Am I being inconsistent?

[jlujan69]

In this thread, I'm considering marriage only.

1. The Bible says, that believers (Christians, in this case) can only marry other believers--"Do not be unequally yoked"...It doesn't seem to say anything about non-Christians.

2. The Bible (arguably)says that there are only two reasons that allow for a Christian to divorce: adultery and abandoment....It doesn't seem to say anything about non-Christians.

Question to myself: Do I support legislation that would apply these biblical mandates on all people in my state or country or instead, do I give a nod to the Constitution and the fact that many in my state/country are not Christian, and even Christians should be free to choose? Hmm..

If the former, then how would I even apply that since the Bible doesn't seem to say anything regarding non-Christians? If the latter, then why do I not apply that same principle to the current issue of same sex marriage? Once again, hmm....

Lastly, how come none of you brought this point up to me in the "Abortion and Homosexuality" thread in this section? See why I come to these boards now?

[Napoleon the Clown]

You can realize that your decisions regarding this marriage stuff are between the believer and God, rather than getting the government involved.

Remember: It's not the government's job to legislate morality. The government's job is to protect the things in this life. You need to show that something is harmful to society for it to be something the government should be preventing. (Now if only they'd bloody follow that...)


So yeah, it's inconsistent. You can believe that God would not recognize a same-sex marriage without affecting anyone. Same-sex marriage laws in places that have them allow a church to decide they won't perform a marriage for same-sex couples. There are religions that will perform the marriage and there's the option of the couple going to a judge to get married.

[rookie]

Honestly, I'd have to say nope. You aren't being overtly hypocritical or inconsistent, at least no more than a majority of practicing christians. You have a rule book that you try to play by (your bible). You recognize that others may not be playing the same game.

So all you really have to do is decide if I can play football and you can play soccer and those guys can over there can play frisbee and we can all share the park. Or do we all have to fly kites.

Don't answer this here. It won't mean anything. The rest of your posts here at FSTDT will tell us.

[tolpuddlemartyr]

Question to myself: Do I support legislation that would apply these biblical mandates on all people in my state or country or instead, do I give a nod to the Constitution and the fact that many in my state/country are not Christian, and even Christians should be free to choose?

That's not inconsistancy, it's a personal dilemma. Inconsistancy would be if you proclaimed one but practiced the other.

[Yaezakura]

I think it's just important to separate the religious and legal institutions of marriage.

As far as your church is concerned, two Jews, or Muslims, or atheists or Buddhists of the opposite gender who are married aren't actually married in the eyes of the church. Most ignore this.

However, the moment two people of any faith of the same gender want to get married, suddenly the Biblical mandate comes out, and we have to pass laws to stop them even from being married in the eyes of the law.

So, there's two ways you can avoid being a hypocrite here. You can fight for laws that only allow two Christians of the opposite gender to marry, or you can support the Constitution and entirely keep religion out of the legal definition of marriage.

[Vene]

Oct 13, 2010 14:57:53 GMT -5 Napoleon the Clown said:

So yeah, it's inconsistent. You can believe that God would not recognize a same-sex marriage without affecting anyone. Same-sex marriage laws in places that have them allow a church to decide they won't perform a marriage for same-sex couples. There are religions that will perform the marriage and there's the option of the couple going to a judge to get married.

Churches can decide not to marry two individuals for whatever reason they want already. Like, they can decide they don't like interfaith marriage and forbid it. As such, nobody in their congregation can participate in one unless they leave it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Yeah, I said that because I've heard people expressing fear over churches being forced to perform gay marriages...

[jlujan69]

Even if I were to consider, from a biblical standpoint, that opposite gender marriages are God's universal (applicable to all people) rule, like the Ten Commandments are, still, I wouldn't necessarily support all of the Ten Commandments being legislated. I guess for the Christian, it may still boil down to does he want to legislate this particular biblical "universal" mandate. The answer to this issue (for the Christian) isn't necessarily as cut and dry as some of us may like to think. A Christian could support either side of this issue since both sides have legit arguments.

