OBAMA AND SAME-SEX UNIONS
Posted on March 7th, 2008 by joebib into the Politics, joebib writes categorySo, has anyone seen the latest on Obama?
Here are the highlights. Pretty interesting stuff…
Barack Obama defended same-sex civil unions Sunday by referring Christians against the practice to look at Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which he contends supports gay civil unions.
"I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other," Obama said, referring to unions that provide all the legal benefits of marriage but the title, according to Christian Broadcasting Network. "I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.
“If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” the Democratic presidential candidate contends. “That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."
Media agencies speculate that Obama was referring to Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.”
Obama was responding to a question posed by a local pastor during an appearance in Nelsonville, Ohio. Pastor Leon Forte had asked the candidate how he plans to win the support of evangelical voters who disagree with him on moral issues.
But not all Christians were happy with Obama’s use of the Bible to defend civil unions. Pastor John Barner, manager of pastoral care at Focus on the Family, said:
"We are always saddened as evangelical Christians when others who identify themselves as Christians do not have the high view of Scripture that we believe is so important. We believe isolated portions of Scripture should not be used to justify a personal preference or a social position that goes in a different direction than the overall message of Scripture.”
The FOTF pastor said the Scripture is “pretty clear” in defining and affirming that marriage is “an exclusive, lifetime relationship between a man and a woman.”
“The compromising positions of these candidates are a disappointment to us as evangelical Christians,” he added.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has also expressed her support for civil unions.
“It’s a personal position,” she said in August, according to FOTF. “I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality.”
Denny Burk, professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, also criticized Obama for insinuating that the Sermon on the Mount should be given greater emphasis than the teaching in Romans about homosexuality.
"The fact is that Jesus appointed Paul to bear his name before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), many of whom were living in homosexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)," Burk said, according to the Baptist Press.
"The passage in Romans condemning homosexuality was not obscure to first century readers living in the Roman Empire. It’s only obscure to modern readers when they are looking for biblical grounds to justify that which God condemns,” the New Testament professor argued.
“As a matter of public policy, the best way to honor God’s intention for marriage and human sexuality is to keep monogamous, heterosexual marriage privileged in law,” he said. “Unfortunately, the policies of Senator Obama fall far short of the biblical ideal."
Amid ongoing questioning about his religion, Obama defended his personal faith while responding to the Ohio pastor, saying:
“I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I’ve been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”
The Illinois senator explained that he hasn’t been home on Sunday for several months now.
-joe
March 7th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Great Joe, you’ve just invited Hungry on the Harbor back to this blog…let the condemnation begin.
I personally don’t care what Obama stance is on homosexuality. It’s just not that important to me. I also find it incredibly hypocritical for Christians to try and regulate against Homosexuals while doing nothing to stand against divorce.
Christians are pathetic.
If you ask the average Christian pastor what he thinks about Homosexual Marriage you are going to get a resounding “No”. It will be an instant, automatic, and often passionate response. If you go back a week later and ask that pastor about their position on divorce you will likely get a wishy-washy, somewhat compassionate, “We advise people that divorce should be the last possible option”.
Christians are pathetic.
Once homosexuality gets accepted by the majority of society the church will follow closely behind.
Also, is there any Biblical support to the idea that we, as Christians, should try to create laws that force people to act the way we want them to?
March 7th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I can think of some Biblical support against it, “Give unto Caesar.”
March 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am
It does seem that this Presidential Campaign should be about more than “homosexuality”.
And is anyone paying attention to the economy? 2008 is going to be a rough year.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:25 am
“I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.”
This is the point that Christians miss right here. He doesn’t want gay marriage and he’s not trying to force it on anyone. But religious zealouts get bent out of shape anyways because they are too blinded by their rage against gays.
Historically, marriage has always been a religious institution. Gradually, states have enacted laws concerning marriage to prevent social injustice and to guarantee rights to individuals and couples who are married. I think everyone can agree that this was done with everyone’s best interests in mind. The problem then is that marriage, which is a religious institution, is now being regulated by the states. Instead of a separation of church and state, they are now intertwined to the point where religions feel threatened in their beliefs, and rightly so. Marriage in the eyes of religion is a sacred and profound act. Marriage in the eyes of the state is simply a legal contract conferring rights and obligations. The two are completely different yet utterly entwined, ironically not unlike a married couple!
But the answer is not to enact more legislation that establishes religious beliefs as a fundamental part of our legal system. That would be making the problem worse, and not better. These kinds of efforts are counterproductive to a society that demands religious freedom. To impose the religious institution of marriage upon every American is to remove the very freedom that all Americans hold dear.
I believe the answer is to rewrite marriage laws to remove the language of religious rites and ceremonies, and insert generic legal terms that give the necessary legal rights and obligations to anyone who wishes to participate. This would enable religious groups to establish and recognize marriages in accordance with their beliefs, and it would allow the state to regulate all civil unions without discrimination or favoritism towards any religious beliefs. People who wish to get married can celebrate their religious beliefs and still participate in the state’s legal system as a civil union. Those with differing religious beliefs, are not forced to conform to a religious ceremony to have the same legal rights that married people currently enjoy. This solution also circumvents the issues of same sex issues, because a religious group does not have to recognize civil unions as a marriage. Although I’m sure there will still be some who take issue with it regardless.
I think any two adults who wish to have a civil union should be able to do so, and sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue. Why? Because there are times when civil unions may have nothing to do with sex. Imagine two women in their forties who are unmarried and have no interest in marrying men. They are both successful and productive members of society. They have shared an apartment since college, but have no sexual interest in each other, they are simply life-long friends. These two women face discrimination in our legal system because they are not a married couple. They don’t get tax benefits, they have a harder time buying a home together, adoption is a bigger hurdle, they don’t have mutual health care benefits, and may not even be allowed to visit each other in the hospital. These two people who are closer and more committed to each other than some married couples are considered less valued in society because they are not a man and a woman who are married. This is a grave injustice. Denying people legal equity because of religious beliefs does not seem like a Christian value!
