Gay Marriage thread

[Jackal1]

My own ethics have changed dramatically since my conversion. Brothers and sisters, I don't need a civil law to tell me Gay Marriage is wrong, you shouldn't either, and I tell you there is no danger of me performing one.

 I applaud you sir.

[Elfie]

And as others have pointed out, there was once a time interracial marriage wasn't allowed either.

It's also been pointed out that interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. This was a race issue that to my knowledge only applied to blacks/white folks. This issue has been rectified and rightfully so. Homosexuality is not a race issue. Comparing apples to oranges imo.

In an interracial *straight* marriage the couple are still able to fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. In a homosexual relationship, that is impossible.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Elfie
It's also been pointed out that interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. This was a race issue that to my knowledge only applied to blacks/white folks. This issue has been rectified and rightfully so. Homosexuality is not a race issue. Comparing apples to oranges imo.

In an interracial *straight* marriage the couple are still able to fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. In a homosexual relationship, that is impossible.

Well, although I guess I am comparing it in that light, I'm also using it as an example of how a fundamental change in our marriage laws occurred in our nation at an earlier time, without such things as 4 year old marriage flooding the gates.

[YUCCA]

Whats it to you if they want ot get married.  It doesn't cost you anything.  They aren't hurting you.  They just wanna be happy like everyone else.  Guess some people can't be happy unless everyone is the same as them.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Vudak
Well, although I guess I am comparing it in that light, I'm also using it as an example of how a fundamental change in our marriage laws occurred in our nation at an earlier time, without such things as 4 year old marriage flooding the gates.

Well, marrying minors wasnt next....homosexual marriages were.

I see what you are saying about the changes being made.

Consider Man's general attitude though. Like small children we push the limits to see just how far we can go. Do you really think that some other group of folks won't say....hey look at what the homosexual community got for themselves...they can marry now! Lets try to get XXXXX for our selves now.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Elfie

Consider Man's general attitude though. Like small children we push the limits to see just how far we can go. Do you really think that some other group of folks won't say....hey look at what the homosexual community got for themselves...they can marry now! Lets try to get XXXXX for our selves now.

I'm sure some other group will, but by the time this whole gay marriage thing works out I'll probably be on my deathbed, anyway, so the next group will be my grandkids' debate

[Seagoon]

Hello Vudak,

Originally posted by Vudak
Just browsing it quickly Seagoon (lot of material) but so far:

"Gay marriage is designed for precisely for the facilitating of uncleanness rather than its prevention."

I'm probably reading too much into this.  I'd say if two gays are happily married and monogamous they'd be more likely to be clean of things such as STDs than two gays swinging it.

What's your interpretation of the word "uncleanness" - is it what I'm thinking of or maybe something more broad?

Just asking you to clear it up, been awhile since I've gone to a Church for something other than a Christmas pageant

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the NT word translated "uncleaness" is akatharsia it refers not to a physical sickness, that would be the Greek word astheneo meaning infirm, frail, unwell.

What akatharsia refers to is moral impurity and particularly sexual immorality, Paul uses it in that sense in Romans 1:24, Romans 6:19, 2 Cor. 12:21, etc. Sexual immorality would include all sexual practices forbidden in the word of God, including adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, pornography, homosexual sex, etc.

Incidentally, most homosexual rights activists are pressing for a full redefinition of the word "marriage" that would also remove the idea that marriage is by nature monogamous. The homosexual community is quite open about the fact that most homosexuals are non-monogamous and that the lifestyle itself encourages promiscuity, especially amongst gay men. For instance, here's a quote from The Male Couple's Guide to Living Together which cites a study done by two gay doctors:

"Only seven couples [out of the 156 interviewed] have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men have all been together less than 5 years. Stated in another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. That translates into 5 percent monogamous, 95 percent non- monogamous."

So gay marriage is not necessarily going to be about cutting down the risk of STDs, and as a general rule most homosexuals are strongly opposed to linking cutting down the number of one's sexual partners with health. The emphasis is on finding cures for the STDs themselves. Gay marriage, for homosexuals is not a health issue, its a rights and full acceptance issue.

- SEAGOON

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Vudak
I'm sure some other group will, but by the time this whole gay marriage thing works out I'll probably be on my deathbed, anyway, so the next group will be my grandkids' debate

Heh....you just might be right about that.

