Homosexual Marriage; Why not?

[Perd Hapley]

Man, there are a lot of people that have totall hijacked the debate into arguing over the meaning of a simple word.

No, it is far more than semantics.

[Ron]

Again, the only answer that makes sense to me is that they enjoy using the government to shape society toward their religious goals, as people in this thread have admitted to explicitly or otherwise.

On both sides my friend.

The more progressive types are trying to force a majority of Americans accept something they find morally wrong, and they are using the coercive power of government to do this.

The laws of the land will reflect someones ethical code, they do not exist in a vacuum

To infer that the progressives and secularists are NOT using government to reach their goals of what society should look is contrary to what is obvious to any one paying attention. The leftists use the court system to engineer away the will of the people on a regular basis.

[richyoung]

the public school system has a largely captive audience whom they then proceeed to brain wash under the GUISE of "educating" them - many never realize the difference.

the religious system has a largely captive audience whom they then proceeed to brain wash under the GUISE of "saving" them - many never realize the difference.

...and just WHERE in this country is any religion not only subsidized 100% with involuntary tax money, but also enjoys mandated attendance?  Hope your senior year papers are better than this apples-and-oranges BS.

I am becoming used to a lack of intellectual rigourousness in your posts,

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.

...or a situation worthy of strong and bitter words - your age is showing - (again...)

[Guest]

It doesn't do anything to the sanctity of marriage to let people marry whoever they want. Why aren't the same people griping about letting people decide for themselves who they're going to love trying to ban divorce in our country? The Bible says its immoral and it does destroy marriage. How can you yell about one without being equally strident about the other? Or adultry. How about we start introducing prison sentences for adultry? The Bible recommends execution and it certainly destroys the sanctity of marriage.

Cripes. I find lots of things morally repulsive but don't figure its my government's job to mandate people stop doing them.

[Guest]

To restate the obvious: Its because straight people do those things and not those damned queers that make us all so uncomfortable!

[zahc]

The more progressive types are trying to force a majority of Americans accept something they find morally wrong, and they are using the coercive power of government to do this.

Perhaps it's not obvious that allowing equality with respect to the legal union of couples (I'll stop using the term marriage to keep everyone happy) is PRO-FREEDOM, whereas selectively granting certain privileges to a certain group is DISCRIMINATORY.

Coercive power? How can you coerce by giving people something they want? The government is not taking away civil-unions-between-heterosexual-couples-regardless-of-their-religious-beliefs-or-belief-as-to-the-sanctity-of-marriage-which-you-insist-is-the-only-proper-way-to-use-the-term-'marriage' (CUBHCROTRBOBATTSOMWHIITOPWTUTTM). They are only granting it to more people who have no respect for your definition of marriage. This affects you only because it offends your religious beliefs, and to that, I say tough cookie. I respect your religious beliefs as long as they are not tyrannical.

[SteveS]

It doesn't do anything to the sanctity of marriage to let people marry whoever they want. Why aren't the same people griping about letting people decide for themselves who they're going to love trying to ban divorce in our country? The Bible says its immoral and it does destroy marriage. How can you yell about one without being equally strident about the other? Or adultry. How about we start introducing prison sentences for adultry? The Bible recommends execution and it certainly destroys the sanctity of marriage.

Cripes. I find lots of things morally repulsive but don't figure its my government's job to mandate people stop doing them.

Apples and oranges.

I don't see Christians going around saying that adultry is ok.  They seem to be equally against that.  I agree that the sanctity of my marriage is not affected by what others do in theirs.

IIRC, Any biblical death sentence for adultry appears in the OT and is only applicable if you are an Isrealite.  

FWIW, adultry is still illegal in MI, but I don't think anyone has been charged since the 1940's.

[Perd Hapley]

Perhaps it's not obvious that allowing equality with respect to the legal union of couples (I'll stop using the term marriage to keep everyone happy) is PRO-FREEDOM, whereas selectively granting certain privileges to a certain group is DISCRIMINATORY.

True, but it is equally obvious that homosexuals will receive legal recognition for any actual marriage they enter into, barrying polygamy, incest, age limitations, etc.

[Guest]

Its not apples and oranges. Both are banned in the Bible and only one is the subject of a proposed Constitutional amendment. Why is that, exactly, other than people's discomfort?

[richyoung]

Its not apples and oranges. Both are banned in the Bible and only one is the subject of a proposed Constitutional amendment. Why is that, exactly, other than people's discomfort?

One is discouraged, and the other is described as "an abomination".  In fact, in the O.T., there was an admonishment that "its better for your seed to go into the belly of a (lady of easy virtue) than to fall on the ground...", implying that adultery/fornication can be the lesser of two evils.  No such loophole for homosexual.bestial/pedophilic acts.

[Stand_watie]

Its not apples and oranges. Both are banned in the Bible and only one is the subject of a proposed Constitutional amendment. Why is that, exactly, other than people's discomfort?

One is discouraged, and the other is described as "an abomination".  In fact, in the O.T., there was an admonishment that "its better for your seed to go into the belly of a (lady of easy virtue) than to fall on the ground...", implying that adultery/fornication can be the lesser of two evils.  No such loophole for homosexual.bestial/pedophilic acts.

Actually in the New Covenant, homosexual acts are sanctioned far fewer times than adultery and fornication (twice to my recollection). The Deuteronimical "abominations" are not compelling upon Christians except as under the New Covenant (FWIW other  Deuteronimal 'abominations'  forbid marrying after divorce, offering blemished sacrifices, sex during menses, and wearing clothing of mixed fabric).

Do you have a reference for the "better to sow your seed in the belly of a whore" quotation? I'd like to read it in context as I've never seen it before - I'd just assumed it was either urban legend or one of the Catholic books.

[cordex]

One is discouraged, and the other is described as "an abomination".

In the OT, the punishment for adultery was death for both the adulteror and the adulteress.
I'd say that's more than just discouraged.

In fact, in the O.T., there was an admonishment that "its better for your seed to go into the belly of a (lady of easy virtue) than to fall on the ground..."

Where?

[The Rabbi]

Its not apples and oranges. Both are banned in the Bible and only one is the subject of a proposed Constitutional amendment. Why is that, exactly, other than people's discomfort?

One is discouraged, and the other is described as "an abomination".  In fact, in the O.T., there was an admonishment that "its better for your seed to go into the belly of a (lady of easy virtue) than to fall on the ground...", implying that adultery/fornication can be the lesser of two evils.  No such loophole for homosexual.bestial/pedophilic acts.

There is no such quotation.  The punishment for adultery is stoning.  The punishment for homosexual sodomy is stoning, and it is called an abomination.  Eating shrimp is also called an abomination btw.
Wearing garments of wool and linen is forbidden but it is not called an abomination.

[Ron]

This affects you only because it offends your religious beliefs, and to that, I say tough cookie. I respect your religious beliefs as long as they are not tyrannical.

The tyranny is having government in the marriage business to begin with.

Maybe it wasn't an issue when the country was more homogeneous but that doesn't make it right. There should be contract law for all the privileges that marriage provides and no more Justice of the peace marriages.

How many times do I have to say this?  Get government out of the marriage business.

The government should not be placed in a position of perverting a religious institution and offending a large part of their constituency.

[Ron]

By the way, the most upright person on this board is not considered any better than any gay folk in the eyes of the God of Christianity. There is no one who measures up in Gods eyes, we all deserve hell as far as He is concerned.

Hence the need for Christs redemptive work. I never understood the venom toward gay folks. You can be a deacon who lies, fornicates or commits adultery and not get half the grief some poor sexually confused kid gets.

I can't change what the Bible says about homosexuality but I can tell you this, it isn't mentioned in the New Testament hardly at all as compared to many other human failings.

I'll try to love everyone and let God sort it all out.

[Perd Hapley]

It doesn't do anything to the sanctity of marriage to let people marry whoever they want.

It does.  The debate over this issue has reduced marriage to a business arrangement.

Barbara, I think I could line up a lot more Christians to restrict divorce than I could to outlaw homosexuality.  And actually banning homosexuality and refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is a comparison of oranges and orangutans.  Homosexuals are free, right now, to "marry" the same sex in any church or other private or public venue that will have them, just not with legal endorsement.  But to return to divorce, more Christians would oppose divorce if they didn't have a horse in that race themselves.  Sad but true.  In any case, Christians shouldn't and usually don't make our political decisions based on the jurisprudence of the Mosaic Law; we believe that phase of God's plan was fulfilled and finished two thousand years ago.

