A Christian defense of gay mariage

[William Wallace]

Well, sort of. This was my response to a very conservative friend. What are your thoughts, especially you other Christians?

[kirksnosehair]

I'm the furthest thing from religious but for that post I offer you this:

[GuineaPig]

Excellent post.

[skydivingninja]

Very good post.  Well done.

[Orbert]

Nice!

[snapple]

It's a great post. As a Christian, I don't plan on marrying a dude. It shouldn't REALLY bother me that non-Christians want to marry other dudes. I may disagree but I sure as shit won't lose sleep over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blaZx7EML_4 <---Daniel Tosh is awesome in this.

[William Wallace]

It's a great post. As a Christian, I don't plan on marrying a dude. It shouldn't REALLY bother me that non-Christians want to marry other dudes. I may disagree but I sure as shit won't lose sleep over it.

That's pretty much my attitude.

[orcus116]

Well spoken. A refreshing viewpoint and one I actually think many more Christians hold than is lead on to believe.

[Orbert]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

My church recently changed its mission statement to specifically welcome persons of any sexual orientation.  It's in there with "all races, all ethnic backgrounds" and that, but it's in there now.  We recently hired a new youth director who is openly gay, and he just married his long-time partner and the church ladies threw them a wedding shower.  We are so prog.

On paper, we're United Methodist, but my understanding is that we currently are at risk of excommunication (or whatever its called) for going against "the discipline".  I don't know how all that works, but we might have some interesting times ahead.  We voted on changing the statement, and it passed with like 95% in favor, so our attitude is apparently "bring it on".

[William Wallace]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

My church recently changed its mission statement to specifically welcome persons of any sexual orientation.  It's in there with "all races, all ethnic backgrounds" and that, but it's in there now.  We recently hired a new youth director who is openly gay, and he just married his long-time partner and the church ladies threw them a wedding shower.  We are so prog.

On paper, we're United Methodist, but my understanding is that we currently are at risk of excommunication (or whatever its called) for going against "the discipline".  I don't know how all that works, but we might have some interesting times ahead.  We voted on changing the statement, and it passed with like 95% in favor, so our attitude is apparently "bring it on".

That's cool, but I don't share that view. The traditional view suits me fine from a biblical perspective. I just find the political side of issue less than agreeable.

[hefdaddy42]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

My church recently changed its mission statement to specifically welcome persons of any sexual orientation.  It's in there with "all races, all ethnic backgrounds" and that, but it's in there now.  We recently hired a new youth director who is openly gay, and he just married his long-time partner and the church ladies threw them a wedding shower.  We are so prog.

On paper, we're United Methodist, but my understanding is that we currently are at risk of excommunication (or whatever its called) for going against "the discipline".  I don't know how all that works, but we might have some interesting times ahead.  We voted on changing the statement, and it passed with like 95% in favor, so our attitude is apparently "bring it on".

I thought the UMC was already that liberal.  My mistake.

[Perpetual Change]

Pretty solid, but the question I'd like to raise is what attitude should the church have toward gay Christians?

[Orbert]

You say "the church" like there's only one.  There's a reason why Christianity has split countless times over the years.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, I meant churches in general. Sorry.

[sonatafanica]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

i don't think it's really a vocal minority situation, it's a pretty large amount. it's certainly not illegal in a large majority of states right now because of a "vocal minority".

[snapple]

God tells us to love everyone as he does. Nowhere does it say that God loves anyone less than anyone else. There is only one unforgivable sin, and it isn't sodomy. IMHO, all sins are the same, save for that one. I swear and drink to excess all the time, how does that make me any better than a gay person?

[Orbert]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

i don't think it's really a vocal minority situation, it's a pretty large amount. it's certainly not illegal in a large majority of states right now because of a "vocal minority".

Are you suggesting that it's illegal in those states because of what church leaders say?

[sonatafanica]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

i don't think it's really a vocal minority situation, it's a pretty large amount. it's certainly not illegal in a large majority of states right now because of a "vocal minority".

Are you suggesting that it's illegal in those states because of what church leaders say?

i didn't realize you were a church leader when you said "us"

[yeshaberto]

I think his point is that the vocal minority in many scenarios makes the rest of us look bad

[Perpetual Change]

I agree with Chris here, actually. I know very few religious people who are open to the type of thinking in the WW's blog. There's a reason why gay soldiers get booed at GOP conventions.

[Sigz]

Agreed. The majority may not be as aggressively heterosexist (thanks Jackie ) as the vocal minority, but they're still the ones voting to ban gay marriage come election day.

[Orbert]

True. The vocal minority tends to make us all look like assholes.

i don't think it's really a vocal minority situation, it's a pretty large amount. it's certainly not illegal in a large majority of states right now because of a "vocal minority".

