As a divorced foxhole atheist, I’m all for gays being able to marry in whatever venue they choose. If you are a devout Christian, however, don’t you have to do some fancy dancing philosophically, to make room for it in your credo? As a practical matter isn’t it at odds with the fundamental tenets of your faith if you take the bible as a credible source of moral authority?
Doesn’t supporting gay marriage pull the bungee cord of spiritual flexibility a bit too far if you’re a a serious Christian.
“By this will all men know that you are my disciples — that you love one another.” — Jesus
This would only apply to anyone who was supporting the premise that same sex couple should be married in the Church.
Religious views have no bearing whatsoever on civil marriages as such, the view of the relationship itself I guess would be the same, legal piece of paper or no legal piece of paper.
And besides, if you take the bible as a credible source of moral authority, you would be faced with the same sort of issues with regard to divorce, the death penalty, Capitalism, etc.
Nope. The usual marriage relationship contemplated in Scripture is one man and one woman, true, but nowhere is this commanded, and some Bible figures and their multiple marriages are held up as good examples. (Not to get us off on the polygamy tangent, but to make the point that monogamy is not a Scriptural requirement.)
Evidence for what God expects a marriage to be is a bit more prevalent – but also incorporates personal opinions (Paul in particular makes a clear distinction between God’s command and his own personal view in addressing this).
To be sure, there are no gay marriages explicitly addressed in Scripture, but neither are there prohibitions on them. The homosexual relationships that are condemned are arguably those involving idol worship or boy-prostitution, and/or casual sex outside relationships. (To avoid another hijack on the putative Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality, let me point out that I used “arguably” in that sentence, and ask that the issue simply be taken elsewhere.)
What is commanded of me as a Christian regarding my fellow human beings is that I love my neighbor (meaning all mankind) as myself, that I do unto him as I would be done unto, that I minister to him as if I were ministering to Christ Himself. Plugging my own feelings about my marriage into that set of formulae, I find that I am commanded to treat the marriages, and the wishes to marry, of my fellow men and women with loving compassion, just as I would wish me and my own to be treated by them. Nothing in that set of rules excludes people of same-sex orientation from its ambit.
It’s all a matter of priorities – and they were set for us by Christ Himself. Digging out a set of prejudices and opinions on what constitutes a valid marriage, and looking up Scripture to support them, is not following Christ’s commands; it’s subverting His word to give force to one’s own beliefs. And Romans 12 specifically counsels against doing that, while Romans 14 says to respect and accept those who are called to a different walk in life than oneself, not forcing one’s own moral choices on them.
So, no, it doesn’t require any fancy footwork at all – all it takes is listening to Christ Himself, and doing what He says, rather than following the opinions of some other human being.
Right. Many devout Christians would consider it sinful for Christians to practice homosexuality. However, a devout Christian could take the position that unbeievers can engage in gay sex, unless they are so extremist they believe people should be forced to convert to Christianity.
But how about celebrating sabbath on a day other than Saturday, wearing clothes with a mix of fibers, having contact with a woman during menses, eating shrimp, charging interest, and a host of others.
I think people just pick on same sex marriage because it’s icky.
I would say the general Biblical consesus is that homosexuality is a bad thing. I’ve seen plenty of well-meaning Christians try to jump through the loopholes of what is, in my mind, fairly explicit scriptural condemnation of homosexual activity, and remain unconvinced. A skillfull lawerly mind can, of course, make virtually any argument they like based upon Biblical references, but I’ve always found the attempts at justifying pro-gay sentiments using Christian Scripture (meaning the Old and New Testaments, with or without the Apocrypha) tortured at best, and specious at worst. That the Bible does not explicity state that marriage is for heterosexuals alone does not mean that understanding of the arrangement is not likely implicit, and so taken for granted at the time these writings were comitted to the page as to require no further explanation. Certainly, the proper Christian teaching should be to treat homosexuals with love, compassion, and forgiveness, as one should all sinners; but I highly doubt that charity is meant to be translated into an endoresement and official reconition of same-sex unions in the context of Holy Matrimony.
Fortunately for those whose minds are not burdend by likelihood when explicit instruction is lacking, the loose ends allow for practically any arrangement, and until God Himself weighs in, there’s likely never to be a consensus. Ultimately it’s the practitioners who will decide, not the Book, and what portions of the Book practitioners choose to emphasize (using sesibilities drawn from elsewhere or arrived at a priori) will rule their actions and beliefs.
