Is it disrespectful to Christianity to force nonbelievers to follow our laws?

Unfortunately, I do not come down squarely on either side of this issue. I agree with you and then I don't. I guess that makes me wishy-washy...something I hate!

I can see your point and have even made that point at times. Take religion and religious morality out of government and there is no reason not to allow gay marriage. From a purely secular point of view it is perfectly within the laws and rights of the individuals.

But, as much as we would like to claim a separation...it filters into our schools, taught to our children, and even though as Christian parents we raise our kids to understand morals and values based on our religious beliefs, we cannot stop this kind of thinking from invading the minds of our children and even ourselves.

So I guess for me it goes both ways, while one might say we should not force our beliefs on others...also the secular beliefs should not be forced on me. But I find they are. I am forced to allow my tax money to fund abortions and other morally offensive acts.

My children should not be taught things that I find morally and religiously offensive any more than those who are offended by morality and religion should have their children taught these things.

I think the problem is that the world beliefs have become the accepted norm and Christianity is outside that. It used to be that Christian beliefs were the norm. But this is no longer so.

But we are all knitted together as the fabric of humanity. We exist together and are intimately interconnected. We cannot be Christians and not interact with the world. We have to. So, I think that we should work to change laws for the good of humanity, which includes the knowledge of eternal life. God doesn't exist becasue we believe or do not believe. He exists...period! We have an obligation to stand up for Christ, and for humanity.

I don't think we should be angry about it, but consistent about it. I march at the Pro-Life march in DC every year. It is prayerful and peaceful. We are just a presence saying, this is an abomination. If one persons heart is changed, than it is worth it. I think with the gay marriage and other moral issues, we need to keep up the constant, respectful stance even as the world is swept down the easy road. It's still worthwhile to stand up for the truth.

Well, we who believe this is a Christian Nation, are always told that it is not, so what laws are we talking about?

If we are not a Christian Nation then the laws set forth in our country are secular laws. Put in place by our representative government.

Btw, those that don't want Gay's to marry are not all Christians.

Put the Gay marriage issue on the ballot as a referendum and

let that settle it. But the Gay community doesn't want that because it would be voted down by a wide margin. Just as abortion would be if it was ever on any ballot.

But, personally I think we should get our government out of the marriage business completely and have no such thing as being "legally married."

Paul taught in various places that we shouldn't expect nonChristians to act like Christians; but we should hold each other accountable within the church.

There are parts of morality within the Bible that are, as they should be, encoded in the law--don't kill, don't steal, etc. But these are laws that protect people from being harmed. Such morality is basic to the Bible, but not limited to it.

As for harming Christian marriage, I've tried hard to figure out how that would happen, and can't think of any ways my marriage would be threatened by it. But my thoughts have been more centered on gay Christians and how the marriage issue affects them. I wanted them treated fairly.

I confess, this has been a hard issue for me to face and I'm still dealing with it. But, pretty much have come to the same conclusions you just voiced. Thanks for saying it so much better than I could!

I realize that what I'm about to say has been said enough times so that it has become trite, but here it is again: No religion's adherents have the right to legislate morality on the general public.

I add the following: No religion's adherents should attempt to insinuate their dogma on the unbelieving and the unwilling. No religion's adherents should attempt any disruption of the proper and necessary separation of church and state. This is the 21st century, not the era of Inquisition.

Add: But I notice a few here who would love to go back to the days of the Inquisition. Lion of Judah would prosper there. Too bad for him that he was born way too late.

The point our forefathers were making concerning our democratic republic is not to satisfy every individual's views regarding how we adopt and legislate civil or criminal law in in society, for that would be impossible, although each and every vote is very important, but rather have the majority consensus concerning laws of society. You are looking at only one side of a coin, as-it-were, here with your Q, that being most likely a secularist minority vote having to obey laws that are established by a majority who espouse to a Judeo-Christian ethic of life.

What happens if its just the opposite? Is this somehow more fair in your eyes because the traditionalist must submit to laws that they don't agree with? You may say that it doesn't involve their private lives, like the inverse would. Really? You don't see that there's actually even greater ramifications for the traditionalist than it is now for the secularist in America. For example, if ENDA, as it was written, gets voted in as is then most likely the Boy Scouts of America will have to close its doors, traditionalist bosses will have to hire folks who publicize ungodly lifestyles, even at their place of employment, and also tolerate men in women's bathrooms, and women in men's, else be fined and possibly forced to close their doors if they don't. And, if gay marriage becomes law around the country, this will actually make the sanctity of traditional marriage much more irrelevant to our culture than it already is, due to cohabitation and no-fault divorce laws. Just as in many continental Europe countries, youth will not marry any longer as a whole, but choose much more to cohabit or join in a civil union, bonding out of convenience rather than life long commitment. Btw, the average length of lesbian coupling is 5 to 6 years, and gay male coupling is only 1 and half to two years, with still averaging arrangements with 8 other homosexual relationships during that time period, according to a Dutch study from 2002. Now do you see that the cost is not only just as great personally, and culturally, but greater? I sure hope you do.

