If you judge by the results we see today, perhaps the churches didn't speak enough about it. The gay lobby started with modest goals and with each victory they got bolder and with any defeats they considered them short term set backs and continued promoting their agenda for a shift in cultural more's (mor-ays). They kept speaking and demanding and so the church's speaking about homosexuality or same-sex marriage has been in reaction to this cultural "battle." What once was considered unspeakable by a broad consensus became the law of the land in 2015. So perhaps the church should have said more in terms of persuading people concerning the traditional view of marriage.

 

As for not speaking on homosexuality because it isn't in the 10 Commandments, I have 2 responses. First, it is contained in the prohibition on adultery. While technically not adultery unless practiced with someone married to another it is a sexual sin that is encompassed in the adultery commandment. In other words, the adultery prohibition is an inclusive summary of sexual sins. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount broadened that command to even include sexual sins of the heart or mind, such as "looking upon a woman to lust after her."

 

Second, homosexuality and same-sex marriage is hardly "small potatoes." When considering the meaning and purpose of marriage Jesus said to go back to the beginning, Genesis 2, to understand God's intention. One man, one woman, covenant bond, for life. Any sexual contact outside those parameters is sin. Marriage is the most basic and necessary foundation for family and society. Violating God's intention for this fundamental institution is hardly "small potatoes." The church (inclusive of all Christian denominations) has a duty to speak out on such issues.

 

I appreciate where you're coming from.

 

Not to speak for JS, but I think part of where he's coming from is that there are a litany of things under Christianity that are sinful (and even this is a somewhat dubious claim, considering the New Testament doesn't lay out a code of laws the way the Old Testament does). Sins can be relative to each person too - what is sinful to you might not be sinful to me. And of course there are instructions about removing planks from our own eyes first.

 

But for all of these possible sins homosexuality is elevated to something far above individual Christians to something that society should broadly scorn, even to the level of lawmaking - we don't want it acknowledged, same-sex marriages must be banned, until 2003 states could have laws outlawing the actual practice of it, etc.

 

So, as I said there are many sins proscribed in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, but something like greed is not elevated to a defining issue for Christians, whereas homosexuality is. It seems disproportionate and I think leads to questions like Jims'.

I appreciate where you're coming from.

 

Not to speak for JS, but I think part of where he's coming from is that there are a litany of things under Christianity that are sinful (and even this is a somewhat dubious claim, considering the New Testament doesn't lay out a code of laws the way the Old Testament does). Sins can be relative to each person too - what is sinful to you might not be sinful to me. And of course there are instructions about removing planks from our own eyes first.

 

But for all of these possible sins homosexuality is elevated to something far above individual Christians to something that society should broadly scorn, even to the level of lawmaking - we don't want it acknowledged, same-sex marriages must be banned, until 2003 states could have laws outlawing the actual practice of it, etc.

 

So, as I said there are many sins proscribed in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, but something like greed is not elevated to a defining issue for Christians, whereas homosexuality is. It seems disproportionate and I think leads to questions like Jims'.

 

Just as I figured. Mind-reading is also among your vast array of powers. That makes you even more dangerous than I previously thought.

Just as I figured. Mind-reading is also among your vast array of powers. That makes you even more dangerous than I previously thought.

 

That gave me a pretty good laugh. I like it. :lol2:

If you judge by the results we see today, perhaps the churches didn't speak enough about it. The gay lobby started with modest goals and with each victory they got bolder and with any defeats they considered them short term set backs and continued promoting their agenda for a shift in cultural more's (mor-ays). They kept speaking and demanding and so the church's speaking about homosexuality or same-sex marriage has been in reaction to this cultural "battle." What once was considered unspeakable by a broad consensus became the law of the land in 2015. So perhaps the church should have said more in terms of persuading people concerning the traditional view of marriage.

 

As for not speaking on homosexuality because it isn't in the 10 Commandments, I have 2 responses. First, it is contained in the prohibition on adultery. While technically not adultery unless practiced with someone married to another it is a sexual sin that is encompassed in the adultery commandment. In other words, the adultery prohibition is an inclusive summary of sexual sins. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount broadened that command to even include sexual sins of the heart or mind, such as "looking upon a woman to lust after her."

