Being against premarital sex = good reason for same sex marriage? Why or why not?

Okay, so again coming from someone who is trying to sort out what friends were trying to promote...

I have friends who are American evangelical Christians, and who are against same sex marriage.

They are also against premarital sex.

I asked them about whether it was good to avoid premarital sex even among those who aren't Christian: Hindu, agnostic, atheist, and so on.

There was a huge amount of support for someone waiting for marriage, regardless of whether that marriage was Christian or otherwise.

So then... you feel that someone who wants to only have sex within a marriage is trying to do the right thing?

Oh, absolutely!

And the law should let Hindus marry, even if it's not a Christian marriage, and that should count as marriage?

Oh, absolutely!

Then... if a gay or lesbian couple don't want to have sex except in a marriage, that should count as marriage?

*laugh*

Ah, the silence.

It was interesting to see them acknowledge that marriage didn't just pertain to Christians in the US, but then falling silent rather than saying that marriage isn't about their Christian definition of marriage.

I left a bit after, as their pastor friend is becoming less comfortable with my questions. I think he used to think he'd be able to turn me around, given my knowledge of the Bible and my actually adhering to a lot of what he views as Christian values. Unfortunately, he never wants to discuss the Golden Rule of Matthew when it doesn't suit his justifying putting bigotry into secular law.

I think he also doesn't like that he can't be consistent on whether Levitican law was actually put to the side and so we shouldn't stone divorced people (he divorced his first wife, not her divorcing him, and he's now married to the woman who was part of that situation). Since even Jesus said that no man can sunder a marriage, more than he eve said about homosexuality, the pastor starts flailing when he starts digging in to defend bigotry Scripturally.

And my main friend, the older woman who keeps saying, "Oh, I just don't understand all this stuff! It's over my head!"? I keep telling her that if these ideas don't seem to fit together, then maybe they don't.

I'm not sure if this is a funny story, or a rant. I hate hypocrites, whether wrapped up in Scripture-printed gift wrap or not. I *especially* hate pious hypocrisy....

 

You mean sex education classes?

But then sex can be consequence-free, which is a bad thing. They want sex to have consequences. Pregnancy is one.

If you could eliminate a major cause of most cases of uterine cancer, would you do it? Most would, but the right Christian political groups worked to take away that option. Why? Because a vaccine for it would mean eliminating human papillomavirus, which is spread by sexual contact. That means you shouldn't have an HPV vaccine to remove that cancerous consequence.

You know, this was part of our far-ranging discussions at various points.

"If your child got drunk, even though it was wrong, would you pay for a cab so your kid wouldn't die while driving drunk?"

"Of course!"

"What if no cab was around? Would you drive your kid yourself?"

"Of course! Why wouldn't I?!"

"What about a simple and inexpensive vaccine against cancer?"

"If there were a vaccine against cancer, of course I would!"

"So... weren't you supporting your church in working against that vaccine being available, the one which works for human papillomavirus? That's a major cause of uterine cancer, which can affect your daughter. Of course, the virus spreads because someone makes a bad decision to have unprotected sex. But a bad decision, like unprotected sex or drunk driving, shouldn't have deadly consequences, should it?"

Silence.

*laugh*

Yes, I do find it funny, but in a rueful way. These viewpoints really harm society, just like Jenny McCarthy with her antivax idiocy. Really, if you want your child to be at risk for cancer, why not just make that decision for your own child, and not for everyone else? *You* don't want to protect your child, fine. Don't make the decision for me that my child should be at risk.

*deep breath*

So why do I engage with these people?

Because maybe at some point, this stuff will get through, if not to them, then to their children, or other friends of theirs.

I've seen it happen, where one got really upset at what she saw as Jesus' message of love being replaced with ideas of retribution against those viewed as transgressors. She got mad and said that even the Catholic, Mother Teresa, demonstrated more Christian love than the people in the room. (Yup,even a Catholic. *laugh*)

 

The same parts which talk about wearing blended fabrics, and about stoning divorced people, and eating lobster., incidentally.

Of all those, the one that Jesus addressed directly was, no divorce. But you don't see the huge spending of funds from these congregations on that, as quite a few of their members, as well as the politicians they enthusiastically support, are guilty of that. It's inconvenient.

However, that's the thing: People are giving money to organizations (churches) which use those funds to do these things.There are other groups which do what they want without the negative stuff.

If I can give to a worthy cause which is free of any problems, or to another organization which does pretty much the same, but gives a *teeny weeny* amount to fund the American Nazi Party... you can be sure I'll avoid funding the American Nazi Party. *laugh*

 

Hollowway, you are a genius!

You just got the core of really defining the political position, and gave me a tool for demonstrating how inconsistent the evangelical approach is.

If you want to champion Christian Scripture in secular law, why are you messing with Leviticus, and not something which is clear in both the Old and New Testament?

You shall have no other gods before Me.

I am the Way.

If you aren't fighting to get the central tenet of Christianity into US secular law, why not? It doesn't matter if you go for something tiny if you allow Hindus to put up their temples to all kinds of gods, right? A good Christian wouldn't give up just because it's impossible, or because US law says the state shouldn't impose one faith's beliefs on someone unwilling. If you're going to do it in one case, then why not where it counts?

My personal belief is the majority don't try it (but some do!) because it doesn't work, so they have to sneak it in the back door (no joke intended). However, I'm a great fan of examining possible motivations, because that's really where you can talk to someone about their actions.

Thanks!

 

I do think it's worthwhile to engage people as I mention in the first post. They may never want to admit their logic is flawed (non-Christian marriage between Hindus i preferable to those Hindus having sex outside marriage, so non-Christian same-sex marriage should also be preferable to them having sex outside marriage).

At some point, if there's honesty about being okay with people of other faiths marrying without them campaigning to prevent it, even if there are idols at the wedding, or even a Satanic minister, then it comes down to them campaigning against only one form of non-Christian marriage.

And really, if you are willing to allow others to completely violate the First Commandment against having strange gods, and you similarly aren't working against divorce, as even Jesus speaks directly against, then it's hard to say you're being consistent, or that you're really putting the biggest rule of the Big Ten as most important.