Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

The subject is not about selling cupcakes.

Yet, in post #408, you said that if you are put in jail for refusing to sell someone a cupcake, then your freedom of religion would be violated.

I'm just wondering where in your religion you are commanded not to sell certain people cupcakes?

 

[Jainarayan]

I only said that denying them marriage would not be discrimination.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. In this country we live under laws based on the Constitution, not on "God's laws". Moreover, why should it be your God? He is just one of thousands of deities.

 

[columbus]

Even though I understand that the Supreme Court has made their decision, I believe that they had to first change the definition of marriage in order to make that decision.

I don't believe that this is true.
I believe that the SCOTUS recognized that the definition has changed over the last century or so.
For most of human history marriage had little to do with the state. Unless there were hereditary titles and property and thrones involved, the state didn't even care. Marriage was a community concern for the other 99%.
In a world with rigid gender roles these official breeding pairs were a man acquiring an all purpose domestic appliance and a woman acquiring a permanent meal ticket. That isn't the case any more.

Now society is more complex and less rigid. Most adults form a team of two because life works better that way, and the state recognizes those relationships. They are freely chosen "next of kin".

The definition of marriage in the modern world is less "officially sanctioned breeding pairs " and more "mutually supportive, committed, and exclusive partnership ".
Neither of these were ever absolutes, of course. But the modern definition is better and has nothing to do with gender.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

On what legal grounds do you feel same sex couples do not "qualify" for the legal contract of marriage?

Please note I am asking for LEGAL grounds concerning a LEGAL contract.

I never claimed to challenge any legal grounds, so why are you asking me to do it?

 

[Prestor John]

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. In this country we live under laws based on the Constitution, not on "God's laws". Moreover, why should it be your God? He is just one of thousands of deities.

Everything I was talking about was based on my personal opinion.

I never said that the Supreme Court's ruling should be challenged.

I never said that we did not live under laws based on the Constitution.

Why do you feel the need to mention claims that I never contested?

Am I not allowed to have my beliefs and express my opinion?

 

[Prestor John]

I don't believe that this is true.
I believe that the SCOTUS recognized that the definition has changed over the last century or so.
For most of human history marriage had little to do with the state. Unless there were hereditary titles and property and thrones involved, the state didn't even care. Marriage was a community concern for the other 99%.
In a world with rigid gender roles these official breeding pairs were a man acquiring an all purpose domestic appliance and a woman acquiring a permanent meal ticket. That isn't the case any more.

Now society is more complex and less rigid. Most adults form a team of two because life works better that way, and the state recognizes those relationships. They are freely chosen "next of kin".

The definition of marriage in the modern world is less "officially sanctioned breeding pairs " and more "mutually supportive, committed, and exclusive partnership ".
Neither of these were ever absolutes, of course. But the modern definition is better and has nothing to do with gender.
Tom

I am of the opinion that God instituted marriage by sealing Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that marriage was given to Man by God and that it was not intended to be simply "officially sanctioned breeding pairs" or a "mutually supportive, committed, and exclusive partnership."

Marriage is the means by which men and women can come closer to God and eventual perfection. Neither is the man without the woman, or the woman without the man in the Lord. They are two sides of the same coin, and the Lord does not accept double-sided coins.

I do not like how the State has hijacked marriage and made it its own. It is unfortunate that that has happened.

Again, I understand that the Supreme Court has made the decision. I can celebrate the joy of same-sex couples without supporting their union.

I personally believe that it is morally wrong for a business owner to deny someone a product or service just because they are homosexual, but I believe that said business owner should have the right to do it.

 

[McBell]

For most of human history marriage had little to do with the state.

I disagree.
At least with what I think you are meaning.

Marriage was most often about state, not religion.
Of course, that was back when women and children were considered property.

Arranged marriages for political reasons
Arranged marriages for social power reasons.
Etc.

So religion has not had the hold on marriage it wants everyone to think it has had.

 

[McBell]

I never claimed to challenge any legal grounds, so why are you asking me to do it?

You do know marriage is a legal contract, right?
Thus your claiming that same sex couples do not qualify for marriage would at the very least imply that you have legal grounds for them to not get married, right?