March 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
FICM for President!
March 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Dude, it’s gotten so boring around here, that I for one would welcome HOTH back, not to mention a few others.
I miss not having them around to pontificate to.
Some random thoughts:
1. I’ve never come across a pastor yet who does “nothing” to stand against divorce.
2. Permitting divorce — when it falls within biblical parameters — is not to be construed as “not standing against it.”
3. While God hateth the “putting away” (Malachi 2:16), and He allowed it only because of hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8), still the Scriptures do allow for divorce under two provisions I’m aware of, specifically, 1) unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9) and 2) abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:10-15).
4. Having said that, though, what would you say to a wife whose husband — hypothetically speaking — habitually beats her and her children, spends all their money mainlining Heroin, and is a Satan worshiper as well? Don’t divorce him? Stay with him? I don’t believe I could tell her that.
5. Sodomy is clearly and unequivocally condemned in both Testaments, so to try and compare it to divorce is apples and oranges.
-joe
March 7th, 2008 at 9:51 am
This should be a fun discussion.
I’m very comfortable saying scripture is unambiguous on the issue of homosexuality. God does not condone sexual behavior outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. I understand why people want to believe otherwise, but I would find it more sincere if they just said “I disagree with the Bible on that issue” rather than try to explain that “up” actually means “down”.
Yes, it’s a “pet sin” of fundamentalists. But the appropriate response to the hypocrisy should be to become consistently ruthless with all sin, not consistently complacent.
But beyond that, I agree that there is a larger issue of whether behavior that violates scripture should always be legislated against. From my perspective, the strong desire of the church to influence politics comes from two separate mistakes.
First, we judge those outside the church instead of those inside the church. We do so in direct opposition to Paul’s instruction in I Cor 5. (12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. )
Second, we try to change the world’s behavior when we should be preaching the good news that Jesus can change their hearts. I’m confident that hearts that follow Jesus will find themselves in remarkable agreement over how to conduct themselves.
So, I would agree with the religious fundamentalists that wildly uncontrolled sexual behavior, including homosexuality, is a social problem that cannot be overstated. However, I think it is only a symptom of the true disease–proud, unrepentant, and sin-infected hearts. Only Jesus can fix that. Therefore, I believe the answer is not more laws to fix their behavior, but more Jesus.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thanks! If I’m elected, I’ll appoint you as Secretary of Beer Affairs.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
There, fixed it for you.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
JOebib,
We aren’t really talking about Sodomy here; we are talking about equal rights.
If Christians are worried about the sanctity of marriage, as so many claim to be, then why not fight to make divorce difficult? Right now Christians don’t care why people (outside the church) get divorced. Divorce should only be allowed in the cases you stated above and I for one will not vote for any presidential candidate who says differently (sarcasm).
It’s a double standard.
Doc, your comment was well written, thank you.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
yep, that’s the heart of recognizing same-sex unions in my opinion.
this is a timely article for me. i am taking my first ever bible college class at the NoPo Bible College. Christian Ethics. I have just begun my research for my paper about an ethical conflict that I have not made my mind up. For me, the question has become:
Is it ethical for Christians to support, or oppose, same-sex marriage (or unions)?
And when do we insist on laws that support a traditional Christian world view, and when do we let it go? Is it just to refuse to recognize consenting adults who wish to enter a marital contract because they are the same gender? Is marriage by definition one man, one woman? Or is this uniquely religious language as someone pointed out?
Slavery used to be culturally normal. Supporters could even weave together ample scriptural evidence for it. But now we look askance at how short-sighted our ancestors were to condone human slavery.
What if we are once again short-sighted?
What if that passage in Romans, and others like it, are in specific reference to the ancient practice of pederasty? (google it)
Just thinking outloud as my mind brews and stews for writing my paper. If people have books, websites, etc…to recommend for my reading I am all ears.
Oh, and I think I’m starting to crush on Obama, who I affectionately have nicknamed Barama…
March 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Of course we’re talking about sodomy. I understand the exceptions you are referring to, but this is not a hot cultural issue because single, middle-aged, best friends want to visit each other in the hospital. It is a hot cultural issue because people who are in long-term, sexual relationships with people of the same gender want to feel “normal”.
Many don’t believe their behavior is a sin. That is a disagreement that is likely to remain until the end of time. They can agree to disagree do so peacefully. But for those who do believe it is sin, surely you understand the reservation they have with the government honoring one particular sexual sin with tax breaks and official legal recognition.
To put yourself in the shoes of those who have a problem with it, simply replace homosexuality with something you believe actually is sexual sin (assuming you believe there is such a thing. If not insert any other sin of your choice). Then imagine a world in which government allows people to register their status as a _________. In exchange, the government provides those people legal protections, tax benefits, and passes laws preventing anyone from discriminating against them on the basis of their status as a _______. Now does it make any sense?
March 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
There is a difference for me between “individual Christians” and “the corporate church”.
Individually, I think Christians should exercise their rights to vote and get involved politically however they feel.
However, I hate seeing “the corporate church” and their crusades.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Yes it makes sense. But it still doesn’t change the fact that there are certain people who don’t have the same liberties as everyone else and are seen as not meeting the criteria for getting to have those liberties and thus are treated as less than human. Less than human. Does that mean anything to anyone?
March 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I like it. If I had to, I would be forced to conclude that sexual sin is doing even more damage to the church and the culture than the prosperity gospel. But I think they’re both fruit from the same, self-obsessed tree.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I sympathize with the sentiment behind the question, but this is a red herring. First, with respect to marriage, the law treats everyone equally. But it does not treat all relationships equally. None of us can marry someone of the same sex. None of us can marry someone in our family. None of us can marry someone under the age of 18 without parental consent.
