I Voted “No.”


Photo from Getty Images


Seven years ago, I voted “no” against Florida Amendment #2.

Voting “yes” would’ve effectively banned gay marriage in the state.

I’ve never told anyone this in public before. At the time, I was working at a highly conservative church that would’ve fired me if they found out. In the end, they fired me anyway, at least partially because of some of my views.

I consider myself a conservation Christian with liberal leanings – though it does a great disservice to pigeonhole ourselves inside dichotomous categories, when people are much more complicated than that.


What I mean to say is, the Christian stance on marriage, and therefore everything else, requires a nuance far beyond checking a box or choosing a party line. It’s much bigger than voting “yes” or “no.” Sexuality is only one element in the journey of our human story.

I voted “no” on banning gay marriage because I couldn’t stand the thought of legislating morality on a personal choice. It took me a long time in the booth to think this over. Though I absolutely believe in the Bible and what it has to say about everything, I also believe the Bible isn’t meant to be a theocratic sledgehammer to dominate in the courts.

I’m a man happily married to a woman, and I believe “traditional marriage” is awesome. But it’s not a polemic against anyone else. The institution of marriage is not a prop for a platform: it’s a beautiful gift of an incredible adventure, and it’s not to be diminished as a vehicle to grandstand or go viral. It’s also not my job to enforce my worldview on you, just as much as we can disagree and still be friends.

This cannot primarily be about the “issues,” but about real people with real stories who really matter. I believe this doesn’t start in the court, but over coffee, where we can discover who we really are – and travel together.

The problem is that the right wing would yell, “You’re sugarcoating and watering it down and compromising.” The left wing would yell, “You’re still a bigot in disguise who believes in an archaic, outdated, hateful book.” I don’t know what to do with either of these statements. I just know I love Jesus, I love my wife, and I love you. Will you love me, too?

There’s going to be a lot of yelling. I beg of you: Please don’t buy into this reactionary cycle of dehumanization. It’s easy-mode to demonize the “opposition” and ridicule little quotes out of context. It’ll be easy to pick a side and throw grenades over the fence. This is the way it has always been, to violently dismantle those who infringe upon our platform and to puff up our own choir, and it will only get worse. I only beg of you that we each might be the ones who listen, learn, and lead. This is harder, but it makes us better in the end. Above all, I hope we would love as Jesus did, in both truth and grace, and I believe God will show up, as He always does.

— J.S.


Advertisements

29 thoughts on “I Voted “No.”

    1. Hey Cathy! You know, I thought about it, and I honestly don’t know. I can’t imagine how he would resign himself to a voting booth, which I guess is what I was trying to say, that voting in such a binary way is not productive. He seems more the engaging type than the voting/blogging/picketing type. He might’ve pulled another brilliant move like “Give to God’s what is God’s, Caesar’s what is Caesar’s.” What do you think? Would love to hear your thoughts.

