Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[thrombomodulin]

morbo3000,

i appreciate your distinction between the two questions involved in this topic. i think this distinction is very important.

in regards to the non-political question of whether homosexuality is a sin: you had listed three principles (love not lust, covenant vs. promiscuity, consent not violence) as criteria for whether a sexual act is a sin. is your proposed method to judge whether any action is a sin based solely on these principles? or, would you say that we should limit the application of those principles to judging actions that have not been described as good or evil somewhere in scripture? i am wondering how you would defend each principle from scripture, and if a counter example could be found to demonstrate that the various sexual laws cannot be reduced to more fundamental principles.

in regards to the political issue: i would like to express disagreement with the idea the political methods can be anything other than the application of force. a political means is always at the point off a gun, because the only means for the state to implement its will is through the threat of violence or its actual use. i would be among those who hold the opinion that the state should not issue marriage license at all.

pete

[Homer]

morbo3000,

Methinks you have had a nasty fall and hit you head. It is rather obvious what Paul was saying about homosexual acts, and no twisting of the scriptures is going to change it. The New Testament and the Old are consistent in their defining homosexual acts as sin.

[TheEditor]

Hi Morbo,

Thanks for the response. You live in the same State I do, therefore you know full well that gay unions were denied nothing prior to legalizing same sex marriage. You also know that the argument I stated was in the Voter's Pamphlet. That being said why the need to define same sex unions as "marriage" when the fundamental benefits were already there? Is it not for philisophical reasons?

I mean no malice in saying this, but how can you be unaware of the "meaningless piece of paper" argument that was rampant in liberal political circles in the 1970s??? Are you equally unaware of the "unviable tissue mass" argument for abortion rights by liberals in the 1970s? (Until science showed how viable it was, then that argument conveniently went away.....)

When I was a kid (c. early 1970s) I heard references to "gay relationsips" being the business of the gay person alone. "What difference does it make what two consenting adults, blah blah blah....." Fine.

In the 1980s, people were starting to "come out". And, the statement was, "We just want to be left alone". Fine.

In the 1990s, it became "We don't want laws against our lifestyle (sodomy laws)". Fine.

In the early 2000s it became Civil Unions, quickly replaced with gay marriage. The Civil Unions idea really didn't even have much of a chance to fly. I guess they figured might as well strike while the iron is hot.

You can pretend ignorance all you want of the history of the political left as much as a "Dittohead" can claim ignorance of the political right, but it won't change facts or reality one bit.

Personally, I don't really care all that much as the rulers of this world will have their way regardless of what I think, and ultimately all judging rests with Christ. I have my own share of sin and a fallen nature to contend with to bother with the bedroom antics of a couple of dudes.

But please, spare me the pretentions of it not being at the point of a gun. If I were a business owner and decided to not make Invitation cards for a gay marriage, I could be sued, as happened here in our State a while back. ALL laws are enforced by the end of a gun. Don't believe it? Try not paying your property taxes and see what guns ultimately come for you....

Regards, Brenden.

[MMathis]

I agree Brenden

Homosexual marriage is just another step in forcing the acceptance of their behavior on society.

The same bunch tried to scare us with the coming ice age in the sixties. Al core has made around $400m
by changing it to global warming and now that has evolved into climate change.

We will get a page long rebuttal in how wrong we are. Homosexual behavior is wrong period.

[Jepne]

Hi Morbo -

Also, you are hijacking the word "love." When I say "my friend is in love with his boyfriend, and wants to get married," you are saying that somehow that "love" is not the same as your "correct" definition of "love."

I was referring to your comments that sounded like you were saying that love and being in love are the same thing. I was pointing out the difference.

I am not very interested in the discussion of the legal points about gay marriage and meant my post as an 'aside'. However, I wish to not be persecuted because I do not want to print the invitations for a gay marriage, or have my grandchildren taught through my tax dollars that having two mothers is natural and normal and we'd better swallow it or be accused and fined or jailed for 'hate crimes'. That is where the tug of war begins and it is ugly - I don't hate people who choose to live this way.

"I've seen people do this before. You might be wanting to say that because homosexuality is a sin, then the love isn't legitimate because you call it "selfish?""

I did not mean that at all. I think people with same sex attractions need healing, and love from Christians, not judging. We all need healing and love, and as we mature, we become more discerning as to what love is - whether homo- or hetero-sexual. We all are only who we are and cannot force ourselves to be something else, but when we see a need for change, we can seek and obtain God's help.

Thank you for responding and I hope this helps.

[Tychicus]

Homosexual marriage is just another step in forcing the acceptance of their behavior on society.

The same bunch tried to scare us with the coming ice age in the sixties. Al core has made around $400m
by changing it to global warming and now that has evolved into climate change.

I agree that homosexual marriage is a bad idea, but I don't think bringing in Al Gore and global warming helps the discussion move along. I appreciate that Morbo has taken the effort to present his views here and I think we all need to stick to the topic.

