From Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost:
Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five,” his audience would invariably answer. “No,” he would politely respond, “the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”Like Lincoln’s associates, many of our fellow citizens appear to fall for the notion that a change of name causes a change in essence. A prime example is the attempt to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Simply calling such relationships “gay marriages”, they believe, will actually make them “marriages.” Such reasoning, however, is as flawed as thinking that changing “tail” to “leg” changes the function of the appendage.
In order to understand whether marriage can be legitimately redefined by the government we must first understand its relation to the state. Fortunately, we only have two options to choose from. Marriage is either an institution that has an existence and autonomy apart from the state or it’s a construct that only comes into being after being created by positive law.
If marriage is autonomous and separate from the state, the common view for the past 5,000 years, then the government cannot simply define the term in any way it chooses. Because the two institutions stand apart, they can decide whether to recognize the legitimacy of the other but they cannot delineate each others boundaries. In this way, the relationship is similar to nation-states. The U.S. government, for example, can decide to “recognize” the state of Israel but it cannot redefine the country in a way that contracts its border to exclude the Gaza Strip. The U.S. either recognizes Israel as it defines itself or it rejects its legitimacy altogether.
Whether they would articulate it this way, I suspect this is what most Americans mean when they claim that the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. The fact that such an argument even needs to be made shows how degraded and confused both language and law have become.
Update: I encourage you to visit Joe’s blog and participate in the discussion. One plus: He doesn’t moderate comments.
{ 55 comments }
As usual, excellent thought exercise.
Was legalizing marriage between those of different races a case of this too?
Good article,but I gotta question. If we can redefine race and ethnicity why not marriage?
There is nothing either abnormal nor unnatural about being black!
Any comparison of blackness and homosexuality is disgusting.
Well said, Steven.
Eric,
I believe that the prohibition of interracial marriage was another case of Government trying to “define” marriage, and was something that the State should not have been allowed to do. Skin color is not a factor that affects the natural state of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
“There is nothing either abnormal nor unnatural about being black!”
How can something be abnormal or unnatural if one is born that way? Many people who are gay can’t conceive of a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, just like many heterosexuals can’t conceive of a relationship with a member of the same sex. Live and let live. Your life will not be affected if a gay couple down the street can file a joint tax return or own joint property or visit each other in the hospital, etc.
Trying to keep it clean, ponder basic biology. Guys and girls go together. EVERYTHING is set up for it.
I am a libertarian, I’d be happy to live and let live, but homosexual activists wont allow it. THEY are using the power of the state to demand normalization. THEY are the ones who want to get in my pocket!
“THEY are the ones who want to get in my pocket!”
Get in your pocket how? That is laughable. As a libertarian, I’d think you didn’t care if gay people could get a piece of paper or not. In fact, I’ve seen some libertarians promote the idea of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether, which isn’t a bad idea except for the fact that then you’d have to figure out what to do with all those rights and benefits.
“Trying to keep it clean, ponder basic biology. Guys and girls go together. EVERYTHING is set up for it.”
Also, has it occurred to you that human beings can reproduce without having intercourse? Science has made sexuality irrelevant from a reproductive standpoint.
Ahhh I never made a connection between homosexuality and being black. I did not suggest that being black is abnormal. Nor did I mention anything about interracial marriages I was asking, if we can change the definition of who is what based on how many drops of blood from another ethnic group is in their body, why not redefine marriage. And Steven, there are many people who find your marriage arrangements abnormal and unnatural but the definition was expanded to accomodate you and your ilk. I think something more is needed to turn gays and lesbians away the alter other than perception of their lifestyles.
People are born homosexual, just like people are born black.
I saw one Libertarian spokesman in my state say that he thinks its ridiculous gay marriage is even being talked about in the first place. Just thought id bring that up….
My other comment was deemed inapproriate. I meant no disrespect with it however. I myself am a ‘minority.’Im just saying that while the practise of homosexuality isnt ‘normal,’ people are born this way regardless.
Here’s an interesting quote I found at this URL:
http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/24/417c8ecdb5ec8
“Alabama only repealed its law banning interracial marriage in 2000, with 40 percent of its voters opposing its repeal.”
Which means I think Eric is right on the money when he says this:
“And Steven, there are many people who find your marriage arrangements abnormal and unnatural but the definition was expanded to accomodate you and your ilk.”
Has anyone out there ever read the language in court decisions that upheld laws against interracial marriages? You’ll find much of the same talk about it being unnatural, etc.
40 percent of Alabamans wanted to keep their antiquated, racist law. Amazing. That’s a lot of people, and it’s just one state.
Eric, my ilk? What’s up with that?
Brad, that doesn’t change the basic facts, you know, the birds and the bees. We are the way we are for a reason.
As for benefits, who do you think will have to pay for that? Also, if I own a company, will you use the government to force me to endorse and support these relationships?
I thought that this whole thing was an issue of privacy?
Sorry. I don’t care how many interracial marriage bans are still on the books. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. There is no comparison, in my opinion, and there never will be. And I resent homosexuals (2-3 percent of the population at that!) co-opting for their “lifestyle” agenda the Civil Rights movement, which was intended to provide me, my family and and the rest of black America with the basic rights of citizenship. It’s outrageous that so-called black leaders have fallen for it, too. Not me.
“Brad, that doesn’t change the basic facts, you know, the birds and the bees. We are the way we are for a reason.”
And? That really has nothing to do with marriage. El Rushbo has said that marriage is for the creation and raising of children and yet he’s been married three or four times and has exactly *zero* children.
