Can a Christian Support Gay Marriage?

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
User avatar
Gabriel
Enraged by S'mores
Enraged by S'mores
Posts: 11484
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: central IL

Post by Gabriel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:17 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
This why definitions matter. All people, regardless of sexual orientation have the same rights under the law. I have no more legal right to marry a man than any other man. Any other man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. We have the same rights.

I have a hard time accepting that it is in society's interest to re-invent marriage. I'm always teetering on the edge of Bigwill's position. (But then we'd agree on something in the Theology forum! 8O )
Sola Deo Gloria

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:37 pm

Gabriel wrote:I have a hard time accepting that it is in society's interest to re-invent marriage. I'm always teetering on the edge of Bigwill's position. (But then we'd agree on something in the Theology forum! 8O )
;) One day you'll see the light, brother. :lol:
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole
Posts: 9525
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by OldWorldSwine » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:49 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
Are you saying, TNLP, that in the event Gay Marriage becomes law, it's fair that I should be prevented from marrying another man, just because I'm not gay and we don't plan to have sex?

That's so hateful!!!! :cry2:
"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19058
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:58 pm

+JMJ+
Bigwill wrote:I am opposed to gay marriage, but I am also opposed to the government "civilizing" my marriage. The issues involved are distinct. For the government, "marriage" means legal rights and responsibilities willingly attached which wouldn't otherwise be (e.g., rights of survivorship, health care decisions, tax implications, etc.). Am I opposed to the government attaching those same rights and responsibilities to gay couples? Not in the slightest. But that doesn't make it a marriage.

My marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with those things. It's a Sacrament whose graces are confected every time my wife and I engage in the marital act. Am I opposed to gay couples being married? In the Catholic Church, yes. In other Churches, I don't make that decision for them.

So, that's my solution. Get the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Create something called a "civil U***n" between two consenting adults which creates agreed-upon rights and responsibilities. I have no issue with this. "Divorce" would become "dissolution of the civil U***n", and would be nothing more than the division of marital property (and custody issues--should those have arisen).

Leave marriages to whatever Churches want to perform them. And attach no legal rights or responsibilities to them whatsoever. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to allow two men to marry, so be it. If the Unitarian Universalist Church does, again, so be it. It's a matter of faith (or lack thereof; if one is without faith or without a Church, then he really shouldn't have a desire to get "married" in this scenario).
And how do you reconcile this with the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ?

In a Protestant cum Pagan society like America, detaching the secular from the sacred might initially seem to be the lesser of two evils. But if this is done, it will ghettoize Catholics by forcing them into a separatist paradigm. In addition, Catholics will have no benefit of law.

If a Catholic couple opts to not have their marriage recognized by the State, and if one spouse decides to run out on the marriage, the faithful spouse will have no temporal legal recourse to rights over children, property, etc...

And if they do opt to have a civil contract recognized by the State, they'd be in essentially the same boat, as the State will dissolve such a contract without compunction.

The natural family is the fundament of society. Any society which cannot publicly recognize this even this most elemental of facts is on the quick road to destruction.

Rather than blessing and consummating the current destruction, the solution is to place the U.S. on the road to restoration.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:16 pm

Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
This why definitions matter. All people, regardless of sexual orientation have the same rights under the law. I have no more legal right to marry a man than any other man. Any other man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. We have the same rights.

I have a hard time accepting that it is in society's interest to re-invent marriage. I'm always teetering on the edge of Bigwill's position. (But then we'd agree on something in the Theology forum! 8O )
Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.

User avatar
Gabriel
Enraged by S'mores
Enraged by S'mores
Posts: 11484
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: central IL

Post by Gabriel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:20 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
This why definitions matter. All people, regardless of sexual orientation have the same rights under the law. I have no more legal right to marry a man than any other man. Any other man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. We have the same rights.

I have a hard time accepting that it is in society's interest to re-invent marriage. I'm always teetering on the edge of Bigwill's position. (But then we'd agree on something in the Theology forum! 8O )
Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.
<redacted_emoji>
Seriously? Apples to Oranges my friend.
Sola Deo Gloria

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:28 pm

Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
This why definitions matter. All people, regardless of sexual orientation have the same rights under the law. I have no more legal right to marry a man than any other man. Any other man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. We have the same rights.

I have a hard time accepting that it is in society's interest to re-invent marriage. I'm always teetering on the edge of Bigwill's position. (But then we'd agree on something in the Theology forum! 8O )
Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.
<redacted_emoji>
Seriously? Apples to Oranges my friend.
Oh? How so?

User avatar
MrPiper
Needs to lighten up with the Xs
Needs to lighten up with the Xs
Posts: 5443
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:00 pm
Contact:

Post by MrPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:28 pm

UHHHHH, No

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10857
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Post by Onyx » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:28 pm

Bigwill wrote:I am opposed to gay marriage, but I am also opposed to the government "civilizing" my marriage. The issues involved are distinct. For the government, "marriage" means legal rights and responsibilities willingly attached which wouldn't otherwise be (e.g., rights of survivorship, health care decisions, tax implications, etc.). Am I opposed to the government attaching those same rights and responsibilities to gay couples? Not in the slightest. But that doesn't make it a marriage.

My marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with those things. It's a Sacrament whose graces are confected every time my wife and I engage in the marital act. Am I opposed to gay couples being married? In the Catholic Church, yes. In other Churches, I don't make that decision for them.

So, that's my solution. Get the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Create something called a "civil U***n" between two consenting adults which creates agreed-upon rights and responsibilities. I have no issue with this. "Divorce" would become "dissolution of the civil U***n", and would be nothing more than the division of marital property (and custody issues--should those have arisen).

Leave marriages to whatever Churches want to perform them. And attach no legal rights or responsibilities to them whatsoever. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to allow two men to marry, so be it. If the Unitarian Universalist Church does, again, so be it. It's a matter of faith (or lack thereof; if one is without faith or without a Church, then he really shouldn't have a desire to get "married" in this scenario).
Essentially, I agree. I take the libertarian view on this and an increasing number of issues.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19058
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:48 pm

+JMJ+
Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.
<redacted_emoji>
Seriously? Apples to Oranges my friend.
Exactly.

TNLP's analysis only works if there is no substantive difference between men and women. If the differences are only accidental (such as the differences between caucasians, negroes, and orientals) then there is no justification in U.S. law for prohibition.

There are those who claim that human/animal, human/vegetable, or human/inanimate object marriages will inevitably result from such blurring of natural law. The response to this objection is that allowing homosexual marriage will not result in such lunacy. And it is true, that such a ruling would not immediately lead to such an end. But it would only be one short and logically progressive step from this point to claim that there is no substantive difference between Man and the rest of Creation.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Gabriel
Enraged by S'mores
Enraged by S'mores
Posts: 11484
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: central IL

Post by Gabriel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:10 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.
<redacted_emoji>
Seriously? Apples to Oranges my friend.
Exactly.

TNLP's analysis only works if there is no substantive difference between men and women. If the differences are only accidental (such as the differences between caucasians, negroes, and orientals) then there is no justification in U.S. law for prohibition.

There are those who claim that human/animal, human/vegetable, or human/inanimate object marriages will inevitably result from such blurring of natural law. The response to this objection is that allowing homosexual marriage will not result in such lunacy. And it is true, that such a ruling would not immediately lead to such an end. But it would only be one short and logically progressive step from this point to claim that there is no substantive difference between Man and the rest of Creation.
mhm. agreed.
Sola Deo Gloria

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:17 pm

wosbald wrote:But it would only be one short and logically progressive step from this point to claim that there is no substantive difference between Man and the rest of Creation.
Nonsense, we don't allow people to make contracts with animals, vegetables or inanimate objects. Those things do not logically follow from allowing any two adults to legally marry.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:25 pm

Gabriel wrote:That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).
I did answer the question. The answer is "yes". Unless you want to tell every Christian who supports gay marriage that they aren't really a Christian because of this one position.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:27 pm

Gabriel wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Gabriel wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Just as the Supreme Court gave interracial couples the same right to be married as it had given white couples, we should give homosexual couples the same rights to be married as we give heterosexual couples. This isn't a matter of individual rights, but of substantive due process rights of couples to marry.
<redacted_emoji>
Seriously? Apples to Oranges my friend.
Exactly.

TNLP's analysis only works if there is no substantive difference between men and women. If the differences are only accidental (such as the differences between caucasians, negroes, and orientals) then there is no justification in U.S. law for prohibition.

There are those who claim that human/animal, human/vegetable, or human/inanimate object marriages will inevitably result from such blurring of natural law. The response to this objection is that allowing homosexual marriage will not result in such lunacy. And it is true, that such a ruling would not immediately lead to such an end. But it would only be one short and logically progressive step from this point to claim that there is no substantive difference between Man and the rest of Creation.
mhm. agreed.
How are gender differences any less "accidental" than so-called racial differences?
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:42 pm

Cleon wrote:They can, but then they'd be wrong. :wink:
+1

Can a Christian Support Gay Marriage?

I think the question should be "If a person who claims to be a Christian supports homosexual marriage, are they uneducated on Christianity or are they just not a Christian?"
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:44 pm

infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.
You mean, actually standing up for Christian principles?

Yeah! Just who do we think we are anyway!?!?!? :wink:
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:45 pm

infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:46 pm

LushMojo wrote:.....only if both girls are smoking hot.
:lol:
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:47 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
They have had them for a very long time. Are they too blinded by their agenda to realize this?
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:49 pm

OldWorldSwine wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
infidel wrote:Good golly, this topic never ceases to bring out the worst in believers.

The question is really "can a Christian support equal rights under the law for all citizens?" to which the answer should be (IMO) an emphatic "well, DUH".
<redacted_emoji>

That tired objection? Two items:

- Instead of derailing the thread and jumping on your soapbox, you could answer the question. (although it was asked of Christians, so I'm not sure why you'd want to).

- Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law. What they (as a movement) seem to want is special rights.
They want rights equal to those granted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, they want equal rights.
Are you saying, TNLP, that in the event Gay Marriage becomes law, it's fair that I should be prevented from marrying another man, just because I'm not gay and we don't plan to have sex?

That's so hateful!!!! :cry2:
If marriage is a right then I DEMAND to be married to Kate Beckinsale, Kelly Monaco and Famke by the end of the week!
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Post Reply