Christians response to gay marriage?

[Scarecrow]

When "marriage" was "protected" by a SCOTUS decision, the SCOTUS essentially decided that marriage is what government says it is- when marriage (with respect to biblical marriage) should be (and ultimately IS- from a biblical perspective) an institution independent of civil authority.

I think the decision could have been made in earnest to protect marriage... but really marriage does not need the protection, validation, or approval of the government and I would add, married people do not NEED SPECIAL PRIVILIGES EITHER.

equal rights and legal protections are not special they are just equal.

At the end of the day, rebellious-gay people are going to have their rebellious gay-sex: the government should not be in the business of rewarding people for sin and rebellion- and THAT is why there should be no gay marriage. We give the homosexuals, and all of the lgbt SPACE to REPENT... that is IT. No recognition, no acceptance, no reward. Tolerance, and not an inch more than tolerance and space to repent.

and by the same reasoning: At the end of the day, interracial couples are going to have sex: the government should not be in the business of rewarding people for what is a lifestyle choice and THAT is why there should be no interracial marriage. We give them the SPACE to REPENT... that is IT. No recognition, no acceptance, no reward. Tolerance, and not an inch more than tolerance and space to repent

 

[Scarecrow]

I'm on my mobile but took a couple pictures of the search page that's literally loaded with articles making my claim.

Thank you for the response. I would suggest that you actually read studies instead of just looking at questionable lists.

For example the study : Yin Xu Does Sexual Orientation Precede Childhood Sexual Abuse? Childhood Gender Nonconformity as a Risk Factor and Instrumental Variable Analysis 2017 J of sexual abuse. This study does not show that childhood abuse leads or predisposes people to become homosexual rather those who are homosexual are far more likely to be abused and abused later in childhood.

Mark S. Friedman A Meta-Analysis of Disparities in Childhood Sexual Abuse, Parental Physical Abuse, and Peer Victimization Among Sexual Minority and Sexual Nonminority Individuals 2011 Am J. of Pub Health This study found that LGBT teens are five times likely to be physically abused by family members, specifically just over 40% of all LGBT youths experience parental physical abuse but it also notes that this increase occurs only in late teen years, prior to about the age of 14 LGBT youth have the same levels of abuse. Being abused is not a cause of homosexuality but homosexuality is a cause of abuse.

David Newton Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence 1978 Even though this is a very old study it should be noted that the author concludes: "There is no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation."

 

[tourist]

you suggested that "standard equipment" would be a better term than "correct": equipment as people without correct equipment can't be considered to be in a "real" marriage. But now you seem to be saying that equipment is irrelevant.

I neve once said that anything at all regarding what equipment is necessary for a real marriage.

 

[tourist]

I neve once said that anything at all regarding what equipment is necessary for a real marriage.

I'm not even sure what your point is.

 

[kaylagrl]

Ummm, wow, that totally has nothing to do with the subject soooo...

 

[kaylagrl]

So it seems you are saying that you cannot force yourself to fall in love with someone of the same gender yet you have no trouble insisting that forcing your self to fall in love with someone others aren't romantically oriented to is no big deal. Apparently it is a big deal.

No, no that's not what I said at all and I don't know what you're saying and I don't think you do. So let's wrap this up. We've gone far afield of what the OP posted. The title is what (should be) a Christians response to gay marriage. The law is the law and the people vote. If gay marriage is the law of the land, that is the last word on it from a secular point of view. From God's POV it is not a marriage. The Bible defines what a marriage is, the two, man and a woman become one flesh, marriage is between a man and a woman, period. So what is our response to gay marriage? It is sin, period. That is the stand of the church because that is the stand of God's Word. There is no such thing as a gay Christian, that doesn't mean a person may not struggle with that issue, but it is sin. Outside the church, the issue is more important for a gay person, they are lost in sin because they have not accepted Christ as their Savior. That is the most important thing to tell a gay person or anyone else lost in sin. Sin separates us from God. If we care about the lost we tell them the truth. To tell anyone, no matter what sin it is, that they are ok with God is to lie to them and put them in danger of an eternity without Christ. Homosexuality is a bondage to sin. It can be forgiven. But it is not God's plan for His creation. Anyone who says different is a liar and they are lying to people who are lost and in need of God's forgiveness. We have the Answer, Christ, and if they come to Him he will satisfy all their longings and needs that they believe are being fulfilled in homosexuality. God loves them, He does not want to see them lost, it's our duty to tell them there is hope, healing and forgiveness at the cross. But God will not be mocked and as we near the end times, we must let the lost know that sin cannot enter heaven. Whatever this world accepts and does is one thing, God doesn't not accept it. If we truly care, we will tell people the truth. And since you claim to be a Christian, you should have no argument against that. If you do, you do you, but you are sending people's souls to a lost eternity and you will be judged accordingly. Think this one is wrapped up.

 

[kaylagrl]

I'm not even sure what your point is.

This is the only thread he has commented on. Perhaps he's gay himself. As I said, the thread is what is a Christians response to gay marriage. The answer is it is sin. People outside the church don't really understand that they are lost, that is why we were sent to tell them that Jesus saves and offers them a better life.