Yes, the birds and the bees thing is what has allowed human beings to procreate and survive for millenia, but today we have medical advances that allow us to reproduce without intercourse. Which, as I said, means we can have kids regardless of our sexuality. Is that “normal”? (Don’t forget that many hetero couples take advantage of these advances too.)
When my stepson and I were in Indian Guides a few years ago, our group took a trip to a spot on the CA coast where elephant seals come ashore every winter. The males mostly beat each other up as they compete for females, but our guide said that a group of males that they call bachelors always hangs off to the side, not participating. They keep track of the animals, so they know they’re the same ones, and the group is in the minority. Why would nature allow a small percentage of any animal population to simply refrain from reproducing?
“As for benefits, who do you think will have to pay for that? Also, if I own a company, will you use the government to force me to endorse and support these relationships?”
If it’s about privacy, then why is it your business if an employee is legally married to a member of the same sex or a member of the opposite sex? If you grant benefits to employees and their spouses, and gay marriage is legal, then you should simply hand them the paperwork. Who said anything about endorsing and supporting anything? What if a hetero employee is cheating on his spouse with someone else at work? Are you endorsing his behavior by keeping him employed and giving him benefits, or is it none of your business unless it affects his work?
As for benefits, I know the Republicans were trying to scare people a while back by saying that it would cost billions to give government benefits to gay couples, but you’re talking about money spread out over a long period of time. If we can spend billions on a Medicare bill that’s basically overkill, why can’t we spend it on people who simply want to be legally married?
How much did it cost the federal government to grant benefits to interracial couples once the Supreme Court (in a decision that I assume would have to be labeled an “activist” one if it happened today) struck down laws against interracial marriages? Was the cost of that decision something that should have factored into it? Or was it about doing the right thing?
“And I resent homosexuals (2-3 percent of the population at that!) co-opting for their ‘lifestyle’ agenda…”
Lifestyle? Look up the word. If you have a gay person living in the lap of luxury and one living on the streets, where do their lifestyles coincide? One’s sexuality has nothing to do with one’s lifestyle.
The bottom line is that you’re wrong and history will bear that out.
I meant no ill will Steve. I just think the case against gay marriage needs to be stronger. I’m not prepared to stop someone from doing something SIMPLY because I don’t like it. i don’t see this gay marriage issue, as an issue about gays at all. The arguement is really about can people enter into any arrangement and have the gov’t recognize these “unions” by forcing the rest of society to foot the bill. I have to agree with steve on the normalization aspect of this marriage push. The other part of the battle is, can we force the gov’t to force us to accept things we don’t like?
Procreation and children, of course, are part of the reason that many people want to marry, and part of the reason that society has an interest in the institution of marriage. But that is very different from the idea that the marriage right is solely concerned with children, and that the right does not protect couples who cannot conceive children or raise them in a “traditional family setting.”
As is obvious to any childless, married couple, there are powerful reasons for being married that are completely unrelated to children. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has never held that the fundamental right to marry is dependant upon or ancillary to a couple’s intention or ability to have children.
At an absolute minimum, I suggest you folks refrain from relying upon arguements that you would never accept in other contexts. The same is true for the heterosexual majority. If we find it charming when eighty-year-olds marry, we cannot turn around and tell same-sex couples that they cannot marry because they cannot have children or because marriage is reserved for “traditional families”.
Something else to consider: “shouting down” the other person whenever they say something you don’t like doesn’t change their feelings.
We have seen several occasions now where people are afraid to say out loud what they think about (racial preferences, religion, now gay marriage) and yet, at the polls, they vote their conscience.
And I agree that I will not consider two males or two females “married” even if some court says they are. The buck stops with God’s word. God instituted marriage. God gets to decide what it is. Society can mess with this all they can “get away with”, but it won’t change the nature of the beast. It only messes up the society.
Just as I don’t consider a transgendered guy a girl just because he’s mutilated his body. It just makes me very squeamish to think that he’s going into the female bathrooms, etc now.
Hello someone in WA State!!
If you will never consider a civil gay union a “marriage” then why are you having such a problem? You shouldn’t be so afraid if you truly believe it isn’t a marriage in God’s eyes. When gays and lesbians plead that the marriage ban is harming their families legally, economically and emotionally (remember 8-10 million children are being raised by gay couples and denied legal rights and protections as well) society is obligated to explain why this particular aspect of marriage, compulsory heterosexuality, should remain unchanged when so much of marriage has changed already.
Eric, thanks. I don’t want to tell anybody what to do, I just don’t like to be told what to do either.
Brad, if homosexuality is “normalized,” I would be forced by law to recognize it, pay for it’s indulgence and have my kids in school forced to espouse and accept things I do not believe in. Cartoons will have gay characters and children’s books will be made PC.
I never said that marriage was for procreation soley. My points above were simply to prove that homosexuality is unnatural. Sex is for procreation. It is just a blessing from God that we also find it enjoyable and it brings us closer to our spouses.
OK, consider this: A person is born black, brown, yellow, red or white and you can tell just by looking that is what they are. A man is born who wants to have sex with anyone he can – let’s say just women, so as not to confuse the issue. He acts out his desires, leaving a string of possibly unfulfilled partners, possibly pregnant partners, and continues his merry way. His defense is “God made me that way.” Another man has the same desires but waits until marriage to act on them and remains faithful to his spouse for forty years. His reason for not following his libido is that he did the right thing in controlling his temptations. The other guy wants to have a “Fornicator Pride” month. God, of course, will have to sort it out, but I think the first guy is wrong and the second guy is right. What about you?