No. All laws represent someones morals, so the real question is whose morals are our laws going to represent? If you give any other answer than God's, you're wrong.

You say you just want everybody's opinion on the matter....Is my opinion as important as a supreme court justice?

Yes, if I'm right; and especially if you ask my daughter.

Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus abolish the Ten Commandments. Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus contradict anything in the Old Testament.

Do you know what the word etymology means? Where do you think the word sodomy came from?

Wow. I guess you're right...i suppose i'd thought of that before, but not in such a coherent way.

It's kind of like when they wanted to build that super-mosque in the UK. Loads of Christians got up in arms about it, because they thought that would encourage Islam in the country. What they couldn't see was it would be there with or without the mosque - but in complaining about it being built, they were causing Muslims to turn against them.

There are a lot of Christians who believe that if you force someone hard enough, they'll listen to you. But people aren't going to be bullied that easily. In fact, i know myself i would be far more likely to listen to something that was a choice than was forced on me.

At the same time, i understand their reasons for arguing. It could appear that by not going against something, you are condoning it - which, in gay marriage sorts of arguments, is what creates the issue for many Christians.

But yes, i agree. I think it should be a choice, and time could be far better spent peaceably debating with people to make them see your point of view, rather than demanding they obey laws of a religion they do not believe in.

In the society we live in, religion has a place - and a deserved place. But when politics and religion try and mix, it can only result in diluted compromise which neither "side" is really truly happy with. Good question :)

Oh my gosh -- someone who can think rationally!

Thank you very much. I agree with your "political" stand. And most of your ideas about Christianity.

However, I disagree with your stand on a "Christian" marriage. But your thoughtful stand is so refreshing! And you certainly are entitled to your interpretation of scripture.

I would contend however that neither organized religion nor government can STOP same sex marriage. It is a "covenant" between two people before God. (Or if you do not believe in God it still can not be abrogated by anyone else).

No "church" can "break" this covenant. Of course they CAN recognize it and support it as many churches now do.

When are "Christians" going to recognize that the same love and commitment between two homosexuals is in no way different from that between two heterosexuals.

There is no difference between myself and my partner than between my uncle and his wife. Neither of us can have kids. But our love for each other and committemnt is identical.

How can you base any objection PURELY on a physical aspect that we can not put a penis into a vagina? I am tired of being judged by NOT what is in our hearts, but merely some attribute of a physical act of sex. Why do you insist on reducing marriage to its physical act of sex? Isn't marriage so much more that that?

================================

BLUE316 wrote:

"why should it be so important for gays to have this marriage right.."

SIMPLE -- for excatly the same reason YOU should be allowed to be married BECAUSE IT IS OUR RIGHT.

Are you implying that ONLY some people are allowed the right to marry? How about all our other rights? Should SOME people be denied these ALSO?

====================================

MRMYERS wrote

"Christians should love all people, be unjudging and uncritical, and truly exemplify the love of Christ."

I wish HE would abide by this. How can he then JUDGE my relationship by calling it "perverse and corrupt" !

==================================

SUMMERB wrote

"Gay marriage o.k.'d by the state will affect Christian marraiges and Christian families."

HOW? Except that it will STRENGTHEN Christian marriage and Christian family!.

First off, true Christians arent under any laws. True Christians should live decently and morally as defined by Biblical standards.

I agree that we shouldnt force anyone to obey our moral standards or religious beliefs. However, we shouldnt just open the door to perversion and corruptness just because other people see nothing wrong with certain actions. Regardless of the laws of the land, Christians should love all people, be unjudging and uncritical, and truly exemplify the love of Christ. We are doing a horrible job at that currently.

All men are endowed, by the Creator, with the "inalienable" right to LIFE, LIBERY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS.

This freedom IS the law under Christianity. It is only officially atheist governments and religions of Asia and the Middle East that prohibit liberty to worship (or NOT worship) as YOU choose.

Under Christian governments there should be NO barrier to ethical beliefs, or morally good unbelievers, to choose their best path freely.

God is not a puppetmaster. He did not make us robots. Sadly he allows horrorible crimes and terrors, because we must be free, to truly choose to love, respect and serve our heavenly Father!!!