      Like

      1. Hi J.S.
        If there is one characteristic you exemplify it is “love.” It is evident in your words and you place a special emphasis on it. God looks on the heart as we both know, however we live in a fallen world which ends up in relentless fights even as we try to love.
        As I read your post, I pictured your legs showing at the bottom of a voting booth beneath the curtain. The line is long waiting to vote behind you and you find yourself unable to vote so you stand there praying, pondering while everyone is wondering what you are doing in there? Kind of like waiting forever for a public bathroom stall.
        It wasn’t as if your heart wasn’t in the right place, but God ordained marriage through Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. We were a man and woman created in his image to procreate to fill the earth with his image. I don’t read anywhere in the Bible where God’s image is gay.
        When I was your age this discussion never happened. Marriage was defined by God and never questioned or talked about.
        Again reading and asking God for an answer here it would not have taken me 5 seconds to vote.
        If you remember Peter said, “We are to obey God, not man.” The Supreme Court, President nor any American politician have any resemblance of God right now.
        God is the God over governments and sets them according to his will. But that doesn’t mean we are to disavow ourselves from his word. If it comes down to choosing, God should always be our choice.
        When Jesus came to the rescue of the woman caught in adultery, (I still wonder where the other half was in this crime) he blew the Pharisees away with “go ahead and throw the first stone since you are sinless” and as they quickly sped away into Neverland he comforted her and said, “go and sin no more.” He didn’t say go and when you sin again I will forgive you again. He first showed his love and then gave an instruction.
        If there is any blame to go around in this mess we have created it is the church. Had people voted as God willed, we would not be confronted by a SC redefining marriage and implementing health insurance God never said our tax dollars were supposed to pay for. God makes it clear if we are taxed those funds should be first for military or to protect ourselves, infrastructure and to pay those who govern according to God’s will. This filters into the gay marriage issue also because how far will they go to expect benefits now? Do you like paying for abortions? Or fraudulent welfare recipients? I don’t and God never decreed it because it is evil.
        The core of this is the fundamental separation of church and state which is not a law, and never has been. I blogged about this and yet the words in a letter from Thomas Jefferson became law by a black judge in the 40’s who created a storm of division that is now reaping the benefits of this law that is no law.
        The church allowed itself to be pushed out of governing; not politics, governing. You can’t have a Godly nation without Godly people running it. History reveals that over and over. Therefore as you stood in a voting booth you questioned your place as a Pastor, a Christian and decided you weren’t supposed to vote; granted the issue should never have reached this point but that is the point! Christians either didn’t vote or voted against God’s will leaving that proverbial crack for Satan to crawl through on his slimy stomach.
        And I see where you were coming from because of the love of God that’s in you, in us as Christians we should not do anything to eliminate the possibility of offending those who don’t know the Lord. Well, America needs to get over being offended. Jesus was not offended and often spoke with great authority and declaration even if it bother others as we know it did. So being a Christian this comes with the territory. Did Jesus lose people to his love because he offended them with the truth? It was their choice to make.
        The truth is are you telling that person who claims to be gay the truth or trying not to offend them so you can verbally love them by not telling them the truth? The truth sets us free, not a fence.
        The truth is “being gay” is a choice; albeit a demonic one. But so is smoking, overeating, and excessive gambling, alcoholism, and the list goes on and on. Sin is sin; but the consequences of the different sins are different. Some aren’t so bad and others leave a country divided with hate, and immorality. Sodom and Gomorrah.
        My state of SC never had that vote. What does that say about us?
        Our opinions don’t matter. God’s word does. Christians need to vote and vote God’s word, not their slowly, aggravations of others sins or being offended. If I worried about being offended I may as well quit. It happens every day and I could care less because I know the truth.
        Love is the answer which is all the more reason to go and vote God’s will, no matter the outcome. When people disagree, as we pray and continue to love them, God will answer our prayers to show them the truth. In other words, we may think we lose people from telling them the truth, but God can do what we can’t. We plant seeds, he makes them grow.
        In Christ dear friend,

        Cathy
        P.S. God is going to change this anyway. He is going to move bigtime!

        Like

        1. Good comment Naphtali, I agree with your conclusion, but there are a few things I want to point out:

          1: the story of the women caught in adultery is not in the bible, at least not in John originally, it is only included in translations of the textus receptus, that ignore all the other manuscript evidence and all the word that’s been done in textual criticism.

          2: homosexuality is a sin yes, but that’s not why Christians should oppose same sex marriage, lots of things are legal that are sins, the state commits all sorts of sins, think of all the people murdered by the state in war. But the reason it’s wrong mainly is definitional, God decides what is and is not marriage, not the state, what the state does is the states business, but marriage is Gods business.

          3: Actually according to the scriptures, the main purpose for society, the main purpose of any kind of civil government, is to care for the poor, care for the marginalized and make an equitable society. In the mosaic the taxes for the temple were for one thing, care for the poor and needy, in the first century church the collection of funds was for one thing, care for the needy, they held all things in common, in the mosaic law interest was banned. The state can do war, but that is the states business, Christians are to be peaceable with all men, and the worship which is pure is to care for the widows and orphans.”

          I find it so ironic and sad that (it seams only in America) conservative Christians can be so steadfast and strong when it comes to things like abortion and homosexuality, and rightfully so. Yet out of the other side of their mouths they praise and defend the idolatry, mandated greed and worship of profit that is modern capitalism, and also defend and praise the horrible state murder which is called war.

