A Challenge to Christians Who Support Same-Sex Marriage

62 thoughts on “A Challenge to Christians Who Support Same-Sex Marriage”

  1. Your request leaves no room for one person possessing differing personal and civic beliefs. I am a Christian libertarian. I believe gay marriages/homosexual actions are a sin, however I also believe that government shouldn’t legislate morality when the action doesn’t infringe on the liberties of another. Do I believe practicing homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Do I believe that you have should have the free will to sin so long as your sin doesn’t affect the freedoms of anyone else? Yes.

    1. How are you showing love by letting them wallowing in sin, if Paul states that we speak truth in love (eph. 4:15)? Not condemning but if we truly love them we will call them out and this goes for all sin committed by people. Struggle with homosexuality and practicing is two different things. I can accept the struggler because they seek help, I cannot accept the practicing because they (seem) not to want help.

    2. By legalizing gay marriage, that’s exactly what the government is doing: legislating morality. It’s the government telling its citizens that gay marriage cannot be considered sinful because it is now protected under law.

    3. Alan, your argument is invalid, because sin always affects more than just the person in it. It affects everyone to some degree. Gay wedding cakes, anyone?

    4. It is inconsistent and illogical to say that a government should not legislate morality. It does so in many cases. For example, for the time being, it is against the law for an adult to have sex with a minor. What about laws against public nudity, etc. The question is not IF a government will legislate morality even when it does not infringe on the liberties of others, it is WHEN and under what circumstances this will be done.

    5. As Rand Paul said, “”…don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.”
      Seems logical to me. Just 2 other forms of taxation and government interference we don’t need.

    6. It has affected others when the income bakery of a family was lost bc of being sued bc the owners refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. That’s only one incident among many many thousands more to come.

    7. Alan and to anyone who believes the myth someone else’s sin will have no impact on them. The results of the Supreme Court endorsing homosexual marriage nationwide will affect our country and society in a large way. If you really believe this sinful behavior (now legalized in our country by 5 persons legislating from the bench and that actually takes away freedoms) won’t have direct and indirect consequences on all people, you are dumber than a pile of rocks.

    8. Alan, this is a good question, but you’ve confused morality and metaphysics, since the same-sex marriage issue is not about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, but about what marriage is and whether it can include same-sex couples. Had the Supreme Court ruled against same-sex marriage, this wouldn’t have been legislating morality, but correctly discerning the nature of marriage. It is similar to a (fictional) case of the IRS refusing to grant a child tax credit to a couple who adopt a dog as a pet and call it their child, since children are not animals or pets. Since same-sex marriages are metaphysically impossible, it does not deny LGBT individuals their right to marry to prohibit them from forming same-sex civil unions and calling it a marriage, since one cannot have a right to what doesn’t exist. Ironically, the LGBT community has always had the civil right to marry; they’ve simply refused to participate in that institution and have instead insisted that the government fundamentally remake it in the LGBT image.

      1. I addressed this below, when I answered all six of the questions, but I’ll go ahead and ask you here: how is gay marriage not metaphysically possible? If we were talking about public policy governing the grazing rights of unicorns, that would be an example of a metaphysical impossibility, not the undeniable existence of something you disapprove of. Your very rejection of it assumes its existential possibility. It’s also metaphysically possible to amend the tax code to provide child tax credits to pets.

  2. My challenge to self-identified Christians who support same-sex marriage:
    1. Establish what your basis of moral authority is
    The only moral authority is based on each individual’s personal morals which vary with every individual’s upbringing which is not merit enough.
    2. If it is the Bible, develop a biblical case for same sex marriage. The bible is interpreted by each reader so it has no set case.
    3. Identify the moral reasoning you are employing. There is no moral reason other than your personal preference or the teaching you were indoctrinated with so hard to validate
    4. Put your argument in premise-conclusion form.
    Nothing to argue
    5. Rebut the major objections to your position.
    My position is each person is responsible for their own morals and beliefs
    6. Explain why your view was never held in the history of the church or endorsed by any religion or civilization until recent decades.
    I do not have a view other than if you use the bible for your sole argument than its is suspect because of your own interperration that is biased due to your parents and upbringing

  3. It is simple it is not about moral authority at all, just asking the church to stand on the same morals when it comes to divorce, adultery, fornication, porn….latest polls have shown a church that is 60% divorced, many raising children on their own or in some other than married form.
    Point being if one in ten are gay and have been since the beginning of time (we all know them, friends, family) that means there are around 8-9 out of ten straight people committing all the other sexual acts. I am not endorsing sexual sin (though it seems rampant within the church and otherwise) I am just saying why would we treat the 1% any different then we treat the rest that seem fine to walk into church not condemn.
    All i am saying if you really want to clean house on morality talk to the 8-9 out of ten doing all the other stuff, or lets just talk about sexual sin across the board and not just talk on one form of it. No wonder we look ill informed and a bit like a bunch of bullies and haters.