Or this other new trick from the Democrats, adding some version of this to their talking points:
“It is immoral to have 45 million uninsured.”
They don’t get that repackaging their usual banter under morality fools no one.
Hello Brian!
Nothing wrong with Democrats pointing out it is our moral duty to speak about political issues affecting the poor and suffering. I know the Republicans like to focus on gay marriage and abortion. However, we have not heard a word from the Republican administration about the 36 million people in poverty, including the 13 million children (1 in 6 children); the 45 million without health insurance; the eight million unemployed; the three million homeless, or the two million hopeless young men and women in prison. I guess focusing on getting my civil marriage in Massachusetts banned is of most importance to the Republican party.
But I would remind you that your true calling is contained in Matthew’s account of Jesus teaching that those who feed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, comforted the sick and visited the prisoners would enter the Kingdom of God. He said nothing about electing a President—even a so-called compassionate conservative–who seems to abandoned those in need.
Gary,
My heart is bleeding! Forgive the sarcasm. You express concern for the poor in this nation. How is it that we are willing in the richest nation in the world to accept the behavior of the poor. I am not wealthy but at any time I can do some of the things that brings about wealth. Answer this question, to what extent is the individual responsible for their actions?
I lived most of my life in areas of Jersey City NJ and in the US Marine Corps. This has given me the opportunity to see people. Who is responsible when a girl goes out and has four children by the age of twenty one? How about the people who quit high school at sixteen? Is it the Republicans or conservatives fault? I say once again, I am by no means wealthy; but as I told someone before, the reason I am where I am in life fair or foul is due to MY wise or not so wise decisionmaking.
The Republicans did not make same sex marriage and abortion the key themes, though Bush and others addressed it head on, but the Democrats will not address their moral faults. Help me with the question of personal responsibility? I am confused when liberal or social gospel Christians forget the things like responsibility.
Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis regarding marriage and divorce, but I think it
aptly applies to gay-marriage as well…
I posted this the last time this issue came up at L.B.’s Corner…
From “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis:
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one; the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
Thanks, jab, for the CS Lewis quote, but it begs the question of what the State sanctioned marriage “ought” to be. Merely saying that Church-sanctioned and civil-sanctioned marriages “ought” to be governed by different sets of rules doesn’t mean that the State rules “ought” to allow homosexual “marriages.” You make “value judgments” in determining what the rules governing civil relationships should be. After all of the posts made here today, has anyone’s position changed on that issue?
Well, Jab. Interesting that you quote this old tale. There ought to be a sharp distinction. One State and the other Christian. This is something that activist have not promoted, rather they’ve sought to make civil union synomnous with marraige as ordained by God.
In other words, I don’t care if you got a piece of paper from San Fran’s mayor, but don’t come and tell me you’re married and sanctified by God because it didn’t happen.
Furthermore, because that piece of paper wasn’t sanctioned by our Government, it is about as worthy as that sheepskin offered by non-accredited psuedo institutions of learning. If there was any legitmacy to those sheepskins, then why are people being fired left & right for perpetrating fraud?
Now if the Government (we the people) decides to grant you recognition for a civil union, then by all means, more power to you. But it seems to me that you’ll have to get in line again since that piece of paper is still worthless as it was spawned in mischief & deceit. And we’d still draw a distinction. How sharp is that?
Before you wig out on me, I think that ole Lewis is very much on the ball about the clash between Church & State. By the same token, I think our war on drugs is as misguided as our war on alcohol way back when. Legislating social morality as a “pre-cog” method for preventing potential sin & abuse causes more problems than it fixes them.
But as for homosexual activity, sin is still sin by the very act. I wouldn’t be alone to say I would have a problem with a judge flipping a coin to decide whether a hetero or a gay couple can adopt a child, with all other being equal. In this sense, the state’s responsibility is the welfare of the child and giving a child over to two fathers or two mothers for adoption robs the innocent child of a mother & father.
On the other hand, ain’t nothing I can do or will do about a gay couple that “creates” a child. Just as there’s nothing I can/will do to prevent a drunken loutish parents from having kids.
Hello Dominic!
oh no! Are you one of these Republican’s that believes in your heart that the poor deserve to be poor because they are lazy? I know people that really believe this, and it is likely true that there are some poor lazy people out there. However, that percentage is very small. what we do know is that far more people are poor than on welfare. It is outrageous for people to insinuate the main reason why poor people are poor is that they are just too lazy to work more hours. It seems that an important factor is left out of the simple picture–the lack of jobs. Seems like a lot of people got lazy awful fast seeing the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million. This is the third straight annual increase in both categories.
Dominic, I am not really sure you have made a case that people are poor bacause they just need to work more hours. Where do you get your information?
As far as personal responsibility? If your advocating personal responsibility, and you consider yourself an intelligent human being with a modicum of efficacy upon the small part of the world around you, then you have to take it further than your own selfish needs. If you really want to be responsible, well, then you have to work to improve the conditions around you. You have to accept the current condition of your world, but, to my mind, that is what accepting responsibilty is. Taking care of things that aren’t your fault. So that means we, as society, our obligated in faith to help the 21 year old with 4 children afford health care, get subsidized housing, and free food stamps if that is what is needed to keep that family together….don’t you think people are worthy of having their basic needs met?
Hello Jab!
Civil marriage is already esentially seperate from religious marriage. The government doesn’t care whether you get married by a priest, captain of a ship, justice of a peace, rabbi, or Elvis impersonator, as long as the right paper work is filed.
