How Supporters of Gay Marriage Should Debate Christians

I am a Christian. I support same-sex unions.

I think there is a huge need for a change of focus from the supporters of SSU*, that will appeal to Christians directly in a way that switches the angle that is currently obviously not working at all. The solution is to make the issue a “render unto Caesar” issue, rather than an issue about love.

In the passage of Matthew 22:15-22 (quoted here), a cluster of people approach Jesus with the purpose of tripping him up on his own words — but Jesus responds sensibly and dispels their trick by establishing that there is a difference between what is man-governed and God-governed, and that if Caesar demands tax, the tax is paid with coins with Caesar’s face on them.

The biggest problem with the Christian “man and woman” marriage being scripture-prescribed is that the state requires a license for marriage, making marriage become a Caesar issue, rather than a God issue. Before you were able to be married, did you sign a document that you were married under the authority of the State-Of something? Doesn’t the person who conducts the marriage ceremony say, “By the power that is vested in me by the State of—” and therefore, isn’t that marriage therefore a matter of Caesar, and not a matter of God?

An authentic Christian marriage would be an exclusively God-seeking, God-governed union between the two that is under the authority strictly of God and no other.. ESPECIALLY not under Caesar. To suggest that Caesar must reconcile with God’s plan for marriage COMPLETELY UNDERMINES Christ’s teaching that matters of God and matters of Caesar are separate.

By suggesting that marriage is defined as one man and one woman by scripture, Christians seem to suggest that the matter is a God issue — but then they simultaneously claim that Caesar should only allow marriage between one man and one woman, making it a Caesar issue. Christians cannot “serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24) either, according to their own scripture.

~

As an aside, my personal solution for the problem is to eliminate any government authority over marriage completely, so that the state becomes SILENT on the issue entirely. No marriage licenses and no special treatment for pairs of individuals. Not only is the tax code that benefits people of a specific type of union unfair to gays, but it is also unfair to SINGLE PEOPLE who should be treated equally under the law as married people of any kind. This would admittedly gum up matters of naturalization that rely on marriage between citizens and immigrants (among other subjects), but it would more appropriately align with a constitutionally-sound legal system.

* (using SSU to mean same-sex unions, as a catch-all not limited strictly to gay marriage)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “How Supporters of Gay Marriage Should Debate Christians

  1. That’s real great and all, but the thing that most Christians see isn’t the fact that it has to do with the law. It’s the fact that homosexuality is a sin. Period. There’s no getting around it. It doesn’t really have to do with them getting married, it’s that them getting married furthers the acts of homosexuality.

    There’s that famous quote that says, “What Would Jesus Do?” that I think some Christians have tossed aside since everyone started using it. Do you HONESTLY think Jesus would have anything to do with homosexuality? Does it further the Kingdom of God? No. It does not. It’s an abomination. That’s not to say that He wouldn’t LOVE gays. God loves people. He hates sin. But guess what:

    “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    Notice the key word here: “were.” Being no longer homosexuals, since you were washed in the blood of Jesus. No longer engaging in the sins that you used to because you follow Jesus now.

    You can’t serve two masters. You either hate one or love the other. That goes for homosexuals too. Is your homosexuality (which is a sin) getting in the way of your following of God? Is it ruling your life? That’s what that verse means. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the government and God. It has to do with anything: video games, the internet, your drinking, your car obsession, your money. Is money taking up most of your life? Are you worrying too much about it? Are video games running your life? Is it getting in the way of your prayer time with God? If not, then I wouldn’t worry about it, but if so, maybe you need to have better time management or do something about it and get that right with God.

    The interesting thing about the Bible is that it doesn’t mention ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, about two men or two women being married. It only mentions a man and woman. It tells how a woman should be a servant to her husband and a man should love his wife.

    “Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-16

    I see nothing concerning two husbands or two wives. Only a husband and wife. And if you’re feeling goofy, and wanting to twist the words around in this verse, don’t try it. The use of the words ‘his’ and ‘her’ are very clear and doesn’t mean a man considering his gay partner his wife. It means a MAN and a WOMAN, BOY and GIRL, MALE and FEMALE.

    One last neat thing. God made us opposites for a reason. I can’t tell you how many times my gay friends have broken up, gotten back together, broken up, and gotten back together with their homosexual boyfriends or girlfriends. You know why that is? It’s because men and women balance each other out and God made us that way for a reason. None of my homosexual friends have ever had a relationship last longer than a month. There’s a big reason for that and no, I’m not over exaggerating.

    This is what happened when people wouldn’t listen to the Lord and practiced homosexuality:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV

    TL;DR: He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for not listening to Lot when he warned them to not engage in homosexuality.

    Thank you for your time and understanding of my opinion, fellow Christian.

    • I’m not sure you really actually read anything I wrote, because you went off on a giant off-topic tangent about homosexuality, and that’s not at all what I’m talking about.

      Whether one set of scriptures thinks Billy and Jeff can’t be a couple is completely, completely irrelevant. You can list rules and rules out of every sect of every religion and none of them would be relevant. The American government does not have the duty of enforcing or recording sin. Sin is a matter between the individual and God, and between no other. To suggest that the government should have the duty of the judge, is to REPLACE God with earthly government, and change your allegiance from Him to man. To avoid this adultery, married people must place the holiness of their marriage SQUARELY upon God and no other — which means no government involvement whatsoever.