  4. I must agree with Allen. Unless we are advocating for some form of “Christian Sharia” where Jude’s-Christian morality us codified into the laws of this country, we must give Poole the freedom to sin. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but I object to making it illegal. Homosexuals are already de facto getting married, with or without the blessing of the state. Personally, I advocate for divesting the state from involvement in marriage, period. The state does not need to be issuing marriage lucenses, a practice that was begun to prevent inter-racial marriage. It is an unnecessary intrusion of the state into the life of the Church.

    The issue for the Church is not whether same sex couples choose to marry. we should not expect unbelievers to behave like believers and adopt Biblicsl morality. The more pressing issue, from a civil government perspective, is how the state will respect the religious liberties of Christians who do not agree with homosexualityand same sex marriage. I have written about this at length here:

    http://pokingleviathan.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-scotus-decision-on-same-sex.html

    1. I did not address civil law, but the basis for a Christian’s moral judgment. Further, if you think law based on Judeo-Christian principles is like sharia you know nothing about either.

      1. In that case, there is no moral acceptance on a personal level. I find it hard to believe a Christian can accept it on a personal level. I suppose this coming out when it did caused me to make inaccurate assumptions. My apologies.

      2. Unfortunately to many who call themselves Christians try to straddle the fence on issues like gay marriage by one token saying they are against the sin, but yet they support the union. If one calls themselves a Christian, that means you follow Christ and at the same time in that same statement you say you accept all the commandments of God in which you either stand with God on what He finds detestable, all sin, or you stand against God an accept the malefactor of the day. Christ said a Kingdom divided cannot stand and if you are not for me you are against me. You will either love Christ or you will hate Him. If you love Christ you have to love God for Christ points you to God and if you love God you have to abide by His commands and not those of man. Either walk the walk, talk the talk, or simply admit you actually don’t know Christ.

      3. Should all “son” be made illegal in America? Better?

        Homosexuality is a sin. So is pride. Lying. Quarelling. Strife.

        How about let’s proclaim the “good news”, stop judging, start loving and let God convict the heart through His Word?

        Peace and grace of our Lord Jesus.

      4. Whenever you address gay marriage, you are necessarily talking about civil law. When talking about Christian public policy what’s needed here is a method of using a Christian’s moral judgement in the context of enacting public policy. One valid method is the Lockean approach which would separate the two. Another is the Sharia approach which applies all scriptural teaching into codified law.

        That has never fully happened in the West, but we’ve come close at times. It’s actually rarely happened over the course of Islamic history either. The Abbasid Caliphate was far more liberal than its Christian contemporaries for example. However, were modern Christians to attempt to fully codify every Biblical teaching and use the coercive power of the state to enforce them all, that would certainly look a lot like Sharia law.

        In this case, the way one would “know nothing about either” would be to not know the historical context that separates the Bible from the Quran. The New Testament was written by political outsiders, offering no specific guidance for how Christians ought to govern a state, only that they should obey its rulers. The Quran was written after Muhammad had conquered Medina and was written partially with an intent to teach how Muslims should rule their land. Ever since Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have been vexed with how to exercise temporal civil authority using a revealed text that was not quite written for that purpose.

        Then came the Enlightenment, and John Locke offered a purely secular basis for public policy. Locke’s political philosophy inspired the US Declaration of Independence and the scope of “Judeo Christian” influence on American jurisprudence has been fairly limited ever since.

    2. Excellent response, it was under Lincoln the tyrant and his quest for raw power and a larger FEDERAL control grid that made the states subject to that which the sovereign states created.

    3. See my problem isn’t nessasarly about the government saying gay marriage is lawful its about sodomy it is more than just a sin beyond my personal dislike of the sin its a crime still today in states like Alabama and Georgia its still unlawful to commit these acts and i don’t think the supreme Court should overthrow the law to appease a group of people they don’t do it for illegal immigrants which is a more pressing issue to this nation

    4. When you go along with it, it is the same as you doing the sin. You, as a Christian , must stand against gay marriage or answer to God why you didn’t.

    5. As I agree with your statement about non-believers behaving like believers. What about the LGBT community who believe that they are Christians? I also agree that why in the world does the state and now probably the Federal Govt need to to be involved with licensees in the first place. O right the IRS needs to know that!

      1. It would be a contradiction if one meant a Christian seeking to enact Islamic Law, but that’s clearly not what Michael meant. He was using that turn of phrase metaphorically.

  5. Dr. Groothuis is simply challenging people to consider why they believe what they believe. It is a very practical way to think through the reasons behind their standing on topics. People who write good theological papers go through all of these steps to find their own stance on the topic at hand. Good liberal arts schools teach you to challenge your own beliefs. The catch is that the author has to stay open-minded in order to write an unbiased paper. When they write it in and unbiased way, they can then establish their belief based off of their own research and they can say the reasoning for their beliefs without simply leeching off of other’s thoughts. They are then free to think for themselves.

  6. If you are speaking of same-sex marriage in the context of Christian theology rather than civil law, then we are in agreement..there is no Biblical basis that can harmonize homosexual marriage within the body if Christ.

    On the other matter, perhaps theonomy may be a better term? I admit that I only know what I have read in the news about sharia and assumed that it was in imposition of religious law on the secular state.

    There are many moral obligations that are placed upon Christians that we would not want codified into civil law, such as church attendance and financial support of the church. I simply don’t believe that the state is the proper vehicle for bringing conformity to Biblical morality. I be.ieve that the proper vehicle is the church as the Gospel is preached and hearts are changed.

    There are certainly elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition that has shaped our laws, such as a value for human life, and our understanding of original sin leading to a system of checks and balances, but that is a far cry from codifying in law every moral obligation of the Christian.

    Nuff said on that. As for your statement as written and not applying it to civil law…we agree.

  7. I see nowhere where anyone said it had been “illegal” to be homosexual, just for them to marry. Now that had been “rectified” by the SCOTUS and however we believe it is legal.

    While as a believer I know the issue had been beat to death and know regardless it will all come to light in the end. It may be that our time will pass before the end but add I’ve told many a person, if rather live my life as a believer and be wrong than live as they do and me be right.

  8. I think you should take your bible and read about the speck and the plank. So-called “Christians” make me sick and it hurts me to have to identify with them as I am a Christ-follower myself. Why should one man/woman have a say in what another man/woman does with their life…. Who they love, marry, live with, etc.? Where is all the outrage about divorce in heterosexual marriages? The bible speaks very directly to the idea of divorce, yet it’s still a legal practice. Why is that? There are plenty of other topics to that point, but my main takeaway is: how will arguing over this make any of us better? And what will it truly matter in 100 years? Why don’t we focus on the hearts of sinners, instead of trying to ban/outlaw their practice of sin? Remember the line Jesus drew in the sand and think if you can cross it!

  9. @Alan Floyd So ur saying.. “let them just sin… thats not my problem…” i’m glad the Christ followers in the history didnt think that way.. otherwise chances are that even as of today we wont know whats sin and whats not. and talking about the point, if you are saying, guy marrying a guy, kissing each other in public/ getting married in a church is not making you feel sick and therefor what they are doing is not bothering you, then i doubt that you believe same sex marriage is a sin.

    Finally this topic is “A Challenge to Christians Who Support Same-Sex Marriage” it dose not talk about any law or anything.

  10. I might take a pass at this.

    No one is arguing that the Bible contains within it a clear statement one the sanctity of gay-marriage, however. You can’t really be looking for that, Dr. Groothuis.

    Can you give me the checklist for what would constitute a biblical case for same-sex marriage? Am I just trying to establish that the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuality in a general sense? or, do I need to also explain how, if that is true, marriages are good for families, etic.?

    Thanks!

  11. Interesting challenge I don’t imagine you will have any takers. Homosexuality, is a sin the needs to be repented from not encouraged. I have only read one attempt to biblically justify homosexuality it fell short. It was based on the fact that there were things that were sins under the old covenant that since the Death and resurrection of Jesus are no longer considered sin. Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the red letters. So now they conclude homosexuality is a sin no more. They discounted the words of the Apostle Paul completely. A person has to seriously twist and turn to words and meanings to get to the point where you can completely disregard the direct language used in the Bible.

