Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?

[tango]

Yes, I do. The "don't judge" point of view is not real. By silence you approve, you contribute to the possible ultimate condemnation of others. Just as you challenge others to walk in a manner worthy of their calling, you must also when you see a brother in sin, do something about it. In this case, a person who calls themselves a minister of the gospel, give a worldly blessing to a ceremony that is not blessed by god and lead others to believe it is, leading to their possible condemnation.

Up to a point silence may be considered to be implied approval although one obvious question is just how far that should be taken.

If a photographer takes wedding pictures for a couple he is providing a professional service, not passing a moral judgment on the couple and the suitability of them getting married. Some photographers may feel uncomfortable shooting a gay wedding for moral reasons but I'd have to ask whether they would vet a straight couple to make sure they weren't sinning in other ways. Just for one example we know what Jesus said about marrying someone who was previously divorced.

If a minister offers a church service there's a stronger case to make that he is passing judgment that it is acceptable to allow the couple to be married in his church but even then there's the question of whether a monogamous homosexual relationship is sinful at all. My current mindset is to believe it probably is although many of the standard "bash" verses really struggle to make the case because they nestle between other verses that are largely ignored today because they are considered to be cultural. If a church is to be given the freedom to simply say "we don't want your sort here" (whatever "your sort" means in any given setting) then they may decline to marry homosexuals, people who drink alcohol, people who listen to rock music, people who drive a nicer car than the minister considers appropriate or whatever else. If a church is not to have that freedom (and if the church is to act as an agent for the state in conducting ceremonies sanctioned by the state there's case to be made for that freedom to be restricted) then it makes sense for a church to have to justify why it considers a particular behavior to be sinful.

Sadly far too much of the "discussion" regarding the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual behavior falls into the camp of "you can't help who you love" and "I don't want no queers in my church", neither of which is Scripturally useful and neither of which represents any form of useful reasoning. One would hope that those on both sides of the divide would come up with a useful Scriptural study to determine the truth rather than clinging to preconceived ideas that happen to suit them.

 

[charis en excelcis]

Up to a point silence may be considered to be implied approval although one obvious question is just how far that should be taken.
[B[/B]

If a photographer takes wedding pictures for a couple he is providing a professional service, not passing a moral judgment on the couple and the suitability of them getting married. Some photographers may feel uncomfortable shooting a gay wedding for moral reasons but I'd have to ask whether they would vet a straight couple to make sure they weren't sinning in other ways. Just for one example we know what Jesus said about marrying someone who was previously divorced.

If a minister offers a church service there's a stronger case to make that he is passing judgment that it is acceptable to allow the couple to be married in his church but even then there's the question of whether a monogamous homosexual relationship is sinful at all. My current mindset is to believe it probably is although many of the standard "bash" verses really struggle to make the case because they nestle between other verses that are largely ignored today because they are considered to be cultural. If a church is to be given the freedom to simply say "we don't want your sort here" (whatever "your sort" means in any given setting) then they may decline to marry homosexuals, people who drink alcohol, people who listen to rock music, people who drive a nicer car than the minister considers appropriate or whatever else. If a church is not to have that freedom (and if the church is to act as an agent for the state in conducting ceremonies sanctioned by the state there's case to be made for that freedom to be restricted) then it makes sense for a church to have to justify why it considers a particular behavior to be sinful.

Sadly far too much of the "discussion" regarding the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual behavior falls into the camp of "you can't help who you love" and "I don't want no queers in my church", neither of which is Scripturally useful and neither of which represents any form of useful reasoning. One would hope that those on both sides of the divide would come up with a useful Scriptural study to determine the truth rather than clinging to preconceived ideas that happen to suit them.

For the under-shepherd, the issue is different than for the lay person. The under-shepherd who conducts a same sex marriage is defrauding the couple by blessing a relationship. My comments were particularly aimed toward them.

 

[tango]

For the under-shepherd, the issue is different than for the lay person. The under-shepherd who conducts a same sex marriage is defrauding the couple by blessing a relationship. My comments were particularly aimed toward them.

I realise that, but you still need more than "the under-shepherd... is defrauding the couple".

Whether or not homosexual acts are sinful is the crux of the matter here, and it seems to me that until people appeal to Scripture to determine that issue there's going to be an endless merry-go-round that's no more useful than one side saying "you can't help you you love" or "God made me this way" and the other side saying "I don't want no queers in my church", with both sides digging in to their positions and neither side willing to concede that the other may have a point.

 

[psalms 91]

That does little as well since when scripture is presented they say it doesnt say that and as for me I believe it does and nothing will shake me from that. Today twisting scripture to mean what you would like seems to be very popular

 

[tango]

That does little as well since when scripture is presented they say it doesnt say that and as for me I believe it does and nothing will shake me from that. Today twisting scripture to mean what you would like seems to be very popular

The trouble is that both sides are as bad as each other from what I can say.

The pro-gay lobby point out that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments and that Jesus didn't talk about it but ignore what Paul wrote about homosexuals. The anti-gay lobby frequently appear content to pick verses out of Leviticus while happily writing off most of Leviticus as being cultural.

Twisting scripture is a problem in all sorts of areas within the church, hence my signature

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think that holy scripture is fairly clear that marriage is between a man and a woman (maybe a man and several women in some old covenant passages) and that sex between two men is condemned in both testaments. Sex between two women does not appear to be mentioned in the old covenant but Romans chapter one appears to condemn sex acts between two women. But what does one do with that information if you are not involved in such acts yourself? Is it your calling to do anything to other people because they may engage in such activities?

 

[psalms 91]

No but it is also not the governments responsibility to not only redefine marriage but to try to force people to go against their beliefs on the subject

 

[MoreCoffee]

No but it is also not the governments responsibility to not only redefine marriage but to try to force people to go against their beliefs on the subject

But civil marriage is a government matter; the government issues the marriage licenses and sets the conditions for obtaining one.

 

[psalms 91]

But civil marriage is a government matter; the government issues the marriage licenses and sets the conditions for obtaining one.

Then let the government legislate civil unions and quit calling it marriage and keep its nose out of peoples beliefs

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then let the government legislate civil unions and quit calling it marriage and keep its nose out of peoples beliefs

I think that the government's legislation uses the name "marriage" the the civil union between two persons under the law of the land.