On the other side of the coin, the Catholic Church has no obligation to recognize secular, Hindu, or Muslim weddings. But you know what? Individual Catholics tend to do so, anyway. That’s because the societal and governmental conception of marriage is broader than any one church’s, and most Americans recognize this. Yet, many still fail to understand that if this is true, then it’s also true that the legal definition of marriage is not beholden to any religious definition of marriage. And vice versa.
FOr those who commented on being born that way…
How does that account for the people who call themselves “bi-sexual” (swinging both ways)…and those who go homosexual and then go back to being heterosexual (a la Anne Heche, even though she has some mental issues going on)?
Can we say C-H-O-I-C-E?
Let’s go a step farther. In 20 years are we going to see “Child Molesters” as being “born that way” so let’s make it ok because they can’t help it? When and where do you finally draw a line (because we all know, it has to be somewhere).
Gary!!!!(Dominic: Pulling hair out even as I speak)
Where in my post did I say that a person that is poor has to work MORE hours? I know from experience that working more hours will not get you out of poverty. It just won’t! Working smarter will. Working with better skills will. Making yourself of value to your employer or customer will. Never said a thing about smarter.
Dominic, I am not really sure you have made a case that people are poor bacause they just need to work more hours. Where do you get your information?
You’re right, because nowhere in my comment did say anything of that nature.
You said
As far as personal responsibility? If your advocating personal responsibility, and you consider yourself an intelligent human being with a modicum of efficacy upon the small part of the world around you, then you have to take it further than your own selfish needs. If you really want to be responsible, well, then you have to work to improve the conditions around you
Say what!!!??? PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! Not collective i.e. communist or socialist responsibility!
So if I understand you correctly, the mindset of the average person is directed towards self reliance and resilience through knowing that there is a “safety net” if they may poor lifestyle choices? PA LEEZ!!!
LaShawn, ban this guy for talking crazy. It is not the responsibility of the populace to correct the foolish choices that we make in life. This is where Christianity and Christian-lite social gospel clash. Actual poor Americans I have a heart for, some able bodied individual who doesn’t have the designer sneakers and clothes of choice I have no sympathy. In America, we do hav the improvished, the statistics that you suggest I have heard and I do not necessarily agree with.
I say again, to what extent is the INDIVIDUAL responsible for themselves. You never answered my question. If you decide to do so, elaborate. Tell me how the individual has some kind of responsibility in life for their life.
It’s a rowdy Friday morning at LaSahwn’s House
How is it posssible for homosexuals to ‘marry’ when they cannot consumate? If consumation is not achieved, then the marriage is anulled. Also, how is it possible for homosexuals to procreate? A homosexual parent is a biological impossiblility.
Marriage is not about sex, it is the consumation of the union between a man and a women. This consumation represents a vow of monogamy which is necessary in order to prevent illegimate offspring leading to unstable environments. Heterosexuals do violate this vow but this is not a justifiable reason to then allow homosexual marriage, it simply means that heterosexuals need to stop violating their own vows. The argument that heterosexuals have been aiding in the decline of the institution of marriage has been argued over the past three decades yet was met with scorn for being an oppressive institution.
Males and females are not biologically equal, we are compliments to one another. This is not to say that one gender is superior to the other, but that each are necessary compliments to one another. For so long now, our society has attempted to equalize rather than uphold the distinct benefits both genders offer one another.
In order to achieve biological “equality” we have taught our females that abortion is empowerment while we have taught our males that his sperm is irrelevant.
As events unfold in today’s European culture, ie., high abortion rates combined with low marriage rates, we are witness to the death of Old Europe. Europe is not breeding enough to perpetuate itself into the future. The institution of marriage has diminished, younger people are choosing not to marry while choosing to raise illegitimate children. Europe is developing into an unstable environment of breeding itself out of existance. It also must be noted that homosexual marriages in those countries which allow homosexual marriages are not happening. In these countries, homosexuals are not embracing marriage anymore than heterosexuals are. Because European cultural has diminished the only institution which provides for a stable procreation environment, it is dying.
Protecting the institution of marriage, primarily from deviant heterosexual behavior, does not imply one is against homosexuals, it imples one is for protecting the only instutition available for the procreation of a healthy species.
That said, the biggest influence in the decline of the institution of marriage is when feminist movement during the latter part of the 20th century took the wrong turn and attempted to masculinize the female rather than uphold her feminine attributes. I am a 43 yr old SWF who realizes my own involvement in having aided in this decline because I fell for the idea that I must be equal to a male in order to be legitmate. Today, I understand the benefits in appreciating the capacity of the female’s ability to procreate, Motherhood is not a evil we females must abort ourselves of, it is not oppressive and inconvenient, but rather the greatest acheivement a female can obtain. Marriage is an important institution for protecting the female’s greatest achievement.
As a SWF, I haven’t any more legal rights than homosexuals do yet this does not mean I must devalue the institute in order to achieve some concept of ‘equality’, for in doing so, I am diminishing the power of the female.
Very nice Susan. You hit it on the head. Just another way of rationalizing and changing laws so we can feel good about what we are doing (which deep down we don’t feel good about).
Susan, Dominic. Ya’ll kicking and taking names today
I’d like to re-emphasize that pooint about the trivializing of the vow. There is a serious disconnect to think that we expect God to bless a vow to perpetual sin, vis a vis gay marriage. How in the world can God bless sin?