Peole don’t assert that teacher/student couples are being treated as less than human because they agree with the policy behind the restriction. We don’t want adults hooking up with kids. In the case of gay couples, they don’t agree with the policy behind the law. That’s fine.
If this was actually about treating all couples equally, however, they would be fighting to extend the same benefits to siblings and relationships between minors and adults as well. But we all know that this isn’t about “equal rights”. Its about gay couples wanting to be accepted.
Also, the idea that homosexuals in America, as a class, are treated as less than human is simply untrue. Their disproportionate success as a group has been well-document and is one of the reasons courts have refused to give them heightened constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment.
Jews is Nazi Germany and Christians in modern day Sudan understand less than human treatment. Gay people in 21st century America do not. I understand that gay people are sometimes the victims of very bad behavior which neither Jesus or I condone. However, I would bet that being severely overweight in America is much more difficult than being gay.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I can’t argue with someone who says things like this. You are a smart person DOC, that much is evident. But this is an ignorant statement. And I don’t mean that you are ignorant in general, but based on that statement I doubt that you have ever had a real relationship with a person who is gay. At least not a close one where they confide in you.
Also, there is a major difference between two adults who are not related and are of legal age wanting to be in a relationship and the other relationship examples you gave. The whole of society–religious & non-religious, believing & non-believing–has come together to agree that those types of relationships are inappropriate. The one has nothing to do with the other.
I will also not concede that denying someone the rights that other consenting adults have is not treating them as less than human — I don’t care how “successful” they are deemed to be. Gay people are judged harshly not only by “Christian” society but also within their own family circles. That is a judgment that is harder to deal with than any other. I am speaking in general but it is the majority.
Whatever — we are not going to agree on this or change each others minds.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I had a feeling that comment was going to distract from the larger point. Its ok to call me ignorant if you want. I am ignorant of many things.
So presumably, as soon as a large enough movement of sexually involved siblings seeks official recognition, you would be in support of that as well?
Regardless, the idea that “the whole of society agrees” is not true. I give you The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) (No, I’m not making that up). They are working to have consent laws removed from the books so men can have care free sex with boys.
Polygamist communities also believe they are being discriminated against because the law forbids multiple spouses. Based on your statement, I doubt you have ever had a real personal relationship with a polygamist or pedophile. Or at least not a close one, where they confide in you. (I’m not trying to have an attitude, but I am trying to make a point that I hope is clear
)
For moral reasons, our government has always preferred monogamous, heterosexual relationships over gay, polygamous, incestuous, and pedophilic relationships. Are we are now deciding it is inappropriate to legislate morality? If so, on what basis do you tell consenting adult siblings and consenting polygamist families that their love for each other is not ok?
There is no logically consistent answer to that question. In reality, this is simply a conflict of competing moralities. This is a moral issue and I will fight for your right to hold your position. What wears on me, however, is the self-righteousness of those who pretend that legislating traditional/biblical morality is bad but legislating Freudian morality is perfectly acceptable. All law discriminates and all law takes moral positions. I discriminate and so do you. We just do it differently.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
With that I agree
March 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Being morbidly obese in America is a piece of cake (a la mode, of course …)
Why, no one ever takes one look at me and concludes I’m a fat, lazy, stupid slob, without getting to know me … no one ever talks about “fat people” in front of me, then realizes with embarrassment that I’m fat and says “oh, I didn’t mean you, Jack …” I’ve never been denied a job because of my weight or appearance, no one charges me more for health care insurance because of my weight. Why, I can go to Walmart and find clothes to fit just like slender people can … airplane seats are so roomy and the airline never suggests that I have to buy another seat between my wife and I … people are just so understanding of the health problems that led to our obesity (thyroid failure) … no one ever lectures us or tries to discipline us by offering health foods or by suggestions for exercise … no one ever suggests to me that I’m obese (as if I’m to f’ing stupid to see it for myself) …
So Doc, you really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to being obese in America.
‘Scrupe
March 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hey 'Scrupe, did you see this one on how medical care for the "obese" purportedly costs less than for the "healthy?" Sounds like another one of these medical "uh-ohs…?"
Myth #1: "Chocolate is bad for you; it'll make you fat and give you zits."
Rebuttal: "No, wait! Now we've discovered chocolate reduces heart disease due to its high anti-oxidant content!"
Myth #2: "Mother's milk is better for babies because it's natural."
Rebuttal: "Wait! Now it turns out formula is better because it produces less allergies in babies!"
Myth #3: "Alcohol kills brain cells and causes cancer, so stay away from it."
Rebuttal: "But wait! New studies indicate drinking 2-3 beers per day reduces heart attacks in men!"
Myth #4: "Eat fish 3-4 times per week to reduce cancer and heart attacks by up to 50%."
Rebuttal: "Oh crap! Stay away from fish due to high mercury content!"
On and on it goes. This is all getting so confusing…who knows what to believe anymore?
I'm for going out on a beer-and-chocolate-all-nighter…who's with me?
-joe
March 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“Civil unions” should be the only term the state uses to describe two people who want to share children and property in common. Civil unions are legal contracts between two or more people. The state has no interest in discriminating based on sexual orientation, as long as all participants are consenting adults.
“Marriage” is a religious ritual. Local congregations and pastors can apply more stringent, biblical standards to marriages they perform, if they so choose.