[Perd Hapley]

I can't change what the Bible says about homosexuality but I can tell you this, it isn't mentioned in the New Testament hardly at all as compared to many other human failings.

The Bible seems more concerned with more common sins, but the Old and New Testaments leave no doubt that God disapproves of homosexuality.

[Iain]

So Mr GoRon you're suggesting that there should be contract law in place for all the legal benefits of marriage and that this would be open to anyone, and would also leave the religious institution of marriage up to individual churches/pastors/ship's captains to decide whilst this would confer no additional tax benefits or otherwise? And that you as an individual don't think it is your place to condemn or decry?

Are you some kind of level-headed sensible person?

[Guest]

Not all Christians believe that, Fistful.

People have the right to decide who they will love, who will be their next of kin, who they will legally bind themselves to. We deny that right to those who want to do that with someone of the same gender, which makes no sense from a governmental point of view. If your church doesn't want to marry gays, that's their business and they shouldn't be forced to. But the government should treat all citizens equally, and that means that if you legally sanction marriage, you have to do equally. Gays aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the same rights you take for granted.

You want to know a secret? Being around gay people sometimes makes me uncomfortable. Especially being around gay men. So what? That's not a basis for a governmental decision.

[Stand_watie]

...I can't change what the Bible says about homosexuality but I can tell you this, it isn't mentioned in the New Testament hardly at all as compared to many other human failings.

I'll try to love everyone and let God sort it all out.

I got interested enough to go do a little research

New Testament references I could find (multiple accounts of the same prohibition/ situation excluded - eg Mathew, Mark, Luke and John all quoting Christ's Sermon on the mount)

Adultery and fornication forbidden or referred to as wrong (excluding multiple accounts of the same story)

1. Mathew 14: John castigated Herod's wife

2. John 4: The Samaritan woman

3. John 8: The woman brought to the temple to Jesus

4. 1 Corinthians 5: Adultery and Fornication ('you're even worse than the gentiles')

5. Mathew 5: Christ's prohibition

6. Hebrews 13: 'whoremongers and adulterers God will Judge'

7. Mark 10; Christ's prohibition

8. Acts 15: 'abstain from'

9. Romans 1: Describing wicked people

10. 1 Corinthians 6: 'body not for fornication'

11. 1 Cor. 6: "flee fornication"

12. 1 Cor. 7: "avoid fornication"

13. 1 Cor. 10: 'Neither let us commit fornication"

14. 2 Cor. 12: "..bewail fornication"

15. Galatians 5; " works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication...

16. Ephesians 5: "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you.."

17. Colossians 3: "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication.."

18. 1 Timothy 1: "Whoremongers"

19. 1 Thessalonians 4: "abstain from fornication"

20. Jude 1: Sins of Sodom and Gomorrah - fornication

21. Romans 13: Repetition of Levitical commandment against adultery

22. James 2: Quotation of commandment

23. 2 Peter 2: shall receive the reward of unrighteousness... Having eyes full of adultery.. cannot cease from sin;

Plus six references in Revelation that I haven't researched the context enough to say.

******

Homosexual activity (including vague and debatable references)

1. Jude 1: referenced Sodom and Gomorrah, mentioned in same context as fornication (#20 above)

2. 1 Corinthians 6: With number 11 above

3. Romans 1: 'Natural use..against nature'

4. 1 Timothy 1: mentioned with fornicators, reference 18 above 'them that defile themselves with mankind'

****

The application for me, from the Christian perspective can be encapsulated in this passage.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Everybody I sit in the pews with on Sunday sometimes meets one or another of those definitions. The following verse is the essence of Christianity as I see it.


1 Cor 6:10...And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

[Perd Hapley]

Not all Christians believe that, Fistful.

I said a number of things about Christians and I don't know which of it you're talking about.

People have the right to decide who they will love, who will be their next of kin, who they will legally bind themselves to. We deny that right to those who want to do that with someone of the same gender, which makes no sense from a governmental point of view.

