What Should Christians Think of Governments That Criminalize Homosexuality?

[kayem77]

This is not really a news story, but it's related to something that has been discussed here before. Many of you know that Russia has banned homosexual propaganda, and some people have praised that decision. Others think it's too oppressive. I admit I didn't know how to feel about that. We also know of Uganda, who recently passed a bill that allows to imprison homosexuals. I doubt that in Uganda's case, even Christians would support such a law.

But I want to see the opinions from the people here. Should we really be happy when the state acts as a church, even if it fits our agenda? What are the boundaries? By the way, this is not to discuss wether homosexual marriage is or not sinful. It will be assumed that it is, indeed, sinful. I just want to see what people think the state's role is in confronting sin. What sins are a threat to public safety and what sins are not?


My opinion is pretty much this :

''...the Bible tells us that the church must confront the sexual immorality of those inside the Body (“anyone who bears the name of brother”), but, even in the worst case of such immorality the ultimate step is excommunication, not the setting up of a police state to execute (1 Cor. 5:1-13). The Apostle Paul says, “For what do I have to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Cor. 5:12).''


From Link:What Should Christians Think of Governments That Criminalize Homosexuality? | Canon and Culture

 

[Simona25]

Should we really be happy when the state acts as a church, even if it fits our agenda? What are the boundaries?

I do not have an agenda, do you? I believe that the core of the society is the family and the healthiest and most fulfilled union is that between a man and a woman. If we, as a community of people, abolish this landmark of family, what will stop us to agree not only with gay marriage, but with marriage between siblings, or between mother and son, father and daughter etc.?

 

[kayem77]

I do not have an agenda, do you? I believe that the core of the society is the family and the healthiest and most fulfilled union is that between a man and a woman. If we, as a community of people, abolish this landmark of family, what will stop us to agree not only with gay marriage, but with marriage between siblings, or between mother and son, father and daughter etc.?

I do have an agenda. And I believe everyone has one too. My agenda would be to make sure everyone accepts Christ as their Savior and their Lord. However, I know this is not possible for me. Only God can do that. And I believe this is the Church's job, not the state's. My question is not wether we agree with homosexual marriage or not, as I said, I already stated that it is sinful (because God says so). My question is...to what extremes are we willing to go in order to accomplish our agenda? What's the church's role and what's the state's role?

Just curious to see people's answers.

 

[JimJimmers]

But I want to see the opinions from the people here. Should we really be happy when the state acts as a church, even if it fits our agenda? What are the boundaries? By the way, this is not to discuss wether homosexual marriage is or not sinful. It will be assumed that it is, indeed, sinful. I just want to see what people think the state's role is in confronting sin. What sins are a threat to public safety and what sins are not?


My opinion is pretty much this :

''...the Bible tells us that the church must confront the sexual immorality of those inside the Body (“anyone who bears the name of brother”), but, even in the worst case of such immorality the ultimate step is excommunication, not the setting up of a police state to execute (1 Cor. 5:1-13). The Apostle Paul says, “For what do I have to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Cor. 5:12).''

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but here are my thoughts:

While we are Christians here, not everything can be answered from a Christian standpoint. It is not unchristian to drive a car at 75 miles an hour, yet in the interest of public safety I have no problem with such a law.

I recall once we had a discussion on a specific pornography law in the UK, and it was hard to draw the line where the state should intervene. I think Conservatives and Liberals alike want to step in when there is something they see as morally reprehensible being done. There is no real difference in "big government policing" between the two groups, the only difference is what things the people find morally reprehensible. For example, most people are fine with it being illegal to create CGI animation of children getting tortured, even though there is no victim.

I do believe that we as Christians should not be in favor of governments punishing homosexuality. But there are more complicated issues coming up, such as if a photographer should be legally allowed to recuse himself from filming a gay wedding. I do believe the free market would take care of any denial of service problems, as there are many people who have already stated they will serve anyone regardless of what kind of wedding they are going to have.

As an interesting aside, I do wonder what some of those people would say if they were asked to film a marriage between two siblings.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Desdichado]

We conflate behavior with identity.

Homosexuals were once not these squishy, effeminate (or in the case of lesbians, masculine) people who had their own sort of sub-culture. In most civilizations homosexuality was not even an identity, but something someone does.

This is a sin. An action. A choice. Government is then given Biblical justification to enforce laws against homosexuality if the powers that be so choose.

 

[Simona25]

I do have an agenda. And I believe everyone has one too.

Not me.

My question is not wether we agree with homosexual marriage or not, as I said, I already stated that it is sinful (because God says so). My question is...to what extremes are we willing to go in order to accomplish our agenda? What's the church's role and what's the state's role?

