There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'

“You can’t consecrate a marriage that should not have taken place if it is not a marriage at all,” he said. “The union of two men and two women is not gay marriage— it’s no marriage. I don’t like the idea that so many people are willing to use the term gay marriage instead of calling it so-called gay marriage, because there is no such thing in the universe as so-called gay marriage.”

“That’s the main reason one relationship can be consecrated as a holy marriage and the other one can’t,” he said. “One is a marriage and the other is not a marriage — no matter how many thousands of times legislators and laws and judges and news commentators say that it is. It isn’t. That’s the first difference.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-dishonorable-shameful-john-piper.html There is no such thing as gay marriage. It’s a sham. A marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

 

I love how Christians think they own the concept of marriage. A "Marriage" in the bible, was nothing more than one man selling his daughter as a slave to another man.

 

And there it is...

 

We can love gay people and care about them and part of that is not hiding from them that gay relationships are not right and are an abomination in the sight of God. Paul encourages by saying people who were once all different forms of sinners including homosexuals were now changed and saved by the washing grace of Jesus.

 

How many threads of bull are you going to start?

Marriage is the sacred relationship between an orange clown and a lesbian nude model and a few ex-wives and a few costly porn stars.

Everyone knows that, it's in the Bible.

 

I fail to see your point. No one gives a flying **** how you and your god views marriage. Your religious beliefs do NOT dictate the rights of other people, nor do they dictate how the SECULAR US government defines marriage. In other words, **** YOUR GOD.

 

The thing is...neither do yours.

You're in no position to blame Christians for wanting their dogmatic beliefs to be the law. You guys are actively lobbying for your own dogmatic beliefs to be the law in the first place!:

You're no more of a secularist than he is.

 

That phrase is essentially what all that boiled down to. Why should this individual’s opinion matter to anyone other than themselves though? And why did you post it under “Political Opinions and Beliefs” when it appears to be an entirely personal and theological opinion?

 

Hey, hey, hey. Don't leave out the Muslims on this as they feel the same way on the issue....

 

You just stated marriage was between a man and a woman.

Nowhere was religion mentioned.

You sound really bitter... did religion hurt you?

I'm not religious at all, but what I do find funny is you wouldnt have the balls to say "**** your God" to a Muslim, lest you head be lopped off.

It seems people who hate religion only talk **** about Christianity. Wonder why that is?

 

Yep, they do, which is more proof that Islam is right wing conservatism.

 

It's the same god

 

Christians weren't shooting up Charlie Hebdo for drawing a cartoon though.

 

Still the same god. Oh, and Muhammed is not god

 

Difference is they put feet and weapons to their beliefs.

 

Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

Yup...the union of two men or two women is marriage.

 

Why does this guy worry so much about what other people do in bed?

 

Marriage is a human invention no matter who is involved in it. There is nothing outside of made-up rules defining what marriage is or is not. Naturally, from a Christian perspective, marriage is generally only between a man and a woman. This is because many Christians treat the Bible as a set of absolute truths to be believed and followed (except where it's really inconvenient - then they always have excuses prepared). But then, there are no natural, non-made-up rules defining what it means to be Christian or what Christians need to believe and do, or not do, as well. Religions and their institutions are all human invention, all artificial, all as mutable and adaptable as people care to make them.

What is real and significant is people's feelings for one another. If two people want to live together in marriage, a lifelong (ideally) commitment to fidelity and being a true companion to one another, & cetera, then that is as much a social and legal question as a religious one, and it is the fault line between religion and secular government where this friction arises over what marriage is or is not. Since our laws are not governed by any religious authority, but by secular authority, it stands to reason that religion should have no say in how marriage is defined by the state and by people at large in secular terms. That is, if we are going to insist on having marriage as an institution outside of religion, as we do at present, then it must remain a separate institution, separately defined. This silly country of ours was established to provide freedom of religion, but also separation of church and state, and not theocratic rule over society and its laws.

Marriage is what we collectively decide, ideally by majority opinion, to make it, secularly speaking. Even within religion, marriage is similarly defined and squabbled over, just by other processes defined under other rules (all arbitrary!). When we have a strong minority seeking the right to marry whom they choose, this is a concern that we as a secular society, a society built on the principle of individual liberty, must consider and respond to. There is no reason, beyond pointing at a bible and crying, which is no reason at all, for denying these people their freedom to the same basic rights and privileges enjoyed by others who are fundamentally different in one small way. Why should marriage serve only one kind of person but not another? Why should those who love members of the same sex not have the same rights and freedoms that the majority who love members of the opposite sex enjoy? It is not the job of our government and society to stand in the way of people's fundamental rights and freedoms where those rights and freedoms do not bring harm to others or to society as a whole. It is not government's job to enforce religious edicts. Our laws are not based in religion or on religious texts.

 

Maybe he's another Col Frank Fitts type

 

What gets consecrated and what does not, is completely dependent on the religious cleric that is doing the consecrating or blessing the covenant. Considering that religious doctrine across this planet, is as common and diverse as moldy, water stained dime store novels in a garage sale, I am unimpressed by this argument.

I have never cared whether any main faith cleric in a specific church, blesses a same sex wedding. With enough time and inclination, those of us who really care, can always find someone else who will. The John Pipers of this world are dying off faster than they can be replaced.

 

Yeah!!! Marriage is for pssy grabbers who have unprotected sex with hookers while getting their new wives pregnant.

 

Does it bother you that you can no longer discriminate against gays in regards to marriage?

 

What you are talking about is religious marriage, but that does not have anything to do with how the state defines marriage.

 

[

Consecration is a religious term. No church is required to perform gay marriages. And marriages don't require religion to be valid.

All marriages are primarily legal contracts that have nothing to do with consecration and can be performed by a judge; or a guy who got his credentials from Rolling Stone magazine.

 

Bingo! Radical Islam and trumpism are kindred spirits.