The church and state governments have different interests at play in this debate. The two may overlap when a Christian man and woman ask for the God’s blessing through marriage and for the state’s recognition of their contractual agreement. However, other members of society should be able to take advantage of civil unions without having to call their relationship a marriage.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
tiresias, very well and concisely stated. this helps me in how to present my paper for my christian ethics class. thanks for adding your voice to this conversation. everyone’s input is interesting and helpful to me, but yours especially.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Tiresias makes a valid point - even in a church wedding, the pastor is really performing 2 services … at the end of mine, the pastor said “by the power vested in me by God (as a minister) and by the state of Washington” I pronounce you man and wife … so when the divorce came, it was a cause for some grief that the state presumed to dissolve a church marriage - I imagine one of these days, someone will bring suit against the state for granting divorce of a church marriage … the state of course is “no fault” and Christian divorce law is fault-based (for the cause of adultery, etc.) …
March 8th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Tiresias said:
I doubt you really believe that. As discussed with Just Thinking, I suspect you’re just fine with discriminating based on the sexual orientation of polygamists and family members who enjoy sex with each other.
But more to the point, the distinction between “marriage” and “civil union” is purely political. It allows people who can’t bring themselves to throw the Bible away to avoid taking a position that others will perceive as “mean”. However, I find no reason to believe God will appreciate our distinction. If you disagree, please enlighten me. But I think He would be insulted, if He was capable of such feelings.
I am a pragmatist. No one likes making enemies, so I understand why people want to take this middle ground. However, when all is said and done, I would rather the whole world believe me to be cruel and heartless than offend the one who loved me and gave Himself for me.
God hates sin. We should too. God loves people. We should too. More laws and political campaigns are not the solution. However, we should not be helping sinners feel more comfortable in their sin but reminding them that Jesus died to set them free from it. Sin and repentance are eteranal issues. We do them no favors by pretending they aren’t.
If your right hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off and cast it into the sea. You don’t give it a tax break and throw it a parade.
Isaiah 5:20-25
March 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Tiresias summed up my argument rather nicely.
Doc says, “I doubt you really believe that.” Oh, really? That seems rather presumptuous and even egotistical to assume that all people deep down really believe the same as you do. What you seem to fail to grasp is that as Christians we are as much interested in legal equity and religious freedom as we are in advancing the Gospel. Without the former, you cannot have the latter. Your insistence that this is an entirely moral issue is rather stubborn and purposefully obtuse to the issues at hand. If things went your way and we further defined legal rights in terms of religious beliefs we undermine the very American way of life we currently enjoy. By mandating religious beliefs, we further entwine the Church and State, and that is a slippery slope I don’t want to go down.
“I am a pragmatist.” Baloney! A pragmatist would recognize the need for a solution that meets everyone’s needs for legal equity regardless of their religious beliefs. Your statements are anything but pragmatic, and you insist on having it your own way.
Your argument relies upon the assertion that endorsing civil unions is the same thing as religious institutions endorsing homosexuality. That’s a false argument and you know it. There are plenty of other religions in America that are treated equally without forcing one religion to endorse any of the others. There are Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists and Roman Catholics and Protestants and Scientologists (lol) and who knows how many more. For example, you can’t get married in a Catholic church unless you’ve adhered to their dogma and been through things like Confirmation and Communion. But not all Americans are bound by Catholic beliefs about marriage or there wouldn’t be very many married people. To legislate that everyone adhere to your specific beliefs about marriage or they can’t have one is an endorsement of your religion and that, my stubborn friend, is a violation of the Constitution!
March 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I would rather offend others by loving gay people and discovering how to honor their longing for legally bound monogamous unions than to offend God with judgmentalism because of sexuality.
Jesus offended bible quoters all day long.
We’ve not a single recorded discourse about same-sexuality from Christ, but loads of documentation that he preached and preached and practiced and preached some more on Treat others as you would want to be treated, and Love one another…
Doc, if you were gay how would you want to be treated?
(and really, supporting state contracted civil unions is vastly different than calling for religious powers to recognize and sanction same-sex marriage. And the argument that if ss unions are accepted then what about incesteous unions or polygamy…argh, paleeze. Homosexuality is a deeply conscious and sub-conscious part of a person’s identity and sexual orientation for a variety of reasons (that are fiercely debated).
Polygamy is not an orientation. Neither is incest.
These arguments are weak obstacles to the debate about legalizing same-sex unions. They wreak of panic.
Oh, and fyi, I once spent a weekend hanging out in a “plig” community in southern Utah, outside of St George. Their polygamy is rooted in religious conviction, so therefore they feel persecuted for their beliefs. Not orientation.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
DOC, you seem to confuse the role of government with the role of the church. A church or pastor can teach/preach against any number of sins and can and should point toward Christ as the way out of those sins.
However, the role of civil government is not necessarily to define sin. Sin and illegal activities are not necessarily the same. For instance, murder is a sin because God said not to do it. But the state’s basis for making murder illegal is not because of God’s prohibition. Rather, murder is illegal because it infringes on someone else’s rights.
Our notions of sexual relationships should follow the same logic. The church and the state have different interests. Using different terms to describe these interests helps avoid confusion between the sphere of the church and the sphere of the state.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
FICM says:
I do not assume that deep down everyone agrees with me. But I do believe everyone is ok with discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. One man’s perversion is another man’s orientation. Most of us are “pedophiliaphobic”, “incestphobic”, and “polygamousphobic”. Those things are ok because we agree that the perversion speaks for itself. But it is no longer ok to be “homophobic” because there is disagreement over whether it is a perversion or an orientation.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I just ask you to recognize the inaccuracy of saying you don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (whatever that means). Of course you do. And if you don’t, I’ll be even more concerned.
I doubt you really believe that.
Again, I don’t assume everyone agrees with me. Its just that your statement, carried to its logical conclusion, leads to anarchy, which I doubt you want.
Laws againt stealing, killing, lying, perjury, incest, rape, battery, and destruction of property were all religious beliefs long before they were laws. If you really don’t want to go down the slippery slope of “mandating religious belief” you must repeal those laws as well. There is no rule, of any kind, anywhere on the face of the planet that was not a religious rule before it was a law. Some cultures have tried to divorce law from their moral roots. But their religious origin cannot reasonably be disputed. Its a matter of historical fact.
