Heather knew I’d protect her from any bashing and that’s why she had the courage to get over here

What I actually meant was:

(preen)

(/preen)

But with diamond brackets that of course didn’t show up…

This is a very touchy subject and I think most of these post took care in what they wrote and commented honestly and fairly, respecting val’s request to keep it none argumentative.

Have to thank val for the courage to take on such a controversial post…you truly embraced it with regard to all sides! Good job!

Chrissy’s last blog post..Tesing my Blockquote

That’s basically a paraphrase of one of my favourite quotes regarding the bible:

“Texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people.”

Realising that I’m straying slightly from your initial hope, voiced in the first comment, I shall do my best to provide an answer. Not being of the mindset, I can’t tell you personally, but I believe – from various interactions with those who are of said mindset – that one of the major objections is that by not preventing what they see as sin, they are in effect condoning it. This is the most common argument I’ve encountered as to why it is personally affecting people (that observers would consider it not to affect); the idea that if they allow America to be overrun by sin, then God will destroy America for its sins. The problem with that argument being that God spared the righteous when destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (and the other three that unfairly get ignored), and wouldn’t have even done the destroying if the five cities had had more than one righteous guy between them.

I’ve also heard various suggestions that it will somehow be of detriment to the world generally in relation to the second coming. Given that even the churches that believe in the second coming can’t agree on even the faintest details, there’s ideas ranging from gay marriage hastening the second coming (which some see as bad); delaying the second coming (which others see as bad); leaving a black mark on the CVs of the righteous whenever the second coming happens (obviously bad).

There are also those who feel that it is their duty to do everything that they can to prevent the spread of sin throughout the world. They oppose gay marriage out of a (misguided in my view) desire to protect people from sin, and help them be worthy of entry to heaven.

For me, those reasons (which are all I can think of at this ungodly, other-side-of-the-world time) seem to be predicated on the assumption that one can be punished for the deeds of another, and that one has the right to force one’s belief on another. This seems utterly contrary to the idea of natural justice, and I’d always been under the impression that God was supposed to be a Just God. So colour me perplexed.

People need to remember that it used to be illegal for African Americans to get married just because people thought it was morally wrong.

That it’s mostly (ostensibly) protestant denominations who are the most vocally opposed to gay marriage (and church interference in government generally) is kinda sad. And moderately ironic.

Thanks for posting your comments!

alphabitch’s last blog post..So, what about YOUR marriage, HMMMM???

Simply put, not all Christians believe as Heather do. Certain translations of the bible, along with literalistic interpretations can provide support for this view. Other translations, interpreting the bible as theology, not history, say otherwise. Assertions of what ‘Christians believe’ as legitimising a particular viewpoint are disingenuous at best, as there are so many different views held by Christians that almost the only thing all agree on is the existence of Jesus – and even then, the nature of Christ is a matter of great contention.

Some Christians oppose gay marriage. Other Christians support it. Those who support it do so in pursuit of Jesus’ commandment to ‘do unto others…’, a sentiment that in more modern terms can be expressed as ‘live and let live’. The reservation of judgement for God and God alone is also key in the support of – or at least non-opposition to – gay marriage.

That “history shows homosexuality” is different, with the implication that this is somehow justification for continued discrimination, is a logical fallacy. The same logic could be applied to, and justify the continuation of: slavery; segregation; anti-Semitism; oppression of women; and even the ‘divine right’ of kings.

The assertion that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is incorrect, as the bible itself makes many mentions of biblical patriarchs engaging in polygamy.

Nor is the assertion that gay marriage compromises the principles upon which the United States were founded accurate: there is no special place for Christianity within the constitution. Many of its authors were very specific in their writing to say that this was to ensure the religious beliefs of one group would not be forced upon any other.

In fact, Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, whereas he did promote the concept of separation of church and state in Matthew 22:21 – “Render unto Caesar…” – and similarly in John 18:36.