Isn't supporting gay marriage incompatible with being a sincerely devout Christian?

[raindog]

Polycarp said:

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.)

Usual? Try the only marriage relationship contemplated.There are no endorsements of multiple marriages in the NT, right? As to whether monogamy is a requirement, Jesus said a man would stick to his wife and that they would become one flesh. (Mark10:7) Paul wrote to Timothy that one reaching out to sheperd the flock should be a man of one wife. (1 Tim 3:2) (bolding mine) The texts that give intent, support, admonishment and counsel for relationships probably count in the hundreds and they universally speak in both monogamous and in heterosexual terms.

[/quote]
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).
[/quote]

A bit more prevalent? A bit more? If Paul had something to say that contradicted God’s view—a distinction---- I’d love to hear of it.

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.)

I’ll certainly respect that, as I think we’ve probably had our fill with that subject. I will say only this: It is intellectually unfathomable that God arguably condemns homosexuality, and homosexual behavior, and that one could to try to make a case that there is no explicit prohibitions on gay marriage. How does a gay marriage (to whit there is no explicit prohibition) reconcile itself with the homosexual behavior (to whit there agruably appears to be numerous explicit condemations) that would be part of a gay marriage? C’mon Polycarp!

Polycarp, I agree that going down that road would be a (tangential) hijack. So don’t bring it up. Attempting to split the hair between homosexual behavior and gay marriage is intellectually disengenuous. It looks like you’re sneaking in your point, (under the guise that there is no prohibition on SSM) with the addendum, ’ Don’t hijack the thread by scrutinizing my point.’

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.

Of course, if that was the only set of rules…Of course it isn’t even a ‘set.’ You just need a couple scriptures. “God is Love” will suffice. Or John 13:34 that Liberal quoted. Keep in mind, we’re not talking about “God is Love” as a means of asking for God’s forgiveness for homosexual behavior. (As Polycarp does not see it as a condemned practice) I can see no reason why, given the all powerful super-duper quality of the ‘God is Love’ argument, it isn’t equally availible to adulterers, pedophiles, and fornicators. It’s cool honey! God is Love!

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.

Priorities indeed. I, for one, have gay friends and want to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. But my reading of the scrpiture (words are funny things Polycarp. I found several instances where homosexual behavior is condemned and I didn’t need to “dig” at all) tells me unequivecally that homosexual behavior is condemed. (You have completely misapplied Romans within this context)

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.

No fancy footwork at all. Simply choose what you wish to believe and disregard the rest.

[rfgdxm]

@the raindog

No fancy footwork at all. Simply choose what you wish to believe and disregard the rest.

Yep. People do that all the time with the Bible.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

While supporting gay marriage may be biblically questionable, condemning it is unquestionably against the teachings of Christ.

It is not my place to judge a man for his actions. God judges.

And if God wants to judge a homosexual for his actions, he will do so.

But these things I do know:

God won’t judge me for the actions of Adam and Steve.

But if I do not follow Christ’s example of loving Adam and loving Steve as I love myself, he will certainly judge me (and harshly) for that. Christ spent his time with and ministered to worse people in the eyes of Jewish law than homosexuals.

[Polycarp]

Great, Raindog. I stated my understanding in answer to the OP, not so that you could tear it apart based on your terms.

To start with, perhaps you may have heard of the Old Testament? Several of the patriarchs in Genesis have multiple wives, apparently with God’s blessing.

Second, marriage != sex.

Third, it is not my job to judge my gay brothers and sisters. It’s not even my job to presume to help guide their moral behavior unless I can “walk a mile in their sandals” and know how they feel, what their capabilities and limitations are. It is my job to show brotherly love towards them.

Jesus set priorities quite explicitly in those passages I quoted. “This is [fulfills] the Law and the Prophets” is pretty plain. Matthew 7:1-2 is pretty plain. The Parable of the Sheep and Goats is pretty plain. If it’s your choice to believe that what Paul wrote is as absolutely God’s command as Jesus’s explicit words, that’s your privilege. If you insist on regarding the Greek words usually translated “homosexual” and “effeminate” as accurately translated, that’s your privilege. I’m not going to judge you.

But somebody will. You know what you owe Him. And you know what He commanded. Do what you feel morally right towards your fellow man, brother, and let neither my words nor Dr. Dobson’s sway you – neither of us is in charge of you. But for your own soul’s sake be sure that you follow Him as He leads.