Again, I do not have an agenda. It's rather the minorities that pushes an agenda to the majority. I am against the gay propaganda and agree with Putin on this one, because, like I said, once we (we are supposedly the state) open the Pandora box, we can change the family code as we wish, according to the challenges that are launched by some minorities.

 

[jamie26301]

Enforcing gay people not to practice homosexuality itself opens Pandora's Box. One law of the Bible being enforced leads to the justification of another one. Pretty soon it'll be putting teenagers in juvenile delinquency for having premarital sex, and forcing couples not to get divorced.

 

[Simona25]

Enforcing gay people not to practice homosexuality itself opens Pandora's Box. One law of the Bible being enforced leads to the justification of another one. Pretty soon it'll be putting teenagers in juvenile delinquency for having premarital sex, and forcing couples not to get divorced.

It's one thing to enforce people not to practice homosexuality and a whoooole different thing to ban gay propaganda (brainwashing, a challenge to the morality).I did not say that I agreed with Uganda's law. But, I do agree with Vladimir Putin (president of Russia) on banning the gay propaganda. I wish the president of my country did the same thing.

 

[Desdichado]

Enforcing gay people not to practice homosexuality itself opens Pandora's Box. One law of the Bible being enforced leads to the justification of another one. Pretty soon it'll be putting teenagers in juvenile delinquency for having premarital sex, and forcing couples not to get divorced.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the Text says that if a government does these things, it is operating within its jurisdiction.

The trouble is that people have the tendency to view the State as the redemptive agent under these circumstances and not Christ. That is the reason why we have to perform a bit of a balancing act as Christians.

The fundamental thing to consider when it comes to government is justice and Godliness. If the State does not enforce moral law it is unjust. If the State claims redemptive power, it is ungodly.

We have to look beyond the surface of Putin's law. Biblically, the act is justified in and of itself, but if you look at the wider context and the political goals involved, his actions are very ungodly. At least in my estimation.

 

[Desdichado]

Okay, I have to criticize analogies used here. Pandora's Box mirrors what would likely happen if such laws were not enforced. The affects of the misapplication of law is more like attaching a jet engine to the back of a Trabant and activating it with a concrete wall about a quarter of a mile in front of the ill-fated vehicle.

 

[kayem77]

Not me.



Again, I do not have an agenda. It's rather the minorities that pushes an agenda to the majority. I am against the gay propaganda and agree with Putin on this one, because, like I said, once we (we are supposedly the state) open the Pandora box, we can change the family code as we wish, according to the challenges that are launched by some minorities.

When I talk about agendas, I'm simply talking about worldviews. We all have one, and as Christians, I assume we can agree that we all want to see everyone repenting from their sins and accepting Chrit as their Lord and Savior.

I'm also against gay propaganda, however, I don't know if I would be very willing to accept a law that violates freedom of speech. Should we violate all speech that goes against Christian beliefs? Should we ban speech that mentions adultery, sex outside of marriage, lies, abortion,etc? I would have no problem if that happened honestly, because I think it would be better for society....but I think that long term it would be actually detrimental for society because the State simply can't have that kind of authority. You cannot force people to think and talk a certain way. If they think a certain way (wordly) they will talk a certain way (wordly).

For a while I didn't think the law was that bad, but now I'm not so sure. That's why I wanted to see opinions. Thank you for yours!

 

[kayem77]

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but here are my thoughts:

While we are Christians here, not everything can be answered from a Christian standpoint. It is not unchristian to drive a car at 75 miles an hour, yet in the interest of public safety I have no problem with such a law.

I recall once we had a discussion on a specific pornography law in the UK, and it was hard to draw the line where the state should intervene. I think Conservatives and Liberals alike want to step in when there is something they see as morally reprehensible being done. There is no real difference in "big government policing" between the two groups, the only difference is what things the people find morally reprehensible. For example, most people are fine with it being illegal to create CGI animation of children getting tortured, even though there is no victim.

I do believe that we as Christians should not be in favor of governments punishing homosexuality. But there are more complicated issues coming up, such as if a photographer should be legally allowed to recuse himself from filming a gay wedding. I do believe the free market would take care of any denial of service problems, as there are many people who have already stated they will serve anyone regardless of what kind of wedding they are going to have.

As an interesting aside, I do wonder what some of those people would say if they were asked to film a marriage between two siblings.

That's my 2 cents.

Oh yeah I remember that discussion I still think having the option to switch pornography on/off would be okay. But I agree with you. It's very difficult to establish a government in a secular world, because we all have different principles and morals, especially us Christians. My viewpoint is that Christians shouldn't use the government to judge things that are to be judged in the Church, and I mean things that aren't a direct threat for society. Should we speak against those things? Of course! But that's all we can do. We cannot force the State to punish adultery, homosexuality, lust, disobedience, idolatry, sorcery, etc. There wouldn't be anyone on the streets .