 

[Prestor John]

You do know marriage is a legal contract, right?
Thus your claiming that same sex couples do not qualify for marriage would at the very least imply that you have legal grounds for them to not get married, right?

I consider marriage to be a divine institution given to Man by God.

I have religious reasons for believing that marriage was intended only for a man and a woman and that same-sex couples do not qualify for marriage.

Do I not have a right to have and express my opinion?

 

[McBell]

I am of the opinion that God instituted marriage by sealing Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden.

Based on what, exactly?
Adam and Eve was not about marriage.
But if you want to go that route, my very first question is: What choice did they have?

I do not like how the State has hijacked marriage and made it its own. It is unfortunate that that has happened.

Except that the state has not "hijacked" marriage.
Marriage was most often about state, not religion.
Of course, that was back when women and children were considered property.

Arranged marriages for political reasons
Arranged marriages for social power reasons.
Etc.

So religion has not had the hold on marriage it wants everyone to think it has had.

I personally believe that it is morally wrong for a business owner to deny someone a product or service just because they are homosexual, but I believe that said business owner should have the right to do it.

As do I.

Meaning I think that same sex couples taking businesses to court over wedding cakes is rediculous

 

[McBell]

I consider marriage to be a divine institution given to Man by God.

I have religious reasons for believing that marriage was intended only for a man and a woman and that same-sex couples do not qualify for marriage.

Do I not have a right to have and express my opinion?

When did I say you were not allowed your opinion?

 

[Watchmen]

You don't believe the market should be free?

No. Government is meant to put restrictions on people when they can't reasonably manage themselves. For example, penalizing businesses that harass or discriminate against those in a protected class.

Would you like slavery reconstituted? What if the store wanted an Asian help boy or a Negro man servant? Note that I only use these words because they appear to comport with your mentality.

 

[sayak83]

As long as it is not against the civil laws where you live, do what you think is proper according to your religion. If my religion says same-sex marriages are a perversion of God's ordained marriage, should I be required to perform such marriages? If a doctor believes abortion is murder, should he be required to perform abortions(I know that i not required at this time)?

You are not required as a Christian pastor to officiate a marriage. You are required to (if you work for the State) to issue a marriage license. A state marriage license is a legal contract issued by a secular authority and nothing else. In the same manner, as a defense lawyer employed by the State , you are obligated to defend a person before the courts and try to prove his innocence even if you think he/she is guilty as hell. The church is not required either to bless such marriages or absolve a guilt in either case. The State extends certain rights, privileges and services to its citizens, and as an employee, you simply are the conduit by which it does so. Since you have the freedom to quit (just like in a private job if the job's needs violates your conscience), I do not see the problem.

Who are you to say what I can or can't lobby about? Do you want to deny my right of free speech?

You are free to express yourself in any way you want. I am questioning your moral standing in imposing your church's religious views forcibly on people who do not follow your faith. Why is this not religious persecution? I, as a pastor of my religion, is being told by the State lobbied by certain groups of Christian churches, whom I can and cannot bless in marriage because of what the Christian God says?

Free speech gives me the right to lobby for anything I want to.

So you think its right (in the sense of moral right) to prevent me and people of other faith communities to worship and conduct our lives in accordance to our faith?

 

[Prestor John]

Based on what, exactly?

Scripture, both ancient and modern, the testimony of prophets and apostles and my own personal spiritual witness.

Adam and Eve was not about marriage.

I believe the Bible to be scripture and in Genesis 2, immediately following the Creation and while Adam and Eve were still in the Garden, the record claims,

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:25)

For this and many other reasons I believe that God married Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

But if you want to go that route, my very first question is: What choice did they have?

It is my belief that all of Mankind lived with God as spirits before we entered into this world.

It was during this pre-mortal existence that I believe that Adam and Eve were selected to be our first parents, as well as the first husband and wife, and they agreed to fulfill these responsibilities.

Except that the state has not "hijacked" marriage.
Marriage was most often about state, not religion.
Of course, that was back when women and children were considered property.

Arranged marriages for political reasons
Arranged marriages for social power reasons.
Etc.

So religion has not had the hold on marriage it wants everyone to think it has had.

