Equality and marriage for all!

No doubt I’m sure you all noticed the endless sea of red equal sign pictures that were floating over just about every social network in existence. I watched in both shock and horror as people I knew joined in with changing their profile picture and replacing it with the aforementioned picture — Christian people… people I thought knew better.

I was wrong.

So decided to change my profile picture as well. It seemed like the thing to do…

I then followed that up with posting an article titled “Is Homosexuality A Sin For New Testament Believers?

{what I changed my profile picture to}

{what I changed my profile picture to}

I was then called unloving, judgmental, hypocritical… you name it. I was also ignorantly told that I should be put to death for wearing a cotton-blend shirt.

I was sent messages, people left comments — I responded to a few. But my intention for posting either was not to start a fight. I mean, if THEY can change their picture to show support of marriage equality, surely I’m allowed to change mine to show my non-support, right?

My bad for offending your opinions that offend my God.

Here’s one of the messages I received…

Just out of curiosity would you mind explaining your point of view on why you think it’s wrong to legalize gay marriage. I understand that it’s a sin, but the way I look at it is legalizing it isn’t going to change the number of homosexual relationships. Instead all it would do would be to give homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Do you see this a different way. I’m really just curious and I’m not trying to cause an argument in any way. I just want to hear your point of view.

So I responded…

I don’t support homosexual relationships nor can I support the legalization of marriage equality because it goes against every fiber of what is morally right. The state/gov does not have the right to legalize marriage equality just as they don’t have the right to redefine marriage. They push for separation of church and state, yet force themselves on various institutions of the church. Marriage is a holy institution — designed and defined by God. God says marriage is a union between one man and one woman for life. Therefore, anything that goes against that is a sin.

It a slippery slope. Legalizing marriage equality won’t make it no longer a sin, so why legalize it? By legalizing it, we support it. I don’t support it.

Murder is wrong… Should we legalize that too? I mean, people are gonna murder people anyways, so shouldn’t we just give murderers equal rights to just do their thing? How about sex trafficking? Killing our childr…oh wait.

See where I’m coming from? That’s why I oppose it. Hope that makes sense.

I felt as though I was talking in circles, while balancing 5 other things at the same time.

Would you have responded differently?
Do you support or oppose marriage equality? Why?

Advertisements

Posted on March 27, 2013, in Homosexuality and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. Heather, I’m Struggling With Something That perhaps You Can Help Me With. (And I Don’t Understand Why My Phone Is Capitalizing Every First Letter -I Apologize.):
    I AgRee That Homosexuality I A Sin. However, Why Not Let Non BelieveRs To Get The Social And Civil Benefits Of “Marriage” If They Don’t Accept The Bible Anyway?

    • Luis, why not make murder legal for the murderers so they don’t have to go to prison since they don’t accept the Bible anyways?

      • That is a good point, a little on the extreme side, but a good one nonetheless. Following this analogy, I would assume a reason we want to keep murder a crime, is, not to save the murderers souls (as a law will not keep a murdered from murdering), but to save the to-be-murdered’s lives. At the same token, we would be against SSM, not to save the gays’ souls, but the __________ (kids to be adopted, society’s health, etc etc).
        At the moment I wrote the initial comment, I was leaning towards, “If law could fix people, Jesus would have to die”. In other words, setting a law against SSM won’t keep people from being gay. On the other hand, if we allow them, not as approval of, but as second choice (much like God and divorce), we would have the opportunity to befriend them and maybe winning over to the Gospel to the point where, though legally allowed to be gay, chose to repent and turn. After all, we are not voting for the definition of marriage in churches but in secular law.
        HOWEVER, there are two passages that have been ringing and can’t help but wonder if, in as much as my theory sounded kind, in as much as I want to give a fair intellectually honest chance to the acceptance of SSM –in the civil sense (not homosexuality as a sin) it is not Biblical: (a) Matthew 14. John the Baptist was beheaded for confronting a non-believer with a Biblical command; I doubt John the Baptist would have supported a Brother’s Wife Marriage law. (b) Romans 1:32. Condemns those who approve, encourage, find pleasure, consent or agree with those who practice homosexuality and other sins (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4909&t=NKJV).

        One thing that saddens me is that, just because I want to be able to find, understand and defend what ultimately is the most Biblical position in this whole issue, just by raising some questions, I have been labeled heretic, lazy-with-the-scriptures, and many other bad things. God may have mercy on those who dare trying to have a conversation with some Christians.

  2. I only pose one question to you Heather. In all sincerity, if the government does indeed execute this religious mandate based on our code of morality from the Bible, what will they pass on behalf of the muslims tomorrow?

    • John –
      the issue is that the government has NO BUSINESS executing ANYthing in regards to marriage. the institute of marriage is a holy estate – one that falls under the juristiction of the church, not the government. The government wants separation of church and state, unless the state wants to change something about the church — in which case, it forgets about the separation.
      the truth of the matter is that the government has absolutely no business redefining marriage. it’s been defined already, the line has been drawn in the sand — they are overstepping their bounds.

      • And I would suggest that the government does have business with marriage whether we want to accept it or not. It is the government that issues marriage licenses and regulates benefits. The proof is, unless I am wrong, in that you can get married by your pastor (and be married before God) but not legally married in view of the government until a marriage licence is issued and a government-approved agent (judge or ordaind before the state minister) executes it. Now, for us believers, the marriage before God is what counts, but for the government, is not. Marriage has been defined by God in God’s view, but it is difficult to use this argument, with all its weight, before a secular mind.