That’s what I’m trying to do. And I welcome your prayers for me, as I offer you mine.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns loving homosexual relationships or forbids same-sex marriage. There is plenty that says to be compassionate and non-judgemental.

Therefore there is no conflict being a Christian and supporting same-sex marriage.

[Triskadecamus]

How can a person claim to be a devout Christian, and to desire to enter into a state of holy matrimony, and then permit the government to regulate or prescribe the nature of that relationship? In what way does it honor our Lord to subject the bonds that He has made to be judged by secular authority? And by what extraordinary logical wrangling does such a faithless prostitute to politics as this feel that someone else’s marriage in any way denigrates that union he so willingly tosses into the marketplace? If you are married in the eyes of your beloved, and your beloved Lord, then the opinions of anyone else are hardly matters of Christian faith.

Defense of marriage, indeed!

The Church has become nothing but another whore, seeking the eye of the power of this world. It can no longer sanctify anything. The Government never could sanctify anything. Turn your gaze into your own acts, your own service to the one you call Lord. Leave your sanctimony behind you, and prostrate yourself for the sins you have committed. That way lies Salvation.

Tris

[Zoe]

Vanilla, I just love the logic of your last paragraph!

the raindog: I, for one, have gay friends and want to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.

Consider, please, that you might start by not comparing them with pedophiles. Just a suggestion.

I believe in love, compassion and tolerance. I believe in trying to remain aware of my own shortcomings and in trying to become less judgmental of others. I believe that the Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform and that I don’t know everything yet.

[Loopydude]

@Avenger

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.

No, what I was saying is that, apparently, the mainstream Christian view (and this becomes magnified, of course, within more conservative subsets, such as the “evangelicals”), a same-sex union cannot be consecrated. That is not to say most Christians would deny their existence, or could not be supportive of a legal status that is something other than “marriage” for said unions.

There is, of course, within the Christian faith, some percentage who feel state recognition of anything other than Holy Matrimony is wrong, because same-sex unions of any kind are immoral. They do use scripture, IMO, as adeptly as their opponents, and again, I think this is just another example of how one can use the Bible to support almost any view you like, so long as the language is sufficiently unclear, and you choose to ignore or emphasize the historical and sociological context in which the Scriptures were written.

Now, just because homosexual love is (arguably) immoral according to Scripture doesn’t mean all Christians should have to hate homosexuals (which is clearly contrary to Scripture), it just means some would likely discourage homosexuals from acting on to their proclivities, and, if heterosexual unions proved impossible, to remain celibate (the official stance of the Catholic Church, for instance).

Can we also ignore the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury has formally asked the US Episcopal Church to apologize for ordaining an openly and actively gay bishop, to acknowledge this was wrong and contrary to Scripture, and to cease any such ordinations in the future? Can we gloss over the fact that this controversy may lead to schism, and has wracked the Anglican world community more traumatically than the ordination of female priests? What could possibly be the problem, if not the idea within the faith that homosexual activities are wrong?

From these conflicts, among a host of others, I merely state that it appears, in general, that the idea of gay marriage within the faith is at least highly controversial for the majority of Christians, that many, if not most, do not think it should be officially recognized within the faith by consecration, and that some percentage of those go further to say that state recognition of same-sex unions of any kind is simply immoral and should not be done. To finish the thought, Scripture is undeniably the basis for these objections. While I certainly would not take the position that Scripture could not also be used to counter those objections, I personally find the case more difficult for the pro-gay stance than those opposed to gay marriage. In my assessment, the former wants to take the passages they like and discard or reinterpret those they think are offensive, while the latter considers the whole of the Scriptural tradition, takes what the relevant passages have to say at face value, and proceeds accordingly.

[Polycarp]

@Loopydude

Can we also ignore the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury has formally asked the US Episcopal Church to apologize for ordaining an openly and actively gay bishop, to acknowledge this was wrong and contrary to Scripture, and to cease any such ordinations in the future? Can we gloss over the fact that this controversy may lead to schism, and has wracked the Anglican world community more traumatically than the ordination of female priests? What could possibly be the problem, if not the idea within the faith that homosexual activities are wrong?

Can we possibly get our facts right before deciding to make remarks like this? :mad:

[sqweels]

Raindog:

I can see no reason why, given the all powerful super-duper quality of the ‘God is Love’ argument, it isn’t equally availible to adulterers, pedophiles, and fornicators. It’s cool honey! God is Love!

Meanwhile back in the Real World, the problem with the first two behaviors you cited is that there is a victim involved, and the third is a problem if there’s no commitment. These problems do not apply to homosexual relationships any more than to heterosexual ones.

