draw the line between those things and things such as wearing seatbelts, using illicit drugs and the like - I'm assuming you agree these should be legislated for?

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you draw the line between those things and things such as wearing seatbelts, using illicit drugs and the like - I'm assuming you agree these should be legislated for?

Drawing the line is always the problem, isn't it? We tend to draw the line when it comes to people causing serious physical harm to themselves or to others.

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you draw the line between those things and things such as wearing seatbelts, using illicit drugs and the like - I'm assuming you agree these should be legislated for?

Wearing a seat belt is common sense and protects the person from death. Same as using illegal drugs. Where not only is it possible to kill yourself but behind a vehicle you have the ability to kill someone else as well.

Vinny-Chase

PDN wrote: »

Drawing the line is always the problem, isn't it? We tend to draw the line when it comes to people causing serious physical harm to themselves or to others.

Same point as my post at the same time.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Drawing the line is always the problem, isn't it? We tend to draw the line when it comes to people causing serious physical harm to themselves or to others.

A crude example granted.

Consider then, something like the "watershed hour" on TV - before which time language, nudity and violence are somewhat restrained in the degree to which they can be shown. No threat to life, but children are being protected all the same. Now suppose you were to consider gay marriage as further dissolving the (less-than-perfect) protection given to children by the States promotion and protection of marriage, would it not be desirable to attempt to legislate against that dissolution?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why not by legislation? If you were of the opinion that society would be better served by x form of marriage and not by y then why not work towards having legislation ensure so. Surely it's everybodies democratic right/duty to attempt to form the society that they think is best for everyone (recognising that you can't please all of the people all of the time)

There have been campaigns against civil unions highlighting why it should not be legal even in a secular society. The people behind these campaigns argue that civil unions would erode the protection of children, and ultimately damage society. But once they move from religious belief to secular ethics, they leave themselves open to rebuttal, and they have not fared well. There is no real argument for the negative effects of civil unions that doesn't explicitly depend on religious belief.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

A crude example granted.

Consider then, something like the "watershed hour" on TV - before which time language, nudity and violence are somewhat restrained in the degree to which they can be shown. No threat to life, but children are being protected all the same. Now suppose you were to consider gay marriage as further dissolving the (less-than-perfect) protection given to children by the States promotion and protection of marriage, would it not be desirable to attempt to legislate against that dissolution?

I honestly see the homosexual marriage thing as a bit of a nothing now. It seems that the arguement against homosexual marriage is a pretty semantical one. If one see's homosexuality as sinful or wrong, and that its normalisation is bad for society, then I would be of the opinion that the boat has sailed on it. Homosexuality has already been normalised, and if its thought of as normal, natural etc etc, then its not long before one has to conclude that homosexuals should be entitled to marry each other if they so wish. The child adoption thing is a little more complex, but I am in no doubt that it will come to be that this will be accepted in time. I think its a natural progression.

philologos

JimiTime, what is your take on it though, even if the larger society may affirm something doesn't mean that you of necessity are going to share their opinion surely?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

JimiTime, what is your take on it though, even if the larger society may affirm something doesn't mean that you of necessity are going to share their opinion surely?

Indeed. I'm merely saying that if you believe homosexuality is wrong and its normalisation is bad for society etc, then that horse has already bolted. The marriage issue etc is probably an inevitable consaquence of the initial decriminalising and acceptance of it.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

There have been campaigns against civil unions highlighting why it should not be legal even in a secular society. The people behind these campaigns argue that civil unions would erode the protection of children, and ultimately damage society. But once they move from religious belief to secular ethics, they leave themselves open to rebuttal, and they have not fared well. There is no real argument for the negative effects of civil unions that doesn't explicitly depend on religious belief.

I imagine rebuttal of the religious position is easiest of all: "I don't believe in God".

I'm not sure that my secular position would rely on ethics. Rather, I see child welfare eroded by structural State support for non-ideal (for children) family units such a gay marriages. The State might as well encourage single parenthood.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

I honestly see the homosexual marriage thing as a bit of a nothing now. It seems that the arguement against homosexual marriage is a pretty semantical one. If one see's homosexuality as sinful or wrong, and that its normalisation is bad for society, then I would be of the opinion that the boat has sailed on it. Homosexuality has already been normalised, and if its thought of as normal, natural etc etc, then its not long before one has to conclude that homosexuals should be entitled to marry each other if they so wish. The child adoption thing is a little more complex, but I am in no doubt that it will come to be that this will be accepted in time. I think its a natural progression.

The question is whether you throw your hands up (figuratively speaking) or whether you attempt to call a halt at whatever point in history you live at.

