Why Christians Should Vote to Legalize Same Sex Marriage

Comments

The people may choose the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. They follow truth, but they do so disingenuously. We are teaching them to act a certain way out of fear of the consequences. And we ourselves, who put the policy in place, we are acting out of fear as well. We are afraid that we can't trust people, and that if we don't exert some pressure on them, they won't choose the right thing.

See, this is why morality fails: it says nothing about our intentions. If we practiced a system of virtues, which is all about our intentions, then I honestly think fear would be less abundant in our law system.

You bring up an interesting point about believers imposing God's will on others when he won't do it himself. Why do believers feel like they need to impose his will on others?

Is imposing God's will or morality an assertion of one's fear or more of an assertion of the truth of God's will or morality? (Law doesn't really deal with truth. It deals more with "correct" and "incorrect" actions.) Perhaps their fear is more of an unconscious thing?
It is definitely unconscious. But we all do it, not just Christians. It becomes especially apparent when a child is growing into an adult. The parent wants desperately for the child to make good decisions, because they want him/her to have a good life. They have such good intentions...but often the parent/child relationship goes sour for a while as tensions rise. The parent often makes a last ditch effort at trying to control the child, because they are afraid to let go, even though they know they have to.

It's a fear fueled by love, and often we only see the love. Our hearts are in the right place, and so our actions feel justified. And they are, but that does not mean that it is the best action. Actions done out of a root fear (even if that fear is unconscious) usually lead to higher tension and eventual disaster. Fear clings, love lets go.

But it's so hard to trust people, especially when they've shown you they can't be trusted. It's such a difficult situation. But Christianity tells us to have faith, to trust, even when it feels like everything will be lost. Because what we give up, we get back in spades.
[this is good]
You make good points but I would contend with your assumption that God doesn't force/coax us to do his will. You assume free will, but why don't you also assume predeterminism? Both can be supported by Scripture, even though they SEEM contradictory.

Without going into an essay, my argument would be that a parent has a moral obligation to force/coax his child to behave properly. The child learns to use his freedom during this process. The better parents do this coaxing with love and gentleness. Authority of the parent, authority of God, authority of the law.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but most Christians believe that it's not that God has laid out plan for us, but that he knows us so well that he already knows what we will end up deciding.

I believe determinism and free will can coexist, which is why I define free will as the ability to have your choices come from you. Regardless of whether God already knows what you will pick, you are doing the picking. And this is an integral part of authentically coming to love and follow God. If that choice doesn't come from you, or doesn't come from your deepest heart...it's not really a genuine, lasting choice. So, in our emulation of God and in our striving to accomplish his will, we need to make conditions such that people can choose him genuinely. This means, on a political level, allowing as many different choices and actions as possible as long as they do no harm.

And yes, the parent has an obligation to control their child, but not for their entire life. Once that child becomes (or even starts to become) an adult, the parent must do exactly what God does and let them make their own choices while still being present and loving.
I forgot where you mentioned it but concerning the law and how we should only forbid what can harm others directly. A conservative Christian would answer to that as it being the typical answer that a heathen would give. "You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect me." "Each should lead their own life as long as the leave the other person alone." "Let live" sort of mentatality that we have today. I am not sure that this is what you are promoting or arguing for, but this sort of mentality is what has ripped communities apart. I believe that unity is extremely important, that sense of community. Of being able to be involved in each other's lives including the lives of strangers, etc. This sense of community is very abundant in Africa for example, everyone is very open and welcoming. This sense of community has existed in past societies. I understand that it is very difficult to maintain because of our sin nature and the fact that many have betrayed others and caused people to fear intimacy and community (I fear that myself, even though I'm entranced by the idea). This to say, I think its dangerous to use those exact words, "as long as it doesn't harm me" should it not be, "we are doing our best to create a safe environment for everyone, where you can express yourself and your beliefs in a safe way and open a way for a new kind of community where we strive to accept each other and explore new ways of thinking and being."

Aside from that comment that sprang a whole paragraph in me, it is true that it is frightening. Mostly for me because of what others will think of me if I adopt this idea. I find myself rejecting from exploring new ideas because I'm afraid of what I'll do. When I truly believe something I dont keep quiet about it. If I were to not keep quiet about this, I would be rejected. Makes me small and weak and a coward but that's how I am today. Perhaps in the future it will change.

But I must say my heart does not completely reject your ideas. :)
I agree with you and that is something I often speak out about. But what I am advocating here is the idea that the law (what you force on people) does not have to enact every single value your community has, and in fact that it shouldn't.