[Polycarp]

@the raindog

I can see no reason why, given the all powerful super-duper quality of the ‘God is Love’ argument, it isn’t equally availible to adulterers, pedophiles, and fornicators. It’s cool honey! God is Love!

You know, strangely, somebody said something about tax collectors and adulterers entering the kingdom ahead of Pharisees. Not anybody you need to bother with listening to, though – Paul made it clear what you’re supposed to believe.

[Loopydude]

Before.

After.

I cannot read these articles any other way than to say the Archbishop, et al. were very concerned beforehand, and now want an apology. Furthermore, they want to make sure this doesn’t happen again. No one has called for Robinson’s removal, of course, but there is clearly a sentiment among many in the wider Anglican community that the American Church acted wrongly.

From this article, expressing the conserns of conservative Anglicans:

We are deeply saddened that within minutes of the Windsor Report’s release, the Presiding Bishop has already rejected its core presupposition that is the church’s traditional teaching on human sexuality," the statement by American Communion Network and the American Anglican Council read. "We call upon Bishop Griswold to express godly sorrow, immediately implement a moratorium on ordinations and consecrations of practicing homosexuals as well as the blessing of same sex unions, and we call on all bishops who have supported the consecration to withdraw from the councils of the church, as the report suggests.

The Episcopal Church is now faced with serious and difficult choices. They can follow the lead of Bishop Griswold which will ultimately lead to the demise of the Episcopal Church or they can choose to embrace the core covenant recommended by the commission, reject false doctrine and preserve faithful unity.

It is my understanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury endorses this “core covenant”.

To conclude, an simple summary of the recommendations of the Lambeth Commission. Most salient:

It outlines several steps necessary to restore our unity:

1. It asks the Episcopal Church to express ‘regret’ for what they have done. I understand that the committee had a lengthy debate over whether to ask for regret or repentance—I would have much preferred if they had chosen the latter!

2. It invites each bishop who had a role in the New Hampshire consecration to withdraw themselves from further involvement in Anglican Communion organizations.

3. It asks the Episcopal Church to declare a moratorium on any other elections of practicing homosexuals and on the development or use of rites of blessing of same sex unions.

4. It asks those who, in response to this current crisis, have crossed diocesan boundaries without permission from the local diocesan bishop, to desist because those actions can also be detrimental to the unity of the Communion.

Of course, the Anglican Communion gives ultimate jurisdiction and authority to all members of the general synod to manage their own affairs, so the request for apology and moratorium is only that, a request. Certainly the recommendations of the Lambeth Commission (convened, after all, by the Archbishop) acknowledge this authority, and have fallen far short of a demand made by some to cast out the American Churches that have shown such support for homosexuals; and the matter has been deferred until the next council in 2007. Within the Commission’s report was a request to redefine marriage to allow for same-sex unions within the entire Anglican community, a recommendation loudly denounced by some conservative bishops, especially representing the African churches, some even who were themselves on the Commission. Dr. Rowan has found himself in a very difficult position, and it’s hard to guess what the future will hold. I think it’s reasonable to say, at this juncture, the American church has been asked, rather sternly, to apologize, make no more dramatic moves, and wait for the wider community to speak so as to presever the unity of the Communion.

[Kalhoun]

@the raindog

Polycarp said:

Usual? Try the only marriage relationship contemplated.There are no endorsements of multiple marriages in the NT, right? As to whether monogamy is a requirement, Jesus said a man would stick to his wife and that they would become one flesh. (Mark10:7) Paul wrote to Timothy that one reaching out to sheperd the flock should be a man of one wife. (1 Tim 3:2) (bolding mine) The texts that give intent, support, admonishment and counsel for relationships probably count in the hundreds and they universally speak in both monogamous and in heterosexual terms.

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).
[/quote]

A bit more prevalent? A bit more? If Paul had something to say that contradicted God’s view—a distinction---- I’d love to hear of it.

I’ll certainly respect that, as I think we’ve probably had our fill with that subject. I will say only this: It is intellectually unfathomable that God arguably condemns homosexuality, and homosexual behavior, and that one could to try to make a case that there is no explicit prohibitions on gay marriage. How does a gay marriage (to whit there is no explicit prohibition) reconcile itself with the homosexual behavior (to whit there agruably appears to be numerous explicit condemations) that would be part of a gay marriage? C’mon Polycarp!

