why worry so much re homosexuals marrying but not about other sinners marrying?

Why do so many Christians worry about homosexuals marrying, but reading the bible I would have thought that god thinks adolatry is a greater sin (at least that one makes it to the 10 commandments). Why not stop hindus marrying instead. Lets remove marrying rights from murderers, adulterers, and coveters. Can any christian pinpoint the logic involved in worrying about one but not all the others? I am not talking about getting married in church (where they can set what rules they like), but rather civil unions
(I can see why christians see homosexuals as an easy target for venting their wroth about decay in society, but that is another point)

Right, and why are conservative Christian churches willing to hire diverced persons as ministers, and not gays? Jesus is much more specific about divorce than about homosexuality.
Mt 19:9 “And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery – unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

scm1001 said:

True. It is hypocritical to condemn homosexuals while I’m cheating on my wife; or living with someone without the benefit of marriage.

What’s good for the goose is good for the…uh…er…goose.

Either way, be consistent!

You might be doing a little merging of church doctrine with civil law…

I have no opinion on civil matters, but I agree with you. Either worry about them all, or to quote Bobby McFerrin, “Don’t worry, Be happy.”

True, but point well made.

True. Jesus outlines the only acceptable basis for divorce: Adultrey.

As to hiring divorced persons (who presumably are divorced for reasons other than Adultrey; the only reason that Jesus said was a basis for divorce) as ministers I can only speculate.

It would appear that being homosexual, or rather having a homosexual orientation, is not an overt act of sin. Engaging in homosexual behavior, OTOH, is identified as an act of sin.

I can’t see why a church wouldn’t hire a minister who had a homosexual orientation. I can see how their faith/dogma would preclude them from hiring one in a homosexual relationship.

Perhaps the rationale is that a homosexual relationship is an ongoing willfull act of sin, and is contrary to biblical principles.

I can also see the logic in not hiring a minister who is divorced for grounds outside of those stipulated by Jesus.

Of course, a divorce is an isolated event as opposed to a ongoing behavior. Still, I can see the reticence that a church might have in a pastor who divorced because of, say, incompatibility.

It’s been a while since I’ve dusted off my Bible, but should a ‘wrongly’ divorced man remarry, is not every instance of sex with his new wife fornication?

Anyway, I understand the idea of standards for participation or leadership in church, even if I don’t always agree. What I think we can all disagree with is a set of standards set and enforced not on Scripture, but on the ‘ick’ factor.

I am suprised to see such unanimity in the SD. It was obviously such a cogently put argument that no one could disagree with. I hereby declare with the power invested in me that homosexual unions are now legalised in the US :stuck_out_tongue:

An answer that goes to part of if not all of the OP:

Because to the religious, the conduct that is at the center of the homosexual’s putative “sin” is the very conduct that is at the center of the institution of marriage as well (as they view it).

That is also true of adultery, albeit the analysis works a bit differently as noted.

Not true of being a Hindu. murderer, thief, false-witnesser, or coveter of your neighbor’s goods (though probably true of coveting your neighbor’s wife).

And while letting a murderer marry doesn’t legitimize his murder (except insofar as it evidences failure to universally shun and deny all privileges to a serious sinner), letting someone who wants to make a homosexual sexual relationship the subject of what the religious regard as an intrinsically heterosexual institution (pls., no sidetracking on the obvious fact that YMMV on this view) pretty much does give up the game on the religious view of such institution.

OK I buy that. I think I will then have to start my own religion (united welsh church of gayers), and cry religious discrimination when homosexuals aren’t allowed to marry.

[Fake welsh accent]You’d be the only gayer in the village[/FWA]

:stuck_out_tongue:

From what I’ve been told, its all about the children. They need a mother and father of differing sexes to row up okay. Well, thats what I was told.

That would be grow.

So being a single mother should be a sin too? :rolleyes:

See this is why I’m 99.9% sure that Christianity is a bunch of hooey.
I’m just a simple heterosexual guy who couldn’t give a care about what gay people do on their spare time. Well maybe I have occassionally envisioned what gay women do together but I digress ;)…So some almighty god is bugged by this
:confused:

It just all wreaks of macho hebrew men sittin’ around way back when making up some macho rules.

