Evidence for God from Science

Specifically concerning the issue of gay marriage...what is the Christian's political responsibility?
This is not an issue of whether homosexuality is sinful despite overwhelming biblical indication that it is...let's not even get into that. I only want to discuss the politics of it.
Do we have a right to fight for our moral agenda in the civil realm? If so, on what grounds?
If it were possible to seperate the issues of gay marriage and gays' right to adopt, what effect would that have on your views concerning this issue?

I do intend to present my views on this issue...but I won't right now for want of time and because I would rather see some other opinions first.

I would stress that a 'gay marriage' is something like a 'square circle'. The adjective is meaningless unless you redefine the substantive -- and then the substantive becomes meaningless!

Americans (& Dutchmen too) certainly have a right to fight for their moral agenda. The right is protected in the First Amendment. If Liberals have that right, so do Christians.

If it were possible to separate those two issues, I'd try to veto them both, but if gay 'marriage' is in the background (because it's already accepted) and gay adoption is the issue quibbled over, I'd focus on that.

It can be said that a Christian should not assert Christian injunctions on another who is not a Christian. If I choose to live according to Christ's commands, then that is my choice - and it may equally not be the choice of another to do so. We would each have that choice and shall eventually be held accountable for it - at least, according to the Christian.

However, if we are to live side by side in the same society, then there is the necessity for some agreement on how that society is to be ordered. What laws shall apply to both of us equally, and what foundation beliefs are these law to be based upon? This is where there is room for debate. We may both, Christian and non-Christian, decide that murder is wrong and outlaw that without any disagreement. Same with rape, and with theft and with the necessity of schooling for youngsters between certain ages. In other words, there will likely be a whole raft of laws upon which we can easily agree to uphold.

But then there will be differences as well. As a Christian I may say that marriage can be legitimate only between a man and a woman who are not brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc, etc. The non-Christian may say that marriage should be legitimate bewteen two consenting men, or two consenting women. I could claim whatever grounds I wish, just as could the non-Christian. The disagreement we have sets up a situation requiring resolution. We each argue our case based on whatever grounds we choose to support them.

Now I see that, as a Christian, I have no reason NOT to present a case for disallowing gay marriage. I know that my non-Christian opposer does not want to be bound by my views, but equally, I do not want the society I live in to be bound by his views - to be a place where gay people can marry and have legal and supposedly moral legitimacy afforded to their relationship. With that outcome is likely to be the flow-on allowance for adoption of children and teaching them that gay lifestyles are normal and morally acceptable, and that may well be anathema to me.

So I say that the Christian does indeed have a right to express a point of view, and to assert lawful means for protecting society from moving away from such a point of view. At least, this is so in a democratic society where supposedly the majority vote holds sway. Equally, the non-Christian who sees nothing wrong in allowing gay marriage may also assert the same lawful means for protecting society from moving towards my point of view. It is therefore beholden on both of us to work toward some kind of compromise, or in failing to achieve one, to democratically assert our own influences. And may the better view (which I would steadfastly and unashamedly claim to be mine - or else I would not hold to it) win!

Turgonian wrote:I would stress that a 'gay marriage' is something like a 'square circle'. The adjective is meaningless unless you redefine the substantive -- and then the substantive becomes meaningless!

In 1776 marriage was considered a sacred bond between one man and his property (aka...his wife).

In the 1850's (in many states) marriage was considered a sacred bond between two white people.

In the mid 1900's marriage was considered a sacred bond between two people of the same race. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... oving.html (I'll edit this post with sources for the rest at another time)

The definition of marriage has changed a lot in two hundred years. Whether the state changes the definition of marriage, that doesn't mean that the church has to.
In many countries (for instance, France) the state first has to recognize a couple as married before they are actually married in ceremony.

When do we consider two people married...when the state says they are or the church?
If we say "when the church considers them married"...that brings up a hundred more questions. If we say "when the state considers them married"...well...I'd say that leaves a lot of questions to be asked.

Anyway...not trying to make an argument. I don't even necessarily disagree with you...just picking your brain. Wanted to see/hear some opinions.

Well put Judah!!!

Mr. Hyde, things already went wrong in 1789, with the French Revolution. I conservatively stick with the old idea of marriage: a covenantal relationship between one man and one woman.

Marriage may be confirmed by the state or by the church (or both). Marriage is no less real when confirmed by a secular authority. And in the Western world, even when you marry in church, it is customary to let the state confirm the marriage too.

In the Great Commission, we are to make disciples of "all nations", not just individuals. That includes their politics as well. The prophets in the Bible had no withholding about directly approaching civil leaders who disobeyed God's Law. (Samuel-King Saul, Nathan-King David, John the Baptist-King Herod, etc.)

The Bible gives specific commandments to civil governments. They are to be God ministers to do good and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1-4). To the extent that a civil leader fails in this regard, he is unfit for office.

Mr. Hyde,

Your argument is irrelevant. The State does not define marriage. The Word of God does. Therefore, even if a state allows gay marriage, it is no less an abominable crime in God's court.

The state allows for abortion. But in God's eyes, both the woman and her hired killer are murderers. The State is not the final authority on morality. God is.