Polycarp, I agree that going down that road would be a (tangential) hijack. So don’t bring it up. Attempting to split the hair between homosexual behavior and gay marriage is intellectually disengenuous. It looks like you’re sneaking in your point, (under the guise that there is no prohibition on SSM) with the addendum, ’ Don’t hijack the thread by scrutinizing my point.’

Of course, if that was the only set of rules…Of course it isn’t even a ‘set.’ You just need a couple scriptures. “God is Love” will suffice. Or John 13:34 that Liberal quoted. Keep in mind, we’re not talking about “God is Love” as a means of asking for God’s forgiveness for homosexual behavior. (As Polycarp does not see it as a condemned practice) I can see no reason why, given the all powerful super-duper quality of the ‘God is Love’ argument, it isn’t equally availible to adulterers, pedophiles, and fornicators. It’s cool honey! God is Love!

Priorities indeed. I, for one, have gay friends and want to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. But my reading of the scrpiture (words are funny things Polycarp. I found several instances where homosexual behavior is condemned and I didn’t need to “dig” at all) tells me unequivecally that homosexual behavior is condemed. (You have completely misapplied Romans within this context)

No fancy footwork at all. Simply choose what you wish to believe and disregard the rest.
[/QUOTE]

Great post, Raindog! Indeed, if it were so simple to discern what the hell the bible is trying to say, we wouldn’t have so many splinter factions of christianity! It is, at this point, so watered down as to be laughable. And as others have pointed out, religion is a club; not a government. We, as a nation need to understand that and quit pretending the supreme court gives (or has an official right to give a rat’s ass what silly incantations a couple wants to recite when they become legally bound to each other.

Your church vows (or beliefs) have no bearing on whether or not you can divorce. It should have no voice in whether or not you can be legally united, either. I don’t care *what * the bible says. I’m not a christian and it doesn’t affect me or millions of other people. We need to concentrate on interpreting the constitution; not the writings of some deluded old men from ancient times.

[Kalhoun]

Sorry about the coding there.

[irishgirl]

I’m all for justice.
A person who has been a faithful and loving companion and carer can be thrown out of their home and denied their inheritance by relatives of their partner, even when those relatives threw that person out of their home for being gay.
I don’t think that’s just.

I think that if you don’t even have to be married to have your straight relationship recognised as “common-law” or “de facto”, I think the same should be applied to same-sex couples. They should be able to officially register their union, and afforded the same rights.

Definitely falls under “render unto Caesar” when you’re talking about taxes, benefits, insurance, hospital treatment etc. Which means my religious beliefs should not be used to decide the law, and I should simply strive to ensure that my brothers and sisters benefit from it.

The problem for a lot of people seems to be whether you call a civil union a marriage or not. And that’s a really stupid thing to fight about.

[ElvisL1ves]

Can any of the Bible scholars here provide scriptural cites that support denial to gays of equal rights and equal love and respect? Or does that take “philosophical tapdancing”?

[Loopydude]

Actually, in mulling over the Anglican Church’s recent conflicts regarding homosexuality, I’m finding it difficult to figure out how a Council of Bishops can say that endorsement of normal homosexual relations (e.g. consecrating same-sex unions, ordination of openly and actively homosexual Bishops) causes problems for the community at this juncture, have at least some members of that Council cite Scripture as justification for the consternation of many many among the Communion, and then recommend a future solution may be widespread official recognition of the sanctification of same-sex unions. It would appear at least some members of the Communion think the best way to proceed is to regard those portions of Scripture which appear to condemn homosexuality as unimportatnt, and take the lack of explicit prohibition of gay marriage as sufficient grounds to proceed in the direction of consecration.

This approach most certainly will not be universally applauded.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Loopydude

It would appear at least some members of the Communion think the best way to proceed is to regard those portions of Scripture which appear to condemn homosexuality as unimportatnt,

The portions of scripture which “appear to condemn homosexuality” do not, in fact, condemn homosexuality. Those passages are not being “ignored” they are just finally being understood correctly.

[Loopydude]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The portions of scripture which “appear to condemn homosexuality” do not, in fact, condemn homosexuality. Those passages are not being “ignored” they are just finally being understood correctly.

Surely you do not think your definition of “correct” interpretation is, in the minds of many, completely untenable? And why should anyone favor your interpretation over another? Are these passages not at least suggestive of a negative view of homosexuality?

Romans 1:26-27: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.

