My fellow Christians regarding homosexuality (please read entire question)?
While I know our beliefs state that an active homosexual relationship is considered sin, why do we use bible verses to state we belief it should be a legal issue. I am not anti-gay marriage for the very reason that in my country (America) keeping marriage as defined as man and woman only tends to leave out a portion of our society that has made it known many would really like to partake of marriage. We have such a diverse population with many people having worldviews that do not view homosexuality as a sin. How do we leave them out if we still maintain a good balance of separation of church and state?
Please understand that I do not understand why homosexuality as a sin is trumping other sins. Most of us agree a sin is a sin. Why arent we advocating abusive people cannot get married, or drug addicts, etc?
I hope my question is read as intended, and I get a good discussion of sorts going. Thanks!
- † Gabriel †Lv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
I'm not against civil unions. As I know gays are mainly getting up-in-arms about it because they want benefits. That's fine. I'm against the traditional marriage in a church, by a pastor or minister of the church, and as witnessed by the church. There's absolutely no need for that, and gays know it. The ones who pursue it are the ones who want to rewrite what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
- TiffanyLv 51 decade ago
I am not opposed to gay marriage because homosexuality is evil. I am opposed to it because marriage is holy.
Maybe homosexuality is not a legal issue. However, marriage is. Marriage licenses are given by the government. Biblical marriage consists of one man and one woman, and any sexual activity outside of that union is prohibited.
That being said, the value of marriage is declining in our society. We've all heard about soaring divorce rates. As Christians, I think our duty is not to condemn everyone (homosexuals, drug addicts, abusive people) based on their rebellion against or failure to follow our beliefs, but to encourage the value of marriage to be restored. I'd imagine it's just as disgusting to God to see a drunk heterosexual couple that just met get married in Vegas as it is to see a homosexual couple get married. Both couples are embracing a sinful lifestyle, and both are taking the Biblical definition of marriage lightly.
In order to discourage the divorce rate, Texas had started charging an extra fee for couples who want a marriage license and haven't had premarital counseling. I think this is the right idea.
The separation of church and state is a good idea, but I don't think it's very practical. If we were to do that, marriage would not be a legal issue to begin with, as it is God-ordained.
- 1 decade ago
Read the article at http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/nov05-10.htm
and then tell me if society is better off to protect the current definition of marriage or to assent to the homosexual agenda and condone same-sex marriage.
Regarding separation of church and state, everyone has a worldview from which (s)he makes decisions. Often this worldview is based in organized religion, but many today deny that their set of beliefs from which they act is actually their religion. We cannot separate religion from government, because all decisions are made based on our own personal religion and what we hold sacred. No, we cannot have an organized church running the country and putting down all opposing faiths, but neither can we have a secular worldview ruining (oops, did that slip out) the country and putting down all opposing faiths.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Maybe none of the above mentioned should get married, but when applying for a marriage license no one knows if the person is abusive or a drug addict, but it is obvious when two people are of the same sex and wish to marry that they are homosexuals. You are right about a sin being a sin and none is worse or less than any other.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm not a Christian, but I just wanted to applaud you for understanding the distinction between law and religious mandate. You give me hope knowing that there are believers like you who actually respect the need for the Constitution to protect minorities. Thanks.
As an atheist, I would not have been able to be married if it were left as a decision to religious institutions.
(PS to the other posters: The Constitution and the Bible are not the same thing. Legalizing gay marriage does not force your church to perform gay marriage. Civil unions are just a modern example of "separate but equal" as they do not guarantee gays the same rights as married couples. We are not a theocracy.)
- 1 decade ago
In our country we have this amazing gift of Freedom. This freedom recognizes that people are able to make his or her own choices in accordance with their Constitutional rights. There is a separation of church and state for many reasons which I am not against.
Suppose there wasn't a separation and suppose the most money-making religion/denomination with the most members in the U.S., one that you did not follow or believe in, was allowed influence over government law. Where would we be? What if we were told what doctrines of faith we had to read or suffer criminal punishment? What if we were told how to pray or suffer criminal punishment? What if our lives were controlled by man, left to his devices rather than God's? What if things got so out of hand that we were told to believe in something else or suffer? I don't want to be told what to believe and how to believe it from any man, and I think I can safely say the same for many other people too- believers or not.
I'm not saying everyone believes, I'm just looking at it from a believers perspective.
There are a multitude of things that can and will go wrong when you allow church and state to mingle. Can you think of other areas of the world where church and state go hand and hand- how are they faring?
As believers we know and respect that people have been given free will to choose what they wish to believe. It is up to them to make their decisions, it is not up to us, or the government, to make such personal decisions for them.
Remember the Sermon on the Mount? What is the lesson we've learned about passing judgment on others? We will face the same judgment. The close scrutiny that believers afford others, that will be the same exact scrutiny we will be judged with by God. Quite humbling. We should focus on scrutinizing ourselves rather than trying to delude ourselves by worrying about the things we judge to be wrong in others. We will have to answer for the things we do as believers- the good, the bad and the ugly.
Keep your personal convictions to yourself. If you believe the Faith, live it. Lead by example. Christ did not teach us to go out and point fingers at everyone. What did he say? Love God completely (how do we do that- Obey His commands- see OT 10 Commandments which are not obsolete) and to love our neighbors as Christ loves us, as we also love ourselves. How did Christ love others? Did he say, "You are a hooker and that is very wrong. I don't like it. Don't you realize if you don't stop this and don't believe in me you are going to burn in Hell forever and ever? I am more righteous than you are so I can say this." Contrary, He doesn't demonstrate any of that. Who does he go off on in the Bible...the hypocrites! Hmmm...interesting. :)
If more of us would just take a step back and try to imagine the shoe being on the other foot; try to imagine being in the same situation as the people we judge I am sure that people would be awakened, conclusions would be different, judgments would be less and love would be more.
Thank you for this question, peace. :)
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Who is it that is advocating abusive people and drug addicts? Even they admit that they are wrong and wish to repent. The is diametrically opposed to the gay movement which says that homosexuality isnt a sin at all.
I am a Christian and defend Christianity. I also have just as much right to vote as the pro gay segment.
- jesusgirlLv 41 decade ago
I knew sex between 2 men or 2 women were wrong before I ever read any of the Bible.
I don't believe it is trumping over other sin. It's just that most people cannot comprehend that kind of relationship. Anyone can talk their selves into believing something they desire isn't sin. You keep saying something over and over, your consciousness becomes seared and you believe a lie and are damned.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
many christians pick and choose the bits to preach and follow and the bigots love to promote hatred, bigotry and intolerance in the name of love
it isn't a sin as there's been mistranslations,"homosexual" wasn't a term until 1869
the below is thanks to Tim A
Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.
I Corinthians 6:9
King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.
New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.
A comparison of how the two Greek words (malakoi and arsenokoitai) are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.
Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."
Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.Source(s): http://www.gaychristian.net/
- PremaholicLv 71 decade ago
Our only role in "sin" is our own. How can homosexuality be wrong unless you are judging. Judge Not, is the teaching. See "sin" where it is, it is in the "judging"....