          Sodom was a society condemned, for what? Because they lived in luxury and didn’t help the poor and needy. American (and increasingly European) society is looking more and more like the Sodom God condemned, not only because of their sexual depravity but more so because of their systems of greed, casting away of the poor, and the idolatry of profit over everything that is modern capitalism.

          Sorry for derailing it a little.

          Like

          1. So now I have a question, Roman. I’m pretty sure I know what the Bible said about Sodom & Gomorrah. You sent me on a hunt. That story troubles me greatly when Lot offers his daughters to be misused by the men of the town. But I see absolutely nothing about greed or riches. Of course, an argument, although weak, might be made regarding Lot choosing the rich plains to dwell in. Perhaps one could say Lot’s wife longed for her possessions as the reason she looked back. Then I went to Jude to see what he says and there I find that the cities had given themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion and that they are an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Peter refers to Lot as a righteous man who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the wicked. Why would you define “depraved conduct” as referring to greed and such rather than sexual depravity? What part of this story am missing?
            And one more thing, since you explain away Jesus’ words to the woman caught in adultery, how do you deal with his words to the man he had healed at the Pool of Bethesda when he told the man to go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon him. Of course there is no indication the man’s problem was connected in any way with sexual immorality. Does that make it different? Or do both stories just advise one to quit sinning, maybe? I think I could come up with other situations that advise that! Together maybe we can get this train back on track! (I’ve been sitting here in this voting booth trying to decide whether to get into this Political Incorrect corner; I’ve decided to do so, so I’m voting Yes and punching my Post Comment button.)

            Like

          2. The original reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Ezekiel 16:49,50, this isn’t the only evidence but this tells us the exact reason for its judgement, I talk more about it and other evidence here:

            https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/the-sin-of-sodom-part-1/

            And here:

            https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/the-sin-of-sodom-part-2/

            As far as the women taken in adultery I only pointed out the problem of using that story for the sake of accuracy. I agree with you that love an forgiveness does not mean we accept or affirm sin, including sexual sin, as week as social or economic sin.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Marriage is a gift, from God, and as such God has a right to define what it is. Voting to allow a redefinition of marriage to the point to where it’s meaningless is not honoring Gods gift, it’s degrading it. When you keep marriage defined how God defined it you’re not “dictating people’s personal morality” or something like that, you’re not telling anyone what they can or cannot do, what you’re doing is honoring the gift God gave mankind and not allowing its desecration. That isn’t “love” it’s spitting on Gods gift.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Roman, this is in response to your info above re: Sodom… I did not see a place there to reply. I thank you for giving me your rational for saying Sodom’s sin was greed and downplaying significant role of sexual depravity. I have read your links. Ezek. certainly does say Sodom’s sin relating to greed, not helping poor and doing detestable things. Your links do allow for sexual depravities to be “in the mix” in a way the above comment does not. Ezek. verse was an added thought to me, but it does not in any way eliminate the other sins. I agree with your second link and conclusion that one sin generally opens the way for others, which open the way to others, which… Well, now we are on that slippery slope, aren’t we? I thank you for the research on what early writers said, but they may have been selected subjectively to support your argument. At least if I were debating the other side of the issue, I believe I could have found other arguments from early Christians to support the opposing view. Overall I believe you have been “somewhat” impartial in your links. At least impartial enough to impress me a bit; I admit to a bit of partiality myself. I don’t have to do a lot of research and defining meaning to include Ezek into my mix of the three scriptures I use! Good debate. Thanks for your time and explanation.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If you think I’m selecting my Sources subjectively to support my “argument” (in the posts I’m not making a specific argument perse, I’m examining a question), then tell me what Jewish Sources I’m missing, or what early Christian Sources I’m missing.

        That being said, I think clearly the scriptures include homosexuality as a sin, I just don’t think that was the main point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. But I think it’s very unfortunate that American “conservative christians” totally have drunk the coolaid of neo-liberal economics, dispite it being clearly contrary to biblical principles, and frankly the neo-liberal ideology is (I believe) intrinsicly linked to the moral decay we see in the west, including the acceptance of gay so-called marriage.