The truth is, people don’t like laws that discriminate against homosexuality. Again, thats fine. Just stop pretending the position is based on some principled effort to purge the law anything with religious roots.
I am a pragmatist. But I am a disciple of Jesus first. The fact that I disagree with your conclusion does not mean I do not understand the way you feel. I like it when people are happy and I like it when they feel good. But Jesus does not like it when they feel good about their sin. I try to be on His team. Until someone can convince me otherwise, I’ll continue to love them just as Jesus loved this sinner. But I cannot pretend it is something other than what it is just because someone thinks its mean.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Tiresias said:
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed, for the most part
You’re losing me…
I see a big difference between refusing to criminalize something and actively promoting it. Adulterers shouldn’t be thrown in jail. But they also shouldn’t get a write-off for every affair either.
Jesus dealt very lovingly with the woman at the well. He did not stone her or turn her over to the authorities even though the law would have allow it. But when they parted he told her to “go, and sin no more.”
It is painfully obvious to me that “civil union” status is an endorsement of gay relationships. It is also quite clear that the Bible calls that behavior sin. Encouraging sin is not something Jesus did. Nor should we.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Catalyst is “monogamousphobic”.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
DOC,
Sorry for any confusion. My point is that the term “marriage” is currently used by two institutions — to the church is means one thing (life-long, heterosexual covenant) and to the state it means something else (an interpersonal contract for personal, property, and procreational rights). Therefore, I suggest the government cease using the word “marriage” and instead substitute “civil union.” “Marriage,” then, becomes exclusively a religious rite.
I have no problem living in an open, tolerant, and free society. Not everyone in this society will ascribe to biblical teachings on a host of topics, including marriage. I, as a Christian, can choose to live by God’s standards, as I understand them to be. But that does not mean that everyone in society must live according to those standards. Our government and society are held together by our mutual respect for each other’s rights, not because of religious laws.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Well said, DOC. Sadly your biblically-based deductions will I’m afraid fall on deaf ears.
Why? Because the enemy of our souls has been unbelievably successful in foisting this despicable heresy regarding the political correctness of accepting sodomy, and those who not only haughtily engage in it, but demand it be made legal.
That fallen, unredeemed mankind would swallow Satan's lies is to be expected. But incredibly, there are many who number themselves as being in Christ who also have succumbed to this abominable deception.
This is proven by the fact that the majority of accusations being hurled at those who oppose sodomy, words like “homophobic,” “unloving,” and heartless,” seem to arise more from the community of believers in Jesus – those who should know better — than from among the Christ-haters and Christ-rejectors of this world.
————————————————————————–
Friend Pam — I really don't know where to begin with all the things you have said, as they are so foreign to the clear teaching of the Word of God that I'm afraid I would unnecessarily upset you to address them point by point. But I will take the liberty to comment on just these two statements you made:
This sentiment really proves nothing, as –– with the possible exception of Paul — Jesus Himself was the greatest, most prolific “Bible quoter” we see in the biblical record!
So, because you find no quote from the lips of Jesus specifically condemning sodomy and sodomites, you surmise that He therefore somehow endorses it? OK… I assume you’ve read this verse:
Also, take a look at Matthew 10:15, 11:23-24; Luke 17:26-30. Even though He is addressing unbelief and rejection of Him, what honest person could deny Jesus' implicit opposition to Sodom and its practices?
Secondly, I'm sure you’re aware that we don’t need to have specific statements from the lips of Jesus before we are allowed to believe in something, or to form biblical doctrine.
The complete canon of the Word of God — equally inspired throughout, even in regard to words not spoken by Jesus — gives us ALL the knowledge and doctrine we will ever need in regard to faith and practice. This is clearly taught in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, NASB, among other references.
You can't be serious, Pammie. Come now, have you never read…?
Or…?
Or…?
It's one thing to seek to have a love for fallen mankind — even sodomites — bound in their sin, as we all once were. In fact, we are commanded to do this.
But to defend, to vote to legalize, to accept their "right" to engage in their sinful practices in the name of not wanting to somehow "offend" God is just ludicrous.
As someone said recently, a person who leaves it as saying they don’t believe in what the Bible teaches is at least being honest. That is their right.
But to say or imply that the Bible doesn’t teach something — in this case its condemnation of sodomy — is naïve at best and dishonest at worst.
-joebib
March 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
It will be interesting to see the church’s response to this.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Joebib,
Is it possible that Christians offend God by trying to legislate away sin, rather than turn sinners to His Son through love and compassion? The legislative efforts of the evangelical church sends the message of salvation / acceptability through ceasing sin, regardless of whether they have / know Jesus. Their efforts also suggest to sinners that a person has to stop sinning and get “cleaned up” before they come to Jesus, which is likely an obstacle to sinners coming to Him. It’s been my experience that the assurance of forgiveness makes confession easier.
I think evangelicals have missed the mark completely, concerning moral law. Specifically, I don’t think I’ve ever met an evangelical who could defend their legislative efforts in light of:
Scripture advocates individual freedom of choice. That is the command of God. Do evangelicals know better than God such that they try to enact laws to shore up where they consider God’s law to fall short? Are they trying to improve on the command of God?
I also question the wisdom of evangelicals / Christians getting all up in the face of homosexuals / lesbians about their sin, as if they are trying to convict them and get them to repent … doesn’t scripture say that the “Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin” … and isn’t that the message in the ‘History’ page on the revival site we were discussing in the other thread? That pastor had pages of testimony as to the futility of his fleshly religious efforts to turn heathens, witches and warlocks to Christ through trying to convince them of their sin and threaten hell … when he finally ceased his religious efforts / sales-pitch, the Holy Spirit came and from out of the blue, began convicting people of sin throughout the region …
Could it be Joe, that all of our religious efforts to expand the kingdom (dominionism) is THE roadblock to revival here? IF we let homosexuals and lesbians be, as scripture says (”LET THEM” / Rev. 22:11), and simply loved them and prayed for them, might that finally open the door for the Holy Spirit to move?
