Posted by JasonS on December 10, 2008
Since we have this, perhaps it is time to bring this back up.
“Can we truly have an impact in this culture war if we do not work harder to uphold the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? ”
This entry was posted on December 10, 2008 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Family, marriage, morality.
Tagged: Christian marriage, church and marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
morsec0de said
What sanctity?
Again, it’s very simple. Atheists are allowed to get married in this country. So are people who can’t or don’t want to have children. Which means that marriage, legal American marriage, is not based on either religion or children.
So, sorry, but gay marriage will gradually become legal and is doing so right now. If you don’t like it, then I support the right of your church to not perform gay marriages, and even speak against them if it pleases you.
pastoralmusings said
morsec0de,
In the end, marriage is much more than a license. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman to stay together for life.
Marriage did not originate with the state. Marriage originated in the mind of God as found in the book of Genesis as well as Matthew 19 where it was confirmed by Christ as being a monogamous, heterosexual union. Paul, the apostle, declared to us that marriage was created to demonstrate the relationship between Jesus and His church (See Ephesians 5:25-33).
I’m so very sorry that you have evidently not seen enough real Christianity to recognize the worth of true marriage. I’m sorry that we Christians have not lived up to the ideal that God has given us. I believe that, had you seen a godly marriage, you would value the reasons for which I call for us to uphold the ideal.
Morsec0de, I am not only calling for homosexual “marriage” to be banned (after all, it is actually a redefinition of the word marriage and not an actual marriage), but I am also calling Christians to repent of their failure to uphold God’s standard.
In the end, it will probably be legal for homosexuals to get their relationship sanctioned by the state. In that you are correct. I also appreciate the fact that you realize that it is not hate for someone to speak out on moral issues.
Sincerely,
Jason (The Pastor)
morsec0de said
“In the end, marriage is much more than a license.”
To some people, yes. But that doesn’t matter to American law.
“Marriage did not originate with the state.”
Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about state sanctioned marriage, not religious marriage.
“where it was confirmed by Christ as being a monogamous, heterosexual union. ”
Except the history of marriage shows us that it started as polygamy and became, essentially, a trading agreement between men. It has constantly changed over the millenia, and will continue to change.
“I’m so very sorry that you have evidently not seen enough real Christianity to recognize the worth of true marriage.”
I see the worth of a LOVING marriage. Man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.
“but I am also calling Christians to repent of their failure to uphold God’s standard.”
They can, they just can’t make it legal. Unless you go off and form a theocracy somewhere, of course.
pastoralmusings said
The issue is that God’s law should matter to American law. He is God whether Americans like it or not.
I believe you will have to prove your point on the history of marriage.
Sorry, but love isn’t all that makes a marriage. In the end you will find that a small percentage of homosexuals will seek marriage anyway. Most don’t want to marry. They only want to feel that their relationship is right regardless of the feelings, beliefs, and lives of others.
Morsec0de, let me ask you a question. Why do people want to identify themselves according to the usage of their gonads and glory in that? I don’t glory in being a heterosexual. I glory in Jesus Christ and His grace. I am seeking to be a Biblical Christian. It is much more honorable to be identified with lofty ideals than with where you place your parts or your fist. Think about it…
morsec0de said
“The issue is that God’s law should matter to American law.”
Constitutionally, it should not. Because no one knows what ‘god’s law” is. Many claim to know, but they all contradict one another. What about the Christian churches who want to marry gays? Why should I listen to you and not them?
“They only want to feel that their relationship is right regardless of the feelings, beliefs, and lives of others.”
No, they want it to be legal. And it should be. I don’t think most care what others think.
“Why do people want to identify themselves according to the usage of their gonads and glory in that?”
They want to glory in the relationship with the person they love. For you it’s about sex. But it isn’t for the majority of people I know, heterosexual or homosexual.
“It is much more honorable to be identified with lofty ideals than with where you place your parts or your fist. ”
I agree. Lofty ideals…like all humans are equal and should be treated as such.
pastoralmusings said
morsec0de,
Constitutionally, this nation rests upon Judeo-Christian ideals.
Churches who want to marry homosexuals twist the meaning of Scripture. You should not listen to me. You should listen to the authority: God’s Word. They deny the historical and plain interpretation of Scripture.
-“They only want to feel that their relationship is right regardless of the feelings, beliefs, and lives of others.”
No, they want it to be legal. And it should be. I don’t think most care what others think.-
I think if you’ll read what I said, you have reiterated it.
“They want to glory in the relationship with the person they love. For you it’s about sex. But it isn’t for the majority of people I know, heterosexual or homosexual.”
If it’s not about sex, why identify oneself by a word that contains sex in it? I repeat that the majority of homosexuals will not seek marriage. They will instead bounce from partner to partner. The homosexual community will always be marked by promiscuity. That is why I contend that it is not an issue of wanting marriage, but wanting to legitimize a relationship that is not legitimate.
If you did agree with me that lofty ideals are the things with which one should identify himself you would also agree that one’s sexual behavior would not be what identified him, but his passion for great things that would exalt his Creator and help his fellow man. Neither of these things will be the direct product of homosexual “marraige.”
morsec0de, I cannot help but feel that you are a thinking person. It is nice to dialogue with you, though we disagree. I’m through commenting on this post for now. I’ll allow you the last word as long as you remain cordial.
Thanks for talking with me.
May you find peace, joy, and love in your life.
Jason
morsec0de said
“Constitutionally, this nation rests upon Judeo-Christian ideals.”
Which is no more to the point than to say that the Jewish laws rest on Hammurabi’s ideals. The Constitution is significantly different than what you consider Judeo-Christian ideals. It is legal to have other religions, to worship other gods and even idols. Freedom of expression, including blasphemy, is protected. Things like adultery and homosexuality and working on the sabbath are not illegal.
“If it’s not about sex, why identify oneself by a word that contains sex in it?”
Because it’s the most accurate? “Sex” is another word for “gender”, as well.
“I repeat that the majority of homosexuals will not seek marriage. They will instead bounce from partner to partner.”
You mean like the majority of heterosexuals? So they’ll be normal.
“The homosexual community will always be marked by promiscuity. That is why I contend that it is not an issue of wanting marriage, but wanting to legitimize a relationship that is not legitimate.”
So is the heterosexual community. Which is why the divorce rate is over 50%. Ironically, the divorce rate is higher for the religious than the non-religious.
“If you did agree with me that lofty ideals are the things with which one should identify himself you would also agree that one’s sexual behavior would not be what identified him, but his passion for great things that would exalt his Creator and help his fellow man.”
No, because I don’t believe in a creator, so my lofty ideals stop with what humans can accomplish.