Calling all Evangelicals...how would you respond to this?

[Maestro232]

So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

While I appreciate Ron Paul's pro-life stand (I really do), there is still a significant problem for him when it comes to our nation's sexual confusion about the creation order. In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has said there should be "no limits" to the "voluntary definition" of marriage. He has said that he is supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want. This is beyond naive -- an orgy is a voluntary association, and sinners want to call it any number of things other than what God calls it -- an occasion for some brimstone.

Because marriage involves property, and heirs, and dependent children, the civil magistrate will necessarily be involved. For example, Solomon adjudicated the custody fight between the two harlots over the baby. Marriage in a republic like ours cannot be reduced to something as easy as a boy and girl in second grade deciding to "like" each other. Whatever the definition of marriage will be, because of the ownership/custody issues that are the necessary ramifications of sex, the civil order will have to add its amen (or not) to that definition of marriage. And if the state is proposing to add its amen to any voluntary definition of marriage, no limits whatever, then I have to confess that I have never heard anything scarier (or dumber) in my life.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I would explain to him, that marriage existed prior to government involvement.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul said he would deal with those issues inside the other laws. At least, at the Des Moines Register when they said marriage impacted tax laws he said he'd probably deal with that by changing the tax law. He doesn't think people should pay income tax as a matter of principle, even though it isn't his immediate target, and he certainly doesn't think tax law should be used to incentavize behavior in areas not the government's to regulate.

However MY response is that inheiritance laws etc are supposed to reflect society's typical wishes, not dictate norms.

 

[CaptUSA]

Which is why you want this decision made as locally as possible, Pastor. The further away this civil order exists, the less influence you have upon it. Your voice gets smaller and smaller with the more people you add into it. The Founders understood this. What you are hearing from Ron Paul is not what you are inferring. He doesn't want the State - The federal government - to add its amen to any definition of marriage.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Did that moron seriously bring up Solomon, he of like 700-something wives, in his defense of one man, one woman marriage?

Has he ever read the Bible? I'm not really kidding.

In any event, Ron wants government out of marriage. Period. No sanction of straight, gay, or polygamist marriage.

I'm not an evangelical, though. Take that into account.

 

[tremendoustie]

So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

My response is: No, the government will not have to add its "amen". That's the whole point -- marriage is not defined by the government, but by God. It was a bad idea, and a hubristic usurpation, for the government to get involved in it in the first place.

Ron Paul does not propose to add his, or the government's "amen" to any arbitrary definition of marriage -- he's proposing that the government stay out of the business entirely. Such involvement is as dangerous as the idea of a secular government imposing a definition of "salvation", "faith", or "sin" would be. We shouldn't seek to make sure they define it properly -- we should stop them from acting like it is within their power or their jurisdiction to define it at all.

 

[pebcak]

As an evangelical myself, I can accept Ron Paul's stance on the basis that the only reason government has any role in marriage at all is for tax purposes, and that they provide a nice and tidy contract which two people agree to. The problem is not marriage, it is government's role. If we eliminate the income tax, much of that goes away, and it boils down to just a contract between two people. Why shouldn't any number of people be allowed to enter a contract? They do it all the time. But marriage itself is religious and takes place in a church, ordained by God. We shouldn't confuse marriage with what government has turned it into, which subsidizes and rewards marriage. People of the same sex are looking to benefit from these same subsidies. Eliminate the subsidy, and suddenly there's nothing left to argue about. Everyone is free, and Christian marriage is still Christian marriage.

 

[Maestro232]

I know Ron Paul wants Gov out of marriage. The question is, how do you interact with the objection raised.

 

[Cody1]

Exactly, and I hate to break some hearts but there are more important issues in the country than the definition of what marriage is. SSSOOOORRRYYY!

 

[A. Havnes]

So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

For one, just because Ron Paul knows that the federal government cannot be involved in marriage (although you should point out that RP is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act), that doesn't mean that I could step outside, decide I like my dog and marry her!

The church will be in charge of marriage, which is as it should be. Heaven forbid the president can dictate what marriage is and is not while the church is handcuffed and unable to stand against this. If a church wants to marry homosexual couples, then you don't have to support that church. This pastor would be able to put his foot firmly down against any coupling he doesn't approve of, voluntary or not.

Given that this pastor calls an orgy "an occasion for some brimstone," it would seem to me that he's in favor of strong laws regarding sexual conduct (I'm a Christian Universalist, by the way), but what he doesn't realize is that laws preventing homosexuals from being married isn't going to make homosexuality go away. Under a Ron Paul presidency, if he thinks that it's his job to preserve the sanctity of marriage and allow only a man and woman to marry, then he's free to do so. The government isn't going to tell him that he has to marry homosexuals.

Imagine this: say you get a social conservative in the oval office who sets a precidence by signing a law stating that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Great for this guy, right? Well, what happens if a social liberal takes office after him and changes the law so that the church cannot refuse to marry homosexuals? Then the church is bound, by law, to participate in something it finds morally abhorrent. It isn't good for the church to be bound to the federal government like that.

 

[tremendoustie]

I know Ron Paul wants Gov out of marriage. The question is, how do you interact with the objection raised.

Please read my response. His objection is misinformed, because he assumes the state is going to give their "amen" to arbitrarily defined marriages. That's not what Paul is proposing. He is proposing that the state give no "amen".