It offends the sensibilities, but that seems to be what the Father has asked us to do. Our actions (as evangelicals) suggest that we really don’t believe God / His word … and where we demonstrate such “unfaith”, is it any wonder the Holy Spirit can’t do anything?
‘Scrupe
March 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
‘Scrupe your point is well taken.
FWIW, I personally have never been convinced of the long-term success of attempting to pass laws of this nature.
As for your statement on those who oppose sin needing to manifest more of the love and compassion of God to those who are engaged in this practice, well, I seem to remember in years gone by that this was the norm as far as Christian reaction to sodomy, at least in my circles it was.
But in the past few years, with sodomites attempting to fairly shove their perverse practices down society’s collective throats by their parades, advertisements, TV programs glamorizing it, “Queer Eye” etc., I can see why some people feel they have been pushed to extreme behavior in order to attempt to stem the tide of its acceptance and progress, and to manifest their opposition to this.
But, by the same token, just because, on the one hand, some well-meaning Christian activists, or the IC, or whomever has attempted to do so, and have ostensibly come off as being overly cruel in the process, that doesn’t mean we as believers in Jesus should or feel as though we have to, on the other hand, go to the other extreme of voting for the legalization of sodomy, nor passing legislation forcing schools, scout troops, or churches to hire/include sodomites in their organizations, and so on.
Nor less yet to attempt to put forth the mistaken notion that sodomy is somehow OK biblically, and that to oppose it is therefore “homophobic,” “judgmental” and “uncaring.”
Which is what I hear around here a lot.
And that to support those who engage in this behavior is somehow showing the “understanding” of God. Read what He has to say about choosing this lifestyle in the verses listed above, and you’ll see how He regards this practice. And those were just from the N.T.
-joe
March 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It looks like this discussion is getting to the root of the issue: is homosexuality a sin?
When my daughter and I discussed this recently, I had to tell her that the Bible calls it sin. It is not my decision to change that; I’m not in charge of deciding what is sin and what is not. God set the boundaries in His word.
There is an interesting verse in Dan. 7:25. It’s a description of what one of the beasts does (no comment on the identity of the beast — simply looking at his actions). It says, “He shall … think to change [appointed] times and laws [decrees/commandents].” In other words, he will attempt to alter God’s laws.
It’s very difficult to isolate the individual issues in this debate. But one thing is clear, that homosexuals would prefer that their orientation not be classified as “sin” but rather accepted as a variation human sexuality.
Why it is important that the church change in this regard is a mystery to me. But it still remains: it’s not my decision. It’s not MY church, and I’m not the One building it.
The One who is in charge does tell me how to treat other human beings. That I can do, by grace.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
But adulterers still have the same legal rights as non-adulterers, yet I see no call for Christians nationwide to vote for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit adulterers from marrying. In fact, some states all divorces are considered “no fault”; that is, it doesn’t matter who did what, both parties are still given full legal rights regardless of what they’ve done to destroy the marriage. But I don’t see churches up in arms over divorce laws that are a tacit endorsement of marital infidelity. Why don’t churches speak out against adultery as much as they do homosexuality. Oh, right, because good Christians practice adultery all the time! Pastors and priests rape and molest children yet churches are more concerned that two consenting adults have the same legal rights as every other American. Hate the gays but ignore the sins in your own congregation, because being gay is worse than any sin a good Christian could ever commit.
I’m not saying homosexuality is not a sin, and I don’t want to have that debate. We’ve done that here on this blog several times and we’ve heard both sides say “yes it is” or “no it isn’t”. That’s not the point Obama and others are trying to make here. It’s about freedom of religion and legal equity for everyone. If you think this is about a sin issue you’ve missed the point.
Stop the hypocrisy! You guys are constantly quoting Scripture to back your position that gays are sinning, yet you ignore the many times Jesus scolded the Pharisees for condemning sinners and preventing social justice. What would Jesus say about this? I think it would be, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”
Exactly! Heterosexuals with the same legal rights as married couples? I can’t wait to hear what churches are going to think of this. I think some heads will explode trying to search for Bible verses to fit their confusion.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Joebib, your intention with listing Scriptures was well-intended to show that homosexuality was wrong. Fair enough, but in all 3 cases you failed to read the entire context of those passages, because in all cases it tells us how we should respond to those declarations. Let’s look at all of them more carefully, shall we?
Oops! I guess we’re all as guilty as the gays, so we have no right to judge them. Rats, maybe the next one will be more favorable.
Darnit, again it seems to be God’s job to pass judgment but only on the Day of Judgment. It doesn’t seem to be our job. Instead, the point of this passage seems to be about having hope to resist our own sins and temptations no matter how difficulty or “terrible” they are.
Even the mightiest angel knows better than to condemn those that God alone can judge! Instead we are to show mercy! How can you call legislation that discriminates on a specific sin an act of mercy? I call it hypocrisy.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:28 am
FICM,
The heart of your argument is one giant contradiction. First, you say that using the Bible to oppose gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Then, you tell me that you support gay marriage because Jesus wanted desired “mercy and not sacrifice” and scolded Pharisees for “preventing social justice.”
You shouldn’t condemn someone for using scripture in forming policy preferences if you’re going to.
Again, the response to this kind of hypocrisy is not the embrace of more sin, but dealing more ruthlessly with the sin we currently tolerate.
