Featured Would Issuing a Marriage License to Gays ..... be a Sin?

Is it listed in God's word as a sin?

You seem to constantly be trying to create new sins.

 

Does God's word say it's a sin? There are plenty of things HE does say are sin that covers this issue. So why are you trying to create a new sin?

 

This is a valid question.

Apparently, there are many Christians out there who believe that obeying the law when it comes to providing marriage licenses is the same thing as approving of the marriage.

If a Christian police officer allows a Mormon group to meet without breaking up the meeting, does that mean the police officer approves of Mormonism?

If a doctor treats a patient for a social disease, does that mean that the doctor approves of the patient's lifestyle - or the reckless lifestyle of the person who gave the innocent patient the disease?

If a Christian judge assures legal protection for a gay man against a so-called Christian man who has assaulted him, does that mean the judge approves of homosexual acts?

If Christians have insisted that the government is the definer of marriage through "Protection of Marriage" legislation and then the Supreme Court finds that persons who experience same-sex attraction are being deprived "equal protection under the law" because there are laws specifically written to exclude those persons from the benefits available to every other citizen, does that mean the Supreme Court has endorsed same sex relationships or just the rights of all citizens?

 

"For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"

 

Yes, it is.

 

Romans 14:13-23 can easily be applied to this. We should be nothing that causes our brothers or sisters to sin.

In response to Baptist Believer. You listed examples of protection. You have gave examples of harm being prevented or minimized on humans. Your Mormon example makes no sense. Did Christ ever tell us we should not allow pagan's to meet?

The other examples you gave....we are commanded to love our neighbor. It is a great testimony of the Love God has for us. Issuing a marriage license is a stumbling block, not love. It creates a sense of "right" out of sin. So, if county clerk's are convicted not to issue the license, then they shouldn't. They should make a stand.

A better example would be, if the supreme Court issued licenses for adultery, would we support that? If the Supreme Court issued a license for an orgy, would we support that? If the Supreme Court issued a license for beastiality would we support that.

 

And THIS is my point. God has addressed this issue with other Scripture. There is no need to create a NEW sin out of something God didn't need to speak to.

Now if issuing a marriage certificate causes a brother or sister to stumble, they got some issues. I understand the sentiment, but they got some issues.

Are they gonna go out and engage in gay sex because someone issued a marriage license? Are they standing around watching licenses being issued and having fainting spells?:laugh:

But my point again is there is no need to create a NEW sin out of issuing a marriage license. It's not a sin.

This is one of the reasons Christians are known to be against EVERYTHING. Preach the word. God has addressed this issue. But He hasn't said anything about issuing marriage licenses being the sin or a sin.

 

And you continue with your dishonorable, wicked lies.

 

It's not about the issuer's turning gay or having fainting spell. It is about them doing something that is against their conscience. Per Romans, if they have doubts and issue, they sin. They are following their faith per the guide of Romans 14. Which, I think you agree with at least the last half of this. As said prior in this thread, by Tad, what does not proceed from faith is a sin. They should not issue, if that is their consciencece.

 

I believe Zaac is referring to the issuing of Governmental marriage license, not homosexuality its self.

 

So anything the state orders you to do is not a sin?

:laugh: Pitiful. Really. You should be ashamed.

 

Actually, they were intended to demonstrate allowing and protecting the civil and citizenship rights of others. Allowing Mormons to meet unmolested is a First Amendment right.

I think the "sense of right" is present long before two same sex partners decide to become exclusive to one another. What a civil marriage does is create a state-recognized bond that has right, privileges, and responsibilities attached to it.

I do not think the government should have EVER gotten involved in defining what is legally called marriage. In my opinion, all married couples should have civil unions recognized by the state with marriages reserved for religious institutions of various types. Unfortunately, prohibitions against persons of different ethnicities joining in marriage, as well as "Protection of Marriage" legislation securely placed the definition of marriage in the government's hands.

I agree. That stand should be to resign instead of violating the law.

I would not support it. Adultery and promiscuity of all kinds destabilizes relationships and all of society. But the issue here is not whether or not one "supports" a law, but rather, will one - as an agent of the government who is hired to properly and fairly administer the law - will act properly and legally.

Moreover, adultery is the breaking of a social contract, so it does not make much sense to give a license to the breaking of a social contract. The granting of a petition of divorce would actually be a better example. I support granting divorces within certain guidelines.

I'm assuming you are referring to a sexual orgy. I would not support that either. Again, that would fall under the same principle behind the prohibition of promiscuity and adultery - the destabilization of relationships. That's why God hates divorce, among other things. Yet Moses allowed it, Jesus allowed it, and our governments allow it.

But you need to realize that if you are going to act as an agent of one of the kingdoms of this world, you are obligated to administer the laws of that kingdom. I realize that in the afterglow of this weekend's fireworks, that many Christians can't seem to distinguish between the kingdoms of this world (namely the U.S.) and the kingdom of God which is present among us.

Obviously not.

 

Of course. He believes it's OK to to facillitate the sin of others if the government orders you to. Anything goes as long as the government tells you to do it.

But the Bible clearly tells us differently and is replete with examples of believers who obeyed God rather than the government.

 

Who had said that? The only person I have seen to even suggests that idea is you.

Please stop trying to put words in other people's mouths. Zaac says enough foolish things to discredit himself already.

 

So your answer to the question is no.

Just where do you draw the line? Or is there one?

 

Oh, ok. Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. You of course are right. Government cannot make sin, not a sin. Nor does it mean we should tolerate sin or encourage it. Which issuing a marriage licences increases tolerance and encourages sin.

 

Are you an agent of the government? If so, will administrating the law cause harm? If so, then resign and protest the law.