I really think that if you send him what I wrote, it will be received very well.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

edit: above poster answered for me.

 

[agorist ninja]

I would explain to him, that marriage existed prior to government involvement.

Bingo. That's really the death blow to these types of marriage arguments.

As Tom Woods points out, it was the French Revolution (a decidedly modern liberal event), where marriage widely became a province of government. Why do so-called conservatives end up defending liberal positions, just because they were enacted long ago? Throughout the vast majority of Christianity's history, no one would have ever dreamed of anything but the church being involved with the sanctioning of their marriage.

That's the question with which to respond.

 

[Maestro232]

Marriage is not defined by the government, but by God...Such involvement is as dangerous as the idea of a secular government imposing a definition of "salvation", "faith", or "sin" would be.

Interesting. I like this.

 

[Miss Annie]

Ron Paul is running for the office of President, not applying for the job of Pastor. The pastors should teach morality and the government should stay out of it.

 

[jmdrake]

Did that moron seriously bring up Solomon, he of like 700-something wives, in his defense of one man, one woman marriage?

LOL. And 300 of them weren't even "wives". They were concubines. The interesting reality is that the way current trends are going what David, Solomon and Abraham did (polygamy) will continue to be illegal while gay marriage will eventually become "legal". Evangelicals are naive on this point. The only way to "win" the culture war is to quit trying to fight it. The more the federal government is empowered on this issue the more likely it is to impose a definition of marriage on everybody that evangelicals can't accept.

Has he ever read the Bible? I'm not really kidding.

Many people have a very superficial understanding of the Bible. How many people, for example, then the term "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" is in the Bible? It might be a true, it might not be true, but it's not biblical.

In any event, Ron wants government out of marriage. Period. No sanction of straight, gay, or polygamist marriage.

I'm not an evangelical, though. Take that into account.

I hate sometimes to admit it, but I fit the "technical" definition of being an "evangelical". I've always, however, found political evangelicalism to be wanting. Chuck Baldwin is the only exception I've allowed to that rule.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

For one, just because Ron Paul knows that the federal government cannot be involved in marriage (although you should point out that RP is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act), that doesn't mean that I could step outside, decide I like my dog and marry her!

The church will be in charge of marriage, which is as it should be. Heaven forbid the president can dictate what marriage is and is not while the church is handcuffed and unable to stand against this. If a church wants to marry homosexual couples, then you don't have to support that church. This pastor would be able to put his foot firmly down against any coupling he doesn't approve of, voluntary or not.

Given that this pastor calls an orgy "an occasion for some brimstone," it would seem to me that he's in favor of strong laws regarding sexual conduct (I'm a Christian Universalist, by the way), but what he doesn't realize is that laws preventing homosexuals from being married isn't going to make homosexuality go away. Under a Ron Paul presidency, if he thinks that it's his job to preserve the sanctity of marriage and allow only a man and woman to marry, then he's free to do so. The government isn't going to tell him that he has to marry homosexuals.

Imagine this: say you get a social conservative in the oval office who sets a precidence by signing a law stating that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Great for this guy, right? Well, what happens if a social liberal takes office after him and changes the law so that the church cannot refuse to marry homosexuals? Then the church is bound, by law, to participate in something it finds morally abhorrent. It isn't good for the church to be bound to the federal government like that.

This.

This is about the Church standing up for itself, when it comes time for them to decide whether or not to marry the couple. The idea here, is that the government cannot be used as a weapon to boss the church around.

 

[69360]

Yet another false christian with a narrow view of the world. God loves everyone just as he created them.

Any two people can enter into any contract and call it whatever they like. The only role of government should be to enforce or dissolve that contract.

 

[Maestro232]

Exactly, and I hate to break some hearts but there are more important issues in the country than the definition of what marriage is. SSSOOOORRRYYY!

Well...this commentator also said in the same article...

My issue has to do with the distinction between what is a threat to our security and what I regard as the ground of that threat. If catastrophe comes to us, I am strongly inclined to believe that it will be an economic catastrophe. America is much more likely to be a suicide than a murder victim. If this happens, it will God's just and righteous judgment upon us. If it happens, we deserved to have it happen. That's how judgments work. And while the catastrophe has not yet happened, the reasons for it have.

I would regard the ground of that catastrophe to be our sexual rebellion against God's created order. That sexual rebellion includes the abortion carnage, the full-court sodomite press for gay marriage, women in pulpits and in the cockpits of fighter planes, the porn epidemic, the divorce rates, and so on. If it is right for us to question Newt Gingrich's reliability based on his inability to keep his marriage vows, and it is, by the same token, it should be right for us to question America's reliability based on our rampant sexual confusions. We break promises, we sleep around, and we dismember the inconvenient by-products of our pursuit of sexual pleasure. The penumbrae of the Constitution are conveniently arranged by us to shelter our dirty deeds. At the same time, we have arranged no shelter of any kind for the young Americans who may be constitutionally sacrificed on the altars of our orgasms. This is, I believe, the heart of our disease, the heart of our sickness -- egalitarianism, hedonism, perversion, and every other form of pomosexuality.

So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.

 

[eloquensanity]

You can't legislate repentance. It has to be genuine from the individuals heart.