A Christian's Perspective on Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by maluscanis, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. maluscanis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    I'm not sure
    #1
    This posting is not meant at all to be offensive and is simply MY OPINION - something which I do recognize. I would hope you all would be mature enough to give ear to what I have to say and offer your own opinions in a respectful and productive fashion. I purposely decided to start a new thread because the Kansas Anti-Gay Marriage thread got very ugly.

    First Off, Some Personal Background

    I am an educated man with a very scientific and philosophical bent. My field and educational background is in Biochemistry. I am skeptical by nature and was never one to follow another's opinion just because it was popular at the time. I became a Christian over a period of several years and I consider my conversion experience more intellectual than emotional. I believe the Bible is inspired and trustworthy - this is something I base both on faith and the strong historicity of the Bible. Archaeology has shown the New Testament writings to be virtually unchanged since the late First Century.

    I am by no means a stranger to homosexuality. My father is gay and much of my childhood and young adult life was spent in his company with his various lovers. I am intimately acquainted with his struggle to be accepted and his feeling that he was always different. When I became a Christian, I know it was hard for him to deal with the idea that I thought his lifestyle is morally wrong. However, our relationship is very strong. I think it is a wonderful testimony how I can freely express my beliefs to him and his gay friends and have them do likewise.

    I believe the key is respect of another's beliefs and the understanding that tolerance and acceptance do not mean you can't disagree - very strongly I might add. I would like to say that it was actually me who brought our relationship to this place. Initially, he was very frustrated with me because I was being "intolerant" because I wouldn't accept his lifestyle. It took him a while to realize that he was really the one who was trying to force me to believe as he did. In actuality, he was the one showing intolerance of my beliefs.

    I wanted to share these things because when one mentions "Christian" in today's society - only negative connations come to bear. I would like to verbally distance myself from the "bible-thumping" bigots whose only message is condemnation and judgementalism. Christianity was never meant to be a religion but a faith and a lifestyle. Jesus commanded us (Christians) to be bold but to have lives marked by grace and love. The bible says that if you gain the whole world but have not love, you have nothing. So please realize, that I believe that the Christian message is a difficult one - it says there is only ONE way to God, but I believe it is a message of hope and not one of fear or hate.

    The Issue At Hand

    I believe a lot of individuals confuse the issue of equality with the issue of moral behavior. In other words, absolutely homosexuals should be given the same rights as straight folks. They should have freedom of speech, freedom to live their lives as they see fit and for their own happiness. There should not exist harassment or job discrimination. And So On...Ya'll get the picture.

    However, I believe that an important distinction should be made as regards to the family unit. The family unit could function in a number of VIABLE ways. For example, you could have the Brave New World family unit where there are no specific parents, couples, or siblings. Here, everyone was sexually active with each other and no specific attachment was accepted (i.e. no couples). The children viewed everyone as their parents and everyone as their sibling. That is just one example. Another is the typical family unit that has existed in most cultures for as long as recorded history. You've got your male and female couple who raised their offspring. This is the family unit most of us are familiar with - it is also the only model the Bible approves.

    The current debate is whether a REVISED family unit should be accepted here in America. The revised family unit would also give allowance for there to be male and male or female and female couples who raise their offspring (made possible by scientific advances of the last couple decades).

    And of course, you can imagine other viable scenarios that could describe the basic family unit. Now, who decides who here. I think we can see some potential negatives with the Brave New World model. Obviously, this is a MORAL issue.

    I hope you all can see the difference here between the issue of equality and with how the family unit should exist. I would like to give one more example of this. Hypothetically, let us say that in our ideal world everyone is equal. Now let us say, that in our ideal family unit, the parents should obey the children and the children should be the ones making decisions and giving the orders - the roles have been reversed. Most of us would say this would be a disastrous situation. We would say that the parents have a moral obligation to their children to look out for them. That out of the wealth of their life experiences, they should protect and nurture their children until they can suffice on their own. I think we all can relate to the belief that in any GOOD family unit the parents should be in authority and the children should be in submission. However, I think none of us would say that the parents have more worth than the children - or that the children are not being treated with equality.

    And hopefully, we could all agree that equality can be present and at the same time certain restrictions could be placed on certain members of society (like the children in the above scenario). In other words, equality and fairness can still reign in a society that prohibits certain citizens from certain roles.

    The purpose to all that was to try and make the point when I say homosexuals should not be able to marry and partake of all the things that go along with that (meaning children), this doesn't mean I think homosexuals are inferior to heteros - only that gay family units are not something a moral society should accept.

