Question of the day: government and marriage.

Over the years we’ve seen a decline in the moral and ethical views of the American people – especially when it comes to marriage.

There are several states which have made marriage for same-sex couple legal. A couple of months ago I read an article about how the “gay crowd” is now pushing for the legalization of incestuous relationships — including relationships between a grandmother and her grandson (and their surrogate mother), twin brothers, fathers and daughters, etc.

This is a disturbing age we live in, and it’s getting worse and worse with every day that passes. Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Use Scripture to back your opinions. Please. and thank you.

Here’s this week’s QOTD…

Separation of church and state… should the government even be defining marriage in the first place?

Share your thoughts in the comments section below!


Posted on December 10, 2012, in Question of the Day and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. Christianity is not about legislating morality. Paul was more concerned about the lifestyle within the church, and not so much about society outside the church. For instance, within a societal framework which allowed for multiple wives – he said within the framework of the church he would only appoint elders who had one wife.

    Corinthians has even more in your face repercussions. For instance, slaves were often used for homosexual relations – but suddenly Paul is telling them to stop that and to treat slaves as complete equals. And by the way husbands, start loving your wife and treating her as equal.

    The early church radically changed society by its radical lifestyle and commitment to Christ. Church history shows us that the church become corrupted when they become in a position of power to legislate rules for society and in many ways lost the radical power which they once had.

    Perhaps we can learn something from this ourselves?

  2. I agree with what Craig said above. WE should be more concerned about what is going on in the church house than the white house. I am convinced that the government should not be recognizing any form of marriage. That was given to the church, and is an institution of God. (The whole book of Genesis is filled with examples.)

    As far as homosexual marriage is concerned, it is completely and utterly wrong, but I believe that if they find a church to marry them, let them marry. We need to be teaching people so that the church is the standard of influence in the community it should be. It’s not the government’s that we have gay “marriage”. It’s that the church gave up the right to define marriage to the government. The definition is set by God.

  3. Do not worry about incest, particularly incestuous marriage. It is a completely different issue. Arguments about the likely genetic health problems of any progeny are good moral arguments against incestuous relationships, and will prevent them being recognised as “marriages”.

  4. I don’t know if anyone will agree with my perspective, but here it goes.

    I believe government has no right to define marriage since it is a religious establishment. But, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the church has no right to push a Christian moral law on a nation who is not completely comprised of Christians. God never gave us a second great commission of going into all the world and creating a moral law to cram down the throats of unbelievers. He told us to preach the gospel. That, by itself, will change the morality of a nation as a natural by-product. That aside, our moral law given to us in the Bible was given so that Christians could follow it, not for us to force unbelievers to adhere to it.

    Do not get me wrong, I believe homosexuality is a sin. But, so is lying, idolatry (removing God as the focus of your life), gluttony, materialism, and the list could go on and on. I think that sometimes we, as Christians, seem to place a greater emphasis on the sins that WE don’t commit regularly. Yet, God considers all sin to be equally offensive to His character. In order to avoid being hypocritical, a person who pushes for gay marriage to be banned by law should also seek to create laws prohibiting lying, idolatry, gluttony, materialism, etc. I don’t see Christians getting upset at the buffet when others are overindulging in food. I don’t see Christians getting upset when they place so much emphasis on their latest boat or TV. But, we do find Christians going ballistic over homosexuality, a sin they themselves don’t commit. It’s as if it has become a tool to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

    I am all for living a good moral life. But, that was given to Christians for Christians to keep. And the primary purpose is to prevent any hindrance to a daily, intimate walk with God. Our only agenda when dealing with an unbelieving world should be to preach the gospel to them. Then, and only then, will we see true change in this country.

  5. Interesting question. I DON’T think they should define it as between people of the same sex. But when I did some Internet research I found, a bit to my surprise, that in most of the past, and in some areas today, government didn’t define it at all – but, for several hundred years, the church didn’t either.

    One source said the commonest practice was for a father to arrange the best wedding he could for his son, (in some cultures, for the daughter), then marry them with a private contract signed in front of witnesses, followed by a party. Often the husband and wife never met until the wedding. (Would any of us like that?)

    Even today, things like that happen. One of my bosses once took a tour of the Pacific and brought back a newspaper from Port Moresby, New Guinea. It had an article about a village council that had set official prices for brides. (It didn’t do the wedding – just set the price.) It had agreed that to marry a virgin bride, the man had to pay the bride’s father a fixed amount in cash and fixed amounts of certain kinds of livestock (cows, pigs, goats, etc.). BUT if the woman had been married once before, the price was only about one-third as high. AND if she had been married twice, the Council said “she shall have no commercial value at all!”

    One my department heads said “The price should be HIGHER. She’s experienced!”

    OK. I’ll quit before I get in any MORE trouble! Merry Christmas, all!

  6. Pete.. you are right. The church actually only got officially involved in marriage in the 15th century, through a decree of the pope, who said.. for marriage to be recognised, it must be done by a priest and by the must pay a tax to the church..

    Martin Luther in the reformation actually forbid his priests from marrying people, telling them it was a private / state matter and not a gospel matter. Calvin disagreed with Luther, but then again Calvin was deeply entwined with the state.

    Fast forward to around 1750 in London. The house of lords made a decree once again that marriage must be performed by a priest. The reason being is that prisoners had conjugal rights and in the docks, this right was being flaunted with prostitution where the prisoners were saying they were married ..

    The reality is our current church tradition of marriage is a popish rite.

  7. It strikes me that, even though I expect we all dislike a system where we don’t even meet our mate until the marriage ceremony, there was one good thing about it. It certainly must have put a damper on same-sex marriage! The father was certainly unlikely to pick a male to marry his son, or to choose a female for his daughter. Not that there wasn’t still homosexuality – but I would guess that usually came in sometime later.

    PS – Very interesting details, Craig. Thanks for putting those up.

  8. I attended a mate wedding today. While I strenuously believe that God honours what we call defacto partnerships (heterosexual) and that we should not call such partnerships as sinful before God; I also believe that a Christian wedding that is full of prayer, promises and blessings is a wonderful event.

  9. I’ve asked the same questions, great thoughts Heather. Good to see you’re still blogging.

  10. all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until they abuse that right by breaking the law and using that freedom to hurt others. homosexuality is a natural part of the animal kingdom, of which we are a part, but for procreational purposes it is not the will of God. He told us to “be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:28) this is a little hard to accomplish with same sex relations, therefore it is not productive to the human species, therefore not what God intended.

    I believe they may be legally joined, if that is to their happiness. The Church is a different matter. If, in my congregation one day, there is a homosexual couple that seeks for me to perform the marriage in the Church… I’ll have to get to that when I come to it. For now, out of respect for Christian doctrine, I would be obliged to say no. All one can do is pray for the nation and its leaders, that the best decision may be made that guarantees civil liberties to all yet preserves peace and some form of morality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: