LGBTQ Love and Truth Religious Right

Defense of Marriage, the Better Strategy

I am an advocate of defense of marriage. But to me it does not seem a good strategy to try to defend marriage (or marriages) by being preoccupied with the private sexual behavior of a small minority of people.

I wish Christians (and churches and voters in general) could quit worrying so much about a few real or imagined homosexual activities going on somewhere and start worrying much more about the health of real marriages in our own churches and families. This would be much more productive, and much more honest, than most current “defense of marriage” activity. It would also be much more valuable than voting for candidates or legislation solely on the basis of this issue. Marriage IS a major issue, but gay activities are of little impact compared to what is going on (or not going on) in many heterosexual marriages.

If we put as much energy into

  • investing in our own marriages and marriages within our churches,
  • increasing faithfulness, friendship, courtesy and responsible behavior within our own marriages,
  • reducing sports obsession (and other time- and money-eating obsessions),
  • reducing porn addictions
  • or helping helping alleviate extreme financial pressures and overcome financial ignorance or irresponsibility in our churches and homes

we would be doing much more to defend marriage than is currently being accomplished with all the anti-gay agitation.

This is very serious. I’m not promoting any “homosexual agenda” or “homosexual lifestyle.” I’m saying that if we care about the health of marriage we should put the energy and effort FIRST into the marriages we live in or are close to. Any other course starts quickly to smell of political dishonesty and manipulation and religious hypocrisy.

Further, obviously, people who are practicing homosexual behaviors (or other sexual practices that are outside Biblical standards), or who have close friends or family members who are involved in such practices, need to be especially careful to avoid dishonesty or mean-spiritedness in their conversations or activites related to this issue.

Jesus did not say that the woman brought to him (in John ch8) was blameless. But Jesus DID insist that she be punished only when “he who is without sin” would cast the first stone. Jesus, if our take on him is right, was the only one there who was without sin. BUT HE REFUSED to pick up a stone to punish her. Then, AFTER he publicly embarrassed her accusers and they all left, he told her, “Go, and sin no more.”

That is a very helpful example of moral activism!

Leave a Reply to JeanValjean X

11 Comments

  • Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you! I don’t want your nose in my marriage, which if I were married, would be none of your business. It It is between me my God, and my spouse. It is only a vow, not for ever, for in the resurrection “men are neither married, nor are they given in marriage” this is an earthly issue, and the only bond that God plays is in witnessing these vows. So when it comes to legal aspect, the courts of this country, were not set up to mandate moral law, only legal, in which we are all created equal, and to be seen as equal. This homosexual marriage war cay, is nothing more than a red herring. “LET THE WICKED DO WICKEDLY AND THE JUST DO JUST!” GOD SHALL JUDGE!

  • Speaking only of homosexuals being allowed to marry in the eyes of the state, not the church – which is an entirely different issue – I would love to ask all those people vote against gays being allowed to marry other gays what they think homosexuals should do (i.e. what these people would vote for, if asked):
    a) Would they prefer homosexuals live a promiscuous life style?
    b) Would they prefer that homosexuals “choose to be normal” and marry a person of the other gender?
    c) Would they prefer that homosexuals live celibate lives (the choice often recommended by the supposedly expert celibate Catholic clergy) ?
    d) Would they prefer that homosexuals just put themselves out of their misery and commit suicide, as many of them do ?
    e) or is there some OTHER more rational option for all concerned? – like marriage recognized by the public at large, and let the churches mind their own beliefs.

  • Let’s think here. If this is a religious issue, congress is not supposed to make any laws regarding religion. Also it says what God hath joined let no man put asunder (Not what congress has allowed) Secondly, if you are taking it from a legal standpoint, it becomes discrimination. Because on its own (Without the dogma of modern leaders who use it as a red herring, because sin is sin, but this they can use this to rally people in anger for their own lust for power) it is no more than saying, two people with the same color eyes should not be allowed to be married. So in the end it really is a red herring, certain Pharisees throw out their, to have honor in the sight of men! If we are opening the bible, and making amendments, I assert that none should eat bacon, and none should have pepperoni pizza. None of you can work on the Sabbath, and if you lie you should go to jail. (Even those little “white lies”). I’m sure Jesus sat with the homosexuals too, but the priests he rebuked! the sight of men!

  • I’m reading “How the Republicans Stole Christmas” by Bill Press. In the section on gay issues, he said it would be more to the point if the Constitution were ammended to prohibit divorce, for that is what threatens marriage – not gay unions. He was tongue-in-cheek of course. But he means that if the conservatives are so eager to preserve marriage, that would be the way to do it. And of course that won’t fly either. Just puts it into persepective. The right is only stirring up trouble to keep themselves in power.

  • I think folks should stop trying to find statements in the Bible to justify and rationalize personal desires. The Bible does reference many things including certain sexual behaviors as sinful or abominations, and whether it explicitly said right or wrong, I think it’s pretty obvious what God thought was appropriate and inapproriate when He decided to destroy Sodom and Gamora the way He did.

    That being said, the Bible does talk about compassion, casting the first stone, etc. Pre-marital sex is considered wrong, as are a many other things. But just because we can vote and agree with what we asa society consider acceptable in our lives, that behavior should not be confused with what is moral or acceptable in God’s eyes.

    My husband is in the military and my only child will be leaving soon after his HS graduation to enter the military. My family believes, per the 10 Commandments, that all taking of lives is wrong. However, each person chooses their own path and actions, and in the end God will judge them based on their hearts when they made those decisions.

    There is a reason children use the term “sticks and stones” when referring to harsh words used against them.I, myself, if I look upon my own life, have no right to cast stones against those trying their best to make the world a better place, even if I don’t agree.

Share
Share
Tweet
Pin