        Like

  2. JS, I’m totally with you on this. To Roman and Cathy: Cathy, I’m sorry, but I think it’s splitting hairs when you can define what God said to do with our American tax dollars, Roman, going back to the Greek translation, the word “homosexuality” included other acts like heterosexual oral sex, so are we spitting on God’s gift when we engage in that, too?

    We have to understand that our American (and Western Culture in general) version of the Bible and the Gospels is very different than that of Middle Eastern Cultures, where it first came from. We’ve put our own spin on it and taken it away from it’s intent.

    Jesus repeated over and over, love God, love each other, love your neighbors, love your enemies – yet we continue to judge, accuse, condemn and vilify. Even Jesus said he came not to judge, but we want to take on God’s job. And shame on us for doing so. Cathy, you were right at the end; we are called to plant seeds of love.

    Putting up barriers is not our job. Going backwards into laws and chains is not our job. Jesus broke our chains and fulfilled the laws so we could be free to shower others with the overflowing love, grace and mercy he bestows upon us. If we’re to continue to follow Jesus, we must walk the narrow path of love.

    Like

    1. Hello. You used Greek definition that it could be other sexual acts, but the context dictates it is about homosexuality. It is sin and there is no sugarcoating that; it’s a choice, for many twin studies have revealed that even identical twins, about 2% of them were homosexuals (it it were genetics, any and all homosexual twin should be homosexuals also). Above all, although I agree and the Bible explicitly teaches us, that we should love God and love others, we must love in truth. No matter how much you love a homosexual person, if he or she does not embrace truth – mainly it’s a sin against God – he or she will end up in eternal damnation. I believe it is more loving for Christians and denounce such acts and continue to tell the truth in love. You cannot let your emotions override what the Bible teaches, for our love for God is proven through our obedience to His Word. Blessings.

      Sam

      Like

      1. Sam, I’m not letting my emotions in here at all. The context in the first century usage of the word meant all of those acts. As society and culture changed, it is we who determined what was acceptable and what was not.
        Nowhere in the Bible – and nowhere in Jesus commands – does he tell us to denounce any group of people. We are taught to form relationships. It is only then we can do what Jesus taught us – approach an individual, face to face, heart to heart. That is the loving way to speak truth into someone’s life.
        Thank you for the opportunity to have the conversation.
        Blessings back.

        Like

    2. What Greek translation? If it’s the arsenokoitai, which is used in the reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9, then no it’s not a general word for sexual acts, it is specifically men who sleep with men. The only other time it’s used is in the LXX in the Leviticus and deuteronomic law code condemning homosexuality.

      Jesus said to love, but but Jesus’ love included a call to repentance, we don’t take on Gods job, God defined marriage and Jesus upheld it (Matthew 19), Jesus fulfilled the law, but Gods standards remain.

      Like

  3. Hey JS, sometimes I find myself, as a Christian, quarantined from society (the world). Sometimes I pop my head out of the spiritual rabbit hole and look around, and behold homosexuality is an issue within the church (just as adultery was years before, and still is). I am beyond legalities at this point in time on my spiritual journey, for I am “the least of these”, an unpresentable part (1 Corinthians 12:23-24- yes, there are unpresentable parts within the church). I’ve learned that a Christian is NEVER to copy or role play the person of Christ (not being as he was “past tense” but to be as he IS- sharing his divine personality “affection, desire, ambition” through faith). So, what does Jesus say about homosexuality? Nothing, because it is an act, not a disposition- it is a sin, not a characteristic. What does Jesus say about the innate disposition of the one committing the act of homosexuality? Something interesting is noted in Matthew 19:4-12 when the issue of marriage was brought up; instead of talking about a man and a woman, Jesus mentions eunuchs. Three types of eunuchs exist, those that are forced, those that make themselves that way, and those who are BORN THAT WAY. The dominant characteristic of a eunuch is a “no-desire” for the opposite sex- even Paul was a professing eunuch who made himself that way (1 Corinthians 7:7). Yet, the emphasis is on those who are “born that way”. This statement was not localized, but dealt with the entire world, meaning people are being born every day (Christian or not) with a no-desire for the opposite sex coupled with a feminine disposition. To me, adultery is a sin specific to the married (one man, one woman), and homosexuality is a sin prevalent among eunuchs, who cannot change the fact they have no desire for the opposite sex. I don’t find myself accepting the act of homosexuality, just as I don’t accept the act of adultery, but I am not bitter or negative towards those who commit such acts. We Christians are standing in trying times, battling against a false light, but we must be understanding, even compassionate, and naturally echo the words of Jesus as he hung from the tree of death, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