  12. I will attempt your challenge, especially for the sake of discussion and clarification.

    1. A deep, close, personal connection with God, guided by the words of the Bible.
    2. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1); “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” (John 8:7); “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:20)
    3. (a) The government is not a religious entity. They have to define marriage, because it is codified in law for other procedures including taxation and estate matters. To not allow same sex couples to marry is to deny them legal rights of other married citizens, but this should not define our moral compass as Christians, because civil law is separate and distinct from religious ideology; (b) To give same sex couples equivalent relationships such as domestic partnerships is a greater threat to the “traditional” marriage structure, and this designation, with the acceptance of marriage for all couples, whether for same sex or opposite sex couples, should be abolished immediately; (c) the government has a public interest in reducing promiscuity. Our moral compass should not object to this either. From a practical standpoint, divorce laws are not going to be undone, nor is co-habitation. To deny same sex couples the right to marry is to deny same sex couples the notion of a final destination and firm commitment. This also indirectly promotes heterosexual promiscuity, and as a policy matter, the adoption of this policy is a process that makes logical, legal sense and should align with our moral compass goals; (d) why concern oneself with the practice of others when one should be focused on self-cultivation, relationship with God, and one’s own salvation? If no other major religions have traditionally advocated same sex marriage, then if many of them do advocate for dietary restrictions, should we not take steps to prohibit consumption of certain foods because their religions tell them to do so?
    4. See Answer #3
    5. (a) This is an infringement on the rights of Christians, or rather the beliefs of certain Christians. The argument has been made that the ruling does not force heterosexuals to gay-marry, but this argument has not been accepted by those who still oppose marriage equality. If we are talking only about moral compass vs. civil law, does the bible not instruct us to obey the government? Therefore, the two cannot be completely separated. In fact, the civil law provides that a marriage has been effectuated when both a certificate of marriage and a ceremony has been performed. However, more and more couples are simply getting a civil marriage first before having a religious ceremony with family and friends afterwards that has no legal bearing and is nothing more than a symbol; (b) homosexuality will not be eradicated. It will continue to persist, just as the 90 year old same sex couples getting married now have been around for decades. Does the recognition of same sex marriage by the state promote homosexuality? Perhaps. But it is up to the self-identified Christians to define their own morality in ways that do not alienate others. To bring more individuals to the word of Christ than to repel them. To allow for repentance, and to bring the message that yes, although you live in sin, you are not out casted from God’s love; you are not a second class child of God who cannot sin the way other self-identified Christians sin; (c) I have not heard others make this argument, nor am I familiar with the general rebuttals. I will however say that complacency for promiscuity is not a strong rebuttal, because whatever we have been trying to do is not working. The moral compass here is as stated, we as Christians should stay firm to our convictions, but we should not judge others, and they should have the freedom to sin for themselves; (d) if your relationship with God tells you to publicly oppose gay marriage, I cannot counter-rebut this argument. My relationship with God tells me to do no such thing.
    6. (a) Marriage as a civil institution is fairly new. New enough that common law marriages are still accepted in some states due to previous institutions. In the history of the church and civilization, population growth was a primary concern of humankind. Also, contrary to popular belief, the institution of marriage is in many ways stronger than it was in previous centuries. Polygamy, female slavery, and raping and pillaging is generally down across the board. Lack of historical background is also not a valid argument to prevent change; (b) until recent centuries, dictatorships and slavery were both commonly accepted. The Bible also instructs slaves to obey their governing authorities “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22) (see also Ephesians 6:5); “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). Worldwide opposition to both, including among Christians, does not seem to reconcile with this argument of lack of history.

    I look forward to your response.

    1. &np&b;snbsp;FrodeGRATTIS MED PERS, Espen!! Ikke så nøye om du følger mine råd eller har positiv eller negativ splitt når du PERSER! Takk for omtalen også. Og fighten. Fikk fin pes i et par kiloemeter. Selv fulgte jeg strategien og hadde negativ splitt med 50 sek ! Det var det jeg var mest fornøyd med. Og bollene, selvsagt! Rapport kommer på bloggen min også etterhvert, men jeg er ikke like kjapp som deg (på pc-en, vel å merke Frode

  13. Dr. Groothius, I know you are a busy man. I wonder, though, if you could help me respond to this email? Specifically, although I know over 400 biblical prophesies have come to pass I would like to succinctly address this with this young man’s comment below about Nostradamus. This young man is an intellect. I am not. Having said that he doesn’t know when to use ‘there’s’ correctly. I have separated the topics he covered.

    Nostradamus has more accurately predicted the future than any religious text.

    When it comes to gay marriage, there’s entire sects of Christianity that embrace homosexuality, because they view the old testament as no longer applicable. Honestly they’re more rational than most. Or at least more consistent. Most follow the word of Genesis, but not Deuteronomy or Leviticus. I mean, that’s relativism just the same.

