Christian views on Gay Marriage in the US

Post Reply New Topic

Pew Research just released the following short study on attitudes toward gay marriage within the US Christian community.



Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ngelicals/

Black Protestants have - despite voting overwhelmingly Democrat - had a history of holding socially conservative views. Yet, as the figure above shows, there may soon be a majority in favour of gay marriage even within this group.

This further contributes to the increasing isolation of White Evangelical Protestants - the dominant voter base for US social conservatism - in the US political landscape.

It is also interesting to see that there is a solid majority in favour of gay marriage among US Catholics, despite the official anti-gay position of the Vatican.

Please discuss.

Edit: Apparently, not everyone in the Black Christian community approve of this recent development. This sign is currently shaking the foundations of Harlem:


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 ... y%20Voices

While the rank and file of mainline Protestants favor same sex marriage, as far as I know, only one mainline denomination has officially sanctioned it. The United Church of Christ, which grew out of the Congregational and Reformed movements. Officially sanctioned at their General Synod in 2005. However, being a denomination of what's called "congregational polity" whereby each member church can set their own standards, not all UCC churches may perform those marriages. There is a major debate going on currently in the United Methodist Church, but so far there is no official sanction of it, and in fact, the hierarchy has moved to discipline several clergy members who have performed same sex marriages.

On the other hand, many mainline churches have become what are called "Open and Affirming" congregations, wherein people are welcomed into full community regardless of sexual preference or gender identity. That is, they can become members of O&A churches, serve on committees, serve as deacons, vote as members. Regardless of whether they can be married in those churches.

The Unitarian-Universalist Association has also sanctioned same sex marriage, but they are not denominationally Christian.

Favoring same-sex marriage might not exactly be religiously motivated, though. I'm not allowed to express my views on homosexuality on WP anymore, so I'll just say this. It's one thing to express that something is morally wrong based on religious convictions. It's another thing entirely to say what equal rights for all people are. If homosexual behavior is not criminalized, if they are guaranteed all the same rights including marriage rights as everyone else, including heterosexuals, then it's difficult to justify denying them the same rights to marriage. You could say that it is legally backwards to allow gay marriage on the basis that marriage is defined as only occurring between a man and a woman--but legal definitions can be changed. The only consistent non-religious position on homosexuality that could really prevent gay marriage would be if homosexuality were somehow criminalized again. Don't ask me how that could happen, because I have no idea…but hey, if marriage definitions can be rewritten, I suppose anything is possible. My point is just that if someone is looking at American society beyond religious and cultural boundaries, they might say that gays should have the right to marry if they have all other rights already.

It's the idea that if we take away certain rights of others, are we prepared to have our own rights taken away?

I think we need to understand that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. There have been many before, and there will be many to follow.

Paradigm shifts never happen in an instant. They never happen but over the objections of those whose opinions changed more slowly than the Zeitgeist. That doesn't betoken whose opinion is wrong and whose is right--not all change is unambiguously positive, after all.

But I think we have ample evidence that the extension of the right to legal marriage to same sex couples has not brought the edifice down, and it is that, more than anything else that will sustain the momentum of change in opinion.

I wonder if unaffiliated means not Christian or someone who identifies as a Christian but doesn't attend church?

Possibly, but it could also mean people who attend nondenominational churches. Though for the most part I think you're accurate.

Batmans stance on this! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flOQ24Qku1s[/youtube]

I was researching this lately. Polls seem to indicate that Black Protestants are more likely to believe homosexuality is not moral, but less likely to think the laws of society should reflect that (i.e. they support gay marriage and legalising homosexuality).

Since it was the Supreme Court that decriminalized homosexuality, a constitutional amendment would be required to undo it. Unless the next president uses a pledge on this question to stack the Supreme Court.

Taking away the right to privacy would be a bad precedent, though, even for heterosexuals.

So I guess the "right's" argument here is that if gay people are allowed to benefit from status as married than anyone could? For example I could say that my friend Laurie has the right to visit me in the hospital. Holy Hell, what a disaster this would be.

Honestly . . . why can conservatives not stay out of the bedroom?

Liberal morality isn't any better. Both sides condone unfair treatment under the law.

Examples of conservative interference in personal matters: abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage.

Liberal? What are your examples of unfair treatment?

Not every mainline Protestant denomination is pro-gay. My own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which can be described as a right of center mainline church, still defends an anti-gay marriage stance. Though I should point out, I and other members of my particular congregation voted for legalizing gay marriage here in Washington. My Pastor knows my political stance on the issue and respects it, even if he doesn't agree with me.

Don't forget, though, that laws are only going to be as powerful as our ability to enforce them. Let's say I run a red light or a stop sign. More likely than not I can do it any time without getting caught. No government agency (yet) is watching my every move to make sure my vehicle comes to a complete stop at every red light or stop sign. A police officer would have to be at the same intersection at the same time to catch me red-handed or I'd have to cause a wreck before anybody would even pay attention.

Similarly, nobody is going to drop in on your bedroom to monitor your sexual behavior. It would be a "probably cause" issue for anyone to attempt that, or it would have to be something that would cause a real problem. I'm barred by a certain interpretation of the TOS from suggesting that it does, so I'm not going to go into whether it is a problem or not; however, I will point to other activities that remain criminalized. A drug dealer, for instance, can't make the defense that he was selling dope from the privacy of his personal residence. If we want to look at existing, acknowledged sex crimes as other examples, there's rape and sex trafficking. Someone who commits rape or has sex with a sex slave can't make the defense that his privacy was violated if he was reported or caught in the act. IF homosexual acts were to be recriminalized, and ONLY IF people in a free society (I'm not saying that they do) somehow came to see it as a problem, the same principle would apply. Privacy is only going to extend so far as what the public says it should. It doesn't extend to all situations at all times, so it would be false to assert that we enjoy a right to privacy in any absolute sense.

I just had a thought…why are we even discussing this???


The OP is raising the issue of gay marriage and Christian approval, presumably with full knowledge of Biblical teaching on the subject. If a Christian here were to object on religious grounds, as you can see in the chart originally posted that Evangelical Christians have been slow to warm up to the idea, that Christian would be prevented from voicing any such objections because such an objection would constitute "homophobic language."

I call shens. PLEASE someone lock this thread!! !

It is entirely possible for a Christian to express disapproval for same-sex marriage without relying upon homophobic language in order to do so. If you lack the wit to do so, that should not prevent other members from engaging in a discussion around changing attitudes.

I think the purpose of marriage needs to be defined. It seems to be a custom that is in flux right now. Previously it was a necessary institution to protect offspring and assets, but this seems inappropriate these days. I think a more open definition is due. This is for practical reasons, such as inheritance and visiting privileges.
I'm not sure why biblical literature would be significant. It was written in a different time.