We need to be able to look at things from two angles. On the legal level, we *do* have to adopt the live and let live idea, because we are setting a bare minimum for participation in our society. This does not mean that the bare minimum is the standard we hold ourselves and our friends and family and community to, it is just the minimum.

We then must see from another angle. We must educate people that if you just follow the law that's like getting a C- in life. Don't we want more? On a community level, not a legal level, we need to have the attitude you suggest. However, this is more difficult, and so many people will just want to force everyone to live up to their standards. Unfortunately, this backfires and creates a society where no one can be truly authentic, because everyone is following the rules because of the consequences and not because who they are inside tells them to.

So, two angles. Legal, and community. :)
Ahh I understand it better now. Thank you for clearing that up. :)
[this is good]

Hey Light,

Interesting post... one of the more unique defenses of Homosexual marriage i've ever read. Especially from someone claiming to take "distinctly conservative Christian position." I guess i'm still trying to figure out exactly what was conservative about your position.

I thought i'd float a few thoughts, being raised in a conservative Christian enviornment with a degree in theology from an Evangelical/Pentecostal college.

1. Freedom for the Christian is freedom from sin, not permission to sin. Contrary to what you wrote, God doesn't allow sin, nor is license closely related to freedom. Christ died alone & ugly out side the city that Friday outside the City to take our sins upon himself, becaming a human scapegoat. God placed my guilty verdict on him, & Jesus was my substitute. To be free, in the Christian sense, is to be free from sin, those actions that implicated us in God's judgment of the world.

2. The Jewish Law was given, Paul states in Romans, so that no one has an excuse before God: we all have broken the law, every one of us, and there will be a day of judgment coming, either when we die or when Jesus returns. It was a way for God to say that humanity needs a Savior because we need rescued.

3. Christians are not to judge anyone outside of the Church. Christians are to obey God's commandments & be the best citizens they can be, altho God's law & kingdom comes first. Christ said to go into the world and proclaim that there is forgiveness of sins in faith in Jesus.

4. Both Jews & Christian rest their faith on the same Scriptures, and those Scriptures begin with a creation narrative that features Adam & Eve. The Apostles liken the church to be the bride of Christ. There is no room for a reinterpretation affirming homosexuality in Scriptures where none exist.

Anyway -- interesting post, Light.

I guess the conservative position I took was that homosexuality was a sin and something that does not and cannot fit in Christian morality. I admit that some of my theology is more liberal, although the way I said it I do not discount a more conservative theology, just...looking at it from another angle.

1. I agree. Freedom is freedom from sin. But I guess I sawthings a little differently, though I guess this theology is more Catholic than Evangelical. Even for Christians who believe that Jesus has taken their sin...they still sin, do they not? They may not be blamed or held accountable, but they still sin. The way I view Christian freedom, the more free you are, the less you sin. Not just that you are free from the spiritual consequences of sin, but that you are truly freed from sin. And if God is truth, and sin is separation from God, then sin is falsity and illusion. To live without sin is to live in truth, in authenticity, in God. In order to be authentic, we have to genuinely choose what is right, we have to genuinely choose the way God has set for us. This sort of freedom has implications in my everyday decisions, every second of my life, rather than just the idea that my sins will be forgiven, I will try to let God's grace in, let him sanctify me and make me holy so that sin becomes more and more foreign. This journey is never complete, I might add, as we will always be sinners, but it can have a hugely positive impact on a person's life. A huge part of Christianity is about personal transformation over the course of our lives.

As an aside...how can we say God doesn't allow sin? If he is all powerful, he could have created a world without it, couldn't he? But he didn't. This doesn't make him evil by any means. It just means, I think, that either sin is a consequence of allowing us free will, or that sin is part of a process that can allow for growth and love to blossom, given the right conditions. Either way, God is "allowing it" to happen, even if He doesn't approve of or condone it.

2. I'm not sure how this point relates to my essay. When I was discussing Law, I was discussing it in its current form, in our government. Also, isn't there the idea (I've heard people say it) that the people in the Old Testament needed the Law because of the state of mind they were in, and that when Jesus came and showed us the Spirit behind those laws, they no longer needed to be followed? That we did not need to hold people to the same standards because what was important wasn't that they followed the letter of the law, but the spirit? Perhaps my word choice is bad, but do you understand my question? Didn't this revelation of Spirit change the Law to be something more vague and less restrictive, but at the same time, more powerful?

4. In this post, I was not trying to counter that. I accepted that as a premise. But even given that, my point was that for those outside the Christian faith (to drive home what you said in 3)...mainly, for those in our political environment who decide to take that course with their lives...we should let them.