Then why don’t they take kids away from single parents? According to their “thinking,” it’s better to have one mother/father than two mothers/fathers.

Because the Christian fundamentalists know they can’t get away with that in the United States… yet.

But shouldn’t ‘nice’ v. ‘icky’ be the basis of Christian theology? I mean, fergit this ‘good’ and ‘evil’ crapola; that’s sooo 19th-century.

Huh? I don’t get this? Is this supposed to imply:
a) Hindus are gay?
b) Hindus are sinners by virtue of being Hindu, or
c) picking on Hindus was an arbitrary choice not meant to imply anything about Hindus in particular?

Not that I’m Hindu, nor particularly offended by the comment. It just jumpd out at me? So, what’s wrong with Hindus that the OP *suggests not allowing them to marry? (*Disclaimer: I realize the OP probably doesn’t personally believe in stopping Hindu’s marrying; I’m just curious about that choice of example.)

Actually the OP is operating from a faulty supposition. The reason conservative Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage is not because homosexuals are sinners. They would be the first to declare that everyone is a sinner, and most would admit that sexual sin is no worse (or indeed, not as bad as) a host of other sins committed by those to whom marriage is available.

Second, they are not saying that homosexuals should not get married at all. They are saying they cannot marry someone of the same sex. I know that’s little consolation to the LBGT community, but there is a distinction between saying “Look, this whole group of people are not allowed to get married” and “This is what a marriage is (a man and a woman): and it is a sacrament available to everyone.”

The thing is, to them, “same-sex marriage” is simply an ontological impossibility. It’s like saying “living rock” or “dark sunlight.” It’s not that homosexuals are any more sinful then anyone else; it’s that a marriage is the union of a man and a women as part of the created order.

For what it’s worth.

The laws on who in the U.S. can get married and cohabit and bone with whomever they like have been moving in a uniform direction for the past 50 years, and that direction is not toward greater restriction of such rights or deprivation of previously-existing right. It is toward liberalization and expansion of rights, or at a minimum, toward temporary stasis.

Name one group who previously enjoyed the right to marry/cohabit/bone at will, but as to whom “the Christian fundamentalists” “got away” with taking away such recognized right.

You can’t, so I submit it’s disingenuous, if not hysterical, to suggest that there is any trend, possibility, likelihood, or mechanism by which depriving Hindus of the right to marry could ever come about (because that’s the chilling possibility your ominous italicized yet darkly raises).

Of course, putting aside the absolute factual impossibility of such deprivation coming about, your additional unsubstantiated suggestion that “the Christian fundamentalists” clearly would want to effectuate such a deprivation, but, however, lack the practical means, pretty much tells me you were only aiming at a cheap shot at the inbred Christians and not making a serious assessment of anything that could, would, or would be desired to happen as to the laws of marriage in the U.S. Well, you wouldn’t be the first here to find such caricatures knee-slapping.

I don’t know where they get their logic; thats all I was told. Apparently, a boy will get confused if he has 2 moms, won’t know how to be a man, or relate to a wife.
Makes no sense, but its a biggie with them. Sex sins seem to be worse than others; something about hurting your own body (only if you do it wrong, ba dum dum)

The phrase I think you’re looking for is “the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.”

I don’t know that you’ll find any official league-table of sins from best to worst in most Christian religions of which I know. I can’t think of any church that would in theory or practice rank murder as okay but unauthorized boning as the evil of all evils.

Perhaps a practical reason that religions have seemed to pay attention to sexual sin (or “sin”) is not that the “sin” is viewed as being “worse,” but that the substantial (to believers) seriousness of the particular sin is more troubling in view of a greater human proclivity toward the sin in question than toward others (here is your opportunity to say that nothing to which there is a strong human proclivity is likely to be inherently evil, and there are points there worth arguing). That is, many more of us have found ourselves doing, or just on the brink of doing, fornication-type things that we (or society) thought were wrong, than have found ourselves on the brink of doing murder-type things that everyone agrees are wrong.