The Christian case for gay marriage

[dylanite]

Crazy activist Christians.

[UMaineTeach]

May 19, 2012 12:23:21 GMT -5 @crackhabit said:

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.

and I agree with those opinions

and while I would like to see religion taken out of the debate at a government level, I do like this man's new spin on Biblical reasoning for same sex marriage. The 'who are you to deny anyone access to religion and religious rites if they are so compelled to believe?' I would hope would be a powerful argument for churches accepting homosexuality and performing marriages.

[bumppkathleen]

I like this.

[heightsyankee]

I do too. Gonna share on FB for all my churchy friends. I know a lot of them are fine with gay marriage but don't know how to express why. This might help them.

[jennipea382]

I love this. I consider myself a Christian and I can't stand when people think that all Christians are against gay marriage. I know TONS that aren't! My philosophy book in college surprisingly said something I agree with and like to use as an argument. It talked about that line about homosexuality being a sin. But that line is among other things we "shouldn't" do. The person arguing said that those "rules" are outdated. Well, why are only certain ones outdated and others aren't? You can't just pick and choose lines and throw others away. Why is homosexuality still not ok, but you can cut your hair, wear mixed fabrics and other things we don't think twice about today?

I think this article has a great message, one I TOTALLY agree with. Who am I to judge someone else and deny them basic rights? One of the things I think about is the line about "let he without sin cast the first stone" because we've all done things others don't agree with. But it's not my place to judge them. If God really does think homosexuality is wrong, fine. I don't agree, but it's not my choice. I choose to try to be like Jesus and love people for who they are instead of using my religion to condemn others.

I think a PP mentioned taking religion out of government and I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of people thinking the country should be run on Christianity. Not only are there a lot of other religions in this country, even Christians don't agree on everything. It would never work to run the country solely on religion. Let the churches do what they want. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people, fine, that's their choice. But legally, religion should have NOTHING to do with it. If marriage is ONLY a religious things, why do athiests get married? People don't have as much of a problem with that. Why is it gay marriage? I say if two people are of age and are able to consent, they should be able to marry. The whole argument about marrying a dog or a toaster is totally invalid and makes me want to throw things when I see it because they can't legally consent!

Ok, rant over :-)

[awtoolazytologin]

"The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage."

:Y:

As I always say, what does marriage in the eyes of the law have to do with my covenant with God and my husband? Let the government do what it wants with marriage. Aren't we as Christians above man's law anyways? A government seal of approval doesn't make my marriage count before God, it's the commitment I make to Him that matters. I view the legal marriage of two gay people as nothing more than a legal transaction. Why would I care about that as a Christian?

As for what a church decides to do - the great thing is that we have options. As long as churches aren't forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with, why should I care if another Christian church wants to marry two gay people? And if I disagree with it, I can find a different church that has the same beliefs on sin that I do.

I guess I don't see people getting upset when their churches marry two divorcees, which is the same level of sin and therefore should be tolerated in the same way.

I'm so sick of this debate. I sit next to my gay mother-in-law in church as she receives her communion. Why on earth shouldn't she? What does it have to do with me?

[cheesefarmer01]

:Y: to all of this!

anyone read the comments. This is the first time I've read the comments section of any article and have not wept for humanity

Crom
Your mother is a failure to the human race, Mark. Anyone raising a racist is a failure. You should both be removed from society.

Mark from Middle River
My mother is a moral Christian. Not a baby murdering liberal.

Samson
Interesting, I didnt know i was getting a bj in the back alley for fifty cents from a moral christian.

[basilosaurus]

Check out Rachel Held Evans. She's a Christian blogger who's very vocal about her support for gay marriage.

[sonrisa]

Episcopaleans at it again. Accepting gays, marrying gays, ordaining gays and generally rabble rousing.

[fernane]

I wouldn't dare say that Mr. Osler's message is biblical. Also, I think it is clear that his form of religion is self-serving. It's classical relativism or hedonism. Let me be clear, you can find what you are looking for In the bible. Such is the case here.

When Peter was arguing for the baptism of the Gentiles it was because he understood this truth: that now that Christ has come, and fulfilled the law, salvation is for the Jew and the Greek. Paul also argues this thoroughly in the book of Galatians (where, coincidentally, he writes of rebuking Peter for "living like a Gentile, yet compelling Gentiles to live like Jews). He was not say that everyone has access to God, which is what Mr. Osler seems to be saying with his river rocks analogy.

I am not saying that the conclusion is utterly wrong. It is true, we cannot withhold any of the sacraments from others...or can we? As Christians, when we partake of the Lords supper, we are remembering why Christ died. Namely, that it was our sins that nailed him to the cross. We also instruct non-believers (Gentiles) not to partake, because as the scripture say, "anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of Christ. That is, they eat and drink judgement upon themselves.

Mr. Osler's argument presupposes Christians live according to the law (they don't, "for the righteous shall live by faith"), and that everyone at some point, will become a believer, which is not the case (For the path is broad and the gate is broad that leads to destruction and many pass through it, and the path narrow and the gate is small that leads to life, and there are few who find it).

So the question isn't can we withhold the sacraments from others, or should gays be allowed to marry. The only question of utmost importance is, are you running to God, or running from him? Mr. Osler's argument, as it seems, is a way to run away from God and to avoid Jesus altogether.

[basilosaurus]

fernane, what part of government recognized marriage is a sacrament? If none, then there should be no prohibition against it. Or are you saying that an atheist like I should also be denied the "sacrament" of marriage recognition from our secular government?

The utmost question to me has nothing to do with god, as I believe none exists. The utmost question is whether the government should be discriminating based on a religious view of sexuality. It shouldn't.

[2vermont]

I just want to be clear here....quoting the Bible and using religious arguments are okay as long as it's the "right" argument?

[IIOY]

I don't want anyone making a so-called Christian defense of marriage anymore than I want someone making a Christian argument against it. Invoking faith in any context here lends credence to the argument that it should play a role in this discussion, which it shouldn't.

ETA: to be clear, I understand the need to discuss religion if we are discussing the actual marriage ritual in an institution of faith, which is what seems to be going on in the OP. However, I think that should be a separate discussion from the broader civil rights issue of equal rights for gays. To my mind, the invocation of faith in this context muddies the water unnecessarily and actually creates a confrontation that needn't and shouldn't exist.

ETA2: OK, well I see the issue I raise was already discussed above. Perhaps I should read the entire thread before posting, LOL.

[2vermont]

May 20, 2012 6:48:47 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I don't want anyone making a so-called Christian defense of marriage anymore than I want someone making a Christian argument against it. Invoking faith in any context here lends credence to the argument that it should play a role in this discussion, which it shouldn't.

And I'm actually okay with that...it's consistent.

[2vermont]

May 19, 2012 12:53:05 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

May 19, 2012 12:23:21 GMT -5 @crackhabit said:

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.

and I agree with those opinions

and while I would like to see religion taken out of the debate at a government level, I do like this man's new spin on Biblical reasoning for same sex marriage. The 'who are you to deny anyone access to religion and religious rites if they are so compelled to believe?' I would hope would be a powerful argument for churches accepting homosexuality and performing marriages.

Wait, so this isn't only about allowing gays to marry civilly? This is about churches allowing them access to the Sacrament of Marriage....even if it goes against that religion's tenets?

[Deleted]

May 20, 2012 6:42:13 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I just want to be clear here....quoting the Bible and using religious arguments are okay as long as it's the "right" argument?

i see what you're saying, and I'm certainly one of the first people to oppose the use of the Bible when discussing gay marriage.

Given that we are responding to an editorial that uses the bible, it would be impossible to discuss the OP without using the Bible, at least in my opinion.

[2vermont]

May 20, 2012 7:18:57 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

May 20, 2012 6:42:13 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I just want to be clear here....quoting the Bible and using religious arguments are okay as long as it's the "right" argument?

i see what you're saying, and I'm certainly one of the first people to oppose the use of the Bible when discussing gay marriage.

Given that we are responding to an editorial that uses the bible, it would be impossible to discuss the OP without using the Bible, at least in my opinion.

Yes, but if this was a blog against gay marriage using Bible quotes, I think the responses would have been a lot different.

[Deleted]

All I ever hear in these things is "blah blah religion blah blah my opinion is right blah blah fuck everyone else".

[ttt]

May 20, 2012 6:57:26 GMT -5 2vermont said:

May 19, 2012 12:53:05 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

and I agree with those opinions

and while I would like to see religion taken out of the debate at a government level, I do like this man's new spin on Biblical reasoning for same sex marriage. The 'who are you to deny anyone access to religion and religious rites if they are so compelled to believe?' I would hope would be a powerful argument for churches accepting homosexuality and performing marriages.

Wait, so this isn't only about allowing gays to marry civilly? This is about churches allowing them access to the Sacrament of Marriage....even if it goes against that religion's tenets?

I admit I just skimmed the original article, but it seems to me that there are two discussions going on. One is whether the government should allow same sex couples to access the legal partnership of marriage. The other is within religions institutions themselves, about whether their religion ought to accept or reject same sex couples.

I don't think one should have anything to do with the other. The government is obligated to treat everyone equally and neutrally, so there's no reason that any religious argument should factor into who gets to access which legal structures in this country.

If the members of a particular denomination decide that same sex marriage does not go against their beliefs and want to recognize them, then great. If they decide not to, well that's their right. It's up to the members of that faith to make that decision. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with that. That's separation of church and state - the church doesn't get to meddle in state affairs and the state doesn't get to meddle in church affairs.

[UMaineTeach]

May 20, 2012 7:21:02 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Yes, but if this was a blog against gay marriage using Bible quotes, I think the responses would have been a lot different.

but I think if you find a blog against gay marriage that states Biblical reasons that people seeking membership in a church to have a relationship with God can't be gay, gay and married, gay and get communion and keep the context entirely within the church/religion framework then you'll get similar respectful responses. It's when the Bible is used to frame an argument for or against legislation that people get offended.

I feel that the article was focused on getting the church to accept preforming rites and giving sacraments to homosexuals who are believers and didn't talk about government laws.

[2vermont]

May 20, 2012 9:22:27 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

May 20, 2012 7:21:02 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Yes, but if this was a blog against gay marriage using Bible quotes, I think the responses would have been a lot different.

but I think if you find a blog against gay marriage that states Biblical reasons that people seeking membership in a church to have a relationship with God can't be gay, gay and married, gay and get communion and keep the context entirely within the church/religion framework then you'll get similar respectful responses. It's when the Bible is used to frame an argument for or against legislation that people get offended.

I feel that the article was focused on getting the church to accept preforming rites and giving sacraments to homosexuals who are believers and didn't talk about government laws.

So, if the blog suggested that those churches who do perform gay marriages shouldn't do so, that would be okay? Because, if I'm understanding this blog correctly, it is basically telling me that my church should perform gay marriages.

[ttt]

May 20, 2012 10:04:37 GMT -5 2vermont said:

May 20, 2012 9:22:27 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

but I think if you find a blog against gay marriage that states Biblical reasons that people seeking membership in a church to have a relationship with God can't be gay, gay and married, gay and get communion and keep the context entirely within the church/religion framework then you'll get similar respectful responses. It's when the Bible is used to frame an argument for or against legislation that people get offended.

I feel that the article was focused on getting the church to accept preforming rites and giving sacraments to homosexuals who are believers and didn't talk about government laws.

So, if the blog suggested that those churches who do perform gay marriages shouldn't do so, that would be okay? Because, if I'm understanding this blog correctly, it is basically telling me that my church should perform gay marriages.

I'm not sure what's wrong with this - religious people disagree all the time on interpretations of the Bible (or other religious texts). If it were saying that churches *shouldn't* perform gay marriages, well, that's their opinion too and there's nothing wrong with that either. (I was going to say "I disagree, but..." but I really don't have an opinion one way or another over whether the Bible says gay marriage is okay, since it's not something I really know much about.) As I said above, it's up to the adherents of each faith to debate their religious texts and decide whether their religion accepts or rejects same sex couples.

