Jump to content

Menu

Is there an argument against gay marriage that isn't faith based?


Recommended Posts

(My two cents, but I'm just dropping a comment and probably won't be back anytime soon to view any replies.)

 

In this debate, it's been pointed out that throughout all human history, in all cultures, from Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas, among cultures that had no contact for millennia, marriage had always been defined as between a man and a woman. Even in classical Greece where homosexuality was open and pervasive, a man would still have a wife. In most cultures, including non-Judaeo-Christian societies, marriage was understood to be between a single young man and a single young woman, with the expectation of a life-long commitment. The benefits of this arrangement for child-rearing and family continuity are evident to most people.

 

Though homosexuality has always been around, I doubt if anyone can find a single example of any place or time in all history (prior to 2004) where two men or two women would presume to take a vow to make a life-long commitment in a marriage. It simply has never been defined in these terms anywhere, at any time. It takes our selfish, libertine generation to casually toss aside the precedent of 6000 years of recorded history at the whim of the politically correct "cause du jour."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay this may totally seem niave.. I'll admit that I've only met a handful of homosexuals.. But my non faith based arguement is that the ones I've met have all had mental issues. Either bi-polar, sexually abused, physically abused or the like. So in my experience, as little as it may be, mental illness is not a good reason to have such a lifestyle. KWIM? Again, I've never met a mentally healthy homosexual so I cant say that this is the best arguement in the world but its mine against homosexual adoption as well. 2 people who have mental instability or unresolved issues (not saying that if you've been abused you shouldnt be able to adopt but if you've unresolved mental issues) shouldnt become adoptive parents (or natural parents for that matter but that is anther issue all together isnt it?).

 

:lurk5:I hope to learn alot from this thread.

 

 

 

Disclaimer.. My friends that are homosexual are not enemies BTW.. I can not agree with a lifestyle with out becoming a hater. :goodvibes:

 

I was in a women's studies class in college that had 30 people in the class and two instructors; only ONE person in the class (one of the instructors) had not been previously abused in some way. If I tried to extrapolate from that class to society in general, I would conclude that almost all people had been abused. I suspect that if you widened your population sample you would find different results. I have had a wide base of a variety of friends and I do not find this to be universally true. I would suspect that if you subtract emotionally difficulties due to societal pressures on gay people, they would have no higher an incidence of mental illness that the rest of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should there be health insurance subsidized for same sex couples? When health insurance became common through employment after WWII, health insurance was covered for a spouse and children because usually the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was doing important but unpaid work raising the next generation. You don't have the same dynamic with same-sex couples.

 

I think that health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment at all, in the larger scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:001_huh: Funny typo given the topic of conversation. :001_smile:

 

LMAO! Hahaha! I hadn't noticed that, that is hilarious!!! :lol:

 

Woops!

 

I'm not even going to correct it - it's too funny... Maybe someone else can get a good giggle from it...

Edited by mommy2be
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's so different from a lot of heterosexual marriages?

 

Do you think that open heterosexual marriages are common enough that it has actually changed the expectation of sexual exclusivity within marriage-in-general? I'm pretty sure most people approaching the altar are not expecting to be able to continue dalliances on the side. Perhaps many do not live up to that ideal, but it is the ideal nevertheless. From what I understand, that understanding is not there among male homosexual couples. And that means that the same societal benefits that are there for heterosexual couples are not there for homosexual couples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to add something else... this might be like a TMI sort of thing, it's kind of... nasty... but

 

A lot of gay people want to recieve insurance benefits - I could see where this would be a little harmful for the employee or insurance provider since I understand that gay men have to make a lot of trips to the doctor... for certain procedures... which are done on a regular basis...

 

I don't know - just a side thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that open heterosexual marriages are common enough that it has actually changed the expectation of sexual exclusivity within marriage-in-general? I'm pretty sure most people approaching the altar are not expecting to be able to continue dalliances on the side. Perhaps many do not live up to that ideal, but it is the ideal nevertheless. From what I understand, that understanding is not there among male homosexual couples. And that means that the same societal benefits that are there for heterosexual couples are not there for homosexual couples.

 

Are the couples who don't want to be exclusive the same couples that want to get married?

