Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but about divorce he was very clear in Matthew 5:
Why oh why do the conservative pundits love to attack gay people (which, as most of them admit [including Exodus International, famed "pray the gay away" group], is not a quality they choose), but never wage a war against divorce? Hell, Newt Gingrich, who up until two months ago was a legitimate contender for the White House, is on his third marriage. Even worse, he divorced one woman while she was in a hospital bed for cancer treatments, and divorced another after having liaisons with his current wife well before the divorce -- and he was getting the Evangelical vote!
Why is it that, in politics, the "Christian" thing to do is to ignore the actual teachings of Jesus and focus on the parts of the Bible that make your pet issues convenient? If you truly want to worry about the war on marriage, start with divorce. Start with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Kardashian and whoever the hell she married.
They are more of the front line in the "war on marriage" than loving gay relationships will ever be.
So here's a novel concept: you really want to be a "Christian legislator"? Stop your war on homosexuals, and start your war on divorce. Sure, it might not be the kind of easily pandering to the evangelical base that anti-gay legislation may be, but it's
true to Jesus' teachings. And remember, it's not like Jesus was the most popular guy at the time of his proclamations, so why should you not follow in his footsteps and preach the true teachings of the Gospel rather than worry about reelection? Unless, of course, your Christian image is nothing more than a persona you use to get elected, you hypocritical, money-grubbing Judases.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that Christian legislators are missing the mark by fighting against homosexuality but not against divorce?
True
Comments (131)
You're right, Krisko.
In fact, permitting divorce is not merely granting a right to married couples. It changes the nature of marriage itself, from something intended to be immutable (What God has brought together, let no man break apart), into something subject to the will of the marriage partners. This permission makes the vision of Eden even further out of our grasp.
All this to say that even Mosaic Law recognizes the difference between moral obligation and legal obligation.
@Doubledb@xanga - Actually, I think you do that quite well. You get your point across in every case without being judgemental or hateful and I think you're one of the nicest christians on here.
@Martha601 - Oh, I suppose for the same reasons christians hang out on Pagan websites; to see how other people think.
The difference here is that I can do that without proselytizing.
@iones_island@xanga - You don't have the right to tell Revelife who is or isn't allowed to post here. You should have outgrown the temper tantrum phase by now.
Doesn't the first amendment mandate a wall of separation between church and state, guarantee the rights of individuals not be abridged because of or in spite of religious affiliation, and assure there will be no laws to foster or allow a state religion? While the constitution may trump a state code, the individual states may enact laws centered to the will of their constituents, but no under the guise of religion, but only as community sanctioned morality. If you live in a state that agrees with your ideology, then it's cake for you. If not, you have NO grounds to try to influence the decisions of another sovereign state. How on earth can you ever hope to police love? Propose a new round of Crusades to smash the infidels?
@LadyboyRevolution@xanga - The first Amendment I mentioned also guarantees free speech, I forgot that clause.