Are those who oppose gay marriage but accept divorce simply hypocrites?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
  • Start date Start date
It is a false dichotomy to imply that we should look at the issue as a “beam and mote” problem. Are both issues worthy of critical analysis? Absolutely. Should we shut up about the onslaught of normalization of the LGBTQ agenda because there’s a problem with acceptance of divorce amongst evangelicals? Absolutely not.
 
Kirsten Powers took it further. In her USA Today column, she wrote that if people wanted to enshrine religious traditions governing marriage, then how about a law that "bans divorce except in the very narrow circumstances the Bible permits it."​

Your terms are acceptable.
 
There's no such thing as gay marriage. It can't be anymore hypocritical for a divorcee to point that out than it is for a divorcee to say there is no Santa Claus.
 
HukNduck said:

Are those who oppose gay marriage but accept divorce simply hypocrites? opinion

Christian advocates of traditional marriage are often criticized for defending our faith's definition of marriage while seemingly ignoring its teachings about divorce.
www.al.com www.al.com
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is not a marriage, never will be regardless of whatever laws you try to pass saying that it is!

Those taking a flippant attitude towards that which constitutes a REAL marriage is an entirely different matter.
 
Ekklesian said:
There's no such thing as gay marriage. It can't be anymore hypocritical for a divorcee to point that out than it is for a divorcee to say there is no Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

.
Hi. It's the dolt, here.

I realize that this won't mean much but you are one of the most foolish people I believe I have ever come across. And cetainly one of the most inconsistent.

If gay marriage is not real because God has said so, and if marriage is ordained between ONE man and ONE woman by God himself, then marriage is holy between those two people and one divorced for any reason other than the ONE His Son gave, is not really divorced in God's eyes and is in direct disobedience to Jehovah God, Himself. And therefore, it is hypocritical (if you want to use that word).

If you are divorced for any reason than the one that THE ONE gave, then you are an adulterer and according to I Cor 6:9 you will not see the Kingdom of God anymore than I will. You divorced and remarried people are no better than gay people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So if some adulterer, banned from the Kingdom of God, wants to say that Gay marriage isn't real, let him. Biblically speaking, it isn't. He'd be right.

.
 
Gringo said:
.
Hi. It's the dolt, here.

I realize that this won't mean much but you are one of the most foolish people I believe I have ever come across. And cetainly one of the most inconsistent.

If gay marriage is not real because God has said so, and if marriage is ordained between ONE man and ONE woman by God himself, then marriage is holy between those two people and one divorced for any reason other than the ONE His Son gave, is not really divorced in God's eyes and is in direct disobedience to Jehovah God, Himself. And therefore, it is hypocritical (if you want to use that word).

If you are divorced for any reason than the one that THE ONE gave, then you are an adulterer and according to I Cor 6:9 you will not see the Kingdom of God anymore than I will. You divorced and remarried people are no better than gay people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So if some adulterer, banned from the Kingdom of God, wants to say that Gay marriage isn't real, let him. Biblically speaking, it isn't. He'd be right.

.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about Jesus's commentary on rabbinical traditions in the Sermon on the Mount then ...

When Jesus said, Resist not (the) evil (perpetrated upon you), did He mean absolutely every evil deed being done to you?
 
“White man speaks with forked tongue.” That old Native American idiom, which I now believe is so applicable to many Christians who proselytize while openly living in sin. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to attempt to consolidate my response to this post.

First, I hate to tell you all this, but biblically speaking, it seems the gay atheist is the one being most honest about the topic. The reasons are obvious: it’s an inconvenient fact.

Yes, this topic has been on my mind lately. A couple of months ago my preacher essentially apologized for not preaching this taboo subject earlier. When the Lord burdens a preacher to speak on a subject, it must be done, even if it offends half the congregation. To do otherwise is to be in disobedience to God.

According to his sermon, there are only two reasons for which a marriage can become null and void in the eyes of God: death and continual, unrepentant adultery.

“We grew apart”…doesn’t fly.

“We fell out of love”…doesn’t cut it.

“S/he drinks, does drugs, is mean, etc.”…nope!

“S/hehad an affair,”…well, this one is a big maybe.

If your spouse had an affair, in the “Biblical order of operations,” the first task at hand is that of Christian restorative justice: prayer, counseling, and ultimately forgiveness. Moreover, there’s no biblical quota for the number of times this can occur before a divorce is acceptable. The only exception would be a man or woman who refuses to acknowledge the infidelity and a refusal of restorative action.

In a biblical sense, death or refusal of restorative justice hasn’t occurred, and a Christian has remarried, it is considered a false marriage in the eyes of God and perpetual adultery. To biblically rectify the problem, the person must do one of two things: stay single or divorce your current spouse and return to your God-ordained partner. Anything else is perpetual adultery.

This person should be allowed to attend church, but any leadership roles must be denied due to openly living in sin. As to the linked article comparing the Christian hypocrisy of divorce with that of gay marriage—of course two wrongs don’t make a right, but we still have two wrongs. Why is one beat on from the pulpit while the other is just an occasional whisper?