 

I always find it ironic when people simultaneously deny homosexuals the legal union that they claim strengthens their own marriage and then criticize them for not being monogamous. (I'm not saying you are doing this Sara, but I see it in family members.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me you cannot leave the creation or evolution thing out of this. Even if you don't believe God made you, if you believe we are evolved monkeys (lol) then the reality is 2 males or 2 female monkeys did not unite to make a new monkey. It was one male one female, period. So whatever it is you believe either God or nature they both decided it was one man one woman. If society keeps down this path the human race will be over with as we know it. :glare:

Anyway...personally freaked out by it and am offended when I see 2 women going at it in the Walmart parking lot...don't care if they are married or not. I don't do that with my DH of 13 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how it might detract from marriage if anyone and everyone could marry. Then what would be the point of even having such a distinction? But aren't there other changes that have been made in the past on a case by case basis? So it doesn't have to mean that we go from one to some sort of extreme. Why can't we weigh the pros and cons of each? We shouldn't consider allowing it simply because that is the way it has always been? If gay people make up a fairly small minority, then it wouldn't radically change things to allow them to marry.

(sorry my thoughts are bit scattered here)

 

First, let me say that I'm glad we can talk about this highly charged issue calmly and politely!!! It's helping me to think through the issues and see things from different perspectives. I guess what I'm thinking in response to your post here, is that if we're deciding on a case by case basis, what is the compelling reason to extend marriage to homosexuals right now? It seems to me that the only reason that's been suggested, really, is that some of them *want* to be married, and that they're not hurting anyone.... and I'm sure any number of other possible combinations of people could say the same. It wouldn't make sense to me to allow only homosexuals, and not XYZ.

 

Does legalizing marriage for gays help establish order and stability in our society, the way that establishing marriage between a man and a woman has done? I don't think so. It's more of an emotional and political issue at this point, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should there be health insurance subsidized for same sex couples? When health insurance became common through employment after WWII, health insurance was covered for a spouse and children because usually the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was doing important but unpaid work raising the next generation. You don't have the same dynamic with same-sex couples.

 

.....

 

You don't? Lesbians can easily have children via a willing male or artificial insemination. Males might find a woman willing to carry a child for them, or they might adopt and unrelated child.

 

Alternatively one partner may have a highpaying career that involves a lot of moving and the lower payed partner has trouble getting a career going. Therefore the lower paid partner is a dependent of the individual whose career they follow. I've seen this happen with heterosexual couples more than once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by jayfromcleveland viewpost.gif

(My two cents, but I'm just dropping a comment and probably won't be back anytime soon to view any replies.)

 

In this debate, it's been pointed out that throughout all human history, in all cultures, from Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas, among cultures that had no contact for millennia, marriage had always been defined as between a man and a woman. Even in classical Greece where homosexuality was open and pervasive, a man would still have a wife. In most cultures, including non-Judaeo-Christian societies, marriage was understood to be between a single young man and a single young woman, with the expectation of a life-long commitment. The benefits of this arrangement for child-rearing and family continuity are evident to most people.

 

Though homosexuality has always been around, I doubt if anyone can find a single example of any place or time in all history (prior to 2004) where two men or two women would presume to take a vow to make a life-long commitment in a marriage. It simply has never been defined in these terms anywhere, at any time. It takes our selfish, libertine generation to casually toss aside the precedent of 6000 years of recorded history at the whim of the politically correct "cause du jour."

 

So we shouldn't do something and shouldn't allow something simply because it has never been done before? Slavery has been part of all of human history. Why did we end it?

 

 

No....we should not do something because it does not make sense, because it tears at the fabric of society, because it offers no benefit and many many problems, because it is absolutely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does legalizing marriage for gays help establish order and stability in our society, the way that establishing marriage between a man and a woman has done? I don't think so. It's more of an emotional and political issue at this point, imo.

 

In my experience, there is a stability in a legal marriage that is beneficial to the partners involved and makes them more productive and happier members of society. I think extending those benefits to homosexual partners is a good thing, regardless of whether or not they have children.

 

Keep in mind, too, that many homosexuals are legal guardians or biological parents of children, so stabilizing their families has all of the benefits of stabilizing heterosexual marriages in families with children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me you cannot leave the creation or evolution thing out of this. Even if you don't believe God made you, if you believe we are evolved monkeys (lol) then the reality is 2 males or 2 female monkeys did not unite to make a new monkey. It was one male one female, period. So whatever it is you believe either God or nature they both decided it was one man one woman. If society keeps down this path the human race will be over with as we know it. :glare:

Anyway...personally freaked out by it and am offended when I see 2 women going at it in the Walmart parking lot...don't care if they are married or not. I don't do that with my DH of 13 years.

