Questions about the support of gay marriage

[Bruh]

I found these questions and thought a few people on here might have some answers.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

18. How would you define marriage?

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

24. If not, why not?

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me, the government is not in the business of legislating nor enforcing religious codes; they are should be in the business of civil liberties within Constitutional law. Marriage itself is not solely a religious practice as atheists and agnostics can marry. Marriage (as seen by the government) is a LEGAL contract between individuals which enable benefits, tax breaks, inheritance issues, etc.

With that in mind, regardless of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, it is NOT the government's job to determine that homosexuality is sin and same sex marriage should be excluded on the basis of religious belief. Seems like a lot of these questions you listed are trying to lead to that idea.

The basis for the SCOTUS case was a gay couple who were married legally in one state but lived in another. They had been together for decades and one of the men had ALS. The state in which they lived refused to recognize the marriage which kept the dying partner from receiving medical insurance from his spouse's umbrella. If they had been man/woman, there would have been no issue in getting the benefits but because the marriage wasn't deemed legal in a particular state, he was denied.

With that in mind, this issue became a matter of civil liberties, NOT a definition of morality. Sure, there are plenty of people on BOTH sides that view it as a moral issue (and it is moral on the grounds of equality for SSM partners to receive benefits of heterosexual married couples), but they are misleading in making people believe it is about government approval of immorality.

So the legalization of gay marriage TO ME is not about a moral code of ethics or the government's approval of what goes on in peoples' bedrooms but rather that of civil liberties of all individuals, even those with whom I disagree.

Now if you think SCOTUS is about bringing about a theocracy and upholding Biblical teachings of any religious stripe, you are mistaken. In that essence, the majority of questions listed are nothing more than a red herring.

 

[subllibrm]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me,  <snip>

He asked for a biblical defense. We get it, you approve of the SCOTUS decision.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me, the government is not in the business of legislating nor enforcing religious codes; they are should be in the business of civil liberties within Constitutional law. Marriage itself is not solely a religious practice as atheists and agnostics can marry. Marriage (as seen by the government) is a LEGAL contract between individuals which enable benefits, tax breaks, inheritance issues, etc.

With that in mind, regardless of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, it is NOT the government's job to determine that homosexuality is sin and same sex marriage should be excluded on the basis of religious belief. Seems like a lot of these questions you listed are trying to lead to that idea.

The basis for the SCOTUS case was a gay couple who were married legally in one state but lived in another. They had been together for decades and one of the men had ALS. The state in which they lived refused to recognize the marriage which kept the dying partner from receiving medical insurance from his spouse's umbrella. If they had been man/woman, there would have been no issue in getting the benefits but because the marriage wasn't deemed legal in a particular state, he was denied.

With that in mind, this issue became a matter of civil liberties, NOT a definition of morality. Sure, there are plenty of people on BOTH sides that view it as a moral issue (and it is moral on the grounds of equality for SSM partners to receive benefits of heterosexual married couples), but they are misleading in making people believe it is about government approval of immorality.

So the legalization of gay marriage TO ME is not about a moral code of ethics or the government's approval of what goes on in peoples' bedrooms but rather that of civil liberties of all individuals, even those with whom I disagree.

Now if you think SCOTUS is about bringing about a theocracy and upholding Biblical teachings of any religious stripe, you are mistaken. In that essence, the majority of questions listed are nothing more than a red herring.

Marriage didn't come from Atheists and Agnostics. Arraignment isn't defined by those who did not create it.

If you want a real solution... .I have one for you.

Stop giving tax breaks based marriage. Stop getting into the inheritance issue at all. States should stop issuing marriage license all together.

It has never really been about "gay marriage" anyway. It has always been about the money.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me,  <snip>

He asked for a biblical defense. We get it, you approve of the SCOTUS decision.

From my perspective, it isn't a biblical issue. Homosexuality exists beyond any marriage or union contract. If they would have recognized those citizen's rights and labeled it "union" instead of "marriage", I would have been fine with that instead. However, they decided to use "marriage". Hence, my response.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me, the government is not in the business of legislating nor enforcing religious codes; they are should be in the business of civil liberties within Constitutional law. Marriage itself is not solely a religious practice as atheists and agnostics can marry. Marriage (as seen by the government) is a LEGAL contract between individuals which enable benefits, tax breaks, inheritance issues, etc.