In all of Gary’s posting, I have seen much christiam-lite bloviating, but nada on Scriptural substantiation. As far as I’m concerned, Gary has deceived himself and seeks to take the rest down with him, albeit ineffectually on this corner.
The majority are poor for precisely the poor choices they made coming up — promiscuity, devalued education, rebellion, not to mention the proactive dismantling of social norms by Liberals which centers on the issue of personal responsibility AND accountability.
Let God figure out what marriage he will bless, not you, Andy. You see, within the religious community, churches have always had and will always have the right to determine whom it will marry and whom it will not. Seperation of Church and State issues will always guarantee that. This theory that to allow gay and lesbian marriage will lead to a further compromise of the nation’s moral fiber and will encourage an outbreak of all sorts of depraved actions is absolutely incredible and nowhere grounded in factual data. If the truth be told, the opposite will occur. Committed relationships taken seriously by the community at large, will create a stronger and more productive society. When two adults desire to be together to publicly commit to one another in love for life, that should be cause for celebration–not consternation.
This misplaced anger has to stop. Which is exactly what it is, misplaced anger towards the gay community. Heterosexuals have to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made of marriage. They were the ones who wanted marriage. They have spent 3000 years making it a juggernaut of judaeo-Christian empire, politics, patriarchy, including their “right” to control of wife, children and genetic heritage. Now, in the ultimate paradox, heterosexuals may actually need the help of us homosexuals, if they want to put some sacredness back in marriage.
My hope is where it has always been. It is found in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Today, American men and women who engage in same-sex activities are free to express their love in public and commit themselves to one another for life. Although we have much to adapt, this is an advancement in our evolving social culture in comparison to the treatment of Islamic men and women who, when found engaging in same-sex sex, are thrown off tall buildings.
Men and women who engage in same-sex sex can also marry however, since marriage is defined in our Judeo-Christian culture as a union between a man and a woman, those who engage in same-sex sex cannot by definition marry one another. What the gay movement is asking of our culture is to redefine marriage, to deconstruct the meaning in order to accomodate a behavior.
As far as factual data none is available in America since we do not have same-sex marriage but one can look to certain European cultures which redefined marriage in order to allow men and women who engage in same-sex sex to marry, their populations are rapidly decreasing and their family structures are increasingly becoming unstable. We see the results of this redefinition in the high rate of abortion and low rate of marriage. Marriage is even low among those who engage in same-sex sex. These cultures will eventually breed themselves out of existance.
Suppose God already figured it out but it was our popular culture that stopped listening. Popular culture is full of mockery, distaste, hatred towards the institution of marriage through it’s depiction as an oppressive, disfunctional wasteland of the culturally ignorant. The feminist movement in the late 20th century lead the way in creating this portrayal. At the same time, popular culture attacks those who defend the institution as bigots, racists and religious fanatics. A return to the sacredness of marriage is an understanding that vows taken have specific purpose outside the purpose of satisfying one’s own self.
One could make the case that preserving the definiton of marriage as between a man and a women is a matter of survival.
Gary, you haven’t substatiated one premise yet.
The Bible also tells us to rebuke an erring brother and if he refuses to repent, send him packing. Like I said before, all the la-di-da’s you’ve been spewing don’t mean crap if you can’t back it up with God’s Word, notwithstanding twisting it to assauge your guilt.
To be in Christ and He in you, you have to take the good, the bad and the ugly, regarding our sinful state.
So far, you’ve only taken the ugly and called it pretty and called the bad relative, while claiming the ‘personal’ good trumps all the rest, in hopes of condoning continual sin. Remember when Jesus told the whore to go and sin no more?
As the Bible tells us, beware the deceiver who will appear as an angel of light, and I might add, whispering sweet la-di-dahs in your ear.
Susan, why do you keep relying on unsound and questionable data in certain European cultures and then ignore the United States where we already have civil unions and gay marriage. You said that factual data is not available in the U.S. because gay marriage doesn’t exist.
I see I need to inform and educate you…In December of 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the benefits and protections of civil marriage was a violation of the state’s constitution. Vermont chose to create a seperate institution: civil unions. Vermont’s civil union law went into effect in July of 2000. And yesterday, here in Massachusetts where I reside, we celebrated the one year anniversary after the historical court ruling that legalized gay marriage. So, until you can show me where the data shows civil unions and gay marriages in both Vermont and Massachusetts are hurting people here in the U.S. I don’t want to hear about this being about “survival”.
One thing I have learned in my experiences in life. Love is how I am able to discern that something is from God. Every time I have been somewhere where I felt God’s Presense more intensely or profoundly than others such as my church, my support group, or around a positve friend it never fails that I see the words, “Unconditional Love” somewhere.
Andy? I repent all the time. What would you like me to repent?
Unconditional love? Hmmm. First it’s ‘God the Parent’ to ‘feeling the presence’ and now it’s God=unconditional love.
While God loves us unconditionally, it doesn’t mean he’s not going to punish us for persisting in sin and abusing his grace. Before one can repent, one has to be aware of the sin. Sin is not what we chose to define, it is what God has arbitarily commanded of us.
To compare male seals to man is sheer folly. God did not make them in his image. And the fact that two male animals do it, only suggest three things to me; 1) A short-circuit in their DNA, in which case, they won’t pass it on, 2) Animal lust is just that, the base instinct to just relieve themselves regardless of how, and/or 3) Demons getting their perverted jollies.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, then what’s the point of repenting and becoming a new creature? Somehow I missed the verse where it says ‘therefore shall a man leave his family and cleave to another and the two shall become one. I’d like to be enlightened as to where God ordains the marriage of two men or two women.