I can't believe you are going on like this.  You know good and well that homosexuals can love whom they wish and that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.  Concerning next of kin and legal contracts, there is only one situation I can think of in which it might be said one has a right to decide who their family will be.  That is marriage, into which homosexuals are free to legally enter with anyone who meets the requirements the rest of us must meet.  You don't get to marry everyone that you love.  Some people love close relations.  Some men think they love 8-year-old girls.  Some love people who are married to someone else.  Some would like to add a second wife to their harem.  Some love people of the same sex.  There is no reason why we should endorse, via government, any or all of these relationships.

But the government should treat all citizens equally, and that means that if you legally sanction marriage, you have to do equally. Gays aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the same rights you take for granted.

Wrong.  They should have the same rights I do, but no one has the right to make marriage into something that it has never been.  Those who would engage in homosexual marriage are asking for the social and legal recognition of marriage when they refuse to be married.  If they want to be married, they should get married to someone of the opposite sex.  That is what marriage is.  Only in the "enlightened" modern Western world can we be so muddled as to be confused about that.  

You want to know a secret? Being around gay people sometimes makes me uncomfortable. Especially being around gay men. So what? That's not a basis for a governmental decision.

Uncomfortable?  You think morality is about what you're "comfortable" with?  I thought that kind of fuzzy thinking was for leftist twits, and I don't think you're one of those.

[zahc]

Wrong.  I don't have a right to make marriage into something that it has never been.  Those who would engage in homosexual marriage are asking for the social and legal recognition of marriage when they refuse to be married.  If they want to be married, they should get married to someone of the opposite sex.  That is what marriage is.

(it's a good thing I have short hair)

It appears this poster is entirely concerned with his word. So if the government would just not use the term marriage (perhaps marriageII), then he wouldn't care what happened as far as the realistic ramifications of the law. As long as the word marriage is used only according to his definition, than that's what he's concerned with here.

It still amazes me that people care so much about a word. A word that has equavalent meanings in 24 different languages, was probably borrowed from another language to start with, and given the nature of english, will semantically drift into an entirely diffrent meaning in a few decades, and indeed already is. And especially so because the government, who call airguns firearms and hunting rifles assault weapons, have their claws on it. If you didn't want that to happen, you should have kept it separate from government and sued them the instant they tried to endorse a religous institution.

No matter, what this poster is really concerned about is the usage of his word. So as long as we call it 'marriageII', we can 'marriageII' gays, animals, porcelain statues, and sea slugs, nevermind any real world or societal effects it has, just as long as we don't call it 'marriage'. Because you know, his definition is the only correct one, and that's what really matters here....

It's a language cop out. A 'get out of argument free' card. There's a similar phenomenon regarding cities allowing (or not allowing) bikes in public skateparks. Whenever the skaters, who are enjoying their exclusive access, cannot come up with a logical reason why bikes must be excluded,  they default to 'it's called a skatepark, not a bikepark'. There is no logical response, because it is not even an arument. Textbook language cop out.

[Perd Hapley]

It appears a particular poster feels he is too high to address another forum member directly.  It also appears he doesn't understand this other poster's point of view.  The scorned poster would indeed not be happy with "MarriageII."  This gentleman, if the writer may so term himself, will not be happy with any attempts to give homosexuality a place it has no reason to demand in legal matters.  He further believes that homosexual relations may merit such a place when they become the basis of families, perhaps by combining the chromosomes of two partners of the same sex.  Even then, it would be quite silly to call such an arrangement a marriage, and offensive to appropriate the term for a union outside the traditions of those who value marriage.

The scorned one does feel that homosexuals have every right to pretend to be married and so amuse themselves freely.  He does not, however, feel they have any argument for these sham marriages to deserve legal recognition.

Love and commitment do not a marriage make, otherwise we should consider parents to be married to their children.

[zahc]

Indeed, that other forum poster's point of view was not clear. The previous post does present a coherent point of view. I still don't think it's valid because tons of people get married and never have children. The legal marriage contract, as far as I know, is not a contract to have children. Until it is, I still think justice and freedom would be best served with minimal or no practical diffrence between homesexual or heterosexual civil unions. I hope we can continue to not argue over the meaning of the m-word.

[Perd Hapley]

Zahc, the following blog entry more fully explains why marriage is unique in its ability to produce children and thereby families, and that this merits it a peculiar place in the legal system.

Article has been removed for further tinkering.