 

I don't think homosexuality poses any danger to the perpuation of the human race:tongue_smilie: Is that really a concern?

 

But why should there be health insurance subsidized for same sex couples? When health insurance became common through employment after WWII, health insurance was covered for a spouse and children because usually the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was doing important but unpaid work raising the next generation. You don't have the same dynamic with same-sex couples.

 

So was health insurance originally limited only to spouses who were at home raising children? Would you be in favor of the extension of health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses if they were at home raising adopted children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, there is a stability in a legal marriage that is beneficial to the partners involved and makes them more productive and happier members of society. I think extending those benefits to homosexual partners is a good thing, regardless of whether or not they have children.

 

Keep in mind, too, that many homosexuals are legal guardians or biological parents of children, so stabilizing their families has all of the benefits of stabilizing heterosexual marriages in families with children.

 

Yes. How do we know that homosexual relationships would not be stabilized by the extension of marriage benefits and recognition? Are there relevant statistics somewhere that might shed some light on this aspect of the discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should there be health insurance subsidized for same sex couples? When health insurance became common through employment after WWII, health insurance was covered for a spouse and children because usually the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was doing important but unpaid work raising the next generation. You don't have the same dynamic with same-sex couples.

 

Sure you do. Lots and lots of gay couples have an income producing partner and one who stays at home and takes care of the home, the family and raising the children.

 

I'm homeschooling my son, who will one day be a brilliant physician (IMHO ;)). That's awfully important work to me. It's sad that I can't be covered under my partner's health insurance and that if she dies first, I'll pretty much be left with no legal rights. *SIGH* So sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the New York Times Gay Couples Find Marriage is a Mixed Bag,

 

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, Ă¢â‚¬Å“Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.Ă¢â‚¬

 

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: Ă¢â‚¬Å“I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean anything.Ă¢â‚¬

 

Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are Ă¢â‚¬Å“for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.Ă¢â‚¬

 

I don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone describe a traditional marriage in those terms.

 

From City Journal:

 

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is marriage in general necessary? Why does marriage between a woman and a man make more sense than a marriage between two men (or two women)?

 

Because for thousands of years it has worked, because marriage is a building block of society, because marriage allows children (in most cases) to grow up in a stable environment, because quite simply a male and a female is the natural order of things (propagation of the species and all that even if not every marriage results in children).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that open heterosexual marriages are common enough that it has actually changed the expectation of sexual exclusivity within marriage-in-general? I'm pretty sure most people approaching the altar are not expecting to be able to continue dalliances on the side. Perhaps many do not live up to that ideal, but it is the ideal nevertheless. From what I understand, that understanding is not there among male homosexual couples. And that means that the same societal benefits that are there for heterosexual couples are not there for homosexual couples.

 

Many societies have set marriage up front to include multiple wives for one man. Others have concubines in addition to more than one wife. In some societies, a man is expected to marry his dead brother's wife even if he's already married. Other societies gave lip service to monogomy, but winked at affairs. There is even one society where the wife has multiple husbands. (That is the exception because of very poor resources in that land. I believe the husbands are generally related to each other.)

 

It sounds to me that marriage has very rarely been truly expected to be monogamous throughout history. And when we read some past threads hear about the appropiateness of male-female friendships on these boards, you may get the idea that many people here don't expect a monogamous relationship without a lot of barriers set up betwwen the sexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be surprised. Really, there are all walks of life out there.

 

Maybe there are a few oddballs out there, but open marriage (which I think of as a 70s hippy thing to do) has not changed the overall definition of marriage. Most people think of a committed relationship and marriage as meaning that both people intend to be sexually faithful to one another. Do you think that meaning has changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with others on this thread...a man and a woman are meant to "fit together like a puzzle." If I'm remembering things correctly from a physiology class that I took a LONG time ago....virtually everything in the human body comes down to structure and function. Even down to the cellular level, eye/heart/muscle cells are all shaped different in order to fulfill a certain function to maintain the body. A homosexual pairing doesn't fulfill anything. There's no reproductive incentive. The body gets no gain from that type of a pairing. It goes against that theory of structure/function. I'm NOT saying that homosexuality is "all in their head." I don't think anyone wakes up one day and says, "I think I'll try being gay today"--there is a physiological difference. How do I say this....I'm sure homosexuals enjoy their "pairings" but the enjoyment is the only benefit...and I think from a scientific standpoint that argument wouldn't hold any water. That's my best shot for a non-religious argument against gay marriage (well...not so much marriage, but maybe the normalization of homosexuality)

 

 

It is possible that the function serves no purpose to the individual organism but does to the species as a whole. I don't think people chose to be gay. It is my belief that they are born that way. From that POV it seems to me that either God made them that way (who knows why) or if you don't believe in God then some of them just randomly ended up that way. In either case, they are the way they are and all we need to figure out is how we want to treat them as other human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because for thousands of years it has worked, because marriage is a building block of society, because marriage allows children (in most cases) to grow up in a stable environment, because quite simply a male and a female is the natural order of things (propagation of the species and all that even if not every marriage results in children).