    I’m not actually a relativist. Technically I’m more the metaphysical determinist type. I believe reality is objective and morality can be defined through objective terms. Axioms exist which define moral conduct. All evil begins at the use of physical force, except in defense of someone else using physical force. (HUH???)

    Speaking in Christian terms; I’d rather face God knowing I left judgment to him, than to have attempted to administer his will myself. See: Romans 12:14-21 ^^^ That’s the Jesus I discovered, when I was a Christian.

    1. Jesus endorsed the moral law of the Old Testament. See Matthew 5:17-20. There is now no theocracy, but God’s character does not change (Malachi 3:6) nor does human nature (Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 3). Homosex is wrong because it cuts against the order of creation. Jesus endorsed monogamy as the pattern of life in Matthew 19:1-6. You can dispense with the Old Testament (you should not) and still find the condemnation of homosex in Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6.

  14. You would be more correct in 6b to change that to ‘relatively few’ rather than your current wording of ‘any’. There are actually 35 to 40 cultures that had some expression of same-sex marriage prior to the recent decades.

  15. Exactly right, Fred. DeYoung did something similar, but more extensive as he provided 40 questions for “Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags”. The comment section is what one would expect. Virtually no responses to his actual questions. The two or three that did respond did so with one or two word answers that wouldn’t survive the most cursory probing.
    I’m constantly amazed at how these so-called “new moves of the Spirit” always follow right behind the new moves of the culture. Curious, that.

    1. Actually, I have read some replies to the 40 questions of DeYoung’s, and they were quite thorough. They caused me to think a lot more deeply and I have now shifted my position, i.e. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. The Roman practices of heterosexual men using male slaves in degrading homosexual acts was condemned by Paul, but to say that loving homosexual monogamous relationships are sinful is going beyond Scripture. Worse, this type of belief has caused some Christian gays to be so in despair over their condition (which has not changed in spite of intensive Christian ministry) that they have harmed themselves and some have died.

  16. For me, I think it’s hard to deny the Bible condemns homosexuality, but there’s the separate issue of Christian attitudes toward the culture around them and government.

    There are several instances in scripture of Biblical figures advocating tolerant positions toward the sin of others and of government.

    For instance, Jesus was asked about his thoughts on the highly corrupt and oppressive tax system and his response was to hold up a Roman coin with Carsar’s face on it and say “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”; in other words, his focus was on the spiritual health of his followers, not politics and government of those around him.

    Likewise, in 1 Cor., when faced with the question of whether believers could go to friends’ houses and eat meat that had been sacrificed to other Gods, the response was that eating the meat wasn’t a big deal because the believers knew the truth and it wasn’t an immediate concern that their friends weren’t like-minded.

    In that way, I think that Christians can be “supporters of gay marriage” without condoning homosexuality. Indeed, Roman culture was arguably more tolerant of homosexuality than American culture, and the Bible simply called for Christians to set themselves apart from such sin, not to try to get the government to pass laws making sin illegal.

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say Christians fighting legal recognition of gay marriage is counterproductive. Even if gay marriage isn’t recognized, it doesn’t keep people from being gay (which is the real sin), and legal recognition helps promote some basic rights that would be cruel to deny. For instance, a gay spouse can visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital, and marriage of an overseas partner can make it easier for the spouse to gain American citizenship, which can be a lifesaver in cases where the spouse is from a country that executes people for being gay..

    Seeing a bunch of angry Christians fight gay marriage only ends up making us look like jerks and driving people away from Christ, IMO.

    1. The legal issue is lost. I am concerned about Christian’s moral compass and what the secular state will do to Christians who will not hire those in gay marriages and will not perform wedding ceremonies for them.

      Jesus did not endorse Caesar as Lord. He is Lord. We don’t render to Caesar what violates God’s law

      Meat sacrificed to idols is dis-analogous because homosexual activity is always wrong for everyone all the time.

      1. 1. What do you think of a law like Alabama is trying to pass (did pass?) where the right to marry is taken out of the hands of the government and placed into the hands of whoever wanted to sign a contract (Church, corporation, etc)?