[UMaineTeach]

May 20, 2012 10:04:37 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So, if the blog suggested that those churches who do perform gay marriages shouldn't do so, that would be okay? Because, if I'm understanding this blog correctly, it is basically telling me that my church should perform gay marriages.

yes, this blog was focused on trying to convince you that your church should preform gay marriages using a theological argument and I am sure that if your church does not perform gay marriages that it has a theological argument that it might use to convince churches that do preform them to stop.

Biblical interpretation is how we got so many denomination of Christian. There is nothing wrong with one denomination having a persuasive discussion with another denomination using the Bible as the main text to support ideas.

[2vermont]

May 20, 2012 10:43:12 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

May 20, 2012 10:04:37 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So, if the blog suggested that those churches who do perform gay marriages shouldn't do so, that would be okay? Because, if I'm understanding this blog correctly, it is basically telling me that my church should perform gay marriages.

yes, this blog was focused on trying to convince you that your church should preform gay marriages using a theological argument and I am sure that if your church does not perform gay marriages that it has a theological argument that it might use to convince churches that do preform them to stop.

Biblical interpretation is how we got so many denomination of Christian. There is nothing wrong with one denomination having a persuasive discussion with another denomination using the Bible as the main text to support ideas.

Yes, both sides can try to convince the other. My point is that I'm thinking the responses to a blog suggesting that the churches who do perform gay marriages are wrong would not be taken as well as this one was here.

[aw]

May 20, 2012 1:47:26 GMT -5 fernane said:

When Peter was arguing for the baptism of the Gentiles it was because he understood this truth: that now that Christ has come, and fulfilled the law, salvation is for the Jew and the Greek. Paul also argues this thoroughly in the book of Galatians (where, coincidentally, he writes of rebuking Peter for "living like a Gentile, yet compelling Gentiles to live like Jews). He was not say that everyone has access to God, which is what Mr. Osler seems to be saying with his river rocks analogy.

I am not saying that the conclusion is utterly wrong. It is true, we cannot withhold any of the sacraments from others...or can we? As Christians, when we partake of the Lords supper, we are remembering why Christ died. Namely, that it was our sins that nailed him to the cross. We also instruct non-believers (Gentiles) not to partake, because as the scripture say, "anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of Christ. That is, they eat and drink judgement upon themselves.

Mr. Osler's argument presupposes Christians live according to the law (they don't, "for the righteous shall live by faith"), and that everyone at some point, will become a believer, which is not the case (For the path is broad and the gate is broad that leads to destruction and many pass through it, and the path narrow and the gate is small that leads to life, and there are few who find it).

So the question isn't can we withhold the sacraments from others, or should gays be allowed to marry. The only question of utmost importance is, are you running to God, or running from him? Mr. Osler's argument, as it seems, is a way to run away from God and to avoid Jesus altogether.

I guess people interpret the word Gentile in modern language differently. You take Gentile to mean a non-believer. I take Gentile to mean anyone who lives an unrighteous and unclean lifestyle (this could include believers and non-believers).

I respect your interpretation of Scripture, but I feel I have another equally valid (IMO) interpretation.

The Law of the Old Covenant existed because God is so righteous and holy and man is so unrighteous and sinful. God gave the Jews this Law as a way to separate themselves from an unclean (sinful) world. But even the Jews knew that the Law didn't make them clean enough to have direct access to God. They had temple systems with high priests that would give sacrifices on their behalf.

Jesus came and fulfilled (not abolished) this Law. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden man is righteous and clean in God's eyes, but it does mean that a permanent sacrifice was made on our behalf and that we now have direct access to Him (through Jesus).

The argument of the early church was whether or not Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for both Gentiles and Jews - those that life an unrighteous lifestyle and those that are "clean". Some believed that it was only sufficient for Jews because their lifestyle was one that God views as clean. Others believed that Gentiles could be righteous and clean only if they converted to Judaism and lived like a Jew. Still others believed that Gentiles could be righteous as long as they had faith in Christ, regardless of their lifestyles.

Arguments still exist today about whether or not Christians are bound to the OT Law - not whether or not the Law is necessary for salvation (because I think most people believe that salvation is through belief in Christ alone), but whether or not following the Law and the lifestyle rules therein are necessary for us to be worthy of the sacrifice that brings us salvation. You can use Scripture to back up just about any belief on this.