    HOWEVER, I do believe, that any gay couple should have the same rights as any straight couple to tax breaks, legal recognization, etc... As a Christian, for me the main issue is over the FAMILY UNIT. And I believe my opinion, (though undoubtedly disagreed by many here) should at least be tolerated. After all, I am only trying to protect what I believe is the core of a society, the family.

    I could go on...but it is very late and I'm very tired. I probably will not respond to any posters. But I think it would be awesome if people would be willing to chime in with their opinions and offer them in productive manner. We live in a pluralistic society, so we had better learn to respect each other's differences and opinions.

    God bless folks,
     
  2. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    You, and your church, should focus your efforts on curbing the divorce rate among heterosexuals, instead. They are the ones destroying the family unit.

    If two gays want to marry, how in the world does that affect my family. It doesn't. Get real.
     
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    I accept your feelings, and am pleased that although you may not like it, you tolerate it and (by the sounds of it) do not harp on about how it is "wrong" all the time, but...
    The definition of a moral society should not be set according to the bloody bible!
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    I hope you're equally understanding/condescending about people who transgress other aspects of the Levitical Code. It's not their fault if they can't see it's morally wrong to wear polyester/cotton clothing.

    What balderdash!

    Edit: Wow! Didn't take long for this thread to migrate! :rolleyes:
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    All that morality can be a heavy burden. Take a break. You've earned it.
    Aw, don't go away! I'd like to hear it.
    When do we start?
     
  6. Savage Henry macrumors 65816

    Savage Henry

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    in a one horse, two house, three pub town.
    #6
    I've just had a quick re-cap of Leviticus, chapters 11-17 ...... Man, are they pointless and out of date!!! :eek:

    It's dangerous territory to cherry-pick texts in the name of religious doctrine to fit your own opinions and convenience.
     
  7. ldburroughs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #7
    Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there is a high divorce rate doesn't mean the family unit should not be preserved. We should try to curb divorce. We should not try to pry apart what is a basic foundation of our human existence. Your logic is faulty.

    As for how gays marrying and its impact on your marriage I would hope you would think it through in the future. It does not impact your intimate relationship with your wife and children (assuming you are a male), it impacts the very fiber of the institution that binds you. Its impact is indirect but still very influential in determining our success in the future.

    As far as the "get real" comment goes I don't really need to dignify that with a rebuttal.

    By the way, I'm not here to defend the comments made. The original poster made a good attempt to preface his commentary with his intent not to inflame or offend. It will be much more productive if we remain civil with our responses.
     
  8. ldburroughs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #8
    How about Natural Law? Are you saying morality should be subjective? There are certain things written on all of our hearts. We all know instinctively that murder is wrong. We all know it is wrong to steal. I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong (I'll keep my opnion to myself) but I am saying the bible is not a bad place to start. You can learn a lot from its teachings. You can learn a lot about yourself whether you are a professed Christian or something else. I guess I'm genuinely curious as to where you propose we get our "morals" from. Should we change them as time goes on? It seems to be where you are going. Gay marriage is not readily accepted in our society but who knows what the future may hold. If what was once considered to be immoral becomes widely accepted, does it then become moral? I don't think it's as flexible as you seem to be suggesting or at least I hope it's not.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    This is an opinion, right?

    Divorce "impacts the very fiber of the institution" far more, in my opinion.

    Hmm. Might be tricky.
     
  10. ldburroughs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #10
    Last one I promise. I just couldn't resist. I agree that it is extremely dangerous to "cherry-pick" texts in the name or religious doctrine to fit your own opinons and convenience. As far as it being out of date ... well, sure it is. Much follows Leviticus. We are not the original audience and we are, at best, interpreting what was written and translated by others. To say it is inapplicable is a bold assertion. Much can be learned from this passage. It IS IMPORTANT to read it in context and to have a firm understanding of who wrote it, why it was written, and who was the intended audience. Once the foundation is laid the meaning will become clear.
     
  11. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    I don't know where we should get "morals" from, but certainly not a story book :eek:

    For me, it is the worst place to start. My opinion.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    What is "Natural Law"?

    No more than those who subjectively choose to follow the teachings of one or other dusty tome.

    Maybe you get them from a book. Maybe you get them from inside yourself. Maybe you conform to them. Maybe you don't. As long as we try to avoid gratuitous dishonesty, injury, insult or discrimination, we should be halfway there.
     