Hey Light -- i'm kinda inbetween classes so my last reply was a bit hurried, so i wasn't as clear as i should have been. Sorry about that.

As for #1: Freedom from sin does allow authenticity: we are agreed. Which opens up a huge problem for pro-homosexual activists. God created us male and female, and wholeness, salvus (healing) comes when God in his salvation makes us authentically male, authentically female. God affirms our masculinity and feminity acording to gender. Jews & Christians have always, at least before the secular Enlightenment, considered homosexual behavior sin. Thus, as we become free, we avoid sin such as homosexual behavior, not embrace it. Shall we continue to sin so that grace may abound? Probably not... Why should I vote to allow something i truly believe to be harmful to those who participate? Freedom from God is freedom from anything that would stop us from authentically becoming the man or women God has created us to be.

#2: i took what you were saying in a theological context -- my bad. The Law in the NT context speaks about Jewish Law, thus my allusion to Paul & the book of Romans. I will say this, however: in 5,000 years of western history, there has been no major civilization that has condoned homosexual behavior, nor codified it into law. There have been instances where a tribal group, based on a hunter/gather paradigm, made allowances, but not from among a complex community like a city state or nation state. When the Spartans and Athenians were done sleeping with their young shield bearers at the end of a military campaign, they then went home to their wife and kids. Adult homosexuality, with one man playing the woman's submissive role in intercourse, is something that is as new a the Industrial Revolution. The only reason this controversy has any legitimacy now is because this nation is completely ahistorical - we have the historical memory of a gnat.

#3. We live in a country where there is freedom of religion. The religion that I adhere to condemns homosexual behavior based on what i believe to be valid reasons. I also believe i have valid reasons to oppose homosexual marriage apart from religious reasons. I will continue to vote against changing the 5,000 year old western tradition as marriage being between a man & a woman based on identity politics. If the majority doesn't agree with me i will indeed be tolerant. I live in Massachusetts, and altho i disagree what the courts allowed here (the state government fled from a democratic state-wide vote on gay marriage like snow in the rain) i tolerate homosexuals who marry because i live in a democratic Republic.

I hope this reply was a bit clearer than my last. Peace, Light.

Yes it was, thank you very much. :)

1. For this essay I am taking that idea as a premise, that being authentic does not include homosexual behavior. But the interesting thing about authenticity is that you must arrive at it yourself. You can't force someone to be authentic, that's completely counter intuitive. I think, if we encourage people to follow what they feel is true, deep, authenticity...they will end up making the mistakes they need to make in order to find out who they truly are, and then, because of their commitment to truth, will follow that path. Either way, it is not up to us to make sure they are authentic. :)

2. Right, homosexual relationships like the ones we have today have never really existed...which could be an argument that none of what was said about homosexuality in the past really applies to our situation today. ;) But that's beside the point. The point I wanted to make was that allowing them to make their own mistakes is a good thing, and that we should try to find ways to make ourselves more emotionally comfortable with allowing it on a legal level, without feeling like we have to condone it on a social level.
[this is good]

Beautifully written! Thank you for this. My late grandma and aunt were devout Christians - and they would agree with this. It's about time the moderate's voices were heard. There are too many extremist voices on Vox drowining out everyone else.

One thing some Christians are forgetting is that I for example could marry as a Christian, but I could also get married by a Wiccan minister or anyone licensed by the state. Ergo, the legalization of gay marriage. Married people have a legal standing with the state - that means that single religions are not allowed to monkey with the laws. No one religion is allowed to have a monopoly on legal marriages.

And your point about allowing God to judge what needs to be done is a good one. The lies and hatred on Vox about gays are most decidedly un-Christian. Gays have been labeled as child molestors and as promoting sex with dogs. The hatred here is obscene. There is no proof whatsoever that a gay is any more likely to rape children than a heterosexual. Yet that's what they're being blamed for - God would see that as sin.

I live in Massachusetts and the only thing that gays have done is to bring more money (spent on formal weddings) into the economically struggling state. They are rejecting promiscuity and adopting children. It's wonderful.

As a Pagan I know what kind of hypocrisy the extremists (I prefer not to call them Christians) are displaying. Moderates like you and I should speak out more. Many Pagans and liberals happen to be pro-authority, pro-community, pro-military and pro-chastity. Good Christians and good Pagans / agnostics make great communities.