My point is that there is no point playing the biblical card to a secular society. Rather, play the secular card eg: child welfare to a secular society.

wonderfulname

There are two different forms of marriage in Ireland, civil and religious. As the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in our constitution there will never be such thing as a same sex marriage taking place in a church, or such a thing as the church or its followers being forced to recognise it. As such the issue of gay marriage is a civil one, if it ever comes to it there will be a referendum and you may voice your opinions, but what opinion that is does not fall into the two camps outlined, it falls into the camps of;

1) Christians who isolate verses such as Leviticus 18:22 out of context (both cultural and written) so as to support their personal views

2) Christians who understand that their religion promotes equality of all peoples regardless of colour, creed, sex or sexuality

"Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?"

Christianity, at its core, does not spout some of the saddening viewpoints seen here, it is about justice, equality and redemption, regardless of personal opinion being a good Christian should mean doing what one can to ease the suffering of others, and believe it or not there is suffering in a life where you are viewed as less than equal.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether you throw your hands up (figuratively speaking) or whether you attempt to call a halt at whatever point in history you live at.

Depends what you mean by halt?

My point is that there is no point playing the biblical card to a secular society. Rather, play the secular card eg: child welfare to a secular society.

I disagree. Be honest. Play the societal cards, and also the Godly ones if thats what has informed your opinions.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

"Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?"

Yes, we do have one Father, but what does that mean? Do we willingly disobey Him, or do we seek to follow Him?

I don't believe that marriage is between a man and a woman to be horrible. No, rather I believe in it because it is clear that God has given us that guideline with the best intention for us in mind.

People are saying, that traditional marriage is demonstrably beneficial, therefore we should protect it, because it is with the best intention in mind for society.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you draw the line between those things and things such as wearing seatbelts, using illicit drugs and the like - I'm assuming you agree these should be legislated for?

Generally it is when society can reach a consensus based on evidence.

You can demonstrate to me that hitting a wall at 50 miles an hour will be worse without a set belt. You can demonstrate to me that over dosing on heroin is very harmful to me. Of course I can choose to ignore that (people in some parts of the country ignore the risk of drink driving because they live in remote areas and want to get to the pub) but the evidence is there and it is really my issue if I ignore it.

The immorality of homosexuality from the point of view of Christianity is not something you can demonstrate. It is something some Christians accept as part of their theology.

If on the other hand you could demonstrate to me say the psychological harm of children being raised in a homosexual marriage, then we might be able to talk.

wonderfulname

Jakkass wrote: »

I am opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much due to the prospect of children and family. I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, and that it deserves to be protected. I would also prefer if as many children as possible could be raised in households with a mother and a father in a stable marriage.

I'm not singling this post out it just sums up how a few people here feel very well. I also have a feeling somewhere in this thread the HSEs approach to gay adoption is interpreted somewhat differently to fact. I thought this article might make interesting reading for you all. Would be interesting to hear your response.

Dr. Baltar

It seems to me that "you lot" think that a marriage certificate between a man and a woman is the foundation of a family.

It seems to me that "our lot" think that love between a family is the foundation of that family.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that my secular position would rely on ethics. Rather, I see child welfare eroded by structural State support for non-ideal (for children) family units such a gay marriages. The State might as well encourage single parenthood.

There are two issues here: 1) The rights of gay couples to form civil unions. 2) The rights of gay couples to adopt. It is important to separate these issues. Marriage does not automatically guarantee the right to adopt, so neither would civil unions.

Marriage is often about children, but it is not the sole role of marriage, as many married couples choose not to have children. The option of a civil union would protect homosexual couples in stable, committed relationships.

Unmarried people already have the right to adopt "if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration." link Even if a homosexual couple is not ideal, they can still be far more stable than heterosexual marriages. The child's welfare is paramount, and if a given homosexual couple is more stable and suitable than a given heterosexual couple, then I would not see any issue with granting the former the right to be eligible.

philologos

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It seems to me that "you lot" think that a marriage certificate between a man and a woman is the foundation of a family.

It seems to me that "our lot" think that love between a family is the foundation of that family.

It appears that you think that marriage is only a piece of paper. I'm not sure if I'd share that assumption.

Dr. Baltar

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that you think that marriage is only a piece of paper. I'm not sure if I'd share that assumption.

On the contrary, if I believe that marriage was just a piece of paper I wouldn't feel so strongly about this issue and I certainly wouldn't be striving so much to get marriage equality for LGB people.

PDN

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It seems to me that "you lot" think that a marriage certificate between a man and a woman is the foundation of a family.

It seems to me that "our lot" think that love between a family is the foundation of that family.

Given that this thread is marked "Christian Response Only" then could you enlighten me as to who is "you lot"?

PDN

Thread locked since certain non-Christians cannot abide by the "Christian Response Only" tag. I find this sad, just as sad as I would be if professing Christians deliberately disrupted threads in the LGBT Forum by attempting to force their views into in-house discussions.