...or is it? Perpetuated by the fear mongers, our church voted today to amend our constition to make absolutely sure that no gay people would ever be married there. No matter that it is already illegal in Michigan - twice over. Apparently there was need to take action because the law could change at any moment and droves of homosexuals could run into our church demanding to be married, and if we don't have a clear statement we will be S.O.L... or so the thought process goes. Apparently they think that the supreme court couldn't make them allow gay marriage if we had an existing statement in place.
What a waste of time. Eight months wasted, when we should have been about the politics of Christ.
13 comments:
you are clearly wrong Ryan, and I will demonstrate with 10 reasons why Gay people should not be allowed to get married.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
*ok, I didn't make them up...
Focus on the Family is more like modern day crusaders... except for the killing everyone part. I wouldn't worry too much about their agendas, but then too many Christians read their propaganda more than the Bible.
On the other hand, if a church is going to base their teaching on the Bible, I don't see why they would or should allow gay marriages under their roof. The church should love and accept a gay person, but not necessarily condone/facilitate it.
Its when the government gets their greedy hands on marriage that everything turns into a war. If you ask me, they should have no part in straight or gay marriage. How's that for a Libertarian speach?
Oh yeah... love the comment next to Mandy on our blog link. I'm trying to transform her, but to no avail.
daniel,
the problem with your 10 witty points is that they do more to justify homosexuality as ok, than to condemn a hateful spirit toward homosexuals.
i don't think OVCC needed to pass this ammendment.
i don't think churches need to allow homosexual marriages in their buildings.
i do think Christians far too often are un-Christlike in their attitude toward those who practice homosexuality.
i do think those who practice homosexuality are sinning.
that's all i have to say about that.
oh yeah, ryan call me about leading a small group.
Daniel,
funny.
i laughed a lot.
Josh,
nice to see the your libertarian voice here...
maybe someday mandy will learn to use the computer too.
David,
i *think* i agree with all of your statements. almost.
but...what about people that are truly confused about their gender...hermaphrodites for example? would a 'woman' who realizes late in life that she is actually not exactly a woman be sinning if she pursued a relationship with a woman?
and how do you think anyone should live who has real gender issues? scientifically this is a real and suprisingly frequent problem...
do you think they are sinning no matter what choice they make sexually...can they make a 'right' choice? or are you of the 'abstinence' forever persuasion (as my husband currently claims to recommend for these groups)
so...ryan will be really happy to see five comments on his blog.
I think the ten witty points (which I unfortunately cannot take credit for) are not suggesting anything about what is or is not “ok” from a christian standpoint.
I think they are pointing out the clear logical flaws that have driven people to act legislatively based on religious beliefs.
I on the other hand (not the witty list of 10) will assert the following:
Scripture does far more to address our responsibility to uphold equal rights, and equal standing for all humans (be they righteous or wicked - enemy or friend), than it does to address the issues of human sexuality which we are facing *today*.
This responsibility to defend the equality of the powerless or underprivileged, especially applies to any kind of minority.
Regardless of a Christian's interpretation of scripture's posture toward a monogamous homosexual relationship, a Christian's first priority should be to address this from a human rights standpoint.
Marriage, like the sunshine and rain, seems to be offered by it's creator to all (pagan - priest - sinner - saint) regardless of a couple's ability to do it well. (see matt 5:45, luke 6:35)
*btw: I am hard pressed to find any passage in scripture which specifically, or clearly addresses a lifelong, committed, monogamous relationship between two men or two women (all sources indicate that this was simply not existent in the Pauline or Levitical World).
Scripture *does* seem to address sexual excess, orgies, marital unfaithfulness, self-degradation, and intentionally exchanging your true sexual nature for what is not your true sexual nature.
And even when it addresses these things (which are not even remotely similar to a monogamous homosexual relationship) it does so in a secondary (not the author's intended point) manner.
Scripture seems to be equally silent about those who have the hardware (genitals) from one gender and the software (dna, brainwave patterns, emotional makeup, etc...) of another.
We simply cannot pretend that gender definition is limited to the physical aspect (penis or vagina)
Combine that difficulty with the confusing sexual ethic represented in several thousand years of scripture, and hopefully you are ready to:
1) Address this issue with a huge amount of humility, and
2) a genuine effort to *listen* to the experience of those who love Jesus, honor scripture and are themselves gay.
In my observation, these two outcomes are not frequently occurring in the evangelical church.
Of greater concern to me (and others) is what seems to be a flawed understanding of
1) how people experience God's grace.
2) the limitation of our own interpretive efforts
3) the distinction between the authority of scripture, and the authority of the aforementioned efforts
4) how we are to "act out our mission or reconciliation" while living in a democracy.
ok, that's a long comment. So here is the most important point:
I think you are all great even when I disagree with you.
Quick Addendum for Josh:
Josh, I appreciate your thoughts on this. A lot of good would occur if churches adopted this approach.
Here's one thing to think about.
What exactly would a church be condoning or facilitating if it participated in a gay marriage?
It's probably not realistic to imagine frustrated homosexual couples unable to have sex because they can't find a church to marry them.
If they are pursueing marriage, they are probably already intimate, already co-habitating, and certainly already gay.
In my perspective a church would simply be condoning or facilitating there public statement of faithful love.
This is certainly a way to live that is *more* healthy than the promiscous lifestyle embraced by so many (gay or straight).
This seems like something valid to affirm.
There are some pastors who won't marry people who are non-christians. I can understand why *they* would not support gay marriage, but if you believe that marraige is one way that God expresses his love toward all of humanity, and graciously draws them toward true intimacy--I'm not sure it's right to withold it from anyone who truly desires to enter into it.
He said Penis.
Oh man, I didn't really want to get into a big debate... this subject has been debated enough. I don't have time to write my whole thesis, so I'll just answer you this. Sure, gays who want to get married are already doing the dance. I just don't think the church needs to encourage it. I think the mindset should be "we don't condone what you're doing, but you're welcome to hang out with us other sinners and worship our God of grace". Is it natural for these people to want the same sex? Si Senor, but its natural for me to want to do a lot of things too that I wouldn't expect the church to encourage. We are all striving to beat our flesh thorns and the purpose of the church is to have others around us who can help us with these things. Check this out:
Leviticus 18:22;20:13 (Do not freak out, I'm not saying we need to kill the homosexuals. The Old Testament is there for us to learn what God desires. Jesus came along to get rid of the death penalty for things like homosexuality and touching the wrong candle.)
Romans 1:18-32
I Corinthians 6:9-11
I don't expect to convert anyone to my opinions, Its just good to get my thoughts out. Its healthy, like mayonaisse. Thanks for prodding my lazy brain. Rock on.
...penis.
i agree with joshua. he makes good points.
i'm really only posting so i can be like others and type the word...
venus
Bravo.
Ryan,
Although she hasn't read your post, Willow has a comment:
"I love you. I really like to be with you. I miss you. I like you and I want to be at your house. I wish that today was May and I want to see the baby come out of Angela's tummy. I like her and I want to be at her house and she misses me and I miss coming to your house and I love Ryan. OK that's it. The end."
Was I worried that homosexuals would be pouunding on the door of OVCC asking for a slot to get married - no! I think they would most likely be disqualified when it came to the part about cohabitation anyhow so I wasn't too worried.
I was sort of taken aback by the way the discussion made it clear that we - as a group of Christians - don't know how to work through these types of issues without acting pretty "non-christian" in the process.
If you want to know more - you can read my humble efforts at: http://berealguy.blogspot.com/2006/01/marriage-policy-discussion.html
Post a Comment