A Call for Christians to "Save" Traditional Marriage
WASHINGTON -- The Institute on Religion and Democracy has released a new paper touting the social value of traditional marriage and taking stock of the debate about its future in U.S. society. Part of the Institute's Mount Nebo series on religion and the public square, the marriage paper poses the question: "Our society's view of marriage, centered on mutual emotional satisfaction, is already far from classic Christian teaching. Now pro-homosexuality advocates are seeking to radically redefine marriage, reducing it to a relationship between any 'two people who love each other.' Amidst all this conflict, is it worth the cost for Christians to continue to defend this embattled institution?"
Designed for individual or group study, the 47-page paper examines key biblical passages related to marriage, as well as the history of the church's approach to marriage. It surveys the official teachings of many denominations, finding "a wide agreement on many points." The paper presents social science evidence showing the weakened state of marriage today, but also the benefits that marriage brings for both adults and children. It addresses sensitive issues such as cohabitation and same-sex marriage. The paper can be viewed free of charge on the Institute's website at www.TheIRD.org.
Alan Wisdom, IRD's Vice President for Research and Programs commented:
"By many measures, marriage has weakened in our society. Fewer people marry. More people divorce. Increasing numbers follow a pattern of 'serial monogamy.'
"U.S. Christians have three options. They can yield to the trends devaluing marriage. Or they can admit defeat in society but try to maintain traditional teachings inside the church. Or they can swim against the current and insist that both church and society lend a hand in strengthening marriage. We believe that only this last option is faithful to the Scriptures and conducive to the long-term good of society.
"The battle for marriage is far from over. The question is whether U.S. Christians are ready to move from a defensive position (defeating efforts to redefine marriage) to a more proactive posture (working together to strengthen marriage)."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If I recollect correctly, Jesus instructed against messing with government. The U.S. Constitution wisely prohibits the state from interfering with issues of religion and conscience. Christ instructed his followers to avoid meddling in politics . Seems to make good sense to me on both sides.
Why should society bend to the whims of a group within itself? Christians are free to define marriage as they see it amongst themselves... why should non-Christians be bound by that view?
Because it is the mission of many millions of faithful people in this nation to spread the word of God. Their hearts swell with love and joy to the point that they cannot contain it all within their being and they want to share that with everyone.
I wonder if the same love and joy swells within the breasts of proponents of same-sex marriage .
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“Because it is the mission of many millions of faithful people in this nation to spread the word of God. Their hearts swell with love and joy to the point that they cannot contain it all within their being and they want to share that with everyone.”
That’s all well and good for them, but their right to do so ends when they start pushing that opinion on those who do not share their beliefs.
“I wonder if the same love and joy swells within the breasts of proponents of same-sex marriage .”
I cannot recall a single serious instance of a homosexual suggesting that everyone should be gay. They all seem rather happy to let heterosexuals keep getting married… just wanting to get married as well.
"They all seem rather happy to let heterosexuals keep getting married… just wanting to get married as well."
That’s all well and good for them, but their right to do so ends when they start pushing that opinion on those who do not share their beliefs.
So, here we have the crux of the issue, I believe.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
How are they pushing their opinion on others? They are just seeking equal rights.
People who don't believe that homosexuals should get married are free to treat a married homosexual couple as though they were not (and look like massive jerks to everyone else) but they have no justification to deny legal rights to anyone.
...That they are indeed pushing that on others by demanding church marriages. Civil unions by a magistrate are the legal and financial equivalent, but not enough. They are pushing for church marriages, just like heterosexuals get in their church.
If this wasn't the case, then why would the church frown on same-sex marriage ?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Can you cite one instance where they have 'demanded' a church marriage ?
Why does it matter where they get married or what it is called?
"They are pushing for church marriages, just like heterosexuals get in their church."
I have been to several marriages in my life time and none were in a church, only one was officiated by a priest... all of those couples are happily married.
What do you think "Equal Rights" mean?
They already get the legal and financial benefits as any other married couple. The only difference is the religious part. The bottom line there is that is should be up to the church to decide, not the state. Just as it is up to the state to allow legal and financial benefits, not the church.
How is this difficult to understand?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
So the government should stop issuing marriage licenses, and just issue civil unions ... and then let the couples hold whatever ceremonies they want and have themselves called whatever they want (Husband/Wife, Husband/Husband, Horseshoe/Horseshoe)? Sounds quite reasonable to me.
As long as the government continues to issue marriage licenses, but deny them to homosexual couples, there will be an issue.