On the other hand, Satan and his minions are quite conversant in their knowledge of the Bible. To my limited knowledge, Satan’s suggestions to Jesus and Peter sounds imminently logical as a way of proving to the non believers that Christ is indeed the Son of God.
Yet each time, Jesus rebuked Satan and essentially told him to get lost. How sure are you that Jesus wouldn’t say the same thing to your espoused wisdom? It matters not one whit if you’re surrounded by church, support group, or around a positve friend — the blind leading the blind.
To wit, I think while most Christians can agree that polygamy is counter to the model of mariage even they can accept a brother in Christ who has 4 wives. The common ground we have is that polygamy has never been a forbidden fruit, yet the Bible gives plenty of examples of where it is not recommended. Sort of like a car maker saying, ‘well this car has a top speed of 150mph, but we wouldn’t recommend maintaining that speed all day long’. Just because one can is not necessarily a license to do so.
More so for the church leadership. It is here that the Bible becomes explicit that the Elders and Deacons should only have one wife. Nothing to do with spiritual morality, rather to do with effectiveness in taking care of the flock.
It’s kinda hard for a Deacon to give attention to the church when he has an unruly household of squabbling wives and children to contend with.
Since the Bible also defines all believers as saints, we also extend that belief to the community and hence the social morality that frowns on polygamy. This is something that we chose to do, yet, again, it doesn’t stop us from embracing Christian families from other cultures where they already practice it, as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Or paraphrasing Paul, I’d rather that we all were single so we can concentrate on the Gospel, but if it burns, then by all means get married. But in the context of that chapter & book, there is no mistaking that he allowed that Adam could marry Steve if it burns.
No less than that a Protestant can accept the Catholic or the Orthodox, where the personal fundamental articles of faith are similar and disagreement lies in the execution and exercise thereof.
The Catholic Church may believe that the Pope is infalliable, etc and the Protestant Church disagrees, but as long as both believers believe in the redemning Blood of Christ, we have our common ground.
This is not to say that all Catholics are saved, any less than all Protestants are saved. In some situations, we will never know until judgement day, but in others, their lack of faith is distinctly obvious and thusly, we are commanded to call them on it or cast them out, lest they corrupt the group.
This is why one of us will always challenge your questionable words concerning Christianity and compare them to God’s Word.
In that sense, any Catholic Bishop, Protestant clergy that is also a practising gay IS by God’s definition apostate or a false prophet given over to divers temptations.
What’s sad is when the rebellious have taken over the reigns of their church, to wit the USA Episcapalians versus the Africans.
“What if a hetero employee is cheating on his spouse with someone else at work? Are you endorsing his behavior by keeping him employed and giving him benefits, or is it none of your business unless it affects his work?”
Well, Brad, as an employer I would terminate an employee who was cheating on his or her spouse whether they were doing the cheating at work or anywhere else.
Think about this. If a person cannot be trusted to faithfully honor his or marriage vows, the most solemn vows that one ever makes, how can I place any trust in that person? If a man is willing to cheat on his wife that person is certainly not going to have any qualms about cheating his employer..
I am sure that many people will not like to hear this, but think for a minute what is involved in marital infidelity. When a person marries they take a solemn oath that they will remain faithful to their spouse, forsaking all others, until death. When a person enters into an employment contract they are not required to an oath of any sort–it is simply implied that they will not cheat their employer.
So, if a person is willing to sneak about and betray their spouse, how much more willing would such a person be to sneak about and cheat their employer?
Andy, you seem to agree that we have a Loving God who loves each and every one of us unconditionally. Then, immediately you try to take away that wonderful trait by implying that God’d love really is conditional. God’s wonderful grace and God’s free gift of salvation seem like too much for you to believe. Yet we read “While we were yet sinners. Christ died for us.” and “We love Him, because he first loved us.” Yes, we “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). but the God who created us, in His lovingkindness, offers to give salvation to all who believe.
I rather think Satan acknowledges Jesus Christ and knows who Jesus is, but I don’t think he believes in Jesus. In (John 3:16) we hear Jesus state that, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” As there are no reservations nor conditions contained in this statement, if Satan truly believed that Jesus’ death at Calvary atoned for sins of all people, reconciling us again with our Creator and accepted this gift of salvation, I am sure that Satan too would be saved. I believe that Satan, with his demonstrated lust of power, can not grasp the concept of love so great that God died for us.
We each take responsibility for our choices. Satan and his followers chose to rebel against God, and until they repent, as you and I need to repent, they will be alienated from God’s dominion. Being a believer is just that – one who believes – and the Apostle Paul points out that it is not by our deeds that we are saved, lest we boast of our accomplishments. But belief in Jesus, together with an ever increasing knowledge of our Saviour which we acquire by spending time with him in prayer and study Scripture, does create the desire and the power for changes in our own lives. In fact, we become more like Jesus in our attitudes, thoughts, words and actions.
As for me, the most important choice im my life was to believe in and accept Jesus as my Saviour, not whether I was a gay man or not. That decision was made in my genetic script, or DNA, and since none of God’s creation is flawed, my sexuality is, I believe, part of God’s perfect plan.
Thank you for your affirmation of God’s love for all human beings. May God write the truth upon your heart, and pour out mercy and lovingkindness upon you.
God’s love for those he came to save is different from the love he has for his creation.
In God’s own words, God becomes a shephard who will gather the lost sheep and bring them all together again. No matter where they have been scattered, God will search and find them. No one will be left behind.
