Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[Crazee Dayzee]

A Christian recognizes that s/he sins, and asks God to forgive him/her. A Christian is not expected, and does not expect, to be perfect. Sin > ask for forgiveness > try to better yourself. By being human and making mistakes, then asking for forgiveness, they actually are following the Bible "all the way."

The problem with a lot of Christians is that they don't recognize that many things that they have personally made into a habit are considered sins in their holy book, yet belittle homosexuals because it's not normal and "against the bible." I have a friend who exemplifies this.

 

[CassinoChips]

That's hypocritical of your friend, but that doesn't mean that s/he is/they are incorrect when stating that homosexuality is against their beliefs and a sin.

And how can you blame someone for sinning if they don't recognize that what they are doing is a sin?

 

[10th Doctor]

I don;'t think that Homosexuality is wrong at all. It's just different. A difference has always struck fear into the human heart. It's natural that we fear that we don't know. However, instead of trying to learn about the diference, people cast it aside, and chastise it. Although someimes, can get a little uncomfortable when a girl flirts with me, I try t deal with it the same way a guy I'm not intrested would.

 

[SaShman]

The problem Christians have with men and women who are gay is that they do not recognize that they are sinning, thus do not ask for forgiveness. It's less the fact that they are violating God's law, and mre the fact that they show no remorse about it.

And how can you blame someone for sinning if they don't recognize that what they are doing is a sin?

So wait, you're saying that homophobic Christians are contradicting themselves? Not trying to be condescending, I'm just curious is all.

The problem with a lot of Christians is that they don't recognize that many things that they have personally made into a habit are considered sins in their holy book, yet belittle homosexuals because it's not normal and "against the bible." I have a friend who exemplifies this.

I agree, the amount of hypocrisy is crazy. But the fact of the matter is that some Christians think that some sins are worse than others, which technically makes sense. But the reason why homosexuality is considered one of the more unholy of sins is beyond me.

 

[CassinoChips]

So wait, you're saying that homophobic Christians are contradicting themselves? Not trying to be condescending, I'm just curious is all.

Eeehhhh..... that wasn't my intent, but in a roundabout way, it follows logically.

Let me see if I can be more clear. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. Men and women who are gay don't, obviously. Thus the conflict. It's not so much that they are sinning that irritates Christians, it's that they believe something that is anathema to Christian ideology, values, and morals.

My point to Q about her friend was that if that person was not aware that they are sinning, they wouldn't consider it a sin, therefore there would be nothing to change. However, if it was brought to their attention, and they continued the action, then they would be choosing to violate. Which is bad.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Here's a little story for you: Once upon time, American Christians actually gave a hoot about theology. Then some blockheads in all the mainline seminaries started importing German liberal theology and paraded themselves before God (who they said was dead) and everybody as though they were somehow more intellectual for not being original enough see past Kant and Schleiermacher's dopey logic. The American people, meanwhile, have just witnessed what industrialized warfare can do after it was unleashed on their countrymen in some crackerjack war that their racist Dixiecrat President claimed had been fought to save the world from the rapacious terror posed by a race of people who now made up a quarter of the U.S. population. So, struck by the double-whammy of a clergy that no longer cares about the truth and a world that just can't seem to make the Gilded Age an eternal one, concerned evangelicals completely ignore the equally intellectual refutations of liberal theology that are flowing from the pens of men like B.B. Warfield and make a steer for the Charybdis of anti-intellectual theologies like Scofield's dispensationalism and Seymour's Pentecostalism. And basically nothing changes in Protestantism for the next 100 years except that a third layer of anti-intellectualism gets laid down by the postmodernist Emerging Church types starting in the late 80's.

Thus we come to today, when the mainstream of evangelicalism has become so opposed to even learning its own system of thought that nobody who was interviewed in this video can offer a cogent answer to what is quite possibly the most ignorant blast of hot air to ever masquerade under the name of "criticism." About the best fighting chance that anyone has given the state of the modern church is the odd dispensationalist who knows enough of what his theology teaches to object that the covenant of the Old Testament is completely nullified, but that the injunction against homosexuals still stands because it was reiterated by Paul in Romans.

Me, now, I think dispy theology is hullaballoo, because Calvinistic covenent-theology types like ol' B.B. Warfield and myself perceive much more continuity between Old and New Testament. And to answer the Aussie know-it-all's question, yes, there is an asterisk by the Old Testament versions of the ban on fudgepacking that is imperceptible to the eyes of comedians who are looking for a cheap laugh at the expense of individuals he considers less enlightened than himself. You see, Calvinist Reformation theology proceeds with the science of exegesis (that's the art of interpretation, to you folks who aren't familiar with theological terminology) on the basis of three principles: (1) Scripture informs us how to interpret Scripture, (2) Scripture interprets Scripture (a.k.a. analogia fidei), and (3) New Testament Scripture in particular gives us the best interpretive key for making sense out of the Old Testament.

Now, in light of the third principle, it may interest you to know that the New Testament texts implicitly divvy up the Old Testament Law (that includes Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) into three parts: a ceremonial law, a moral law, and a civil law. The ceremonial law contains all the minutiae about animal sacrifices; and the New Testament writers declare that this law is fulfilled/done away with in Christ. The moral law contains all the core ethical principles of the faith, and the NT writers tell us that Christians are still expected to obey them. The civil law was the particular outworking of the moral law in the context of ancient Jewish theocratic culture, and these have been abrogated according to authors like Paul and Peter and whoever the devil wrote Hebrews (I personally favor Luke).

Now, the beauty of this is that the covenantalist can actually say that the ceremonial and civil laws, although abrogated, aren't exactly nullified, because the former illustrates Christological truths for us and the latter gives us examples of how the moral law is applied. He can also appreciate that there are dispensational aspects to God's moral law in that God's covenant people are no longer bound within one civil institution but are sown among several nations of the world. Nevertheless, we arrive at the question: To which law does the injunction against homosexuality belong?

Clearly, it is not ceremonial. It has nothing to do with the functioning of the priesthood. But, try as the skepic might, he cannot legitimately ascribe it to the civil law. Certainly, the civil punishment demanded for homosexuality belongs to the civil law (as does the civil punishment for violating the moral law of obeying one's parents), but the offense itself is said to be a moral one, as anybody can readily observe from the fact that the relevant Old Testament passages call it "depravity" and "perversion."

That said, of course, the civil-law punishment has been abrogated, and violent acts against homosexuals are not acceptable in the New Testament Church. As Paul clearly lays out in Romans, the State, not the Church as an institution, wields the power of the sword during the inter-Advent period.

 

[Æon Flux]

I dont see why not if gay people want to ruin their lives by getting married I say let them...I dont believe in marriage,but for those whom wish to do it I dont see what the problem is.
Besides there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state so I dont see why legaly speaking why it wouldnt be acknowledged by a state.

 

[Sidmarill]

I don't really like the idea of Homosexual Marriage - But...
You don't really stop straight marriage do you?
It's their life, they can do what they want...
If they want to marry each other - then go ahead.
If you want to put drugs into your stomach so you can give birth - I don't care...
Just as long as you don't try and dominate straights with Homosexuals.
Wow that sounded kinda...Sexist...Didn't it...?

 

[WanderingAesthetic]

Being bi myself, I support gay marriage.

Additionally, I don't really feel that marriage should be legally recognized, except in cases of custody and breaking up property after divorce and such. I think it should be primarily a religious thing. If your church is cool with you getting married, you should be married if you want. I really don't think there should be any tax advantages for being married, though.