With that in mind, regardless of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, it is NOT the government's job to determine that homosexuality is sin and same sex marriage should be excluded on the basis of religious belief. Seems like a lot of these questions you listed are trying to lead to that idea.

The basis for the SCOTUS case was a gay couple who were married legally in one state but lived in another. They had been together for decades and one of the men had ALS. The state in which they lived refused to recognize the marriage which kept the dying partner from receiving medical insurance from his spouse's umbrella. If they had been man/woman, there would have been no issue in getting the benefits but because the marriage wasn't deemed legal in a particular state, he was denied.

With that in mind, this issue became a matter of civil liberties, NOT a definition of morality. Sure, there are plenty of people on BOTH sides that view it as a moral issue (and it is moral on the grounds of equality for SSM partners to receive benefits of heterosexual married couples), but they are misleading in making people believe it is about government approval of immorality.

So the legalization of gay marriage TO ME is not about a moral code of ethics or the government's approval of what goes on in peoples' bedrooms but rather that of civil liberties of all individuals, even those with whom I disagree.

Now if you think SCOTUS is about bringing about a theocracy and upholding Biblical teachings of any religious stripe, you are mistaken. In that essence, the majority of questions listed are nothing more than a red herring.

Marriage didn't come from Atheists and Agnostics. Arraignment isn't defined by those who did not create it.

If you want a real solution... .I have one for you.

Stop giving tax breaks based marriage. Stop getting into the inheritance issue at all. States should stop issuing marriage license all together.

It has never really been about "gay marriage" anyway. It has always been about the money.

It's almost ALWAYS about the money.

I actually see the point with your premise. However, I don't see how the egg can be unscrambled without destroying the economy. The number of uninsured would go crazy and medical costs would skyrocket.

 

[rsc2a]

The other option would be to treat it solely as a legal contract thereby allowing anyone (or any number of anyones) of sound mind and age of consent the option of legally joining together for purposes of inheritance, custody, medical responsibility, etc with a single approved document. This could be spouses, parents, siblings, roommates, friends, or whoever.

Taxes are easy. Divorce taxes from martial status and household type. Insurance is provided by employers, and those employers create whatever type of policy they choose (although I suspect it would quite similar to what we have now with a new rule limiting dependents to one other non-child adult).

For people that want the validity of marriage, they can find a church that will validate their union and, as such,  its dissolution is purely at the discretion of the validating institution and/or individuals. (Conversely, acceptance of this validation would also be at the discretion of other institutions/individuals.)

 

[Least of These]

The other option would be to treat it solely as a legal contract thereby allowing anyone (or any number of anyones) of sound mind and age of consent the option of legally joining together for purposes of inheritance, custody, medical responsibility, etc with a single approved document. This could be spouses, parents, siblings, roommates, friends, or whoever.

Taxes are easy. Divorce taxes from martial status and household type. Insurance is provided by employers, and those employers create whatever type of policy they choose (although I suspect it would quite similar to what we have now with a new rule limiting dependents to one other non-child adult).

For people that want the validity of marriage, they can find a church that will validate their union and, as such,  its dissolution is purely at the discretion of the validating institution and/or individuals. (Conversely, acceptance of this validation would also be at the discretion of other institutions/individuals.)

YES, this!!! ::standing ovation:: 

 

[Bruh]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me,  <snip>

He asked for a biblical defense. We get it, you approve of the SCOTUS decision.

DING DING DING DING DING!!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't have time to answer them all individually so let me put it this way.

For me,  <snip>

He asked for a biblical defense. We get it, you approve of the SCOTUS decision.

DING DING DING DING DING!!

Here you go: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Denying insurance or healthcare to an American citizen who cannot receive spousal benefits when it is available to my family because I am heterosexual is discriminatory. Hence, support for the CIVIL RIGHTS extended by the legalizing same sex marriage.

There's your biblical defense.

Oh, I think those questions are a matter of the support of homosexuality, not SSM. Not having a marriage license from the state does not prohibit gay sex in any way. It's gonna happen with or without state license. Again, the questions are misdirecting.