    Like

    1. So now we have another word which needs to be redefined to fit the current climate. I only knew the definition of “eunuch” as being a castrated man (or as Jesus said, one born that way). Do castrated men have sexual urges for anybody? I always assumed that a eunuch had no sexual desires not “no desire of opposite sex.” May I ask where that definition originated?

      Like

      1. Hi Oneta- no redefinition of words needs to occur, simply an opening of the eyes to see a word that has always been there, and notice something important that fits current questions in the crisis within Christianity. Though the practice of castration was enacted within some cultures, a eunuch is NOT defined by castration. Notice in the verse given by Jesus, the Word of God, there are some eunuchs THAT ARE BORN THAT WAY. Does this mean that they were castrated in the womb? No, it does not, but means something far more dealing with the human disposition and character. To presume that a eunuch has no desire is to make a human inhuman, for desire is a natural function of the human heart, yet for a eunuch, this desire is not directed toward the opposing sex. Homosexuality is the unnatural expression of the natural function of desire.

        Like

        1. Hi back to you MD Carter, I stated in my comment that Jesus said some were born that way – without sexual desire. I simply said the word eunuch has always meant a person without sexual desire.(for whatever the reason). I definitely do not agree that a person without sexual desire is inhuman. From a very personal standpoint, I can vouch for many seniors I know in very intimate ways who no longer have sexual desires, but are still very very human.

          Like

          1. To clarify Oneta, I never did mention sexual desire, but desire itself, which is a natural part of a Christians chi (life force- or where the poison of sin resides). From the heart (chi) is released three qualities, desire, affection, and ambition. For a person to be without desire itself is unquestionably inhuman (which was my point), and to express unnatural desire toward the same sex is the natural expression of the poison settled within the heart. Many are born, according to Jesus, without the desire for the opposite sex (eunuchs), but this does not mean that the person is without the expression of desire, which for the eunuch, may lead to the negative activity of homosexuality.

            Like

          2. Thanks for clarification. Perhaps I assumed too much since the topic seemed to be homosexuality. Lack of desire (for anything) must be very depressing although still not, I believe, inhuman. Again thanks for your time. Hopefully we will meet again.

            Like

  4. The one thing we, as Christians, can never stop doing, is growing and learning and seeking wisdom (James 1:5) as we face huge national and cultural changes like hasn’t been seen in this country’s history. We must get the mind and heart of Christ so we can respond with the greatest love the world has ever known but without compromising His word. Jesus didn’t even address how Roman culture (very depraved) and influence might affect His people and change Israel, rather He dealt with lost individuals, the sick and the poor, and religious arrogance. Perhaps we would do well to follow in His footsteps.

    Like

    1. We are supposed to change the (sinful aspects of) culture, not allow the culture to change us. Jesus won hearts, he did not need to change laws to do so. Please see my post on “A Different Christian Response to Gay Marriage.”

      Like

  5. I think when it comes to legislating morality into a temporary human institution and/or nation, it’s trivial. Jesus didn’t have a biblically based american constitution in mind. He had resurrection and new creation in mind. I think those two things reach farther than simply voting to force christian behavior change on the masses of unbelievers.

    What everyone needs is a resurrection of the heart. And as far as I know, shouting about the laws of the land in comparison to the bible isn’t helping get that accomplished…

    Like

  6. Thank you for your care and sensitivity about this. Personally, I’m still torn on how to vote on this and other social issues, but I find the conversations surrounding same-sex marriage even more difficult. I care about all my unbelieving friends, and want to love them and be there for them. I know they’re going to want to share their excitement with me and invite me to their weddings, and a part of me wants to jump right in and say how happy I am for them and that I’ll be there on their special day. The other half feels that celebrating with them would be celebrating something I don’t believe is right, and that going to a same-sex wedding, or even exclaiming excitedly about the ruling, would be proclaiming the opposite of what I believe about marriage. It sounds silly, but I’m torn about how to react in both a genuine and loving way.