[Billy Joe Bob]

Originally posted by Elfie
Not true......my religious beliefs dictate what I do on a daily basis and I have never burned anyone at the stake, nor have I contemplated doing anything so drastic.

I didnt mean it literal!
gah !

*shakes head*   i dont understand why people mix state laws and religion......

[Seagoon]

Hello Billy Joe,

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
I didnt mean it literal!
gah !

*shakes head*   i dont understand why people mix state laws and religion......

What people believe determines the way they vote and ultimately the way they legislate in a representative democracy. Let's take an atheist for example, he believes that there is no God and that there are no absolutes, only rules of conduct determined via preference and then enforced by the civil magistrate. Let us say that this atheist happens to believe homosexuality is offensive and "unnatural." His preference therefore will be for the state not to redefine marriage in order to allow same-sex marriages. So he votes in accordance with this belief, and calls his legislators to express his desire that they act in accordance with what he believes. He is acting legally according to his preferences and his beliefs, and in a representative democracy he has a right to do that.

Now let us take a Christian. He believes that there is a God, and that this God has revealed his will unto mankind in the Bible, and he believes that the Bible teaches that marriage was established between one man and one woman, and that any other union would be wrong. So he too votes in accordance with his belief, and calls his legislators to express his desire that they act in accordance with his beliefs, and in a representative democracy he too has a right to do that.

So Billy would you prefer:

1) The right to vote and engage in political activity be taken away from religious people.

or

2) The right to vote and engage in political activity be taken away from bible-believing Christians

or

3) Put up with the fact that people who believe things that you don't are going to end up voting and engaging in political activity

Personally, I'm willing to endure 3 and have never suggested disenfranchising any citizen regardless of what he believes.

- SEAGOON

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
I didnt mean it literal!
gah !

*shakes head*   i dont understand why people mix state laws and religion......

I know you didnt mean it literally. I was just making the point that not all things about religion include such horrible acts as burning someone at the stake......or things like the Spanish Inquisition.  

If homosexual marriage comes up on the ballot in Colorado, I will vote against it. Is that mixing state laws with religion?

Was it mixing state laws with religion when the laws were originally made?
I dunno on that one, I wasnt there. ;-)

[BluKitty]

Originally posted by YUCCA
It doesn't cost you anything.  They aren't hurting you.

Well problem is your wrong in one sense... It harms thier sense of defenition's-the very words and symbols they think in are broad and ambiguious.   Most people don't handle confusion well.

On thing has become quite clear to me.  People here ethier don't have the education to argure such things on a scientific ground ... or are scared to argue it.

Define the sexes... don't leave anyone out ... and I want clearly defined Z scores for gays, lesbians, hermaphrodites, transsexuals, bisexuals, et cetra.

Since they are so keen on "Normal",  they need to define "Normal".   Can anyone define normal?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by BluKitty
Well problem is your wrong in one sense... It harms thier sense of defenition's-the very words and symbols they think in are broad and ambiguious.   Most people don't handle confusion well.

On thing has become quite clear to me.  People here ethier don't have the education to argure such things on a scientific ground ... or are scared to argue it.

Define the sexes... don't leave anyone out ... and I want clearly defined Z scores for gays, lesbians, hermaphrodites, transsexuals, bisexuals, et cetra.

Since they are so keen on "Normal",  they need to define "Normal".   Can anyone define normal?

For some of us, it isnt a scientific issue. For some of us, it's wrong in a moral sense. For some of us, that sense of morals comes directly from the Bible.

No one can define what you want defined. Science hasnt gotten that far.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Elfie
For some of us, it isnt a scientific issue. For some of us, it's wrong in a moral sense. For some of us, that sense of morals comes directly from the Bible.

No one can define what you want defined. Science hasnt gotten that far.

I imagine arguing with a religious person must be something like Hannibal's dealings with Rome.  After Transimene, Trebia and Cannae, they still wouldn't give in.

(600 years later things changed a bit )

Personally, I just can't take the Bible seriously.  I don't have any faith that man could have a text with such power to sway in his hands for so long without acting on the urge to add to it from his own agenda, but that's probably for another thread.

Kitty - The only thing i can come up with is "human" or Homo Sapiens Sapiens , if you prefer.

[Elfie]

Personally, I just can't take the Bible seriously. I don't have any faith that man could have a text with such power to sway in his hands for so long without acting on the urge to add to it from his own agenda, but that's probably for another thread.

Only thing I can really say to that is that I take it on faith this didnt happen.