On the other hand, I also believe the Govt should stay out of the Church. And I agree that a free market should take care of those issues. Forcing someone to go against their conscience is unjust, and also a violation of freedom of religion, which to me is a violation of freedom of expression, which the Govt isn't supposed to deny to anyone, religious or not. Which is why I'm not so sure if I would support a ban on gay propaganda altogether. As with anything sexual though, I would agree that children are not to be exposed to those things, but that would go with everything, not just gay propaganda.

Thank you for your 2 cents

 

[SonInMe]

In a free society, you should have the right to act stupidly. If you want to be a homosexual...

I will pray for your salvation and deliverance.

I will advise you to change your behavior.

I would support laws that would hinder any promotion of this hurtful human practice.

I would not support banning homosexuality. It should be defined as what it is, a sexual perversion and in no way should any society consider homosexuality as the norm, accepted, or worthy of promotion in any degree.

 

[Drett]

If a sin is private then it is between God and the sinner. When the sin becomes public that is when society corrupts.

The trouble is now sin is not only public, there are laws to protect the sin. It is not the first time this sin has been protected. It happened a few thousand years ago in a city called Sodom. It ended fairly badly for that city. I don't know why people ignore the lessons of the past.

 

[Simona25]

When I talk about agendas, I'm simply talking about worldviews. We all have one, and as Christians, I assume we can agree that we all want to see everyone repenting from their sins and accepting Chrit as their Lord and Savior.

Yes, I want people to trully know God, but I don't do religious propaganda. The church bells toll for everyone, not only for me. My country is orthodox christian for almost 2000 years and the christian worldview is part of our identity, of who romanians are. I do not like the word "agenda"; it makes me think about politics or some hidden intentions that I may have regarding other persons.

 

[gb9]

well, I do not think it is a good idea to make being gay a crime. but I and probably many more of us get so sick of the pro-gay garbage that we get bombed with every hour of every day here in the u.s. I do wish we could ban that.

 

[Simona25]

I'm also against gay propaganda, however, I don't know if I would be very willing to accept a law that violates freedom of speech. Should we violate all speech that goes against Christian beliefs?

Clearly, we have different definitions in respect of what propaganda is...
Propaganda does not mean for me freedom of speech, but a public manifestation where a group is pushing ideas and theories on people with the purpose to convert them to those ideas.
Gay propaganda does not go only against christian beliefs, but against the most elementary common sense. I have atheist friends that find the whole gay-marriage thing stupid.

Should we ban speech that mentions adultery, sex outside of marriage, lies, abortion,etc?

Since we talk about propaganda, the question is, should we encourage those mentioned things? Should we push them on young people?

because the State simply can't have that kind of authority. You cannot force people to think and talk a certain way. If they think a certain way (wordly) they will talk a certain way (wordly).

The law that bans propaganda does not forbid people to think and talk in a certain way. It forbids to push their ideas on others. Gays are allowed to act, dress, talk the way they want; they have gay clubs where they can manifest the way they like. They are forbidden to force their views and sexual behaviour on others. It's as simlpe as that: you respect me, I respect you.

For a while I didn't think the law was that bad, but now I'm not so sure. That's why I wanted to see opinions. Thank you for yours!)

The law of banning gay propaganda is very good.
I have studied one year in Paris and every three months there was a gay propaganda going on in university. I have received a "questionnaire sur les sexualites" (that was the name of it and it was aimed to heterosexuals) and one of the question was "Si vous n'avez jamais couché avec un/e partenaire du meme sexe, comment savez-vous que vous ne préféreriez pas cela?" (translation: "Since you never slept with a same sex partner, how can you know that you wouldn't like that?").

 

[Desdichado]

The idea of banning "gay propaganda" is good in and of itself, but we have to think like lawyers. What is the Russian legal definition of "gay" and the Russian legal definition of "propaganda?"

 

[Desdichado]

What is to stop him from saying "Well, I find your open-air evangelism to be another thing that degrades the Russian Orthodox Church and therefore the Russian nation. Have fun in the salt mines."

There is no rule of law in Putin's world. Only limitations. Look how he changes wives like coats...

 

[Desdichado]

Mind you, I find Putin so distasteful because I am also a traditionalist who believes the democratic world order is failing humanity. As such I sympathize and level with the old slavophiles of his nation. People like Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn.

He sees people with these wonderful and very sweet ideas as pawns and nothing more. I hope the Russians and the Russian Orthodox Church see him for the utter farce he is, and search diligently for a true traditionalist.