But even the gathering process has its downfalls. Because when you scoop up a bunch of people, you will inevitably scoop up the good with the bad. As Jesus reminds us in the passage recorded in Matthew’s gospel, there are sheep and there are goats. The sheep are the people who belong to God’s flock. The goats are not of God. You might be sitting next to a goat right now and not even know it. But you know what? That’s not our problem. We don’t have to try and figure out who are the sheep and who are the goats. In fact, Jesus tells us, that’s not even our job. we shouldn’t even try to make judgements about other people, no matter how tempting it is or how much we may claim to be an expert at distinguishing between certain types of animals. That job is reserved for someone else.
My prayers go with you, that you too may know the Christ who sustains me.
Gary, sorry, but read your Bible again, angels don’t fit into God’s plan.
Even if Satan repented, he still can’t be saved; 1) Jesus came to save man, not angels, 2) Angels know what they had with God and chose to rebel. That punishment is permanent without recourse.
This may be a reason why Satan is filled with fury, who cares. God made them and if He choses to throw them on the rack and toture them day in and day out for eternity, what do I care let alone impute my sense of justice on His divine will. God’s wrath is not to be trifled with.
Furthermore, the Bible is clear that angels were created to serve God & man. So as pecking orders go, we out-rank them. Except for the hereafter on Judgement day where those cast out will spend eternity tormented by Satan & “friends”. So let’s dispense with equating Satan with man.
As for taking away God’s wonderful trait, I didn’t do that. He did. You mistake unconditional love for tacit approval to keep on sinning. You quoted Roms 3:23, but scroll on down to verse 25 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation thru faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, thru the forebearance of God”
As for believing and still bringing on the wrath of God, look at Acts 8:5 – 25, of note verse 21-23 “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thine heart is not right in the sight of the Lord. Repent of this wickedness and pray God, if perhaps the thot of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I percieve that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity”
This was Peter rebuking Simon the magician who became a believer but still tried to hang on to his life of sin. Something to think about when time & time again, the Bible equates sorcery with rebellion and rebellion with homosexuality.
Go and sin no more and may God prick your conscience with His truth.
Andy, with all due respect, you are talking about thousands of people whom you don’t even know, and need to acknowledge that the chances of you being wrong are great–at least as great as the chances of the early Jews being wrong about the spiritual potential of the uncircumcised pig-eaters. Andy, I challenge you to spend some time in the gay and lesbian community in your area, some nonjudgemental time, time spent just serving and observing.
Find the most broken persons you can find and become their friends–not their judge, not their critic, but their friend. Nurture their talents. Forgetting what you do not like about them (God can take care of that in God’s own time), love them into life. Leave your hetero Respectability outside the door, and move among them as Christ moved among the Samaritans, the publicans, the drinkers, the prostitutes. Had Christ gone around telling them how wrong they were, they would not have continued to invite Him to dinner. He dealt first with their thirst! Don’t worry too much about your neightbors’ sins; most of my neighbors know their sins far better than I could, or want to. Most of my neighbors don’t know, however, how very much God loves them and has already taken care of their sins. They might start to believe God’s love if you can begin to love them as much as God does, just as they are.
Andy, I have no idea what theological conclusions you will reach after a few weeks of such ministry, but I do know this; your discourse will change. You will change. and so will the gays and lesbians whom you love.
Are you up for the challenge?
Andy, I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God that must be read in the context it was written. Many of its truths are universal and can be directly applied to modern times. But a majority of canonical scripture is situation and time specific to culture of its time. Therefore, one must use exegesis and prayerful communion with the Holy Spirit before applying canonical scripture to today’s culture.”God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches, even the depths of God. For what person knows another person’s thoughts except the spirit of the person which is in them? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit of God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who posses the spirit.”(1 Corinthians 2:10-13)
I also believe God is alive and is speaking to God’s children even today. God’s words are found in the Bible but God continues to reveal truths not found in scripture through the Holy Spirit. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than a two edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”(Hebrews 4:12)
I believe in the power of prayer. I believe we are promised that if we give our cares and joys to God in prayer we will be blessed. “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”(Matthew 21:22) as well as,”Have no anxiety about anything, but everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and minds in Jesus christ.”(Philippians 4:6-7)
And finally Andy, I do believe God considers me equal to you, regardless of my sexual orientation, you see, God made me as a gay man and has opened God’s realm to me without reservation. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”(Galatians 3:28) and “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father (Heavenly Parent)in my name God may give it to you. This I command you, to love one another.”–John 15:16-17
I praise God for always being faithful to my family and me. Amen.
Gary
The definition of marriage is a union between A man and A woman. What purpose is there to deconstructing this meaning?
As for facts in Mass and Vermont, since a year of civil unions cannot provide hard facts you will have to ask this question thirty years from now in order to have enough data available to support your premise that same-sex sex partners produce healthy, stable environments with which to procreate.
Certain cultures in Europe have had thirty years to experiment with same-sex marriage, the results are not proving your premise.
Defending the constructs of marriage is not an attack against people who engage in same-sex relationships. Unfortunately the gay movement is the one attacking the constructs of marriage by wishing to redefine and trivialize it’s meaning.
Marriage is a union between A man and A women. Ideally, offspring should be raised by a male and a female in order to receive the best possible environment for achieving stability. Consider the possiblity that an offspring raised by one sex, either all female or all male, is deprived of half the equation. Two male parents cannot possiblity provide a feminine experience just as two female parents cannot provide a masculine experience. By raising off-spring in a one-sex environment one is depriving the child of half the experience necessary in creating a balance. Our society must constantly strive to provide the best possible environment in procreation, we owe this to our children.