 

Second, homosexuality and same-sex marriage is hardly "small potatoes." When considering the meaning and purpose of marriage Jesus said to go back to the beginning, Genesis 2, to understand God's intention. One man, one woman, covenant bond, for life. Any sexual contact outside those parameters is sin. Marriage is the most basic and necessary foundation for family and society. Violating God's intention for this fundamental institution is hardly "small potatoes." The church (inclusive of all Christian denominations) has a duty to speak out on such issues.

 

Could you give me some details on the bolded? I admittedly have no real knowledge here. Besides the right to live and marry whom they love, what other gains have the gay lobby made?

Habib, I grasp Jim Schue's point. My point is that speaking about this particular issue isn't happening in a vacuum. There is a context to it. That context is that society as a whole and Christians in particular are being told that the traditional view has been wrong and that they are just going to have to accept same-sex marriage as normal behavior that should be approved. It is now codified in law. The church didn't put the spot light on the issue, others made it a center stage issue. So the church must speak.

 

One example of this would be the outcry against abortion in the 70's and early 80's. Abortion was made legal by Roe v Wade in 1973 and so during that period the church spoke out against it loudly and often and acted against it through supporting legislation, civil disobedience, developing pregnancy help ministries, etc.

 

Slavery was another hot button issue. Christians spear-headed the abolitionist movement in America and in England it was the evangelical Christian, William Wilberforce who launched a decades long battle against slavery and many Christians published pamphlets and did all they could to bring attention to the issue.

 

In the future, other issues that have bearing on changing morality and social justice will present themselves and the church will speak out on those issues. The context often determines what the church speaks to.

 

BTW, greed is still preached against in the church and in June, following the shooting of our brothers and sisters in the AME Church in South Carolina, there was a sermon on racism in our church that challenged each of us to root out any racism that we may still be harboring in our hearts. The church speaks to the issues of the day.

If you judge by the results we see today, perhaps the churches didn't speak enough about it. The gay lobby started with modest goals and with each victory they got bolder and with any defeats they considered them short term set backs and continued promoting their agenda for a shift in cultural more's (mor-ays). They kept speaking and demanding and so the church's speaking about homosexuality or same-sex marriage has been in reaction to this cultural "battle." What once was considered unspeakable by a broad consensus became the law of the land in 2015. So perhaps the church should have said more in terms of persuading people concerning the traditional view of marriage.

 

Could you give me some details on the bolded? I admittedly have no real knowledge here. Besides the right to live and marry whom they love, what other gains have the gay lobby made?

 

That is a pretty huge gain. They needed to have the definition of marriage changed by the court to accomplish that one. It circumvented the will of the people in many states. Of course, for things to get to this point it didn't happen all at once. It has been a long haul. I don't know all the specific legal gains that have been achieved over the years but what I was primarily referring to has been the change in attitude that the general public has towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage. BTW, IMO many of the changes have been positive, like exposing the mistreatment of gay people, bullying, ridiculing, and the like. But in general, the homosexual community went from having to remain secret and in the closet to being able to come out and not fear the results as much now that doing so would have created years ago.

 

The first recollection I have is when Anita Bryant opposed a pro-gay ordinance back in the mid-70's. She led a successful campaign to repeal the ordinance in Dade Co., FL but the result was a galvanizing of the gay community and they fought back with a boycott of Florida orange juice. I think this also began to swing Hollywood in the support of the gay movement.

 

Anti-sodomy laws were taken off the books in many places. Where once homosexual behavior was looked upon with disgust by most, there began to be a change towards acceptance. One success was to have the American Psychological Association remove homosexuality from its list of deviant behaviors and no longer considered it a psychological disorder. This helped to lead to changes in the way the public viewed gay people. It became more acceptable to be gay.