To address the legal equality issue again… neither you or I want to eliminate all restrictions on who a person can marry. You’re ok with discriminating in marriage and so am I. If I discriminate against sodomy, you discriminate againt pedophilia and incest. (As if you shouldn’t). So please, please stop pretending you want “equal rights for everyone.” You don’t. You want marriage rights for gay people.
If you can’t see why disciples of Jesus would be concerned with endorsing behavior God hates, then we simply understand Jesus very differently.
Not at all. There is a clear difference between the government doing something and the church doing something. A government policy does not necessarily implicate the church. However, church support of that policy does implicate the church. We are discussing whether the church should support civil unions and same sex marriage for gay couples.
All law is a preference for certain types of behavior. Since you believe Christians are forbidden from having opinions about behavior, are you implying that Christians must be silent on all political issues? Christians do not judge salvation, nor do they condemn others to hell, but we are constantly instructed to hate sin, flee sin, and call others to repentance.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
FICM said:
God: So, it looks like your son is paralyzed after he was hit by a car. I’m so sorry.
Parent: Yes, God. It was tragic.
God: Well, you do live on a highway. Did you ever think about putting up a fence?
Parent: Sure, I thought about it. But he had such an adventurous spirit. He was always running around the neighborhood and even across the highway. He had made across safely several times. Being free to run around wherever he wanted always made him so happy.
God: There were a couple close calls before this happened, did you ever tell him to stay away from the street.
Parent: Of course not. I knew he probably shouldn’t do it, but like you said in the Bible, its very important to show people mercy. I didn’t want to discriminate against him just because he liked playing in the highway.
God: Don’t you think avoiding paralysis could have been a merciful thing to do?
Parent: How could it be merciful if I knew it wouldn’t make him happy?
God: (sigh)
March 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
This debate is not about whether homosexuality or homosexual relations are or are not sinful. The discussion is about marriage/civil unions in society at large and in our government/legal arena.
The state does not exist to keep people from making decisions that may harm them. Rather, the state exists to empower individuals to make the decisions they want, as long as they do not injure others. This is the concept of freedom.
I fully support the rights of churches/Christians to believe and preach, if they want to, that homosexual acts are a sin. But no one has convinced me that a gay couple living next door poses a risk to my rights, including my property, my children, or my heterosexual marriage. Their civil union does not take cheapen my civil union with spouse, whom I also married in a church.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I heart libertarians. I generally agree with you which is why I hate seat belt laws, helmet laws, and OSHA.
No one wants them imprisoned. I agree that they should be allowed to live their lives in peace. There are many sins that should not be illegal. This is one of them for all the reasons you stated.
(big breath) However, the government has been elected on our behalf to encourage behaviors it/we deem valuable and discourage behavior it/we deem harmful or less valuable. They encourage adoption, recycling, giving to charity, saving money, and buying houses through tax incentives, grants, official recognition, and government initiatives.
The question we are engaged with is whether homosexual relationships are one of the things your government should take the moral position of promoting. I say no because I’m certain Jesus would say no. He would be patient, gentle, long-suffering, and kind, but He would not officiate the wedding or do anything that might be seen as an endorsement of behavior that will send them to hell. He loves them too much.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Doc, do you realize you just took a deep breath so you could feel good about contradicting yourself? On the one hand, you praise those who protect our freedoms, but only when it’s convenient to your personal beliefs!
If you agree that something is not illegal, then it follows that it is lawful.
If you are a law abiding citizen, you cannot be denied the rights of every other law abiding citizen. To enact legislation that denies legal rights to law abiding citizens based on the religious preference of some is discriminatory. Period. End of story. If the basis of said legislation is based upon religious beliefs it is a violation of the Constitution, which clearly establishes the rights of every citizen.
So do you feel it is forgivable to violate the Constitution to placate religious groups who disagree with the lifestyle of those who don’t subscribe to their beliefs? What if the moral majority enacted legislation that prohibited some aspect of your Protestant beliefs? Would you not feel that your Constitutional rights had been violated? Would you not feel discriminated against?
“The question we are engaged with is whether homosexual relationships are one of the things your government should take the moral position of promoting.”
Wrong. We are talking about whether or not it should be legal for anyone to obtain a civil union. Again you confuse the issue by making it about your moral preference.
Listen, it’s clear to everyone here what you believe about gays. We get it. We also understand why you feel that way. Many here actually agree with you upon that point. Arguing that it violates your religious beliefs only appeals to those who subscribe to your religious beliefs. The rest of America is actually offended and threatened that you wish to push your beliefs upon others.
And before you bring it up again, comparing pedophelia, polygamy and incest to civil unions or marriages are apples and eggplants. Pedophilia is not only rape, it destroys the psyche of a child who is unprepared to cope with the conflicting messages of sexuality and love/respect of adults. Polygamy is rejected by society because it creates social and financial inequity between men and women and also affects the care and health of children raised in that environment. Incest is prohibited because it’s been scientifically proven that the frequency of genetic diseases and birth defects are increased exponentially by couples with DNA that is too similar. These are all clear cut cases of societal ills that are also sins, but society doesn’t have to subscribe to a specific religious belief to prevent and punish said acts via legislation.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
FICM:
Give me one more shot at this.
I agree that “Not illegal” and “lawful” are synonyms.
Wrong. The law routinely grants specific privileges to specific classes of persons. There is a big difference between “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional”. I’ll explain. (Sorry if this is long)
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all classes of persons, not individuals. We can’t say “Whites Only” but we can say “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” The law does not see the shirtless and shoeless as a class of persons.
However, not even all class discrimination is unconstitutional. The law constantly discriminates against classes of persons because of their age (voting laws, drinking laws, etc…) income bracket (for tax purposes) and physical disabilities (driving restrictions).
When a court examines whether or not a discriminatory law is actually unconstitutional, it will apply varying levels of scrutiny depending on the class being discriminated against.