I am a product of the great divorce experiment which began in the early 1970’s and, because of my experiences, I am now a great defender of the institution of marriage. I am the damage done by those who led us to believe that the institution of marriage can be trivialized and altered for the purpose of serving self gratification. The “ME” generation is growing up and is recognizing that self gratification is not necessarily the sole purpose to life.
Be sure we know the distinction between “being” homosexual and acting on those impulses. I believe one can be attracted to the same sex without it being a sin. If one is engaging in such behavior, that’s another thing. But we don’t even have to go that far if we understand that any sex outside marriage, no matter who is doing it, is fornication, which God clearly condemns.
As far as I am concern, the rules apply equally to those of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. We get our identity in christ, not in our sexual orientation; our sexual orientation is but one part of many facets which make us human. It does not matter what your sexual orientation is, nor whether or not your sexual orientation is biologically or socially determined and/or developed, it is how you reverence, use, and express it which matters.
In Christ there is neither male or female, slave or free, Jew or non-Jew, homosexual or heterosexual. God looks at the heart and determines if God there resides and therein lives an attitude and motivation of Love.
Only things done in love edify. Heterosexual or homosexual orientation, as we now understand and define it is not discussed in Scripture. The Bible is full of verses discussing sexual activity, desire, and/or expression. Any expression of sexuality which is not rooted and grounded in Christ’s Law of Love is sin.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally lawful to us, but the manner of expression of either is not often expedient or profitable, constructive and beneficial to the individual, life partner or society as a whole.
A homosexual Christian is bound by the same guidelines as a heterosexual Christian, i.e., to live a life sober, respectful of persons and property, temperate, non-judgemental, honorable, self-sacrificing, gentle, faithful, and all other expressions of Christ’s Law of Love. A homosexual oriented person’s expression of his/her sexuality is the same as that of a heterosexual oriented person’s, i.e., responsible to honor Christ, self, life partner and society, be chaste, honor marriage/partnership, and the marriage/partnership bed.
Homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality; it is the attitude and expression of the heart of a homosexual or heterosexual oriented person wherein lies the potential for sin. Any expression of sexuality which demeans, exploits, uses or abuses another person is sin, and is criticized in Scripture. Any expression of sexuality which lifts, supports the individual and the individuals’s life partner and society as a whole, which is expressed in heart attitude of the Spirit’s Love is lawful and Scripturally supported.
You may spend a lifetime debating, discussing and/or dissecting Scriptures. You cannot debate Love or Christ nor judge those whom God embraces as children purchased by Blood.
May your life be blessed beyond measure,
In Christ there is neither male or female, slave or free, Jew or non-Jew, homosexual or heterosexual. God looks at the heart and determines if God there resides and therein lives an attitude and motivation of Love.
This is true, Gary, but not in the context you want it to be true. We all stand before God in judgment, and those he saved are spared from that judgment. God saves all kinds of people, without regard to sex, race, or nationality. He is no respecter of persons. That’s what the verse means. To use this text as proof that God doesn’t condemn homosexuality as a sin is wrong. You are correct that God’s commands apply to all, no matter what kind of person, place or thing we’re attracted to or what we call ourselves. And the “homosexuality and heterosexuality is unequally lawful to us” comment is a little confusing, but I suppose you’re referring to illicit activity in general. If that’s what you meant, you’re correct there, too. Such activity is sinful, no matter what your orientation is.
And it’s true that things done in love edify, but on whose standard is that loved based and expressed? God’s! It’s not our notion of love, but his own. “If you love me you will keep my commands,” he tells us. What are his commands? The whole Bible. Disobeying him is unlawful, and if we purport to show “love” by doing or saying something contrary to what the Bible teaches, that is not love.
Gary, I can’t judge your heart, but if you want to justify homosexuality or equate it with God’s design for his creation, go right ahead. That’s between you and God. But no sin can be justified through Scripture, and for you to claim that homosexuality is not forbidden is just plain wrong. I won’t enumerate the verses to support this because others in the thread have done so already.
You’re also correct about the love of Christ for the believer. But for some reason, you skip over the part about how he hates sin, and homosexuality is a sin, just as lying, stealing, gossiping and other things are. No one on this board has said (or should be saying) that Christ loves you any less because you are oriented toward same-sex attraction AND you are one of his elect. But if you believe his love somehow excuses your behavior, whatever it is, you’re wrong.
And this: Any expression of sexuality which lifts, supports the individual and the individual’s life partner and society as a whole, which is expressed in heart attitude of the Spirit’s Love is lawful and Scripturally supported.
All I can say is that I will be praying for you. I don’t know what denomination you belong to that teaches something like this, but I humbly recommend you at least skim through a book called Same-Sex Controversy by Dr. James White, which lays out many arguments such as yours and rebuts them convincingly through the Scriptures.
I hope this reply is somewhat coherent because I’m a little perplexed and disheartened by some of your contentions. Very worrisome. Most of my visitors don’t comment; they just read the blog. For the sake of anyone seeking God, I can’t allow Scripture to be used (improperly) to support or condone homosexual behavior. In that regard, I’m closing down a thread for the second time today. All interested parties have had their say, so let’s move on.
And I thank for your act of generosity this morning, Gary. I appreciate it very much.
Comments on this entry are closed.