Same sex marriage in Protestant churches

[Publisher]

It depends on the Yearly Meeting the Monthly Meeting belongs to. North Pacific Yearly Meeting embraces the GLBT community as fellow Travelers on our Journey and recongnize that they too bear witness to the Light Within…and “That of God” indwells them just as surely as He indwells those “straight” members.

We have had Meetings for Worship for Marriage that joined two same sex members together in “marriage after the manner of Friends” and accept them as full members with all rights and priveleges of ministry and service within the Meeting. I have been an elder under a wonderful Clerk of the Meeting who happened to be lesbian…her partner was Recording Clerk.

Our “Faith and Practice” provides the “order of service” for a “Meeting for Worship for Marriage”…and it includes the words “husband, wife or partner” to be used in the 'ritual words" …“In the presence of God and these our friends, I take thee name__ to be my “wife, husband, partner”…”

 

[liturgyluver]

That is symantics. RINGS ARE EXCHANGED AND VOWS ARE TAKEN. Anyone who thinks there is a difference between a ceremony of blessing and marriage is fooling themselves.

That’s just your opinion - and there is no need to shout - I am not blind or deaf! As a pentecostal, I don’t suppose that marriage is considered a sacrament is it? Our Archbishop in England and Wales sees a clear distinction between blessings and civil partnerships and marriage.

 

[liturgyluver]

Before learning about the Swedish Lutherans in your post, the United Church of Christ is the only one I knew of that has actually endorsed SS marriage. But I’m not even sure how many actual marriages have been performed in the UCC and it is very congregational in the sense that much is left to the discretion of congregations.

Yes, friend, that it my understanding.

 

[CMatt25]

That’s just your opinion - and there is no need to shout - I am not blind or deaf!

 

[ltwin]

That’s just your opinion - and there is no need to shout - I am not blind or deaf! As a pentecostal, I don’t suppose that marriage is considered a sacrament is it? Our Archbishop in England and Wales sees a clear distinction between blessings and civil partnerships and marriage.

No, it isn’t a sacrament. But we still get married in the sight of God, and we still believe that you cannot bless what God has condemned. Thanks for letting me know what you’re Archbishop thinks, but many of the activists in the Episcopal Church pushing this recent legislation know what they are fighting for—the recognition of same sex marriage by the Episcopal Church. TEC’s recent actions, despite what they call it, essentially accomplishes this.

 

[seeker57]

Since the United Church of Christ, with whom we share many similarities, was mentioned, I thought I should mention us as well.

Unitarian Universalists not only approve of marriage equality, but ceremonies marrying same sex couples have been, and are still being, performed in our churches.

Moreover, we have openly gay, lesbian and transgendered ministers in our congregations, regardless of whether they are in a reltionship or not.

Like our UCC cousins, we, too, are very congregational. That means how active a congregation is on a particular issue is very much guided by the will of the members of that congregation.

Of course, I realize this information may be irrelevant to some here, because some Christians consider UUs to be either heretics or apostates, depending on who you talk to and the spiritual path follwed by the particular UU.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[CMatt25]

Since the United Church of Christ, with whom we share many similarities, was mentioned, I thought I should mention us as well.

Unitarian Universalists not only approve of marriage equality, but ceremonies marrying same sex couples have been, and are still being, performed in our churches.

Moreover, we have openly gay, lesbian and transgendered ministers in our congregations, regardless of whether they are in a reltionship or not.

Like our UCC cousins, we, too, are very congregational. That means how active a congregation is on a particular issue is very much guided by the will of the members of that congregation.

Of course, I realize this information may be irrelevant to some here, because some Christians consider UUs to be either heretics or apostates, depending on who you talk to and the spiritual path follwed by the particular UU.

Peace,

Seeker

Seeker, my apologies for not thinking of UU in my responses to this thread. I’m afraid I must confess my mind was more or less limited to mainline Protestant Christian denominations and since UU members for the most part today don’t profess being Christians, I overlooked you guys. I don’t myself bother with labeling people heretics and apostates though as you probably know and no offense meant by the oversight. Bless you on your faith journey. Peace.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Itwin,

The Sacrament of Matrimony was clearly identified by Christ (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6) as being between one man and one woman. The efforts to hijack this Sacrament into extoling sodomy is truly sad.

I would go easy on that, “…in the sight of God…” section - the Bible makes it quite clear that it condemns homosexual behavior. This is really an abomination in the sight of God.

One of the biggest challenges is how to continue justify sin as something virtuous. Merely saying, ‘Hey, we love each other so it must be right!’ really just doesn’t work, so I would really be inteested in knowing how the Episcopal Church thinks it can either re-write Scriputre or simply redefine whatever it is they don’t like into something that they do like. Any ideas on this?

God bless

No, it isn’t a sacrament. But we still get married in the sight of God, and we still believe that you cannot bless what God has condemned. Thanks for letting me know what you’re Archbishop thinks, but many of the activists in the Episcopal Church pushing this recent legislation know what they are fighting for—the recognition of same sex marriage by the Episcopal Church. TEC’s recent actions, despite what they call it, essentially accomplishes this.

 

[ltwin]

Hi, Itwin,

The Sacrament of Matrimony was clearly identified by Christ (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6) as being between one man and one woman. The efforts to hijack this Sacrament into extoling sodomy is truly sad.

I would go easy on that, “…in the sight of God…” section - the Bible makes it quite clear that it condemns homosexual behavior. This is really an abomination in the sight of God.

One of the biggest challenges is how to continue justify sin as something virtuous. Merely saying, ‘Hey, we love each other so it must be right!’ really just doesn’t work, so I would really be inteested in knowing how the Episcopal Church thinks it can either re-write Scriputre or simply redefine whatever it is they don’t like into something that they do like. Any ideas on this?

God bless

Not that I agree with them but I’ve talked to liberal Christians and even non-Christians in academic settings. This is what they tell me: Concerning passages in the Old Testament that condemn homosexual behavior—Christians are not bound by the Old Testament. Concerning the passages that condemn homosexual behavior in the New Testament, they tell me that the word “homosexual” was not invented until the 19th century and that Paul and others of his day could never have been talking about homosexuals. What he was really talking about, they say, is something else. What that something else is varies. Some say Paul was talking about men who molested little boys. Others say he is talking about “effeminate men.” Others say he is talking about straight people who go against THEIR nature and embrace homosexual behavior (but of course homosexuals embracing homosexual behavior is perfectly legitimate).

In fact, this refusal to face reality is embedded deeply within the governing body of TEC. Just a few days ago, the General Convention was asked to approve the English Standard Version translation of the Bible for use in Episcopal churches. The House of Deputies approved it, but afterward, one deputy just felt the need to read 1 Corinthians 6:9 and was shocked and hurt that TEC would approve a Bible translation that contained bigoted language in it. The bigoted language?

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So of course, the House reconsidered the matter and the ESV translation was not approved. The funny thing is is that every other Bible translation currently approved by TEC uses the same language in that verse.

So, I don’t see it getting better at this point. Most of the conservative dioceses have already jumped ship for the Anglican Church in North America. There are a few conservative dioceses and bishops left, like the Diocese of South Carolina. But their Bishop Mark Lawrence has already been brought up on disciplinary charges due to his refusal to bow to national pressure. So how long these conservative dioceses are allowed to continue in an orthodox manner is anyone’s guess.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Itwin,

This is very sad. These people have essentially become their own god - determining what it is that they will believe.

I have absolutely no idea what these individuals think that they will accomplish, besides deceiving the truly foolish and naive into thinking sin is not sin. All will one day stand before the Throne of God. I guess that if a group of drug addicts entered TEC and declared that neither the OT or NT says anything about drug addiction because it was unknown at the time (of course, alcohol addiction was well known, but that is obviously different) then drug abuse would be sanctioned.

Matthew 21 and Mark 12 tell the interesting parable of men who thought they could do what they wanted to do with the vineyard that they were renting. Killing the Son was the conclusion of how they started with simple theft and then spiraled down to murder. Those that champion homosexual behavior are never satisfied - and the reason for this is that lust knows no bounds. Children, of necessity, must be brought into this process because sodomy demands fresh bodies.

Christ told

Not that I agree with them but I’ve talked to liberal Christians and even non-Christians in academic settings. This is what they tell me: Concerning passages in the Old Testament that condemn homosexual behavior—Christians are not bound by the Old Testament. Concerning the passages that condemn homosexual behavior in the New Testament, they tell me that the word “homosexual” was not invented until the 19th century and that Paul and others of his day could never have been talking about homosexuals. What he was really talking about, they say, is something else. What that something else is varies. Some say Paul was talking about men who molested little boys. Others say he is talking about “effeminate men.” Others say he is talking about straight people who go against THEIR nature and embrace homosexual behavior (but of course homosexuals embracing homosexual behavior is perfectly legitimate).

In fact, this refusal to face reality is embedded deeply within the governing body of TEC. Just a few days ago, the General Convention was asked to approve the English Standard Version translation of the Bible for use in Episcopal churches. The House of Deputies approved it, but afterward, one deputy just felt the need to read 1 Corinthians 6:9 and was shocked and hurt that TEC would approve a Bible translation that contained bigoted language in it. The bigoted language?

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So of course, the House reconsidered the matter and the ESV translation was not approved. The funny thing is is that every other Bible translation currently approved by TEC uses the same language in that verse.

So, I don’t see it getting better at this point. Most of the conservative dioceses have already jumped ship for the Anglican Church in North America. There are a few conservative dioceses and bishops left, like the Diocese of South Carolina. But their Bishop Mark Lawrence has already been brought up on disciplinary charges due to his refusal to bow to national pressure. So how long these conservative dioceses are allowed to continue in an orthodox manner is anyone’s guess.

 

[CMatt25]

This is very sad. These people have essentially become their own god - determining what it is that they will believe.

That or they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them or the clergy or the theologians they place faith in, to further understanding.

 

[Hunter24]

The efforts to hijack this Sacrament into extoling sodomy is truly sad.

They are not hijacking anything. Christianity does not own marriage, and while it is perfectly fine for a religion to approve of one type of marriage over another, it is very wrong for a religion to go out and tell other people what they can and can’t do, or worse, change the law so that people can’t do things against a religions morals whether they follow it or not. The concept of marriage has been around alot longer than christianity, Christianity has no right to say what is or isn’t marriage outside its own adherents. What’s even worse is that you are trying to change the law to force your morals on others. That’s called Theocracy and I hope there’s none here crazy enough to ever advocate that.

This is why I’m a Libritarian not a republican, so many Christians try to stuff their beliefs down others throats. A ban on gay marriage would probably be the most unconstitutional law ever passed (because prohibition was written in to the constitution). It goes against what the united states stands for. I’m not gay, and I’m not telling you that you half to like gay marriage, I’m just pointing out how wrong this is. Every time Sharia law comes up in the US everyone has a fit. Well how is this any different? Religious law. The only reason you like that idea is because it’s your religion.

 

[exnihilo]

The concept of marriage has been around alot longer than christianity, Christianity has no right to say what is or isn’t marriage outside its own adherents.

If that is so what was marriage before Christianity? One feature that predated Christianity is being between a man and a woman. What right do non-adherents have to impose their definition of marriage on Christians? At the end of the fight someone will be imposed upon.

What’s even worse is that you are trying to change the law to force your morals on others. That’s called Theocracy and I hope there’s none here crazy enough to ever advocate that.

Actually the changing of the law is being done by pro homosexual forces including Christians. Everyone knew marriage was between a man and a woman for most of history. But the whole purpose of the law is to force morals on others. Every law is promoted based on a claim of morality. Societies, particularly democratic, remove any law that is not viewed as moral. Since every law is forcing morality on others it would be foolish for Christians to not advocate for laws reflecting their morals.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

God’s inspired Word does address how we are not to take everything that everyone dishes out in the name of God - lest they be deceived by a most unholy spirit:

1 Thessalonians 5 tells us to test everything and to hold onto the good.

1 John 4 tells us not to believe every spirit - but to test them to see what is of God.

Those who neglect such diligence can easily find someone who cares for their needs like the Rev Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple fame en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones Failure to test the spirit can be hazardous to both your physical and spiritual health.

God bless

That or they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them or the clergy or the theologians they place faith in, to further understanding.

 

[Hunter24]

If that is so what was marriage before Christianity? One feature that predated Christianity is being between a man and a woman. What right do non-adherents have to impose their definition of marriage on Christians? At the end of the fight someone will be imposed upon.