      The American government is an earthly government with punishment limited to earthly boundaries — as a kind of Caesar as I mentioned in the original opinion — and Jesus asserts that tribute should be paid to Caesar and to God separately.

      The issue as I said in the article, is that if marriage IS a Godly enterprise as you suggest, then it DOES NOT enter the authority of earthly government, and is therefore ineligible to a matter of Caesar, for fear of serving two masters. If your marriage certificate has the “State Of” at the top, then you’ve signed your papers that the marriage is a Caesar issue and not a God issue. In order for Christians to legitimately claim their marriage is God fearing, there CANNOT be a state emblem over it. The government is not the judge.

      The state needs to be SILENT on the issue of marriage.

      • First off, your title says, “How Supporters of Gay Marriage Should Debate Christians”
        I did not read your blog as you intended it to be read and I don’t think other people will either.

        The fact of the matter is Christians aren’t looking at the government, as you suppose, they’re looking at what the Bible says about homosexuality. Which I clearly stated in my point. That homosexuality is a sin, as stated in scripture. That’s why most of us don’t agree with the marriage and why most of us are rooting the government on to be strictly between a man and woman.

        “An authentic Christian marriage would be an exclusively God-seeking, God-governed union between the two that is under the authority strictly of God and no other.. ESPECIALLY not under Caesar. To suggest that Caesar must reconcile with God’s plan for marriage COMPLETELY UNDERMINES Christ’s teaching that matters of God and matters of Caesar are separate.”

        This is where the rest of my verses came in about the Bible saying you WERE homosexuals, adulterers, slanderers, but now you’re not. A marriage that is obviously marrying of two homosexuals is not God-seeking and it’s not God-fearing. Marriage is holy; something God gave to us. This is a mere metaphor, don’t take this literally: it would be a lot like getting baptized as you’re committing adultery. That’s why Christians don’t agree with it, rather than how you think we do.

        “By suggesting that marriage is defined as one man and one woman by scripture, Christians seem to suggest that the matter is a God issue — but then they simultaneously claim that Caesar should only allow marriage between one man and one woman, making it a Caesar issue. Christians cannot “serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24) either, according to their own scripture.”

        After reading this, I quoted the scripture about how a marriage should be. That is between a man and woman, and ONLY a man and woman. Also the paragraph about sinning ruling your life, not necessarily having the government as your master or God.

        One last point, preachers more than likely aren’t going to marry two men or two women because they disagree with homosexuality, so technically, in all reality, this entire post’s point is moot.

        I think I stated my points quite clearly.
        Thank you for your time and understanding.

    • (in reply to your 2nd comment)

      The problem with your comments is that there is more than simply the Christian marriage. There is the Hindu marriage, the Muslim marriage, the Mormon marriage, the atheist marriage, and others. Marriage, from a government perspective, cannot be defined by a single religion’s rules — which is why government should be silent on the issue of marriage.

      You seemed to completely ignore the bit about scripture being rules of self-discipline, in that they have no jurisdiction in the realm of another other than the reader. If the marriage is under the governance and authority of God, then it has no place in a government that regulates both God-fearing and otherwise. Consider marital aspects of traditional east Indian arranged marriages with a dowry — could those rules be legislated under the federal government? No, and neither may restrictions held by Christian concepts. The rules for Christians govern Christians, not gays or otherwise tax-sheltering such as hetero roommates or brother/sister pairs or non-sexual pairs (such as I am).

      The rules for a Christian marriage, between Christians, govern strictly the Christian marriage. To suggest that the government should only recognize Christian forms of marriage is an insurmountably arrogant assertion. The rules for a Christian marriage do not govern the Hindu or the Muslim marriage, nor do they govern the homosexual marriage. They are established by their own respective authorities, not by a religiously-neutral government. For this reason, government needs to be silent on the marriage issue and offer no restriction on who can marry, for fear of legislating in favor of or representing a particular sect.

      To suggest that the government, a kind of Caesar, should govern the Christian marriage — is contrary to scripture. If God is truly at the head of it, then Caesar is not allowed to be the head of it simultaneously. If your marriage is stamped with the approval of Caesar before it is performed, you can claim all you want that it is God-fearing, but your paperwork describes precisely otherwise.

  2. Then maybe you should change the title of this blog post. 99% of this blog post is about the Christian marriage. If you wanna change the whole topic to be about other religion’s marriage practices, whatever. I’ve already proven my point quite clearly.
    Christians don’t want homosexual marriage. That was the whole point of this topic. Now you’re trying to bring in other religions when that’s not even the focus. I think the government should let them do whatever they want and, no, I don’t think the government should rule our lives.
    Also, you should try a different writing style. The one you’re using is quite redundant. (Just a tip.)

    Thanks again.

  3. Oh yeah.
    There’s a reason the government focuses on the Christian practices though. Because…hm, what did that old lady lecture to me in history class? Oh yeah, we were founded by Christians. That was the whole point of the founding of this country is to be able to freely practice Christianity without the government’s interference.

  4. Obviously it is God-fearing; if it’s a sin to have sex while unmarried, then you’re going to get married. You are following what God has told you to do, and if you have to sign some documents by the government to do so, then that’s what you do. If you have to go to the store to get some milk, then that’s what you do. It has nothing to do with the document having ‘legal’ or ‘State of _____.’ and it has nothing to do with grocery store having Brookshire’s or Wal-Mart across it.

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