Would You?

Answer this question first, would you vote to support a bill that legalizes and confers all the rights of marriage on a homosexual relationship?

Now consider this:

1) In Christian circles, the spending of millions of dollars for a new gymnasium is often said to be justified if it helps lead just one person to the Lord (I wonder how many really do?). In fact, it is a commonly versed principle that most courses of action are justified in that they may lead one person to the Lord.

2) As Christians, we are called to be Christian first and Americans second. All of our actions should be filtered through the principles of our God before we filter them through the principles of our nation.

3) God only commands two things of New Testament Christians, love God and love others. These two statements are the fulfillment and original intent of the laws and the prophets statement.

Now, with all of this considered, would you vote for a support a bill that legalizes and confers all the rights of marriage on a homosexual relationship if it helped lead one person to the Lord?

We justify actions that fit our mindset with biblical principles, but are we possible ready to accept and act on actions that follow a biblical principle but do not follow our mindset?

9 thoughts on “Would You?”

  1. Three responses:

    1) Ignore that option and ask yourself, if it were to allow me better opportunity to reach homosexuals for Jesus, would I?

    2) If you will use that reasoning, how will building a new building help lead someone to the Lord? Are we saying He cannot use the old building? Are we saying that it is not the Holy Spirit that leads someone to the Lord?

    3) The real response to the question. Our Christian influence in the homosexual community has been hurt by zealots who go on TV and proclaim, "God hates Fags" (we all know this to be untrue), or teach their children to say "I have been taught right, I don't support homosexuals." Even though this does not represent a large part of Christiandom, it is what we are viewed as.

    This is perception is further supported by the not so subtle truth that pro-marriage laws are primarily supported by a christian conservative base. This knowledge alone distances homosexuals from Christians. If a homosexual knows that someone is demeaning their lifestyle, will they interact with that person? How then will we be able to interact with someone we cannot reach.

    I have not thought through this last point, but I think it is worth considering. It is not our job to hate others sin. God is the one who is to hate the sin, we are to love the sinner (owe no man anything but a debt of love). Further, since one sin is as bad as another, we might as well advance laws against gossiping. If we will be so spirited about one sin, why are we not about another? It is for God to judge men, it is for us to accept and love them for who they are and encourage them to be something else . . . of their own free will.

    1. 1. You can't ignore the question. Ok, so there may be less of the
      not-so-warm-fuzzies between Christians and militant homosexuals were
      Christians to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage. But first,
      based on things you've observed in our social activism growing up,
      what leads you to believe the militant homosexuals pushing for this
      will stop there? Second, the average homosexual probably already knows
      Christians or encounters them and does not have quite the same
      knee-jerk reaction the super-militant ones do. Basis for this is that
      in my own experience there is a significant difference between the
      militant homosexuals and the average normal homosexuals who may be our
      neighbors, workmates, classmates, &c. And it's unlikely the existence
      or non-existence of government-sanctioned homosexual marriage will
      change our relationship with our neighbors and coworkers.
      So no, I don't believe that argument stands up.

      2. Buliding a new structure may or may not be morally neutral. There
      may be legitimate need for it, and there may not be. The money and
      resources may be better spent in charity or someplace else. Each
      occasion of that decision occuring can be observed on it's own merits
      and a reasonable and good decision may be reached that may be
      different, but no less good, than the previous time it occured.
      Allowing the sanction of homosexual marriage by the legal and
      regulatory structures of a nation is not a morally neutral decision,
      and the response each time may be determined by a single decision,
      made once, and held to.
      You can be creative in reaching the world and spreading the good news
      of Christ and the necessary conditions of salvation. You cannot use
      immoral actions and systems to achieve God's goal.

      3. Show me where an accepted mainstream Christian leader or
      spokesperson has made such an outrageous statement in public media. If
      it had occured from someone not already marginalized by the majority
      of Christendom, it would be trumpeted from the rooftops.

      "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man will be lifted up, that He may draw men to Him."

      To attract people to Christ under false pretense (eg, an acceptance and legitimization of homosexual unions) is to cause greater harm than benefit.

      Christ is most honored and people are most drawn to Him through and honest and consistent application of the entirety of His will and word.

      There is no way I can support something that I know violates the law of God in order to try and win souls to Christ. It is not a valid or legitimate choice.

  2. Christians are quick to overlook the reality that marriage in the United States is a civic institution, not a religious one. "Protect marriage" laws are perceived by non-Christians as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government.

    1. I would argue that the civil institution of marriage is a civic recognition of a fundamental principle of humanity, be it defined by evolution, religion, or just because it's how the world works.

  3. WinteryKnight brings together data on, relationship duration, monogamy vs. promiscuity, relationship commitment, number of children being raised, health risks, and rates of intimate partner violence to illustrate further factual reasons, apart from religious reasoning or philosophy, people would support traditional marriage to the exclusion of other ideas.

    He concludes, among other things, this:

    "The goal of marriage is not to increase the happiness of the adults, or to “recognize” the love of adults. The goal of marriage is have two people enter into a relationship where they understand that it is not about adults being fulfilled. Marriage is about people having a goal of raising children, which are tremendously stressful to raise. Marriage requires self-denial and sacrifice in order to raise those children – that is the main point of it. It also requires fidelity and chastity, so that the environment is kept stable for the children over a long period of time."

    Just as people doing evil in the name of something does not prove that something not to exist, people not achieving the "perfect marriage" don't disprove the validity of the superiority and exclusivity of marriage to heterosexual couples.

    Here's the article:

    1. WinteryKnight compares apples to oranges. Longevity and promiscuity data for "heterosexual relationships" (both married and unmarried) would closely resemble the "homosexual relationships" data presented. A more useful comparison would involve data for married homosexuals from states where such marriages are legal.

Leave a Reply