I think, in the faithful Christian mainstream, gay marriage is not recognized. Here’s a collection of interesting articles and editorials on the subject. This interview with four pastors is especially illuminating and candid, I think. None of the individuals speaking are condemnatory towards homosexuals; but none endorse same-sex unions. Mostly, they find the whole issue troubling, because it’s not clear-cut on scriptural grounds, but are confident that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. IMO, theirs is the most orthodox view. I’m both right and wrong. Ain’t religion fun?
Polycarp said all that I might’ve said. As a citizen of a nation which is meant to be governed from the basis that all people are created equal and entitled to equal protection under the law, I am obligated to support just that: equal protection for all citizens, regardless of whether or not the teachings of my faith support what they happen to do under that protection.
Hang on, again you’ve gone from talking about ‘Holy Matrimony’ in one paragraph onto ‘same sex union’ in the next as if they were the same thing. Likewise the articles you cite. The Christian view of ‘marriage’ is that it is a religious ceremony, no? Which has no impact on what the state may or may not mandate as a ‘marriage’ from a civil viewpoint.
And a further question for Loopydude.
If the opposition to civil same sex unions is based upon a Christian view of what marriage is, should not the intellectually honest standpoint be of opposition to any marriage not performed in a church? And, of course, an outright ban on divorce. And, if not, why not?
And, of course, one has to define “the faithful Christian mainstream” to exclude those churches that do sanction the blessing of same-sex unions, or are considering it as an aspect of their ministry to their gay brothers and sisters.
Which kind of narrows “the mainstream” quite a bit.
Maybe some Christians take a page from the The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Their doctrine says that generally, when it comes to homosexuality, God’s opinion in the matter isn’t clear. Obviously it’s clear to some people, but biblical scholars in the PC-USA church don’t find it so. So they’re pretty much taking the stance that in the absence of clear information, it behooves the Church and its members as Christians to treat gay people with dignity and compassion.
I don’t know that the church specifically discusses gay marriage, but I’d imagine that many Christians take this same overall approach. Which is pretty much what Polycarp said. The evidence on whether gay marriage can be “Christian” may not clear, but the biblical teachings on how to treat one another decently, fairly, and lovingly speaks pretty loudly.
I do understand what you mean, but frankly, if a scripture says that, then that scripture is an ass. I think Jesus might put it something like this: the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible.
As far as state recognition of marriage - no.
For Biblical support, I look at Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, and Luke 20:20-26. They’re the passages that end, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” and tax benefits, estate benefits, health care benefits, visitation rights, powers of attorney, etc. and etc. are to me things that are clearly “Caesar’s.”
When I combine with a nation that is not supposed to endorse religious faiths of some of its citizens. I cannot make a case at all for invalidating SSM.
So, no, I don’t think I’ve bungeed that far.
If I may ask a related (and possibly stupid) question: is the Bible intended to be a moral guide just for Christians, or for everybody? Does the Bible even address this distinction?
If marriage is a Church driven custom, then why is a civil marriage license necessary?
If a marriage is not a marriage without that civil license, then why should The Church dictate who gets married?
FTR, I’m neither married nor a Christian, so just color me confused.
I’m a pretty hard-core atheist myself, and I’m gonna have to say no, it doesn’t. You have to keep in mind that the Bible is all things to all people. If you interpret it in a very strict, literal sort of way, then what you’re saying is true. I do think the letter of the law (so to speak) is on the anti-gay side Then again, being a devout Christian doesn’t mean the same thing to everybody. There are people who are very devout in the “love thy neighbor” stuff and not so concerned about other parts of the text. I wouldn’t say that they’re not sincere or devout. If anything, I’d say they’re more realistic, because they often consider that the Bible is a document written by people and that it reflects an older, less tolerant culture than our own.
As has been said before, depends on the flavor of “devout Christian”. An Roman Catholic of the Mel Gibson school and an Episcopalian of Polycarp’s will not reach the same conclusion due to fundamental differences in basic interpretations of the meaning of both Scripture and the Church Fathers’ writings (which includes whether or not a bunch of old guys with funny hats in Rome has authority to tell people what to do).
Even where Scripture looks like it looks down on homosexuality, that may not be determinant, to those Christian who do NOT subscribe to the scriptural-fundamentalist POV.
I am a christianwho believes that God says sex outside of marriage is wrong, always has been, always will be.
Even if He didn’t, it would still be a good idea.
Thus said, homosexuals marrying takes away the fornication (at least in My opinion).
If God then thinks its wrong for 2 memers of the same sex to be married, well, He will have to deal with it, its not my business.