Christians: Can you vote for gay marriage and still be true to your faith?

[silverlinkx2]

I was having this argument with my mom and a friend of mine about why I recently voted "no" on the gay marriage ban in my state. I said that I am a moderate Constitutionalist and thought that Federal/State governments had no right regulating marriage or saying who could or couldn't get married. I explained that I thought that gay marriage was wrong but in the interest of preserving freedom that we had to allow things we didn't like because America isn't a theocracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. I also mentioned that if God gave people the freedom to sin then what right did a people have to stop others from doing so? (unless it violated someone else's life/safety).

What do you guys think? (atheists/agnostics/Buddhists/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Rastafarians/Jedis encouraged to reply )

Edit: yea this topic should probably be moved, if a mod could help that would be nice thx

 

[Pennsylvania]

As a Jedi, let me say that until I found out Leia was my sister, I kinda had the hots for her, and am therefore unqualified to interfere where sexual attraction is concerned.

 

[SnappleLlama]

As a Jedi, let me say that until I found out Leia was my sister, I kinda had the hots for her, and am therefore unqualified to interfere where sexual attraction is concerned.

This is all kinds of win.

 

[Danke]

I recently voted "no" on the gay marriage ban in my state. I said that I am a moderate Constitutionalist and thought that Federal/State governments had no right regulating marriage or saying who could or couldn't get married.

You know you contradicted yourself?


You voted on government involvement in marriage.

For this particular issue, it was just "gay" marriage.

 

[McDonald]

I'm a born again Christian.

Marriage isn't dictated or authorized by government. Therefore, the government should have no role in marriage. This is how everybody wins. Then gays can get married (in their eyes), but I and 70% of other Americans don't have to recognize them as married. And contrarily, heterosexuals can get married, but the gays (or anyone else) doesn't have to recognize them as married.

As long as government gives us a license (which, in a way, is permission) to get married, then they are denying gays the right to get married (as it stands now), or forcing tons of Americans to recognize gay marriage (once the government "legalizes" it down the road).

So we should do what Ron Paul says: get the government out of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. When I made my vows, it was between myself, my wife, and the Almighty. I don't care if the government recognizes me as married, and I don't care if Adam and Steve from the Bay Area recognize me as married. I didn't even want to get a state marriage license but my wife wouldn't go along with it.



Ron Paul on gay marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

Ron Paul on gays in the military:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related


I know that gay marriage is a money maker for wedding business, but why is this in the economics section?

word

 

[silverlinkx2]

Ok first of all the ads on this site got super questionable the moment I posted this thread, so a warning to all of you about what kinds of threads you post

secondly I think it's an economic issue because if gay ppl can't get married then they don't get the insurance/tax/economic benefits that a straight couple would get. Suze Orman is a lesbian, and said that she couldn't stand that fact that if she passed away her partner would lose all of Suze's wealth to estate taxes bc they couldn't get married. (so i guess down with estate taxes!)

 

[McDonald]

cool.


I never understood this argument from the gays. I thought that Americans are allowed to enter into contracts (even ones that would allow me to leave my estate to a gay partner). Matter of fact, there was a story on Drudge a few weeks ago about some old dead chick that left her money to her annoying dog.

 

[Danke]

Ok first of all the ads on this site got super questionable the moment I posted this thread, so a warning to all of you about what kinds of threads you post

secondly I think it's an economic issue because if gay ppl can't get married then they don't get the insurance/tax/economic benefits that a straight couple would get. Suze Orman is a lesbian, and said that she couldn't stand that fact that if she passed away her partner would lose all of Suze's wealth to estate taxes bc they couldn't get married. (so i guess down with estate taxes!)

It is because the judiciary wants another revenue stream. Lawyers have been behind this push for gay marriage.

You have the right to contract. You don't need a marriage license that involves the State as a third party to that contract.

You can create a trust to pass along one's property (estate) to the beneficiaries (Orman in your example).

 

[moostraks]

Sticky wicket. I understand your rationale and can agree with your reasoning. I hate to use the voter box to be a legislator of my specific beliefs on morality and sometimes wish I could ignore my feelings of civic duty like the many anabaptists I associate with because of these issues.

