Outrage @ Outrage

[Guest]

The difference between abortion and slavery and pedophila verses homosexuality is that the first three affect innocents whereas the homosexual is using his own body and supposedly not affecting non consenting other parties.

Homosexual practice may not directly affect non-consenting parties. But when homosexuals insist that their unions be called "marriage", the very concept of marriage becomes blurred. Then there are a host of ramifications.

If the issue is the sanctity of marriage it just seems so hypocritical that Christians who divorce as often as the secular world and who have absolutely not set any kind of example for the secular world should be marching in the streets against gay marriage.

The issue is not the sanctity of marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage. When the concept of marriage is extended, then there's no telling where it may go. Some people may insist on group marriage, others on marriage between siblings, or between mother and son, or father and daughter, still others on marriage with children, etc. Then traditional marriage will become just one of many forms of "marriage", and nuclear families, consisting of a husband, wife, and children may no longer exist as such.

I agree that it is important that Christian families exemplify the kind of family relationships that God intended, but if they don't, that doesn't imply that they should not hold to marriage as God intended it. It only shows that they have not been successful in fulifilling their God-given role.

In upholding the definition of marriage, it is not essential to "march in the streets". But to do nothing to preserve the definition of marriage may lead to a state of affairs which, in the future, we will deeply regret.

We need to voice our opinions and vote for godly legislators but we need to set examples for the secular world before we go marching in the streets.

It sounds as if you are saying that if we fail in one area, we may as well give up and let marriage go to hell.

No matter what happens a gay marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of the God of the bible which is what we are really concerning ourselves about.

So it's okay for it to be a marriage in the eyes of man?

If we think we are going to change this culture by attacking gays we are sadly mistaken but on the other hand it is a lot easier to do that then to get our own house in order.

Who said a word about attacking homos? [I refuse to use the beautiful word "gay" in this way]. You seem to have bought the homosexual propoganda that opposing the homosexual agenda in any way is an attack on homosexuals themselves. Do you think attacking Christianity as a religious system is tantamount to attacking Christians as people?

[Guest]

The issue is not the sanctity of marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage. When the concept of marriage is extended, then there's no telling where it may go. Some people may insist on group marriage, others on marriage between siblings, or between mother and son, or father and daughter, still others on marriage with children, etc. Then traditional marriage will become just one of many forms of "marriage", and nuclear families, consisting of a husband, wife, and children may no longer exist as such.


But the reason the definition is an issue is because of protecting the sanctity of marriage.
It's not impossible that gay marriage could eventually lead to other variant types of marriages yet secular marriage is not marriage in the eyes of God. The liberal judges unfortunately can impose secular law on the populace but only because the populace does not live by the bible thus they bring the consequences on themselves.
Other then speaking out and voicing our opinions and voting for godly congressman (if they exist) what action specifically do you suggest Paidion?

[Guest]

... secular marriage is not marriage in the eyes of God.

If that is true, then why would the Son of God, who was the very logos (expression) of the Father say the following?

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage" Luke 20:34,35

When He said, "The sons of this age marry", he was obviously including everyone. Then He speaks of "those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead" as a special class within the "sons of this age".

Since Jesus said, "The sons of this age marry", He must have been using "marry" in a "secular" sense. If so, Jesus must have recognized it as true marriage. Otherwise, He wouldn't have used the words "marry" and "marriage".

[Guest]

Since Jesus said, "The sons of this age marry", He must have been using "marry" in a "secular" sense. If so, Jesus must have recognized it as true marriage. Otherwise, He wouldn't have used the words "marry" and "marriage".



Paidion, As you know the context of this conversation was Jesus answering the Saducees question about marriage after the resurrection thus his referencing marriage in this life is not a commentary or approval about it but only a referencing.
The fact is with the multitude of divorces among Christians in marriages
they are on very thin ice to stand up for the sanctity of marriage.
However we should speak up for what the God of the bible defines as marriage because we are called to be witnesses for Christ and what he stands for.
But beyond this and expressing this at the ballot box i am interested in what you may have in mind.

[Guest]

Good discussion above. I didn't realize my thread would provoke such dialogue. Just in case anyone was confused, my post was not about whether or not Christians should be active in preventing the liberalization of law. My post was really about why the society isn't listening to our thoughts on the matter.

[Guest]

Paidion, As you know the context of this conversation was Jesus answering the Saducees question about marriage after the resurrection thus his referencing marriage in this life is not a commentary or approval about it but only a referencing.

Whether He approved of marriages in this life or not, my point was that He called them "marriages", and so He must have recognized them as marriages.

Do you think He would have called a homosexual union a "marriage"?

Do you see why the definition of "marriage" ought to be preserved?

[Guest]

Do you think He would have called a homosexual union a "marriage"?

Do you see why the definition of "marriage" ought to be preserved?




No and Yes, but what we may disagree about is other then speaking out and exercising our voting power is there anything else to be done?

[Guest]

My post was really about why the society isn't listening to our thoughts on the matter.



We are really poor role models in general plus the trend in secular culture is toward humanism or the rights of humans to persue their own path to happiness.
It appears to the secular world like we are trying to keep homosexuals from their right to happiness.

[Guest]

Is Paidion advocating anything other than speaking out and exercising our voting power?

[Guest]

matt wrote:

My post was really about why the society isn't listening to our thoughts on the matter.

i dont think it has much to do with society thinking that we(christians) are hypocrites.

rather, i think that the proliferation of political correctness over the last 20 years or so has essentially numbed people into a "live and let live" mentality.

in the 50s, e.g., homeosexuals stayed in the closet because there was a great social stigma. they didnt seek to be married because such an idea was unthinkable. they didn't stay in the closet because Christians were "better" Christians in the 50s than they are now. It is just that the PC way of thinking that "everything is relative" or "anything goes as long as i dont hurt anybody" had not really grabbed hold until fairly recently.

Back then, homosexuals chose to practice their sin in secret. They knew they were sinning. Now, although they also likely know they are sinning in their heart of hearts, they assuage their guilt by choosing to buy into the idea that they were "made this way" or that it is simply a normal variant. taken to its logical conclusion this results in the push for legal homosexual marriages.

TK