Hey again, Light,

My orthodoxy is based upon traditional understanding of basic Christian teaching. One of the most basic is Original Sin. My understanding of this doctrine is that all people are born with rebellion against God hardwired into their psyches or, as we thereputic Americans would say, in their hearts.Calvinists have called this tendency "Total Depravity," but i prefer to call this "Total Inability," as in people are born separated fron God and unable to heal the breach by themselves.

People were created in God's image, but that image was shattered by the Fall (Genesis Chapter three) -- we are like priceless Ming vases that have shattered on the floor -- & was attempted to be put together again with Elmer's Glue. The basic form is there, but its original integrity is missing.

Orthodox Christianity says the only way to authenticity, to true repair, is thru Christ -- that people are saved from their sins by God's grace alone by Christ alone thru faith alone as put forth in Christain Scripture alone to the glory of God alone.

My point, i guess ;0) is this: in our rebellion against God by making ourselves the measure of all things, can we say that people even can attempt

"to follow what they feel is true, deep, authenticity...they will end up making the mistakes they need to make in order to find out who they truly are, and then, because of their commitment to truth, will follow that path."

I would tend to believe that in our shattered & rebellious state that our ideas about true, deep authenticity & truth would be very, very different than God's. The Psalms say there is a way that seems right, a path that feels intuitively right, but the end of that path is spiritual death.

I would agree with you about the laws of the land -- they shouldn't be religious. Ellie has a good point,

"I for example could marry as a Christian, but I could also get married by a Wiccan minister or anyone licensed by the state. Ergo, the legalization of gay marriage. Married people have a legal standing with the state - that means that single religions are not allowed to monkey with the laws. No one religion is allowed to have a monopoly on legal marriages."

I would say that marriage shouldn't be in any way regulated by the State... The only thing the State should offer in this area is Civil Union. I personally believe this union should be between a man & a woman, but if the consensus says otherwise, at least the State would be out of the marriage business & different religious & spiritual traditions could offer a marriage ceromony.

A different reply from our first conversation, but interesting nevertheless.

Peace, Light.

Great question with a great point. This is tricky stuff, dealing with the existential struggles of life. :)

I agree with you that in our separation, we cannot find truth alone. But just because you let someone find the truth on their own does not mean they are alone. :)

Here's the idea I want to put forth: when we follow our hearts, if the path we are pursuing is not an authentic one, eventually the lies will build and build and something will happen. Something unexpected happens, that knocks us over and leaves us breathless. Usually, whatever reality we were trying to avoid by choosing how we did confronts us with ten times the strength.

It's as if God is challenging us at every turn to open our eyes and come to authenticity and truth. We still have the choice to turn away from it, but each time we are faced with a crisis, we are faced with an opportunity. It is fear and pain that lead us to build up walls and enforce and widen the gap between ourselves and God. When the crisis hits, it breaks through all our defenses. As Flannery O'Connor once said, sometimes our heads are so hard that nothing else will do the trick. Reality is something to which we must be returned at considerable cost.

But this doesn't mean we need the other people in our lives telling us when we are being false with ourselves and when we are being true. I mean, it helps to say it in a supportive way, but to enforce it? No.

Haven't you ever been in a situation where, in order to learn, you have to make the mistake yourself? No matter how much people tell you that you're making the wrong decision, it really doesn't matter. You needed to make the mistake. You had to go through the process to come to a place where you could really know the truth.

This is where trusting God comes in. As the person trying to help, sometimes we need to let that person take a path we know isn't good for them, so that they can come to a place where they genuinely understand. We need to trust that God will work in that person's life, whether they are actively trying to follow him or not.

So, as a society, letting someone choose the wrong thing isn't leaving them alone, it's respecting the journey that person must make to find or to notice God's presence in their lives, and not thinking that we ourselves are so important that we need to forcefully show them the light.


And as an aside, I completely agree that marriage shouldn't be in any way regulated by the State. :)


there is not now nor will there ever be in the future a good reason to allow gay couples to marry,if the truth be known they are a dieing breed let them fade away like the archiac animals they are.trying to put logic to this is illogical at best and ugly at worst,just let them fade away into history they no longer serve a purpose to the human race.they will be forgotten in a hundred years
[this is good]
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
You wish. Homosexuality is a fact of life for between 2-5% of the population which means that the Gays are not going to disappear as you wish them to.
they have been die'ing out since our knuckles were dragging on the ground,if it wasn't for gay indoctranation and a hanfull of gay elitist forcing it on the world it would most likely be gone already
Smell my fingers. Amen.
enough with your fingers little girl,when you get done hiding behind someone else then you have a right to comment,until then glue your fingers to the ceiling

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in