 

Another important maneuver for the gay movement was to begin to couch their movement in terms of a civil rights movement just like that of African Americans in the 1960's. I don't think this is an accurate portrayal. The gay movement came more out of the sexual revolution of the 1960's than the civil rights movement of the same period. Another productive thing the gay movement did was to talk about homosexuality in terms of being able to love any one you choose. Who could oppose that?

 

It is these kinds of subtle but very powerful shifts in perception regarding homosexual behavior that happened over time, with planning and persistence by the gay movement and the help they received from people with access to media, etc. Speaking about homosexuality in the schools without moral judgement and as totally acceptable and normal prepares the next generation for a level of acceptance that could not be given by the previous generation. I think this has been the plan and the gay movement has been patient. As they achieved more acceptance they became more vocal and demanded more from the public. In summary, they went from a cry for toleration to demanding acceptance and even approval of their behavior by the general public. It is quite a remarkable story.

That gave me a pretty good laugh. I like it. :lol2:

 

But you knew he was going to say it.

Habib, I grasp Jim Schue's point. My point is that speaking about this particular issue isn't happening in a vacuum. There is a context to it. That context is that society as a whole and Christians in particular are being told that the traditional view has been wrong and that they are just going to have to accept same-sex marriage as normal behavior that should be approved. It is now codified in law. The church didn't put the spot light on the issue, others made it a center stage issue. So the church must speak.

 

One example of this would be the outcry against abortion in the 70's and early 80's. Abortion was made legal by Roe v Wade in 1973 and so during that period the church spoke out against it loudly and often and acted against it through supporting legislation, civil disobedience, developing pregnancy help ministries, etc.

 

Slavery was another hot button issue. Christians spear-headed the abolitionist movement in America and in England it was the evangelical Christian, William Wilberforce who launched a decades long battle against slavery and many Christians published pamphlets and did all they could to bring attention to the issue.

 

In the future, other issues that have bearing on changing morality and social justice will present themselves and the church will speak out on those issues. The context often determines what the church speaks to.

 

BTW, greed is still preached against in the church and in June, following the shooting of our brothers and sisters in the AME Church in South Carolina, there was a sermon on racism in our church that challenged each of us to root out any racism that we may still be harboring in our hearts. The church speaks to the issues of the day.

 

Is it that "the traditional view has been wrong", or "there are other views that are right/legal/okay/worthy of inclusion"?

Jim, I hear what you are saying but we are moving toward the government telling Christian churches what they can believe or preach against, that is a big deal. Furthermore, the continued attach on the traditional family and values is a gigantically important.

 

I would say that there is a greater attack on the traditional family than this and it effects far more people and lives.

 

Divorce and the results are far more devastating from what I have seen. Add to that heterosexual infidelity and I say far greater consequences.

Hatz, I can't argue with that. Divorce became easy, well easier, I recognize there is still much pain involved for the couple whose marriage has broken up, and the devastating effects on the family and ultimately the society. Add to that a redefinition of marriage and it is more of the same. It is piling on when the family is already a threatened entity. Cohabitation, hooking up, divorce, and children find themselves in some very socially difficult circumstances. This can be traced back to the cultural and sexual revolution that began in the '60's.

 

We are in a period of social experimentation and unfortunately, the stakes are high. Ideas have consequences and we have yet to experience all that this social experimentation will bring. The argument that what one person does in their marriage (or personal life) doesn't effect another person or their marriage is bogus. Changing values will effect all of society at some point. The example Hatz gives regarding divorce and having serial lovers is a case in point. The pediatrician asked me if my young teenage children will get a vaccination against HPV because it is so common and is the cause of much cervical cancer in females and throat cancer in males from oral sex (ask Michael Douglas). The low esteem in which lifelong marriage is held today, not to mention chaste behavior, does effect me and my kids and their future mates. The cost in terms of dollars, for one thing, has been quite huge. But that is the least of the costs.

 

mcpapa, if something can be redefined to mean almost anything, it means nothing.