I do not consider "religion" to be a single entity, nor do I believe that women and children were always considered property in all ancient culture or at all times. And even though arranged marriages occurred, they do not make up all ancient marriage and that is not claiming that there was no religious aspect to those unions.

As do I.

Meaning I think that same sex couples taking businesses to court over wedding cakes is rediculous

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Business owners should be free to run their business the way they want and people should be free to be with whomever they want.

When did I say you were not allowed your opinion?

By challenging my opinion and asking for legal precedent, it sounded like you felt that I should not have the opinion I have.

 

[Prestor John]

No. Government is meant to put restrictions on people when they can't reasonably manage themselves.

Who is the judge of what is or is not "proper"?

I don't remember the Constitution talking about giving any government power to "restrict" how business owners should run their businesses.

So, in reciprocity, you also believe that the government should have the ability to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

For example, penalizing businesses that harass or discriminate against those in a protected class.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is not in the public sector, it is not the government's business.

Is protecting one "class" over another discriminatory?

Would you like slavery reconstituted?

No.

I don't know where you got this from because nothing I said could have led you there.

I want a free market. I want people to be free to make their own decisions. What part of that makes you think of slavery?

What if the store wanted an Asian help boy or a Negro man servant? Note that I only use these words because they appear to comport with your mentality.

What mentality? When did I bring up slavery or race?

I don't know where you are getting this line of thinking. I think you are just using "buzz words" in a failed attempt to make me look bad.

Again, let me repeat, FAIL!

 

[sayak83]

I consider marriage to be a divine institution given to Man by God.

I have religious reasons for believing that marriage was intended only for a man and a woman and that same-sex couples do not qualify for marriage.

Do I not have a right to have and express my opinion?

What relationship does that divine institution has to the secular institution where marriage is a legal contract that recognizes the formation of new kinship so that the "closest kin" now becomes your married partner for property, tax, residency and other laws, contracts, duties and privileges?

 

[columbus]

I do not like how the State has hijacked marriage and made it its own. It is unfortunate that that has happened.

You do know marriage is a legal contract, right?

I think you are both making the same mistakes, confusing two different things. People call both marriage, but they're different.

There is state recognition of the relationship. The state didn't much care unless inheritance rights got involved. For the 99% who had nothing important to bequeath the state didn't care.
Then there is community recognition. Men wanted to know that they are raising their own progeny and women wanted recognition that the father owed support for the whole family.

Neither of those things are what they used to be. State recognition of marriage has spread to the masses, and religious communities are the usual venue for community recognition.

Marriage is more sophisticated than it used to be and since church and state are no longer the same thing, we have state unions and religious unions. Religious communities are free to ignore state recognition and the state is required to ignore religious recognition. They are just two different things.
Tom

 

[Shad]

I don't remember the Constitution talking about giving any government power to "restrict" how business owners should run their businesses.

Equal protection clause. However I guess since it is not directly written "thou shall sell to everyone" we should also remove the right to vote for women as this right is not directly stated either.

All you have demonstrated it that you know nothing about the constitution nor how the law evolves based on it and needed additions.

 

[Watchmen]

Who is the judge of what is or is not "proper"?

I don't remember the Constitution talking about giving any government power to "restrict" how business owners should run their businesses.

So, in reciprocity, you also believe that the government should have the ability to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is not in the public sector, it is not the government's business.

Is protecting one "class" over another discriminatory?

No.

I don't know where you got this from because nothing I said could have led you there.

I want a free market. I want people to be free to make their own decisions. What part of that makes you think of slavery?

What mentality? When did I bring up slavery or race?

I don't know where you are getting this line of thinking. I think you are just using "buzz words" in a failed attempt to make me look bad.

Again, let me repeat, FAIL!

It's simple. Try to grasp it. If you have a 100% free market then you allow people to do bad things to others, like deny them employment based on the color of their skin. Are you REALLY ok with that?

 

[omega2xx]

For the most part, yes.

But then, it also gives me the right to ridicule you for it.

Not for the most part.

I hope you continue to ridicule me. Then everyone will know what I know---you can't compete in an discussion that requires more than a playground intellect.