  13. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    Imagine what would happen if I posted:

    A Fag's Perspective on Christianity.

    :rolleyes:
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Try harder!
    Condescension runs deep.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    Ancient Jews. We're modern Christians.

    It's clear that the ancient Jewish kings didn't want their subjects to be fags. And the punishment is probably death or banishment. Ah, the good old days. Too bad we've grown out of that phase, eh?
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16
    A Christian's Perspective on Gay Marriage?

    Honestly, who bloody cares?

    Those who take care to define themselves as 'Christians' are usually the most piously deluded, bigoted, ignorant, shallow, blinkered, intolerant and uneducated people that only see the world and the diversity of all its people through their heavily-tinted glasses.

    With their constant harping about 'morals' while conveniently ignoring the real injustices in this world, they only serve to remind the rest of us of the dangers of religious thought where 'beliefs' are above questioning and held as superior to all other forms of human activity.

    And as they smugly stroll through life, judging others and holding a self-satisfying mastubatory conversation with their inner voice, they blithely ignore and have stopped listening to all other voices around them.

    Honestly, shut the **** up. Please.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Of course it is. That's why every legal system since forever has included judges.

    Some people don't. In a culture where ownership is unheard of there's no concept of stealing.

    Too late for that, pal.

    Like how it's okay to have slaves? Or execute adultresses?

    Read your Gospels, Golaith.

    Christ wasn't all about this brand of veiled hatred. I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gay crowd if they just came out of the closet and admitted they hate homosexuals and their sins.

    Instead I hear these bleating attempts to cover it up and justify it.
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    I think I love you. :D
     
  19. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #19
    Ah, but not in the way I do. ;) J/K.
     
  20. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #21
    :eek: Brilliant. If I could express myself though words better, this would have been it.

    Well said.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    I think as I type my thoughts which are simply my opinion on this public message board that I love obvious redundancies.

    Sorry to hear that. I'm a Christian also. Catholic actually. I don't beleive anything. I just know.

    What is that? What the hell is a gay lifestyle?

    His gay friends secretly hate you.

    Well it's a good thing you're here to put a stop to that nonsense!

    Instead, we'll hear a message of intolerance, condemnation and judgmentalism [sic](how sick is it that I have to "[sic]" the proper spelling?) wrapped in some candy-coated message of peace, love and understanding.

    Which includes the right to be married to the person you love and wish to spend the rest of your life with. I'm so glad we agree.

    Too bad we started down this slippery slope when we let blacks marry whites. Damn those activist judges!

    No, this is a civil rights issue. No, make that CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

    Yes, you don't believe the equality belongs to everyone, which of course means you don't believe in equality. That's okay. Lots of people used to think this way about lots of things. Blacks, for instance, or women. Today, we'd call them bigots.

    Age discrimination is totally different from other forms. It's insulting that you'd try to make this jump in logic.

    This has nothing to do with morality. It's about civil order (including civil rights), in which there is no place for the rigid code of morality.

    "Separate but equal" was recognised long ago as being illegal.

    Then take care of yours. That's your job. If people who thought as you do now had as much control over the situation as you'd give them, they would have taken you away from your father.

    Thanks for taking a dump on us then.

    As soon as you learn to respect other people, buddy.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Well there's not much I can add to this discussion that hasn't been covered already. But...

    I wonder how the original poster would have reacted if I'd posted A Recovering Catholic's Perspective on Christians and then went on to say that I didn't necessarily consider them inferior so to speak, just morally bankrupt, intellectually stunted, and as a cancer on the societies they seek to control. But seeing them as such doesn't necessarily mean I want them treated any different. I just want them to know that I think this way about them, and that I think the government should deny them certain rights. For example, no marrying another Christian. Can't have that morally wrong material being taught to children in 2-Christian households. Gotta have one non-believer in there to keep that stuff from infecting them. But I really mean this in the most loving way possible. No intention to insult or inflame, just wanting to make sure everyone knows where I stand on the matter.

    Think they'd take it as a compliment? :p

    BV, nicely done. But what's 'blinkered'?
     
  23. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #24
    I was going to go with a similar angle and ask what he thought about society not allowing children of homosexuals to be married.
     
  24. hansen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Location:
    Denmark
    #25
    How is "gay marriage ... impacts the very fiber of the institution that [is marriage]" not offending? It's like saying that jews are affecting the very fiber that makes society or whatever. Gays don't steal straight husbands or break up marriages.
     

Share This Page