Are you suggesting that it's illegal in those states because of what church leaders say?

i didn't realize you were a church leader when you said "us"

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Look, it's not that hard.  When this country was first set up, things like property rights, marriage, and so on, all had to be legally defined.  You start up a new country, you have to have laws.  Marriage is not just a religious ceremony, but a legal contract between two people, granting them certain rights and privileges not available to single persons, and the "normal" marriage consisted of a man and a woman.  This had nothing to do with religion; it was just the way it was the vast majority of the time, and when they laid it out, saying "a marriage by definition is between a man and a woman" no one questioned it because everyone knew that that's how it worked.  Also, slavery was legal and women couldn't vote.  Note that these didn't have anything to do with religion either; it's just how it was.

It's only in recent times that "political correctness" and "inclusiveness" and all that other stuff has cropped up, and now the definition of "marriage" is being changed.  Ask 10 people whether or not they think same-sex marriage is okay.  Do you think the majority of people, at least six of the 10, are against it?  Most people I know don't give a shit, or are actually in favor of it.  But if the minority of the population is against something, yet they're the ones making all the noise, and the laws, then we have a vocal minority stirring up the shit.

Now... where in the fuck does religion have anything to do with this, and where did I imply that I am a religious leader?

[rumborak]

And in all those public discussions, I have yet to see someone to try to push through the single most sensible solution, the one numerous countries who had the same discussion, have adopted: Stop calling the federally issued certificate a "marriage".  Call it a civil union, and then let your local church handle whatever flavor of marriage before God you want to have.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

And in all those public discussions, I have yet to see someone to try to push through the single most sensible solution, the one numerous countries who had the same discussion, have adopted: Stop calling the federally issued certificate a "marriage".  Call it a civil union, and then let your local church handle whatever flavor of marriage before God you want to have.

rumborak

Yep.

[BlobVanDam]

And in all those public discussions, I have yet to see someone to try to push through the single most sensible solution, the one numerous countries who had the same discussion, have adopted: Stop calling the federally issued certificate a "marriage".  Call it a civil union, and then let your local church handle whatever flavor of marriage before God you want to have.

rumborak

I doubt the semantic difference in name would satisfy those who are opposed to gay marriage in principle, although it seems like a perfectly fine solution to me.

[rumborak]

Well, it would have be a bit more than just semantics, that's for sure. It would have to send a clear signal of "the federal government is not in the business of marrying people before God. We appreciate the value of unions of people for the sake of fostering families, and thus we confer special privileges to those unions. Deities and Spaghetti Monsters take notice: This is not about you".

rumborak

[BlobVanDam]

Oh I get that, and you're right, but I still think that some people would have a problem with the government validating any such union, regardless of whether it's a marriage or otherwise. I just don't get the impression that anyone against gay marriage would accept a gay union either, and might think such a move weakens the traditional idea of marriage. Or maybe I'm putting words into people's mouthes here.

[hefdaddy42]

I like how the only homophobes are religious, and no non-religious people are against gay marriage.

[millahh]

Oh I get that, and you're right, but I still think that some people would have a problem with the government validating any such union, regardless of whether it's a marriage or otherwise. I just don't get the impression that anyone against gay marriage would accept a gay union either, and might think such a move weakens the traditional idea of marriage. Or maybe I'm putting words into people's mouthes here.

Well, it's the strongly-held view by many Republicans that the role of government is to enforce and promote their specific version of Christianity...which includes things like banning gay marriage, outlawing contraception, and other fun things like that.

[eric42434224]

I like how the only homophobes are religious, and no non-religious people are against gay marriage.

I know you are exaggerating, but serious question here:

What percentage of homophobes are, or consider themselves, religious....or use religion as a reason?

What percentage of homophobes are non-religious?

I would bet the percentage is much higher for the former.  Just a guess.

[Vivace]

And in all those public discussions, I have yet to see someone to try to push through the single most sensible solution, the one numerous countries who had the same discussion, have adopted: Stop calling the federally issued certificate a "marriage".  Call it a civil union, and then let your local church handle whatever flavor of marriage before God you want to have.

rumborak

That's always been my position. Marriage as defined by the secularists and by theology (Judiasm and Christianity share this) are completely different. Secularist define marriage by its benefits, or after the fact whereas as the religious define marriage as two basic elements that come together which thus form a "marriage". Take for example gravity. You cannot have gravity without force and mass. Take one away and gravity cannot exist. But for the secularists, how gravity or in our case marriage is composed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the word "marriage" is used and that I am able to be married because of equality reasons. The two ideas are incompatible. I honestly don't understand why the gay community just can't call it a civil union because in the end, that's really all they are arguing for: the benefits. I seriously doubt anyone is questioning whether their love for each other is different from a man and woman.