This passage (rather unique in that it also refers to women) seems to state explicity that homosexuality is unnatural, and that homosexual love is “vile”. I’ve heard all the arguments to the contrary, and I simply cannot see how that is not the most obvious read of the passage. Christian liberals try to explain it away by saying the sin here is wantoness, not “unnaturalness”, but I remain unconvinced.

1Corithians6:9-10: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Christian liberals say “effiminate self-abuser is not equal to homosexual”. Well, you want to assert Paul wouldn’t have lumped them into that catagory? You’re free to do so, but I think others are equally free to do otherwise, and I could not fault them on literal grounds, only intent, which must be arbitrary at best.

We’ll ignore 1 Timothy, since many rightly feel it is not an authentic Pauline epistle. No need to dredge up Leviticus and Genesis, since, according to liberal Christians, the New Covenant supercedes the old (I, personally, do not see how this should be taken to mean “renders all those parts not explicitly addressed potentially null and void unless they agree with my politics”).

I’m not trying to assert one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong (though I lean toward trying to figure out what the writer’s intent most probably must have been), but only to say the issue is not cut-and-dry, and both sides can make good points on scriptural grounds. I find the conservative reading more strict, simple as that. I do not agree with you, that conservative interpretations are “incorrect”, just offensive.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Loopydude

Surely you do not think your definition of “correct” interpretation is, in the minds of many, completely untenable? And why should anyone favor your interpretation over another? Are these passages not at least suggestive of a negative view of homosexuality?

Only when they’re mistranslated as they are in your quoted passages.

This passage (rather unique in that it also refers to women) seems to state explicity that homosexuality is unnatural, and that homosexual love is “vile”. I’ve heard all the arguments to the contrary, and I simply cannot see how that is not the most obvious read of the passage. Christian liberals try to explain it away by saying the sin here is wantoness, not “unnaturalness”, but I remain unconvinced.

Mistranslation. It doesn’t say “unnatural.” It says [symbol]para fusin[/symbol], which does not mean “unnatural” in an ethical sense but that the women behaved in a manner unlike themselves. Para physin means “beside or outside one’s own nature,” (and in this case, physin is better translated as “character.” Read in context, the entire passage says that the women worshipped idols and then started behaving in ways that were completely out of character. It’s like if someone says that a couple of women took Ecstasy at a party and started doing a topless table dance. It’s not a condemnation of topless table dances, it’s a description of what the Ecstasy did to the women.

Christian liberals say “effiminate self-abuser is not equal to homosexual”. Well, you want to assert Paul wouldn’t have lumped them into that catagory? You’re free to do so, but I think others are equally free to do otherwise, and I could not fault them on literal grounds, only intent, which must be arbitrary at best.

Paul didn’t say “effeminate self-abuser,” that’s an execrable translation. Paul said malakoi and arsenokoitai. I’ve explained these words several times in other threads and can do so again if you want, but the short version is that malakoi means “soft ones” (and this term was not used in Greek to indicate homosexuality or effeminacy. It indicated those who lacked moral discipline and was frequently used to describe womanizers) and arsenokoitai probably referred to pederasts. Arsenokoita is a thread unto itself, but to condense the argument, Paul seems to have invented the word himself, is exact meaning is unclear, and uses subsequent to Paul seem to associate it with male prostitution. I can go into much greater detail on this if you want, but I assure you there are reasons that the word cannot have referred to all homosexuals or homosexual activity.
We’ll ignore 1 Timothy, since many rightly feel it is not an authentic Pauline epistle. No need to dredge up Leviticus and Genesis, since, according to liberal Christians, the New Covenant supercedes the old (I, personally, do not see how this should be taken to mean “renders all those parts not explicitly addressed potentially null and void unless they agree with my politics”).
[/quote]

Timothy uses the same terms as Corinthians.
Genesis says nothing about homosexuality whatsoever (No, Sodom and Gomorrah does not mention homosexuality and that is not the reason those cities were punished).

The Leviticus injunction probably referred to male Temple prostitutes although it is the only verse in the Bible that has even a prima facie claim to being a condemnation of homosexuality.

I’m not trying to assert one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong (though I lean toward trying to figure out what the writer’s intent most probably must have been), but only to say the issue is not cut-and-dry, and both sides can make good points on scriptural grounds. I find the conservative reading more strict, simple as that. I do not agree with you, that conservative interpretations are “incorrect”, just offensive.

It’s not a question of interpretation in the NT but simple translation and plain reading. The translations you are familiar with have been loaded up in a misleading manner to convey impressions that are not present in the Greek.