What should be our response as Christians when people say that 'gay marriage is ok as long as it doesn't affect me personally?'
1 Timothy 1:8 - 11
ESV - 8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully. 9 Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers.
Clarify
•
Share
•
Report
•
Asked July 01 2015
•
Deb Ackerman
Supporter
For follow-up discussion and general commentary on the topic. Comments are sorted chronologically.
Jennifer Rothnie
There are several problems with the idea that 'it's OK so long as it doesn't affect me personally':
1) It is based in a worldview of hedonism and selfishness and denies any form of societal ethics.
2) It assumes others are not affected or judges the degree/value of how they feel affected [but I will save that for an answer]
3) It's illogical and not a good basis for understanding ethics.
What would have happened if the majority of America had taken the view "Slavery in slave-states doesn't affect me, personally, so its OK. Let them do what they want over there"?
Could a jury in a courtroom rightfully say, "Its clear he murdered his mother, but that doesn't affect us personally. Not Guilty."
Or would a divorce lawyer say, "Yes I know she cheated on you with Bill, but unless you count emotional hurt which is irrelevant or emotions based in out-dated ethics of fidelity, you weren't physically affected in any way."
Yet in I Timothy 1:8-11 a list of major categories of lawbreaking is given. These include kidnapping/slavery, murder, perjury, etc. None of these become 'correct' based on how much or little others in society are affected.
Nor are things that affect others automatically bad. If a man donates money to the city for a children's park, is this bad? Or if a lawmaker votes for a bill that affects everyone in his constituency, is that automatically bad? Etc.
Danny Hickman
I believe when a person comments that they "don't care" or something to that effect, as long as they're not "personally involved," they might just wish to steer clear of unauthorized condemnation on their part of other people.