    • John, the other potential danger is, if we do support SSM (not that our lack of support is going to stop this train wreck anyway), the persecution against our consciences and attacks against religion freedoms will be unimaginable. SSM hasn’t been approved overall and it is already happening >> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

      The more I think about it, this country and world, in many of the current law initiatives, is heading towards more persecution -I mean real persecution!, anyway. We may as well stick to our guns (pun intended) and do the right thing no matter the consequences.

      • I have no such support for the lifestyle of same sex marriage for Christians. The Bible says it is sin, and I agree. It is a religious institution and Christians should not take part in this. The problem with opposing it and making a law against it, comes when you want the government to define a religious belief. Marriage, though beginning with God, is also a culturally accepted practice among unbelievers as well. Even if it is in our favor, we are simply opening the floodgates for the government to regulate other areas of religion, possibly even for the Muslim cause. I agree persecution is coming. But, I believe it will come faster if we allow government to define religious institutions.

        If you want to see a change in this area, give the gospel in love to those who support SSM. Let God change their lives. Fight the root of the problem, not the symptom. The problem is a nation who doesn’t know God. The symptom is a nation who supports sin.

  3. What saddens me is the timing. This is the one week per year that there could very well be a lot of focus on the work of Jesus on the cross, and all that that means to us. Regardless of what side one takes on the same-sex marriage issue, what happened that Friday and the 3rd day after is of much greater importance.

  4. Heather,
    I think you responded pretty well. I appreciate your courange in standing up for God’s Word! I don’t know where a lot of our fellow Christians get the idea that they are more righteous than God himself by their acceptance and encouragment of gays and many other sinful lifestyles.Just read the Bible (God’s Holy Word) and you will see that God has never been one to support a lifestyle that is totally against what He created marriage to be. It is one thing to understand that a gay person is simply a lost sinner, just as we once were, and to simply accept that as the facts. But to go any further and to support them, pat them on the back, and fight thier battles with them is WAY too far.

  5. I think what saddens me most of all is the support of SSM by professing Christians. I think the modern concept of equality is becoming the new Baal.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/wrong-gay-marriage-gains-support-abcwash-post-poll/story?id=18757220#.UVNkkBxthUh

  6. marriage is not natural. God made mating the natural impulse, when pre-historic peoples and even most ancient cultures including Judaism, from which the Christian faith spawned, practiced polygamy at the most civil, and sleeping with every woman in sight at the least civil. This was to ensure continuity of the species. As we evolved into a civilized society, the natural impulses of killing to survive and having sex with every woman were no longer productive for our race and marriage came to be. Genesis is not a text book, even the Jewish culture that made it knew that. Homosexuality is weird to me, but it is a natural impulse for some, depending on their sexual experience and disposition to what is attractive to them. Some to it to tick off their parents, but their intent will be judged, weighed, and measured soon enough. Quote Leviticus all you want, I doubt you are still sacrificing animals and I bet you’ve eaten an animals fat, i.e. steak. If you’re going to pick and choose commandments, you might as well drop the whole thing. Also, Paul’s stance on homosexuality was based in a society that had no concept of sexual orientation, but frowned upon men being feminine in any way, such as the guy taking it from another guy. He assumed that all who engaged in it were trying to harm the other person by making them less masculine and making one more dominant, which was true in the case of the greeks and the romans. Love had nothing to do with it. The women he refers to in Romans 2 would have been thought to have been doing the same, harming their neighbor because of the relation to homosexual encounters in the male arena. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” We know now that people are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex, and if it is consensual, non-malevolent and pure in intent and heart, there is no reason why we should love them less than we love our straight selves, and shouldn’t grant them the right to marriage. Marriage is human, though blessed by God, therefore humans must define and redefine as necessary so long as no neighbor is harmed. thus, your stance that they are on the same track as murderers is idiotic and poorly supported. Murder does harm to a neighbor, therefore cannot be love. It’s okay to believe as you do. It is admirable to stand by those beliefs. However, they are poorly supported by an understanding of biblical context and human history. keep the faith. learn that life is complex.

  7. Leviticus 18:22 clearly says that a man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman. I think everyone agrees on this point. Many people quote Leviticus to show that God has called homosexuality a sin. Others point out that we are no longer under the Levitical law.

    It’s interesting to note that the nations surrounding Israel were not under the Levitical law either. The heathen nations did not have the Torah, the Ten Commandments, or the Tabernacle. Yet, God said in Leviticus 18:24:

    Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

    That last sentence, “…In all these the nations are defiled….” God said that the nations were defiled in these areas of sin. They did not have the law, yet they were defiled by their sins (including the one mentioned in Leviticus 18:22).

    The law was not to give life; it was to reveal our sin and crowd us to Christ. Christ sets us free, not only from the law, but also from sin – including the sin of homosexuality.

    Now if what I said is untrue, then write me off and give no further thought to what I have said. I will answer to God for falsely teaching in His name. However, if this is true, then don’t write off what God’s word teaches. I would also ask you, based on Leviticus 18:24, do you think America is defiled? Are we helping it to become more defiled by our votes and voices?

    • My dear friend, I’ve been saddened to see how mean and vicious we Christians can be against one another when participating on this type of forums -regardless of what position we take. You have just made a very Biblical, logical observation with humility and respect. Good for you and good food for thought.

  8. My thought here is, where do you see an example in the NT of the church marrying anyone… the only mandate the church has is to teach its people what a Godly marriage looks like.

  9. Christ wiped away the old law and gave us new. His new commandment was “love one another.” Levitican law did not allow for the consumption of shellfish or the mixing of fabrics. (Thus the comment about being put to death for wearing a cotton/poly t-shirt) The point is that we need to create community, not alienation. We need to love one another.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: