Just because Paul tells us to pray for our leaders, doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t also have voted to define marriage the way God defines it. You do need to allow for the difference between a government that the early Christian had no say in, and the current government in which we have a say.

Which is fine and good, but doesn’t actually address my first point. You can conjecture all you like, Peter, about how Paul may or may not have voted, but it’s just that: conjecture. I would note that while Paul (and most of the other citizens of Rome) might not have been able to vote, he did have opportunities to be heard at the highest levels of government… and at no time did he go to Caesar calling for the enactment of laws that would establish Christian morality. What he did call for, each time, was acknowledgment as Jesus as Lord.

There is no such thing as “societal good” apart from Christianity.

I would grant that there’s no real good or grace apart from God, but I think we can have an understanding of common grace that tells us that even unbelievers who reject Christianity still experience some societal good, and can in fact achieve great societal good. Yes, we as Christians understand that it is only by God’s grace, but the unbelievers who are doing good things for society are actually, really, as far as I’m concerned, doing good things.

This may sound like being a ‘homer’, but frankly…God’s Word _doesn’t_ change over time.

Again, Peter, you’re attacking a position that I didn’t take. I fully agree that God’s Word doesn’t change over time. If you’d care to address what I said about society’s views and understandings changing, you’re welcome to.

I know you’ve heard this before, but marriage is defined by God, not by man. So…..why should we, as the church, stand back and say that we have no problems with it being redefined? I sincerely doubt that the world at large is going to understand or appreciate the differences between “God says it is wrong, so society shouldn’t do it” and “God says it’s wrong, but he also tells us that we shouldn’t tell anyone not to do it unless they’ve also come to faith and repentance”.

I’d suggest you check out my previous post on this subject, and the excellent column that Andrew Sullivan wrote directly in this regard. I think we can embrace a civil-religious disconnect here. Sullivan has an excellent comparison of the Catholic church’s view on divorce with the Christian view on gay marriage.

Libertarianism is a powerful answer to the bloated and lost conservatism of our age, but it is not a savior, and it is not a Good Thing in and of itself.

You’ve done a lot of stone-throwing here, Peter, telling me what’s bad about my argument, without actually suggesting what you think a reasonable Christian position should be. I invite you to state a positive case so we can discuss it further.

I fully agree with you that Libertarianism isn’t a savior, but I can’t agree with you that it is not intrinsically a good thing. But let’s allow for a second your posit that is is not. What sort of governmental philosophy, then, would you say is a good thing? Should we have a government that seeks to enact all of God’s laws as government’s laws? How do you see that working out in a world where we know a large majority of the population will not see eye-to-eye with us religiously?

I await your thoughts and look forward to discussing it further.

1. Just because Paul tells us to pray for our leaders, doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t also have voted to define marriage the way God defines it. You do need to allow for the difference between a government that the early Christian had no say in, and the current government in which we have a say.

2. There is no such thing as “societal good” apart from Christianity. If we didn’t all desperately need Christ, why would he have come to die for us?

3. This may sound like being a ‘homer’, but frankly…God’s Word _doesn’t_ change over time. And while learning from our past mistakes is a duty, that doesn’t mean giving up on what we understand God to be telling us to do.

4. My principal objection to gay marriage, as a civil right, is that it DOES legitimatize that position to our neighbors, and to the world. I know you’ve heard this before, but marriage is defined by God, not by man. So…..why should we, as the church, stand back and say that we have no problems with it being redefined? I sincerely doubt that the world at large is going to understand or appreciate the differences between “God says it is wrong, so society shouldn’t do it” and “God says it’s wrong, but he also tells us that we shouldn’t tell anyone not to do it unless they’ve also come to faith and repentance”.
My secondary objection is that it legitimatizes the idea of the “gay family”. Honestly, I understand that many families are way below par anyway. But is it conducive to the salvation of souls that children would grow up in these sorts of circumstances? I think God (and biology) shout a pretty loud ‘no’ on that one.

To summarize my main problem with your post: what basis do we have for any laws? Because frankly, “societal good” is not what Christ commanded us to pursue. And if not God’s law, whose law? When it comes right down to it, apart from God, there is no _sufficient_ reason why society should outlaw murder. No one would argue that murder should be legalized.

Ultimately, Chris, I entirely agree that the current emphasis the church puts on these sorts of things is unwarranted and generally unhelpful. But I’m convinced that it’s falling off the other side of the horse to cede our prerogative to post-modern philosophies of government which say “live and let live”. Libertarianism is a powerful answer to the bloated and lost conservatism of our age, but it is not a savior, and it is not a Good Thing in and of itself.

Given the prevalence of pre-marital sex in American Christian culture, I think the persecution of homosexuals has a lot more to do with “otherness”.

I think you’re on to something there, Geof.

Also, the thought occurred to me during this: Christianity promotes abstinence, but we don’t have laws against extramarital sex. It seems to me that the Bible’s proscriptions regarding sex don’t have different weights [I'll be willing to be proven ignorant of Scriptural dogma to the contrary!], so why are we drawing the line here and not there? Given the prevalence of pre-marital sex in American Christian culture, I think the persecution of homosexuals has a lot more to do with “otherness”.