So, the issue is - can you have access to God, and thus salvation, if you are unrighteous/unclean/a Gentile? To me, Jesus' words were very clear about this - none of us are righteous in God's eyes. A homosexual is not righteous. A divorcee is not righteous. The child who tells a fib is not righteous. None of us. Jesus recognized that all of the attempts through good works to obtain righteousness were in vain and that the only way to achieve it was through his blood.

If this is the case, how can we pick and choose who gets to receive sacraments? Do we start interviewing people before communion? It's easy to "see" the sin of a homosexual and deny them sacraments, right? It's a little harder to see the sin of the man coveting his neighbor's wife in the pew or the woman who is having a secret affair with her boss.

The point is that WE don't get to determine who receives these sacraments. No one is worthy if we start playing judge and jury on this. Therefore, we offer these things freely to everyone and let God be the judge of worthiness.

A church is free to take a stand about gay marriage. I personally don't feel it is a Biblical concept that upholds righteousness and therefore do not feel that the church should be condoning unrighteous behavior. I feel the same way, as I mentioned before, about the church condoning marriage between divorcees. Condoning behavior is saying it's OK. Offering communion or baptism to a homosexual isn't condoning the behavior of the individual IMO, it's recognizing that all of us are unrighteous and no one's sin is any different than anyone else's. Baptism isn't pretending to seal two men into a sexual bond, but marriage is. There's the difference for me, personally.

Now, you can argue that when one is a true believer they turn from their sin. In the case of homosexuality you could say that a person cannot be a true believer and live that lifestyle, because out of true faith flows good works. The Book of Romans is full of instruction about this. I do believe that good works are the result of true faith and that there is no free will to do the true good work of God without faith in Christ (He has to choose you to do this). Does that mean that every believer is going to be in the same stage of "goodness"? Not at all. The Holy Spirit works in us all differently and is constantly showing us the ways in which we fall short of righteousness, and then convicts us to repent and turn from our sin. It may take a lifetime for someone to finally see the ways in which they are living that are not pleasing to God. But it doesn't mean that we are unworthy of His Love and Grace throughout the journey, IMO.

Like I said, I can see how you believe otherwise and respect it. I was just hoping to explain how others can see differently. My mother-in-law is an amazing Christian woman. She is one of the first women I turn to when I am seeking spiritual counsel. She is also a lesbian. The fact that she has her own sin does not make her Biblical wisdom any less valid and does not make her any less worthy of sharing in the Lord's Supper. I have my own sin too and would hate for the members of my church to be able to see it and judge my worthiness based on it.

[Deleted]

[2vermont]

Reeve, you seriously need to resize that thing.

[Deleted]

May 20, 2012 13:49:45 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Reeve, you seriously need to resize that thing.

lol, you have no idea how difficult that was to post - its the first time I have ever done it. Now you want me to change the size? I wouldnt know where to start. I suck at anything "inset into post" related.

;D

But at least I can do "real" smileys on the proboards!

[basilosaurus]

I guess I misread. Admittedly, my eyes glaze at theological discussion, so I was thinking this was a Christian case for supporting civil rights to gay marriage. NAACP put out a statement just yesterday that they support it as a civil rights issue, so I guess that's where my mind automatically went.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2012 21:53:19 GMT -5 jennipea382 said:

I consider myself a Christian and I can't stand when people think that all Christians are against gay marriage.

I was hanging out with three girlfriends from school last night, and I said something about my gay friend from church. (I don't normally identify him first as gay, but it was pertinent to the conversation.) They all looked shocked and said "you have a gay friend at church??" Two of them go to churches that frown upon homosexuality, and I'm not sure about the third girl's beliefs. In retrospect, I could have said something like "why wouldn't I have a gay friend at church?" But I just said "yeah, my church is cool with it."

One of the girls got married last year and had a lesbian in her wedding party. The girl brought her partner to the wedding, but they had to keep it hush-hush from the pastor because it apparently would've started a shitstorm.