[steve]

I don't often address questions of what the world out there ought to make legal or illegal, because I believe the church is to be a counterculture. The church can oppose unbiblical marriage within its ranks no matter what the society outside chooses. Of course, we would be foolish not to see the trouble such changes in secular society will inevitably bring upon our countercultural Christian communities:

1) Our converts (few as they have been in recent years) come out of the secular society into our faith communities. When people are converted to Christ, who have previously contracted immoral "marriages" (i.e., remarriage after illegitimate divorce, same-sex marriage, or something even more perverted in the future), they come into the church already in a marriage from which they must repent, and in which they cannot continue. This is extremely difficult for them, and could have been avoided had the secular society at large maintained its erstwhile standards of normative marriage and divorce. The changes in the secular norms create much more traumatic adjustments for new converts who must be discipled into the ways of Christ. We already face too much of this with divorced and remarried people;

2) It will soon be illegal for us even to voice or practice an attitude of disagreement about the normativeness of same-sex "marriages"—even among our own communities. Christians will be punished in the courts even for voicing an alternative outlook about marriage. We will either be punished as "haters" or involuntarily sent-off for re-education in mental health facilities;

3) While I do not believe the secular state should often concern itself with a citizen's private sexual behavior (there are, of course, exceptions when someone has been victimized), I do not consider that changing the meaning of words in our language is a private issue. "Marriage" has always had a particular public definition in modern societies (and a not-much-different one in ancient pagan societies).

We all find it important to talk about "marriage" throughout our lives—to our children, to young couples enamored with each other, to our congregations, etc. Suddenly, we are no longer allowed to use the established definition of a universal word simply because 3% of the population wishes to use that word for something it never meant, and those who think it had a perfectly good meaning previously are being forced, by law, to abandon the sensible definition that has been accepted for 6,000 years.

Thus, the 3%, who are in no way being deprived of any rights to practice whatever form of relationships they may approve for themselves, are now forcing the 97% to rewrite every dictionary, and to try to find another word for common use to represent the phenomenon that used to be called "marriage." Since the word is a biblical one, it calls even for the rewriting of our English Bibles. This is not a case of keeping private sexual behavior a private matter, but of a political special-interest group bullying the majority into changing one of the most important words in the world's lexicons.

If I lived in England, and wished to call my family "royalty" (because I think I would thereby secure more respectability in that society), I would never lobby to have the whole of British Commonwealth overthrow the established meaning of that word, so fundamental to their way of life, just so I could apply it to my own status—which under no historical meaning of the word would ever justify being called "royalty."

I guess I have just enough consideration for others not to upset their entire society in the interests of my personal comfort. I would sooner find different vocabulary to describe what I think about my family, rather than shove my selfish agenda down the throats of an unwilling majority. I would appreciate our gay friends having the same consideration—especially since they are paving the way for the outright persecution of that portion of the Christian community who actually resonate with the faith once delivered unto the saints, and who will never change Jesus' meaning of the word "marriage," even under torture.

Genuine natural "rights" never interfere with legitimate "rights" of others. That is the essence of justice—no one's rights are violated. When we create novel new civil "rights" out of thin air for one group of people, it invariably is at the expense of the civil rights of the remainder.

[Paidion]

Also, you are hijacking the word "love." When I say "my friend is in love with his boyfriend, and wants to get married," you are saying that somehow that "love" is not the same as your "correct" definition of "love." I've seen people do this before. You might be wanting to say that because homosexuality is a sin, then the love isn't legitimate because you call it "selfish?" But I can tell you that my friend is ready to sacrifice himself for his boyfriend/fiance just as much as I am my wife. It's fine to say that his "love" isn't the way you would say "love" is. But you don't get to say that it isn't love.

Morbo, I don't think you understood Jepne's point. I think she was differentiating "loving someone" from "being in love". I think she was saying that the former may or may not have any relation to sex, whereas the latter is a euphemism for "I want a long-term sexual relationship with you."

[morbo3000]

But in Romans 1:26 Paul is arguing from nature, fallen or not. That women's "shameful lusts" is exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The problem is that heterosexuality is not the only natural sexual relation.

So, appeal to nature is a fallacious argument against monogamous, committed same-sex couples who engage in sex. Because homosexual behavior is not unnatural.

Are you seriously arguing that Paul is railing here against lesbians engaging in heterosexual activity?

I am not. I don't have the textual chops to make that claim. There are those that do, though. Walt Wink is one of them, whom I respect. But it is way out of my league to make that case.

The point is that our knowledge of the natural world is now broader than previous traditions. What was once thought "contrary to nature," is now observable in many species.

[morbo3000]

Brenden wrote:

But please, spare me the pretentions of it not being at the point of a gun. If I were a business owner and decided to not make Invitation cards for a gay marriage, I could be sued, as happened here in our State a while back. ALL laws are enforced by the end of a gun. Don't believe it? Try not paying your property taxes and see what guns ultimately come for you....

That is a helpful clarification. We probably not only disagree on this subject, but also the role of the state. That helps me understand what you are saying better.

I agree that the "business cards for gay marriage" is a problem. It's a complicated civil rights issue that I don't have easy answers to. I can see the points on both sides.

- Jeff.