I don't understand why it has to be marriage and not another term equal and representative of their own interests? We each choose our battles I guess.What they do in the privacy of their own lives is their own business and between them and their creator. The aggressive attitude they (as a group) have towards reallocating the term marriage makes me question the motives of those involved especially when an alternative is offered and it is dismissed so easily.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Sticky wicket. I understand your rationale and can agree with your reasoning. I hate to use the voter box to be a legislator of my specific beliefs on morality and sometimes wish I could ignore my feelings of civic duty like the many anabaptists I associate with because of these issues.

I don't understand why it has to be marriage and not another term equal and representative of their own interests? We each choose our battles I guess.What they do in the privacy of their own lives is their own business and between them and their creator. The aggressive attitude they (as a group) have towards reallocating the term marriage makes me question the motives of those involved especially when an alternative is offered and it is dismissed so easily.

Ah yes I agree absolutely. It seems like an intentional effort to subvert and corrupt the institution of marriage. If I was gay and I wanted to have a "life partner" I would get a civil union and just have some sort of ceremony to celebrate it or whatever. Marriage is a religious institution and I don't know why they want it so bad, but I hate to tell someone they can't "do" something because I always think "if I was x group/minority/orientation and I wanted to do y thing and someone told me I couldn't I'd be upset about it."

 

[ghengis86]

i think the government should only issue 'civil union certificates' with no prejudice. then, gay or straight, you can get your union sanctified by your religion, creed, whatever; some churches will recognize gay marriage, some won't. everybody has a choice

 

[UnReconstructed]

ads? what ads?

 

[silverlinkx2]

haha once i posted this thread all of a suddent the ads at the bottom of the page changed to gay dating site ads

 

[jpwilhelm]

Why does it matter if gays get married? How is it effecting you in any way, other than you just getting involved in other business?

Let them get married, why does anyone really care? It should be freedom for all not just straight Christians. If they want a paper that says they are married, let them have it. Let them have their benefits. It is no concern of mine at all. Peoples personal lives should not be public. All this ban crap is just bringing it out in public.
Just sounds to me like people have too much time on their hands.

Maybe the depression will be a good thing for this country, and all these Gladys Kravitz type people will get their priority's straight.

 

[TastyWheat]

Staying on topic, as a [bad] Christian I don't think God gave me free will so I could impose God's will upon others. The bible tells us to spread the word and teachings of Jesus Christ, but not to force people to adhere to them. It's all a case of the imperfect telling the imperfect how to live.

I do agree with Ron though, that this is not a government issue. The whole origin of marriage licenses was discrimination and apparently it's still holding true.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I will say it again. i disagree with the government being involved in marriage in anyway..leave it to the churches. Since it IS involved in marriage, and the issue has been forced on the ballots by gay activists, I am going to exercise my right to vote for the one man one woman amendment. I will always vote my concience, and I expect others to respect my right to it. tones

 

[mrkurtz]

Any branch of government has no business legislating any part of the private ceremony that is marriage.

We can thank overreaching legislation related to "marriage" that muddies up the issue: property rights, hospital visitation, tax relief, freedom of religion, and adoption. As we should agree, affording a set of people exclusive rights over others is against the tenets of a free society. So either rid them all, or give them to all.

 

[josephadel_3]

Well, if you're a Christian then you reject all forms of the state, and thus reject the banning of gay marriage. If you're a Christian, then you understand all governments are of Satan. When Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days, Satan tempted him. One thing he offered was all the governments of the world. Jesus didn't say, "Hey, wait a minute, those aren't yours to give." He understood that his kingdom was not of this world. Therefore, all governments are of the devil, according to Christianity. So, it's perplexing the amount of Christians who have been born into and still accept the ideology that we need government.

A Christian, one who follows Jesus Christ, would recognize the welcoming nature Jesus had for sinners. He ate dinner with the sinners, not the priests.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Being a "Christian" has no bearing on gay issues. Some manipulators try to make it a Christian issue, but it isn't. Polygamy was practiced in the bible. Must a Christian endorse polygamy?

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

 

[weatherbill]

Jesus will come and judge the homosexual

all liars, theives, adulterers, whoremongers and all who love and make a lie, their part shall be in the lake of fire which is the 2nd death"...revelation ch 19