If the law discriminates against a class based on it’s race, “strict scrutiny” will apply. Therefore, you can only discriminate if there is a “compelling government interest.” It is the highest standard and very hard to meet.
“Intermediate scrutiny” applies to discrimination based on gender. It states that the government should not discriminate against women unless doing so is “substantially related” to an “important government interest”. In some cases, that burden has been met. That’s why women don’t have to make themselves eligible for the draft. Discriminatory? Of course. But appropriately so, at least in the eyes of the law.
Finally, the “rational basis test” applies to all other classes. The state can discriminate against those classes if there is a “rational basis”. This is a very low threshold and it is exceedingly rare for a court to determine that the legislature did not have a rational basis.
Despite the objections of some, discrimination based on sexual orientation has always fallen under this lowest level of scrutiny. Court’s have not found them to be a “discreet and insular” minorities requiring heightened protection given to racial minorities.
Gays have always had voting rights, cannot be immediately identified, are politically empowered, and are disproportionately successful. That is a very different story than racial minorities for whom the 14th Amendment was written. You may not agree, but that’s what the law says.
Therefore, if the government is going to discriminate against homosexuals as a class, they need to show only a rational basis for the discrimination. Some feel preference for the nuclear family and preference for a heterosexual, two-parent family for children is “rational”. Other’s don’t. But as I hope you can see, the legal question quickly becomes a moral one. Is there a rational basis to discriminate against gay couples?
Agreed. I like discrimination. And as I pointed out, discrimination is not illegal. The law constantly discriminates against the young, the disabled, the rich, and even women. You seem less concerned about that.
Nonsense. Do you propose that only disciples of good atheists like Marx, Polpot, Stalin, Freud, Hitler, and Chiang Kai Shek get to participate in the legislative process?
Every law is justified by moral and religious precepts that predated the law itself. I don’t see you calling for the abolition of murder and theft laws because they were part of the 10 commandments.
No, I don’t believe I confuse the issues. As I’ve explained, the legal question is a moral question. Is there a rational basis for treating gay couples differently than straight couples? I say yes, you say no. Our differences come from our different world views, not because you love the constitution and I’m a theocrat.
Thanks for endulging me.
DOC
March 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Doc, I’m on the other side as well (supporting gay rights) but you stated the legal issues brilliantly.
–p
March 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I appreciate that. I’ll leave it your conscience to decide how you can stare reason in the face and say, “To hell with you!!!”
March 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Thanks, Doc!
I’ll say it in that squishy un-rigorous means that matters to me… I believe Father would reach out and hug a gay man, unreservedly, and express His love for that man. In that same spirit, I pray to feel that man’s pains and needs as deeply as my own.
In that way, a 30 year love relationship with that man’s beloved should have no governmental barriers. Hospitals should let them be together. Tax issues, custody issues, all these things do not seem worth fighting about.
I guess I picked up this feeling from Tony Campolo’s “10 hot potatoes the church is afraid to touch” and i’ve never heard a compelling statement that moves me from that heart feeling.
Blessings All!
–p
March 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
One more… and moderators, i don’t really know where this story would be best placed. But.. It’s been on my heart as the site discusses issues around homosexuality and the church.
I was at Bible Temple, and TC(H)S around 1980. Youth group. Wendell. All that world.
I remember a couple of the older guys in the youth group talking about what to do after church one evening. A couple guys (and yes, i could name them) suggested going down to Burnside with some baseball bats and doing some “gay bashing”. “Pound some faggots” is the line I recall. The next day, these same guys bragged about having done exactly that.
I can’t say they did it. It’s the kind of bragging I’d expect from these particular guys. But I wasn’t there to know.
In the years since, it’s always stuck with me that this seemed like a reasonable and justifiable thing. And how different things are now. So… remember that this isn’t a moot issue, by any means. And believers, even at BT/CBC have been guilty of really awful things.
Then… think about why we as a community extending the Father’s love, should do anything that harms these children of His.
Blessings!
–p
March 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
DOC, the basis of our country is the Constitution, not the Bible. Murder and stealing are illegal because they violate other people’s rights, not because of the 10 commandments.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Behavior is illegal because our legislative leaders say it is illegal. Nothing more. The reasons they say that is wide open to interpretation. People frequently reach the same conclusion for very different reasons.
Regardless, the statement was made as a rebuttal to the suggestion that it is unconstitutional to legislate religious beliefs. There are many tests of constitutionality. Whether a secular law was previously a religious law is not one of them.
Still, pretending the government can do anything without making moral/religious judgments forces you to do make absurd conclusions. For example, in Washington’s bar journal last year, someone wrote an article stating that laws against bestiality can’t be based in morality. Apparently, it is unthinkable to say that sex with animals is simply wrong.
To support her thesis, she argued that murder laws were ammoral, and based only in the state’s compelling interest in keeping people alive so they can be taxed. (I wish I was making this up). In other words, preserving life is not a compelling state interest but preserving a healthy tax base is. (Professing to be wise, they became fools…)
Of course the idea that a healthy tax base is “good” is itself a moral judgment. But apparently, love of government has fewer religious overtones than love of life so she feels more comfortable with it. To me, thats absurd.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
DOC,
If you are implying that I believe Christians should not express their worldviews while voting, you are incorrect.
Christians have every right to express their viewpoints in church, society, and the public policy process. They have every right to try to convince people of their views. However, opposites sides also have the right of persuasion. I have the belief that we need to be a pluralistic society. You seem to believe that your interpretation of the Bible should be forced on everyone.
I have to wonder — According to your previous statements, you believe a case can be made for the state to have a rational interest in denying civil unions. Now that Washington has just passed a vast expansion of domestic partner benefits, doesn’t this mean that a state has found a rational interest in promoting these benefits? Basically, your position is that the majority rules, without much regard to minority rights. Now that the majority has shifted and the gay rights advocates have the upper hand, what are you going to do?