The Word of God does not forbid inter-racial marriage or apply it to a certain race. It does restrict it to a man and a woman.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

puritan lad wrote:In the Great Commission, we are to make disciples of "all nations", not just individuals. That includes their politics as well. The prophets in the Bible had no withholding about directly approaching civil leaders who disobeyed God's Law. (Samuel-King Saul, Nathan-King David, John the Baptist-King Herod, etc.)

The Bible gives specific commandments to civil governments. They are to be God ministers to do good and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1-4). To the extent that a civil leader fails in this regard, he is unfit for office.

The word used for "all nations" is one of people groups, not specifically national entities.

The passage in Romans was written at the time of Roman occupation which was an instrument of persecution for Jews and Christians. It's revealing in that context that the government referred to which Christians were to be subject to, was decidedly un-Christian. Christ in his references to government eschewed elevating political reform over the true purpose of His Kingdom which was Spiritual.

A good portion of how Christians view this today ties into eschatology.

I certainly agree that Christians should exercise their influence in terms of civil government where they can. I think there is a question of priorities and I wonder at times, in the context of the US where I live now, if certain segments of Christianity haven't crossed the line in terms of heeding Christ's admonition an example to keep His kingdom as the priority.

It's a fine line to be sure.

puritan lad wrote:Mr. Hyde,

Your argument is irrelevant. The State does not define marriage. The Word of God does. Therefore, even if a state allows gay marriage, it is no less an abominable crime in God's court.

The state allows for abortion. But in God's eyes, both the woman and her hired killer are murderers. The State is not the final authority on morality. God is.

The Word of God does not forbid inter-racial marriage or apply it to a certain race. It does restrict it to a man and a woman.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

To address your first statement...yes...I agree that the Word of God defines marriage, not the state. That was my point, actually. Even if gays are given the right to "marry"...it doesn't really matter because God's definition of marriage is not dependent upon the state's. The way I see it...marriage by the state is just a formality.

I usually don't like to keep abortion and homsexuality on the same political plane...but the point you make with it is relevant. My entire point is that the state's definition of morality means nothing. That is not to say that certain things must be fought on a political level. Abortion needs to be fought on a political level because it is not an issue of giving a person the freedom to exercise their privilege to sin if they choose; it is an issue of lives being taken. Can you demonstrate how homosexuality needs to be fought on the political level (from a Christian perspective, of course)?*

Your third statement I also agree with. I think that perhaps I didn't make my questions clear enough when I first stated them. All-in-all...I really just want evidence that it is necessary for Christians to fight gay marriage within the poltical realm.


*I am not asking this question in a condescending or argumentative fashion. I am asking as a person who is looking for a reason.

Light and Salt, not Sugar.

Issues like Gay marriage and Abortion are no brainers for Christians in politics.

puritan lad wrote:God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Oh, well put!

Mr. Hyde,

I'll go into more detail later, but the Great Commission is meant to apply the Word of God to all areas of life, and that includes politics. That is what it means to be light and salt. John the Baptist got political with sexual immorality, and it cost him his head. Today's churches, in contrast, are afraid of losing their tax exempt status.

Now, having said that, our battle isn't solely political. We need to remember who is on the throne.

I think that John the Baptist got political in a very different sense of the word though.
He wasn't calling for laws against sin...he was calling for a change in the hearts of the people...not in the state.
Also...the church and the state were not exactly separate like they are now, correct? Calling for a change in the state back then would have been justified because it was calling for a change in the church.

I suppose I should do some reading on what exactly the government consisted of in the times of John the Baptist. If I made any historical mistakes in this post...please point them out.

Now...you mention the "Great Commission". Here is the Great Commission:
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."(NIV)

Three commands are given to us:

1. make disciples...

2. baptiz[e] them...

3. teach them to obey everything [He] has commanded [us].


Jesus says "all nations"...but I'm not sure He meant "all governments". Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Jesus not referring to the people within the nations, not the state? Again...I don't mean this in an argumentative way. If you can show me that I am misinterpreting anything, please show me. I'm sure that many (if not most...if not all) of you have more knowledge in these issues than I have. I am simply saying how I have view things and I trust that you would show me any false views that I have.
In short...concerning the issue of the "Great Commission", I disagree with your statement based on my understanding of it (it actually refers to both your statement and the Great Commission itself). I will say more later, if you wouldn't mind.

Mr. Hyde wrote:I think that John the Baptist got political in a very different sense of the word though.
He wasn't calling for laws against sin...he was calling for a change in the hearts of the people...not in the state.

Mr. Hyde,

I'm preparing a detailed response, but I wanted to address this portion of your statement.

If the state isn't supposed to make laws against sin, what kind of laws are they supposed to make? Would you feel the same way about pedophilia or beastiality? What about a man marrying his grand-daughter (or grand-son)? Once the state opens up marriage to gays, where does it stop? I posted to article links on my blog, one of a man in the Netherlands marrying two women, and the other of a girl marrying her dog. What next?

See The Marriage Amendment

I'll have more later, but if we don't hold our civil governments fast to God's laws, we are an accursed nation.