        2. If you answer questions 1 and 2 of your above questions with ” the examples/work of God through the trinity” … where are you left? Like the person would be saying basically “The Bible contains the history of much of the Church and what we know about God, but if you do not believe that the Bible is -in and of itself – a God or part of the trinity” (quadrinity? ha). Basically, the person is saying the Bible is a human attempt at describing different events related to to a perfect God, and just as the Pope of the catholic Church is not perfect and cannot dictate perfect moral code, then the Bible is not perfect (not an exact comparison, but you get I use that example because it helps me describe the perspective). Of course, I am just asking for a friend 😉 ha.

        I would be really interested in your answers as it would help me understand your perspective a little more. I realize you are busy, but it would help me understand my friends who believe a lot more along the lines of your views of the Bible than mine. Thanks.

      2. People who do discriminate in employment decisions against homosexuals should be punished. It’s a crime and it’s immoral. All Christians should know that.

      3. My point wasn’t that eating sacrifices was like homosexual acts, but that the Bible said Christians could sit down and eat dinner with idolaters (who violated one of the formal Ten Commandments).

        If the Bible said that Christians can eat meat that was sacrificed to idols as part of having a dinner party with idolaters, what does that imply about what Christian attitudes should be towards baking gay folks a cake for a party they won’t be attending?

        As far as “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, the point was that the position Jesus advocated was to stay out of politics and government affairs, not try to get the government to institute a Christian theocracy.

        If the Christian church could thrive in Roman culture, where grown men could have boys as sex slaves, I think we can thrive in a country whose government allows gay marriage.

        I further think that the Christian outrage against gay marriage laws just makes us look like a bunch of jerks, which just pushes people away from Christ.

      4. Same sex marriage laws are causing Christians to be persecuted. Their consciences are not respected. And it will continue. Laws shape a culture and teach morality, rightly or wrongly. Jesus never advocated staying out of government. We are to seek the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7) and be salt and light (Matthew 5). Christians need not look like jerks if they are exercising their First Amendment rights.

    2. So is it better to do or say nothing and allow people to convince each other that their sin is no sin at all? That they are not required to repent and turn to Jesus? Is that not our mission as Christians?

  17. Thanks for explaining this is directed at the moral and not the legal issue. Christ taught that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts even though it was not consistent with God’s moral law. Mark 10:2-9. That was the theocracy. Now that only a small proportion of Americans read their Bibles and pray daily, we should not expect God to help us “make” everyone behave like Christians believe we should behave. We should be content to live quiet and peaceable lives and spread the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.

  18. I would be false to say that no civilization (or religion) ever has endorsed homosexuality. The Greeks, pre-colonial Africans and Native Americans are clear examples.

  19. It would be false to say that no civilization (or religion) ever has endorsed homosexuality. The Greeks, pre-colonial Africans and Native Americans are clear examples.

    1. Of course, it is false. I did not say that. I said no culture has defined marriage as homosexual. I know about the Greek tradition of pederasty. They were decently enough not to call it marriage.

  20. I. Let the basis for moral authority be the Bible and assume the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality in ancient times applies to gay relationships as they are practiced differently today.

    II. The Biblical case for same sex marriage emerges from the absence of Biblical guidance to ban it. Similarly there is no Biblical basis for a Christian duty to prevent non-believers from sinning. It’s then Biblical to believe gay sex is a sin while recognizing responsibility for that sin rest on the individual sinner not the political community.

    III. Sola Scriptora

    IV. This is easily put in Modus Tollens form: A Christian duty exists if there is a Biblical basis for it. There is no Biblical basis for it, therefore no such Christian duty exists.

    V. First, the “redefinition” argument. Gay marriage is metaphysically possible in the same way that a gay dating service is metaphysically possible. There is no Biblical basis for rejecting the equal protection of conjugal law to gay couples in the same way there is no basis for rejecting the equal protection of commercial law to a gay dating service even though such a service also “redefined” the institution of the dating service.

    Second, there is the totalitarian theocracy argument that few Christians hold after it’s reduced to what American Christians find absurd when it contradicts our Lockean Liberal tradition. The totalitarian holds the Modus Ponens argument which includes the premise that if the Bible teaches that something is a sin, then the state should ban it. The sin that gets the most Biblical attention is apostasy. So shall we ban that too? Why allow the freedom of religion but arbitrarily ban gay marriage? To do so falsifies by contradiction the truth value of that initial premise. Why as a matter of policy let false teaching “redefine” the church but not let gay couples enter into marriage contracts?

    VI. Gays did not want to get married until recent decades. If one were to assert that all religions and civilizations have been rejecting my position all this time, that would merely be the assertion of a vacuous truth where its negation is equally true. Also keep in mind that the Lockean foundation of American civilization are older than a few decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s