[matante]

Your conclusion doesn't have to be the "christian" conclusion. Don't you have your own conscience?
- What harm does allowing people religion says shouldn't marry to marry causes?
- What harm does forbidding people who love each other to marry causes?
To me, one of the above weights significantly more than the other. If I were religious, I may be tempted to see it the other way around, but it would contradict my conscience.
You can draw your conclusion and still pick the option most people here would disapprove of, but whether it's a biblical position shouldn't be the main factor. Can you really take a decision "as a christian" while other christians would disagree? What you surely can do, however, is take a decision in your own name, know what you as a complete person feel.

[Old Viking]

Go play jacks with your friends.

[jlujan69]

Oct 13, 2010 18:15:10 GMT -5 Old Viking said:

Go play jacks with your friends.

Does Urban Dictionary have that phrase?

[Napoleon the Clown]

In the time spent asking us that you could have looked it up yourself.

Just sayin'.

[Sigmaleph]

Oct 13, 2010 14:47:50 GMT -5 jlujan69 said:

In this thread, I'm considering marriage only.

1. The Bible says, that believers (Christians, in this case) can only marry other believers--"Do not be unequally yoked"...It doesn't seem to say anything about non-Christians.

2. The Bible (arguably)says that there are only two reasons that allow for a Christian to divorce: adultery and abandoment....It doesn't seem to say anything about non-Christians.

Question to myself: Do I support legislation that would apply these biblical mandates on all people in my state or country or instead, do I give a nod to the Constitution and the fact that many in my state/country are not Christian, and even Christians should be free to choose? Hmm..

If the former, then how would I even apply that since the Bible doesn't seem to say anything regarding non-Christians? If the latter, then why do I not apply that same principle to the current issue of same sex marriage? Once again, hmm....

Let's state the principles at work here. If at any point I'm wrong, please correct me.
1) You believe the Bible opposes same-sex marriage
2) You believe the Bible opposes interfaith marriage and most forms of divorce
3) You believe the Bible is an important source of morality (perhaps the most important?)
4) You believe that which laws you support should be based on your sense of whether or not they are immoral.

You oppose same-sex marriage based on 1, 3 and 4. You do not apply this same reasoning to 2, because of something you describe as "giving a nod to the constitution". I'm not clear here if your problem is with 2 and 3 or with 2 and 4. That is, do you consider divorce and interfaith marriage as immoral as same-sex marriage? If not, then the problem is 2 and 3. If so, then the problem must be 2 and 4.

All of which point towards there being another principle at work, one which distinguishes 1 and 2 in how they relate to 3 or 4. Possibly something about same-sex marriage that makes it "more immoral" than divorce, etc, or that makes it more important to legislate against.

If such principle exists, then you're not necessarily inconsistent, but your reasoning is more complex than it appears on the surface. My guess would be status quo bias, but I can't read your mind.

I may be completely wrong about this, human reasoning is complicated. In the event you think that what I'm saying makes some measure of sense, though, consider what is your hidden principle and if it is justified or not.

[Cymraes]

I always understood the 2 Corinthians 6:14 verse, which begins "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers", was about entering into a business agreement rather than about marriage. Two oxen joined together by a wooden yoke having to work together to accomplish the task of ploughing a field, for instance - if one is weaker or smaller than the other, then you end up ploughing in circles and not getting anywhere.

I suppose you could link this to marriage, but the passage makes no reference to this at all.

[rookie]

Oct 13, 2010 14:47:50 GMT -5 jlujan69 said:

Lastly, how come none of you brought this point up to me in the "Abortion and Homosexuality" thread in this section? See why I come to these boards now?

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out if you are a brilliant poe or not. That's why I haven't slammed you yet. I'm sure everyone else has better reasons than that though.