We are in a period of social experimentation and unfortunately, the stakes are high. Ideas have consequences and we have yet to experience all that this social experimentation will bring. The argument that what one person does in their marriage (or personal life) doesn't effect another person or their marriage is bogus. Changing values will effect all of society at some point. The example Hatz gives regarding divorce and having serial lovers is a case in point. The pediatrician asked me if my young teenage children will get a vaccination against HPV because it is so common and is the cause of much cervical cancer in females and throat cancer in males from oral sex (ask Michael Douglas). The low esteem in which lifelong marriage is held today, not to mention chaste behavior, does effect me and my kids and their future mates. The cost in terms of dollars, for one thing, has been quite huge. But that is the least of the costs.

 

This is a bit of a stretch though. Jill and Jane who were in all likelihood already living together now can call their relationship something, make end of life decisions and get the same tax breaks as Bill and Betty next door. Especially in regards to impressionable kids, wouldn't living next door to a Jewish, Muslim or atheist family have a much more drastic effect by similarly sharing differing values and ideals than the traditional Christian viewpoint?

Bipsic, I guess you and I disagree on this point. I think what I wrote represents exactly what has happened and will continue to happen.

 

I suspect that marriage will actually become less and less important in our society and a large percentage of people will just opt to not get married at all and set up house and have a family. We, as a society, will move to some other form of care for children and single parents when these arrangements dissolve. A more socialistic approach to economic needs will be required and we will become more of a social democracy, like many European countries. Granted, what I wrote here including and following after the words "I suspect that marriage will become less and less important..." is speculation but I think it is a fair extrapolation from the changes we have seen in our culture and its mores over the last 40 years.

 

My answer is "no" to your assumption regarding living next to people of different faiths or no faith at all. What I am talking about is not a situation in which there is a comparison and contrast between worldviews on a very micro level. That can be very beneficial, especially in seeing others as people like ourselves and as worthy of respect and dignity. What I am talking about is the absorption and transformation of all worldviews into something totally different. Relativism ultimately will rob every worldview of its essential and fundamental claims and make those differences meaningless.

 

BTW, I am not just espousing the "traditional Christian viewpoint" regarding marriage and social mores and values but those of Western Culture as a whole. We cannot jettison that without there being something of consequence that occurs, perhaps unintended. Removing the foundations will negatively effect the rest of the structure.

[quote=oldgrappler;5570065

 

I suspect that marriage will actually become less and less important in our society and a large percentage of people will just opt to not get married at all and set up house and have a family.

 

Yet it seems to me that what just happened was a way for more people to get married.

I appreciate where you're coming from.

 

Not to speak for JS, but I think part of where he's coming from is that there are a litany of things under Christianity that are sinful (and even this is a somewhat dubious claim, considering the New Testament doesn't lay out a code of laws the way the Old Testament does). Sins can be relative to each person too - what is sinful to you might not be sinful to me. And of course there are instructions about removing planks from our own eyes first.

 

But for all of these possible sins homosexuality is elevated to something far above individual Christians to something that society should broadly scorn, even to the level of lawmaking - we don't want it acknowledged, same-sex marriages must be banned, until 2003 states could have laws outlawing the actual practice of it, etc.

 

So, as I said there are many sins proscribed in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, but something like greed is not elevated to a defining issue for Christians, whereas homosexuality is. It seems disproportionate and I think leads to questions like Jims'.

 

I'm going to just take a guess here, but as too the bolded I think it's simple. No one is standing up arguing we should accept murder..bearing false witness...stealing...coveting your neighbors wife, etc. For those that believe homosexuality is a sin, there are a number of people and organizations standing up saying it is acceptable and EVERYONE should accept it, and the government seems to be taking the same course with some of the recent actions (same sex marriage, not calling homosexuality a sin in juvy, etc.). That's why all the talk/action on that particular topic. I would think if there was a big push by groups to sleep with your neighbors wife and the government was on board with it and seemingly trying to make it societally acceptable, there would be a big commotion from Christians about that too. But I could be wrong.

Yet it seems to me that what just happened was a way for more people to get married.

 

This...

 

mcpapa, if something can be redefined to mean almost anything, it means nothing.