    Like

    1. I completely agree. I am socially for gay marriage (in terms of state laws, because the state should not dictate morality from anyone’s religious definition) but I am not going to participate in any gay pride parades or pretend it is okay. It is hard because you want to (naturally) share in your friend’s happiness but the question is where to draw the line. I think it would go something like this: All sins are equal before the eyes of God because every sin is against Him. I would not go to my friend who was an alcoholic-to a bar with them to watch them get drunk, so the same would apply to my gay friend. They are living a sinful lifestyle choice and I am not going to go with them to hang out with their gay friends or to their wedding or a gay bar, etc. And if this costs your friendship with them, then so be it, at least for the meantime. However, you should always be ready to be their friend but maybe the line needs to be drawn in not being with them socially in their group. Jesus was not going to the tax collector’s house to watch him take away poor people’s money while he got rich. Instead, Jesus invited the tax collector to His party, or His (temporary) house. The same should be done of our friends who are deeply entrenched in a sinful lifestyle. Not the we are not all without sin but we hope and strive to be sinless and do not wantonly participate in the lifestyle. Jesus was full of forgiveness and a friend to all, but he was not participating in, or attending their, sinful parties or expressions of their lifestyles. It may sometimes cost a lifelong friendship but Jesus’ closest friends were his disciples, those who believed as He believed, and that is who we need to surround ourselves in our inmost circle with, while striving to bring others in as well.

      Like

  7. The state issues marriage licenses. So if the state is involved, it is the state’s duty to administer laws equally. The law does not say that Catholic, or any other church, has to start administering gay marriages. The law is simply stating that if the state is involved, the state needs to apply the law equally to all citizens. (Please see the Fourteenth Amendment.) It is the church’s responsibility to ensure that the Gifts of God are properly observed and preserved. And it is the church’s job to say it will not perform a gay marriage, not the state’s job.

    So it’s just like the government saying, “Hey Catholic church, you want to give people under 21 alcohol because it’s for religious observance and we are okay with that.” The government has always upheld people’s religious liberties in the least restrictive means.

    And yes, allowing the state to uphold one religion’s (or even several religion’s same view) of marriage is dictating people’s personal morality. (Please see my blog entry on a A Different Christian Response to Gay Marriage.)

    Like

  8. The Canadian experience differs here. I’ve been hearing the debate since 1980 when the United Church of Canada published its first study on sexuality. I can argue either side, and if I convinced anyone I would still lose. The issue is not who can quote the Bible, talk about Greek, use the examples of Greco-Roman culture, but what are you as a person going to respond to another human person who does not behave in a way you interpret to be acceptable? JS, you’re right about love, but what about the part of love that will correct or protect? Well, until I am given permission into another human person’s life I do not have a lot to say. God enters where I can only wait. Homosexual behaviour for a believer is, at best, problematic, but for a non-believer it is so small compared to the issue of salvation. I repeat my mantra of the last 35 years, are you acting as the judge, or so passionately compassionate that you are waiting and wanting to be the way in which God expresses Divine Love to the human person in front of you? I have hugged gay people because that’s what they needed, and showed the Scriptures to those who doubted their own feelings, and I have wept with those who don’t understand themselves. When I stand before Jesus, Christ will ask me about my intentions and behaviour, NOT what someone else did! Sin should never be reduced to an intellectual competition debating theories.
    Peace