 

[tourist]

This is the only thread he has commented on. Perhaps he's gay himself. As I said, the thread is what is a Christians response to gay marriage. The answer is it is sin. People outside the church don't really understand that they are lost, that is why we were sent to tell them that Jesus saves and offers them a better life.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[SomeDisciple]

equal rights and legal protections are not special they are just equal.

Marriage doesn't need protection. Why do you think marriage needs protection?

And no... they're not "equal", not when they create separate classes of citizens and treat those classes differently. And yes married people do get special privileges. You are objectively wrong.

and by the same reasoning: At the end of the day, interracial couples are going to have sex: the government should not be in the business of rewarding people for what is a lifestyle choice and THAT is why there should be no interracial marriage. We give them the SPACE to REPENT... that is IT. No recognition, no acceptance, no reward. Tolerance, and not an inch more than tolerance and space to repent

No... your reasoning is warped, and not related to what I posted. Marriage doesn't need the protection of the government- the government needs to get OUT of marriage altogether, and make NO marriage laws.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Because they are taxpaying citizens in their taxes pay the courthouse clerk's salaries so they should be entitled to the same privileges as any other tax paying citizen

Oh, so married people should have priviliges then? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

 

[HeIsHere]

are their marriages being compared to bestiality?

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman by scripture. If you are not a Christian you are free to believe otherwise.

 

[HeIsHere]

Marriage doesn't need protection. Why do you think marriage needs protection?

And no... they're not "equal", not when they create separate classes of citizens and treat those classes differently. And yes married people do get special privileges. You are objectively wrong.


No... your reasoning is warped, and not related to what I posted. Marriage doesn't need the protection of the government- the government needs to get OUT of marriage altogether, and make NO marriage laws.

That doesn't work too well with divorce and then there are children and assets to be divided.

As well the "people" who are the "state" in a constitutional republic based on democratic principles has a moral duty to protect the essential structure that provides stability in a society.

 

[Dude653]

Well I guess if you don't like gay marriage there's a pretty easy solution. Don't get gay married.

 

[kaylagrl]

Well I guess if you don't like gay marriage there's a pretty easy solution. Don't get gay married.

Yeah, they use the same argument for abortion, but you can't call yourself a Christian and condone abortion either.

 

[HeIsHere]

If you want logical and legal arguments you could start by reading the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Loving Vs Virginia

False equivalency.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Thank you for the response. I would suggest that you actually read studies instead of just looking at questionable lists.

For example the study : Yin Xu Does Sexual Orientation Precede Childhood Sexual Abuse? Childhood Gender Nonconformity as a Risk Factor and Instrumental Variable Analysis 2017 J of sexual abuse. This study does not show that childhood abuse leads or predisposes people to become homosexual rather those who are homosexual are far more likely to be abused and abused later in childhood.

Mark S. Friedman A Meta-Analysis of Disparities in Childhood Sexual Abuse, Parental Physical Abuse, and Peer Victimization Among Sexual Minority and Sexual Nonminority Individuals 2011 Am J. of Pub Health This study found that LGBT teens are five times likely to be physically abused by family members, specifically just over 40% of all LGBT youths experience parental physical abuse but it also notes that this increase occurs only in late teen years, prior to about the age of 14 LGBT youth have the same levels of abuse. Being abused is not a cause of homosexuality but homosexuality is a cause of abuse.

David Newton Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence 1978 Even though this is a very old study it should be noted that the author concludes: "There is no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation."

There are more articles with researchers claiming homosexual behavior happened after sexual abuse than it being the cause for.

This leads me to believe you are within this category and why you choose the minority that supports your idealism.

And if it's not in relationship to you it's about someone close to you.

But you truly need this opinion to validate your position which alerts me to why.

 

[SomeDisciple]

That doesn't work too well with divorce and then there are children and assets to be divided.

You don't need a legal civil "marriage" for that. Actually, civil-marriage even makes this more difficult in some states, because they restrict what you can put in pre-nuptual agreements. A non "marriage" contract agreed upon by both parties would be sufficient for this purpose.

As well the "people" who are the "state" in a constitutional republic based on democratic principles has a moral duty to protect the essential structure that provides stability in a society.

No... marriage does not need protection from anything besides the government itself- it should be "protected" like religion- as in- the government stays out of it.

 

[HeIsHere]

You don't need a legal civil "marriage" for that. Actually, civil-marriage even makes this more difficult in some states, because they restrict what you can put in pre-nuptual agreements. A non "marriage" contract agreed upon by both parties would be sufficient for this purpose.

No... marriage does not need protection from anything besides the government itself- it should be "protected" like religion- as in- the government stays out of it.

The evidence states otherwise.

Traditional marriage has strong social benefits, which is why government should support the institution.

There is a strong body of evidence that in general, marriage promotes a more healthy, stable, and prosperous society.

If the government finds value in supporting these outcomes, it naturally follows that it should regulate marriage.

 

[Dude653]

Yeah, they use the same argument for abortion, but you can't call yourself a Christian and condone abortion either.

That's a false equivalency

 

[SomeDisciple]

If the government finds value in supporting these outcomes, it naturally follows that it should regulate marriage.

No... it naturally follows that government should NOT regulate or INTERFERE with marriage.