Hard, inconvenient truths.
 
it is true that choosing divorce and remarriage for a reason not justified by scripture is no less a sin than taking up a homosexual lifestyle... and if we are talking about why one - divorce for the wrong reasons followed by remarriage - should be accepted and legal while same sex marriage is not, i will say i believe both should be illegal...... ..neither one should be accepted by christians ....

but i will reiterate what i said before and try to put it in better detail..... . pointing out the inconsistency of one who started off trying to do the right thing but failed at it.. (for whatever reason)... and then fell into sin.... does not justify the actions of another who chose to do the wrong thing and live in sin from the start -

it often bewilders me how those who never darken the door of a church can make themselves think they know what goes on inside of one.... or believe that what goes on in one church goes on in all of them.... .. i caught criticism from both sides years ago when i left the church i had been a member of for many years after they decided to follow obamas edict against christian marriage and began performing gay weddings ..... but the one i am in now completely stopped performing all non-member weddings rather than succumb to government meddling

the alphabet soup activists called me an anti gay bigot and many on the far right said i should have stayed at the old church - taken up the cause for biblical marriage.. and fought it out in some futile attempt to keep the church in line... none of those people had ever driven past that church much less set foot in it.... what did they know about what went on there?. ..what would have been possible there.... or even what goes on in the one i am a member of now for that matter?....

and as for hucks repeat of the worn out and often misrespresented observation chief joseph made when the french broke a treaty they made - aren;t you and gringo both white men?......
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
and as for hucks repeat of the worn out and often misrespresented observation chief joseph made when the french broke a treaty they made - aren;t you and gringo both white men?
Click to expand...
I quoted the phrase, not Gringo, so please don’t lump us together for that reason just because he supported the idea behind the article. The point wasn’t race but rather I was drawing a parallel between Christians in an unbiblical marriage, yet actively attending church, leading Sunday school services, and other religious activities. (Oh, and for the record, I am mostly white, but I do have Native American ancestry on both sides of my family.)
 
HukNduck said:
“White man speaks with forked tongue.” That old Native American idiom, which I now believe is so applicable to many Christians who proselytize while openly living in sin. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to attempt to consolidate my response to this post.

First, I hate to tell you all this, but biblically speaking, it seems the gay atheist is the one being most honest about the topic. The reasons are obvious: it’s an inconvenient fact.

Yes, this topic has been on my mind lately. A couple of months ago my preacher essentially apologized for not preaching this taboo subject earlier. When the Lord burdens a preacher to speak on a subject, it must be done, even if it offends half the congregation. To do otherwise is to be in disobedience to God.

According to his sermon, there are only two reasons for which a marriage can become null and void in the eyes of God: death and continual, unrepentant adultery.

“We grew apart”…doesn’t fly.

“We fell out of love”…doesn’t cut it.

“S/he drinks, does drugs, is mean, etc.”…nope!

“S/hehad an affair,”…well, this one is a big maybe.

If your spouse had an affair, in the “Biblical order of operations,” the first task at hand is that of Christian restorative justice: prayer, counseling, and ultimately forgiveness. Moreover, there’s no biblical quota for the number of times this can occur before a divorce is acceptable. The only exception would be a man or woman who refuses to acknowledge the infidelity and a refusal of restorative action.

In a biblical sense, death or refusal of restorative justice hasn’t occurred, and a Christian has remarried, it is considered a false marriage in the eyes of God and perpetual adultery. To biblically rectify the problem, the person must do one of two things: stay single or divorce your current spouse and return to your God-ordained partner. Anything else is perpetual adultery.

This person should be allowed to attend church, but any leadership roles must be denied due to openly living in sin. As to the linked article comparing the Christian hypocrisy of divorce with that of gay marriage—of course two wrongs don’t make a right, but we still have two wrongs. Why is one beat on from the pulpit while the other is just an occasional whisper?

Hard, inconvenient truths.
Click to expand...
If your right eye causeth thee to offend...pluck it out.
 
HukNduck said:
I quoted the phrase, not Gringo, so please don’t lump us together for that reason just because he supported the idea behind the article. The point wasn’t race but rather I was drawing a parallel between Christians in an unbiblical marriage, yet actively attending church, leading Sunday school services, and other religious activities. (Oh, and for the record, I am mostly white, but I do have Native American ancestry on both sides of my family.)
Click to expand...
that;s ok..... i was attempting to make a somewhat humorous observation on how it was one "mostly" white man using a quote attributed to a native american chief in defense of another white man against a larger group, one of whom.. "me" ..is actually mostly native american.......... if that makes any sense..... ...i have a very weird sense of humor....

i could be as much as 3/4 navajo... depending on which.. if any ..of the lies my mother told about who my real father was is true.... but i am probably half.... the other half being hispanic.... and was born on the navajo reservation in arizona.. ..... but was raised for the first almost 10 years of my life in the barrio of east los angeles.... as a hispanic.... but since age 11 was raised in hawaii by a family who is white..from texas... and of mostly scottish ancestry.... i still live with them today..... so which.. if any... culture would that make me authorized to claim or make quotations from?..... :unsure:

i honestly don;t know...... :confused:
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
that;s ok..... i was attempting to make a somewhat humorous observation on how it was one "mostly" white man using a quote attributed to a native american chief in defense of another white man against a larger group, one of whom.. "me" ..is actually mostly native american.......... if that makes any sense..... ...i have a very weird sense of humor....

i could be as much as 3/4 navajo... depending on which.. if any ..of the lies my mother told about who my real father was is true.... but i am probably half.... the other half being hispanic.... and was born on the navajo reservation in arizona.. ..... but was raised for the first almost 10 years of my life in the barrio of east los angeles.... as a hispanic.... but since age 11 was raised in hawaii by a family who is white..from texas... and of mostly scottish ancestry.... i still live with them today..... so which.. if any... culture would that make me authorized to claim or make quotations from?..... :unsure:

i honestly don;t know...... :confused:
Click to expand...
Ironically, I just found out a few years ago that I also have Spanish ancestry. I was shocked when I found out, but through my dad’s efforts at tracing genealogical records back (thanks in part to a combination of various court house records and the internet), we clearly found ancestors directly from Spain). I found this very ironic and funny because I’ve heard plenty of derogatory Hispanic comments from years ago, and it was that part family from which the Spanish ancestry was traced from! We do have plenty of relatives with dark hair and olive/brown skin, so I’m not shocked at anything really. I’ve had plenty of Hispanic people walk up to me in Florida and begin speaking Spanish and then get a little embarrassed and say they just assumed I was Hispanic.
 
HukNduck said:
Ironically, I just found out a few years ago that I also have Spanish ancestry. I was shocked when I found out, but through my dad’s efforts at tracing genealogical records back (thanks in part to a combination of various court house records and the internet), we clearly found ancestors directly from Spain). I found this very ironic and funny because I’ve heard plenty of derogatory Hispanic comments from years ago, and it was that part family from which the Spanish ancestry was traced from! We do have plenty of relatives with dark hair and olive/brown skin, so I’m not shocked at anything really. I’ve had plenty of Hispanic people walk up to me in Florida and begin speaking Spanish and then get a little embarrassed and say they just assumed I was Hispanic.
Click to expand...
i sometimes wish i knew more about who my actual ancestors were and not just what their heritage was... ..but then other times i realize i might not really want to know..... tourists to hawaii frequently mistake me for being native hawaiian... especially if they hear me speak hawaiian or see me performing the hula.... i was heavily influenced by the hawaiian culture growing up here... ... and yet i am not any part native hawaiian - just dark skinned like they are....

for many years we attended the scottish festivals here where i learned to do a scottish sword dance... and for a few days each year during that festival i was dressed in one of the 2 traditional scottish outfits i have... ..one is the traditional regalia for a bag piper... (but i don;t play the pipes)... and the other is purple tartain what you typically see the sword dancers in the contests perform in.... (i don;t do the contests either).. .but i have performed the sword dance in both those outfits before... ... sadly we have not been to the festival since before the pandemic.... eventually we will start going again.... but it has changed since many of the old timers that kept it true have died off....

thing is....what our physical heritage is.... what we feel like inside.... what we choose to represent.. and what other people see us as - can all be vastly different things.... but we are not required to follow one over the other.. ... ... ..and it can be the same with other aspects of our lives too.... we are not required to be slaves to our temptations and drives ...and not beholden to follow some inner wrongful desire just because we were brought up the wrong way and taught this that or the other wrong things... any more than we are beholden to follow a certain pattern of culture just because the dna in our blood says we descended from this that or the other person.....we can choose other paths.... just being americans is supposed to give us that freedom and ability......

and by contrast salvation by grace through faith in Christ gives us the freedom and ability to obey God with regards to marriage and what lifestyle we choose to live and respresent as well..... .... but all of that requires denying self and actually listening to God.. not our inner temptations or desires.... things that are to be surrendered to God..... ..God doesn;t judge us based on what we wanted to do but repented from.... we are judged on what we did.. and what we continue to do.....

maybe too much to put into one post... but my mind tends to wander and run away sometimes...
 
Last edited:
Ekklesian said:
This is begging the question...Care to respond to post #9?
Click to expand...
You posted that in relation to Gringo’s post. I think Gringo is being literal in his response whereas I’m being metaphorical in using the gay marriage analogy. Obviously, from a Scriptural perspective, I could never approve of gay marriage. I do wrestle with it from a political perspective, that’s an entire different rabbit hole to get lost in, so I won’t go there.
 
HukNduck said:
You posted that in relation to Gringo’s post. I think Gringo is being literal in his response whereas I’m being metaphorical in using the gay marriage analogy. Obviously, from a Scriptural perspective, I could never approve of gay marriage. I do wrestle with it from a political perspective, that’s an entire different rabbit hole to get lost in, so I won’t go there.
Click to expand...
Thank you...we have enough "holes" here now! 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top