    Like

  9. I definitely see where you are coming from. I usually stay away from big issues like this unless I’m talking one on one with someone who asks for my opinion or prayer. I do believe there is a third option that isn’t extreme. My heart breaks for those dealing with homosexuality, because I have met enough people that are confused about sexuality because they were abused as kids, or they kept getting their heart brokens by the opposite sex. Someone dear to me just gave in to being gay because they heard it constantly from bullies…all because they didn’t fit this cultures definition of masculine. I know we can’t legislate morality. But I am concerned that this new law will make it hard for those who genuinely care about helping those in sexual bondage, because it’ll be considered a hate crime to call homosexuality a sin. My heart bleeds for the people that struggle with unwanted feelings towards the same sex and they don’t know who to turn to. They have extremist in the church that call them an abomination instead of the sin that, and who act like it is the worst and unforgivable sin. Then they have the world saying “Oh that’s just how you are. Go with it.” Thankfully I have had the opportunity to pray with a couple going through that. They both went to church and their church family loved them but still said it was a sin. They helped them through a confusing time. I listened to how they got in the situation they were in. They need to know what is healthy and how to get there with God’s help. They need to know they are loved and accepted, but that doesn’t mean poison (sin) should be called harmless. True love walks with them and helps them get out of their bondage…no matter what the sin is. God wants people to have His best and often that looks different than what we think is best. Homosexuality is just one issue, and I agree that a person is more than their sexuality. As a person who was molested by the same sex, I know how damaging and confusing that can be, and sexual issues really color your whole soul. I think the church needs more training on how to address sexual brokenness. Some believers are doing it right though…you just can’t hear them above the noise. God bless Bro! It’s always great to read your thought provoking posts.

    Like

  10. God gave us all free will. He gave us the right to choose him, or not. So in general I think who am I to take away someone’s freewill or make their choices for them. Whether it’s legal or not for them to see their spouses in a hospital or do their taxes together (which is basically all the “legal marriage” is giving them), most openly gay people are going to continue to practice homosexuality regardless therefore it doesn’t SEEM to matter. The problem lies in the agenda of it all. It isn’t just “I want to choose for myself to be gay and marry a gay person and live my life”, it’s “I want the world to ACCEPT and SUPPORT that i am gay and say that it’s okay” and that’s what the legislation means for a lot of gay people, that it is okay to be gay. Supporting certain legislation helps support the agenda and I think deters the general effort of the Christian mission to bring more people to Christ. It helps perpetuate the idea that Christians are wrong, that the bible is “outdated”, that it is only bigots and hateful people who would go against something that “everyone supports” (as far as voting goes). It also gives gay people the ability to take legal action against those who don’t support gay marriage, because it perpetuates the idea that it’s a human rights issue and that it is similar to “race” (it’s not btw but that’s a whole ‘nother thing). For example there’s christian churches being sued for refusing to hold or officiate Gay weddings, or christian businesses being sued for refusing to do things like cater or plan Gay weddings. It also furthers gay adoption, and while it may be better for a child to grow up in a gay home than an abusive one, it would be less likely that person’s going to come to Christ or listen to a person that tells them despite their Daddies or Mommies being good people, they’re wrong. It creates momentum for their movement, it’s like “Look, it’s legal for us to marry now, you see how it’s okay. Therefore we need to continue ‘awareness’ we need more gay representation in the cartoons, in the kids shows (which is a real thing, people were pushing for sesame street to say bernie and ernie were a couple, various kid’s cartoons have been creating gay couples etc.)” etc. etc. till anyone who doesn’t support it is persecuted. The bible says we will be persecuted, so I’m not saying we could ever avoid it but I think it doesn’t make sense to help CREATE the environment for our own persecution. I also think as long as they’re still FIGHTING for marriage rights, the conversation is open, people can be won over…but once the conversation is over there won’t be any going back. I think people should be protected, whether I agree with their life choices or not I think someone should be able to see those they consider “family” in the hospital, or be able to claim a person they share the most expenses with and live with on their taxes, BUT I also think there’s a million different laws and ways to go about that than “redefining marriage”. The whole motto has been “love is love” but if that’s the case then their love will be love whether they get to call it “marriage” or not. If certain rights were truly the main issue, they could fight for them whether it was through marriage or not. Voting against gay marriage isn’t equivalent to outlawing homosexuality therefore I wouldn’t think you’d be dictating morality or choices by going against it because people can still choose to practice homosexuality. I think you’d be protecting an institution you believe to be created by God, and limiting an agenda that aims to show the world He’s “wrong”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s