The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Roadrunner]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

Stupid people tend to be loyal...

 

[SwimExpert]

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Yeah. This shit is ridiculous.

 

[GHook93]

My cousin married a closeted gay man. She said it was awful. He was a nice guy and treated her well, but she thought he was old school with sex after marriage. He had trouble on their wedding night and every time thereafter. In their 7 year long marriage they had sex twice.

It eventually ended in divorce. She finally got married again at age 36 and he came out of the closet shortly after the divorce. It did neither of them justice to get married. It was actually more unfair to her. Many anti gay marriage crowd members would be glad this gay man had a heterosexual marriage, regardless of how unfair it is to the straight member of the marriage!

 

[deltex1]

What I know is that the definition of one of our most basic institutions was changed to accommodate the abnormal practices of a few. Not a good decision.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

The sin is in accepting homosexuality as if it were normal. It might be a greater sin than the act of homosexuality itself.

It's like trying to see the world through the eyes of any pervert. It looks much different to a pedophile or zoophile. All you have to do to make the world comfortable for perverts is to accept and normalize the perversion! See how you can look at the world through their eyes.

But what we're talking about here is not accepting somebody else's lifestyle but rather tolerating it and there's the difference. The thread is not about the morality of the homosexual lifestyle but rather the difficult choice that heterosexual Christians impose upon homosexuals in order to be right. We've figured out that it's not a demon to be cast out in the name of Jesus, so that leaves us with the other two choices, neither of which we would consider palatable were we in their shoes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

Which is why the manner in which same sex marriage came about, by judicial fiat, is a mistake. In no way am I defending the Supreme Court's decision because, as you point out, now the states are disempowered to put any restrictions on marriage, no matter how ridiculous people make marriage. Polygamy? Marrying one's son to avoid an inheritance tax? Marrying a pet, a car, or even a battery operated vibrator? And this is just the beginning.

The decision should have been made by the states, but on a personal level, I'm asking what moral right that happily married heterosexual couples have to say, "Bliss for me, but not for thee." As you see from the OP, I'm approaching this from a very personal perspective that involves close friends of my family. I cannot justify denying them the happiness I've found in being married to my wife in the eyes of society.

 

[Seawytch]

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

With abortion being legal, brothers and sisters can now marry and have a sexual relationship if desired. If she becomes pregnant, she can just have an abortion. The argument of "pure bloodlines" is no more. Claiming "that's icky" is now no longer a valid argument either.

It never was a valid argument so if you believe siblings have a right to civilly marry, that right existed with or without gays right to civilly marry. Good luck with your case.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

In fact, I'm not so sure that Scripture even forbids monogamous, committed relationships within the covenant of marriage. An historical perspective, not only on the law given on Mt. Sinai, but also what was reinforced by the Apostles in the New Testament seems to point to rampant, pagan orgies, catamite pederasty, and sexual deviance as part of the worship of false gods. I've written other threads pointing out the vast gulf between what was happening in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and what happens between a loving same sex couple in a committed relationship. They're both treated the same, but they're not.

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

 

[Seawytch]

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

You forgot some...men casually hooking up with women and women casually hooking up with women. Why?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

I'm Catholic too, and very aware of Pope Francis's encyclical decrying the failure of the Christian Church to reach out to gays as Jesus would have done. Instead we are building walls, and by doing so congratulating ourselves for being about God's work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that a same sex couple's marriage is worthwhile if they can't naturally produce children, the question is, do we deny them the same happiness that we enjoy? I love my wife dearly and I look at my friends who will marry this month and I truly pray they will have the same joy that I have being married to the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

You forgot some...men casually hooking up with women and women casually hooking up with women. Why?

Actually, it only goes to reinforce what I'm saying, that what the Scripture forbids is the separation of sex and love, unbridled hedonism, and the consequences of it. Christian fundamentalists tend to see it all as the same, but it's not. Is a man faithfully married to a woman the same as men casually hooking up with women, committing acts of debauchery with women they don't intend to marry, and even getting into orgies, drugs, alcohol, and living a destructive lifestyle? God's laws are all motivated by love for mankind, to give us boundaries for our own protection and to give us the best chance at long term happiness and prosperity, keeping away from the very things that would rob us of it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

 

[Seawytch]

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

You forgot some...men casually hooking up with women and women casually hooking up with women. Why?

Actually, it only goes to reinforce what I'm saying, that what the Scripture forbids is the separation of sex and love, unbridled hedonism, and the consequences of it. Christian fundamentalists tend to see it all as the same, but it's not. Is a man faithfully married to a woman the same as men casually hooking up with women, committing acts of debauchery with women they don't intend to marry, and even getting into orgies, drugs, alcohol, and living a destructive lifestyle? God's laws are all motivated by love for mankind, to give us boundaries for our own protection and to give us the best chance at long term happiness and prosperity, keeping away from the very things that would rob us of it.

That didn't answer my question. Why did you leave them out? Do you or don't you see anything "hedonistic" about casual hookups that aren't two dudes? If you do, then why not say "people casually hooking up"?

What I'm saying, Mike, is that you're progressing, but you've still got some ways to go. Well done though

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

Sorry, I don't believe in pretend marriage and you're never going to convince me it's right or moral.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

You forgot some...men casually hooking up with women and women casually hooking up with women. Why?

Actually, it only goes to reinforce what I'm saying, that what the Scripture forbids is the separation of sex and love, unbridled hedonism, and the consequences of it. Christian fundamentalists tend to see it all as the same, but it's not. Is a man faithfully married to a woman the same as men casually hooking up with women, committing acts of debauchery with women they don't intend to marry, and even getting into orgies, drugs, alcohol, and living a destructive lifestyle? God's laws are all motivated by love for mankind, to give us boundaries for our own protection and to give us the best chance at long term happiness and prosperity, keeping away from the very things that would rob us of it.

That didn't answer my question. Why did you leave them out? Do you or don't you see anything "hedonistic" about casual hookups that aren't two dudes? If you do, then why not say "people casually hooking up"?

What I'm saying, Mike, is that you're progressing, but you've still got some ways to go. Well done though

I think you're being combative for no good reason. I didn't leave anything out by focusing on a specific issue germane to the OP. And I did answer your question, whether you think so or not.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

Sorry, I don't believe in pretend marriage and you're never going to convince me it's right or moral.

Fine. That's not my intent.

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?