So you are of the opinion that If a person is not in a Christian marriage they are is no marriage at all? So over 2/3 of the people in the world are fornicating? As was everyone before Christianity. You say that they are forcing their morals on you. How so? They are not forcing Christians to become homosexual, nor do they force Christians priests to marry homosexuals. How is two non Christian gays getting married them forcing their morals on you? You are not required to even acknowledge they exist.

Actually the changing of the law is being done by pro homosexual forces including Christians. Everyone knew marriage was between a man and a woman for most of history. But the whole purpose of the law is to force morals on others. Every law is promoted based on a claim of morality. Societies, particularly democratic, remove any law that is not viewed as moral. Since every law is forcing morality on others it would be foolish for Christians to not advocate for laws reflecting their morals.

Many Christians are advocating a law that would change the national defenition of marriage in the united states to"one man and one woman". There is no law the defines anything but the legal benefits of marriage currently. You are correct that laws are originally based in morals but in modern times laws are more structured to prevent you hurting people. It’s perfectly legal to be Imoral as long as it is not a danger to harm anyone. Name me one law in a democratic country that limits a moral decision that doesn’t effect others.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

You are mistaken.

Many Christians are advocating a law that would change the national defenition of marriage in the united states to"one man and one woman". There is no law the defines anything but the legal benefits of marriage currently. You are correct that laws are originally based in morals but in modern times laws are more structured to prevent you hurting people. It’s perfectly legal to be Imoral as long as it is not a danger to harm anyone. Name me one law in a democratic country that limits a moral decision that doesn’t effect others.

There are (or at least recently were) laws that forbid siblings marrying, or marriage of children to parents, or marriage within the 2nd degree of kindred, marriage must have the consent of both parties - one can be mentally deficient, drunk, or drugged and still give valid consent.

Morality and law have many overlaps. But, if you think of law as there to prevent the hurting of people - you have the majority of laws…but, there are exceptions Everything that would hurt someone else (fraud, deceit, lying, theft, murder, etc) is a violation of morality.- but, not ncessarily law. For example, abortion kills - yet it is legal. A parent can disinherit a child for no reason - legal but morally questionable.

We see in many ancient records that one man would have many wives. There really isn’t any evidence I am aware of for one woman having multiple husbands. The fact that homosexual behavior was going on in the ancient world did not elevate such unions to recognize marriage.

The very nature of a society to continue is to have future generations that are nurtured in a stable environment so that they can be counted on to continue the society. Now, this ‘stable environment’ is a very broad area - from the military rule of Sparta to the more laid back approach of Athens - both produced stable future citizens. Groupings of homosexuals would just die out unless there were some type of outside intervention. This means that the groupings are not stable in themselves to further the real ends of a society.

God bless

 

[exnihilo]

So you are of the opinion that If a person is not in a Christian marriage they are is no marriage at all? So over 2/3 of the people in the world are fornicating? As was everyone before Christianity. You say that they are forcing their morals on you. How so? They are not forcing Christians to become homosexual, nor do they force Christians priests to marry homosexuals. How is two non Christian gays getting married them forcing their morals on you? You are not required to even acknowledge they exist.

First I ask again what is marriage? You said marriage predates Christianity. I agree. But how do you describe what is this marriage?

I am of the opinion that non-Christian marriages are marriages. Of course marriage is only between a man and a woman so only such relationships are marriage.

If gay ‘marriage’ is made legal then it will be forced on everyone because all laws are about force. If gay ‘marriage’ is just a word to describe relationships but has no power of law then it would not be forced upon anyone. But if it is legal then it will be forced upon people just like seat belt laws are. I can assure you that based on Civil Rights laws if gay ‘marriage’ is legal then Christians will be imposed upon.

Many Christians are advocating a law that would change the national defenition of marriage in the united states to"one man and one woman". There is no law the defines anything but the legal benefits of marriage currently. You are correct that laws are originally based in morals but in modern times laws are more structured to prevent you hurting people. It’s perfectly legal to be Imoral as long as it is not a danger to harm anyone. Name me one law in a democratic country that limits a moral decision that doesn’t effect others.

The national definition of marriage was between a man and a woman. If you looked up in any dictionary the word marriage you’d find this condition. So the changes are not from Christians who agree with this definition. The word marriage may not be defined in laws simply because most words are not defined in law. The word ‘is’ is not defined in laws, much to Bill Clinton’s delight. The nature of the law is that language tends to be somewhat vague and based on common understandings and clearer definitions are made only after challenges to the common definition.

‘Laws are more structured to prevent you hurting people’ - what does this mean? Hurting people could mean all sorts of things. But behind hurting people is the idea of morality. The police have every right to hurt me physical, that is to use violence against me, to compel me to obey the most trivial law that you are saying exists to prevent people from hurting each other. So preventing people from hurting other people can not be the ultimate goal of the law otherwise the law would have no means by which to compel people to obey.

 

[Hunter24]

We see in many ancient records that one man would have many wives. There really isn’t any evidence I am aware of for one woman having multiple husbands. The fact that homosexual behavior was going on in the ancient world did not elevate such unions to recognize marriage.

The very nature of a society to continue is to have future generations that are nurtured in a stable environment so that they can be counted on to continue the society. Now, this ‘stable environment’ is a very broad area - from the military rule of Sparta to the more laid back approach of Athens - both produced stable future citizens. Groupings of homosexuals would just die out unless there were some type of outside intervention. This means that the groupings are not stable in themselves to further the real ends of a society.

God bless

Actualy there are cultures in africa which practice polyandry. Traditionally these people have a custom where all the sons of a family marry the same woman.

Also, if gay community’s will die out then what’s the harm? You don’t contribute to society solely by having children.

 

[Hunter24]

First I ask again what is marriage? You said marriage predates Christianity. I agree. But how do you describe what is this marriage?

I am of the opinion that non-Christian marriages are marriages. Of course marriage is only between a man and a woman so only such relationships are marriage.

If gay ‘marriage’ is made legal then it will be forced on everyone because all laws are about force. If gay ‘marriage’ is just a word to describe relationships but has no power of law then it would not be forced upon anyone. But if it is legal then it will be forced upon people just like seat belt laws are. I can assure you that based on Civil Rights laws if gay ‘marriage’ is legal then Christians will be imposed upon.

The national definition of marriage was between a man and a woman. If you looked up in any dictionary the word marriage you’d find this condition. So the changes are not from Christians who agree with this definition. The word marriage may not be defined in laws simply because most words are not defined in law. The word ‘is’ is not defined in laws, much to Bill Clinton’s delight. The nature of the law is that language tends to be somewhat vague and based on common understandings and clearer definitions are made only after challenges to the common definition.

‘Laws are more structured to prevent you hurting people’ - what does this mean? Hurting people could mean all sorts of things. But behind hurting people is the idea of morality. The police have every right to hurt me physical, that is to use violence against me, to compel me to obey the most trivial law that you are saying exists to prevent people from hurting each other. So preventing people from hurting other people can not be the ultimate goal of the law otherwise the law would have no means by which to compel people to obey.

You are incorrect, the cultural definition of marriage is a man and woman, however there is no federal definition that says so. Instead the Feds have decided it is a state issue. I live in state that has legal gay marriage, we’re the only one for 1000 miles and when it went through the entire state was up in arms. You know what’s changed sense? Not a thing. There’s no noticeably larger gay presence, no gay pride rally’s, god hasn’t sent locust to eat the crops. Please elaborate on how gay marriage being legal will effect you as an individual?
Or even society as a whole.

 

[ForeverGrace]

The Episcopals will perform same sex marriages in a state that has found it legal. Outside of those states they will do ‘blessings’.

There is another fringe church called the "metropolitan church’. They have even said that Jesus would have approved of pedophilia. They will perform marriages under the same circumstances as the Episcopals.

However… when it comes to the Episcopal church you need to further investigate. The Episcopal church is severely fractured in America… many have left the headship of the Episcopals and call themselves Anglican.

There are some churches who won’t perform marriages but take a liberal stand on homosexuality. The Evangelical Lutherans, the Methodists, some liberal Presbyterians. It’s important to distinguish between the liberal and conservative branches of these denominations.

I forgot, the Church of Christ will also do same sex marriages again, if the state allows.

My church will never perform this kind of sinful union. Not ever.