 

Polygamy has "worked" or did "work" for thousands of years in many cultures, yet one of your arguments against gay marriage is that it could lead to legalizing polygamy. Even if I found "but we've ALWAYS done things this way" to be a compelling argument, which I don't, I have a hard time following your thinking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm homeschooling my son, who will one day be a brilliant physician (IMHO ;)). That's awfully important work to me. It's sad that I can't be covered under my partner's health insurance and that if she dies first, I'll pretty much be left with no legal rights. *SIGH* So sad.

 

I don't understand. Which specific legal rights will you not have, that cannot be remedied with a lawyer's help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting considering that the divorce rate in the US is close to 50%. Apparently half of married people don't consider marriage all that important.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with propagation of the species. Dogs, rats, cats, insects don't marry as far as I am aware. They seem to have no problem propagating.

 

 

Have you ever wondered if the reason we face a breakdown in society is because we are seeing marriages breakdown as well?

Given this correlation and the degradation of today's society and your figures it would seem logical that everyone would strive to protect and preserve marriage rather than twist the definition to create some sort of all encompassing bland nothingness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE:

This is why I personally feel that changing the definition of marriage will eventually weaken the institution of marriage. Not because the two guys up the street getting married is going to weaken my marriage, but because it dramatically alters what marriage *is.* And it opens the door, logically speaking, to *anyone* who wants it, as long as they aren't hurting someone else. And at that point, imo, marriage will mean very little in our society.

Do you really think it means a whole heck of alot now???

Don't you think that "institution of marriage" has already been weakened.

All you have to do is turn on the TV and check out "Bridezillas" or the other show about how much people spend on their wedding days. I think if people spent as much time and effort on preparing for "marriage" as they do preparing for a wedding day there would be fewer divorces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me you cannot leave the creation or evolution thing out of this. Even if you don't believe God made you, if you believe we are evolved monkeys (lol) then the reality is 2 males or 2 female monkeys did not unite to make a new monkey. It was one male one female, period. So whatever it is you believe either God or nature they both decided it was one man one woman. If society keeps down this path the human race will be over with as we know it.
You don't see the benefit to the continuation of the species of allomothers? Or gathering food of offering protection to the community? Or technological discoveries? Or of storytellers? Or artists? Or healers? Or peacemakers? Humanity and human evolution are much more complicated than a straight line path of the reproduction of genes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting considering that the divorce rate in the US is close to 50%. Apparently half of married people don't consider marriage all that important.

 

It's not half of married people get divorced; it's half of marriages end in divorce. There are some people who have been married multiple times that skew the average.

 

It used to be that divorce rates weren't at 50%. One of the things that led to high divorce rates was the no-fault divorce laws. At the time people argued that no-fault divorce would only get rid of the truly horrible marriages, and it would help divorce be less painful because you wouldn't have to prove adultery or mental cruelty or whatever. Instead it changed the culture of marriage, and people started to see marriage as less permanent. A generation of children grew up with divorced parents, afraid to make that commitment themselves.

 

But those who argued for no-fault divorce didn't see that consequence a generation down the road. We similarly should be humble about our ability to foresee the consequences of social reform. These decisions can affect generations yet unborn.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with propagation of the species. Dogs, rats, cats, insects don't marry as far as I am aware. They seem to have no problem propagating.

 

People are not animals. Human children need fathers. Animal offspring don't. If you want the father to stick around and help the child grow up, you'd better have a strong institution of marriage to help him do so

Edited by Sara R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is turn on the TV and check out "Bridezillas" or the other show about how much people spend on their wedding days. I think if people spent as much time and effort on preparing for "marriage" as they do preparing for a wedding day there would be fewer divorces. [/color]

[

 

Part of the reason why weddings are such huge events nowadays is because the institution of marriage has been weakened by frequent divorce and so on. From the article posted above:

 

What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.

 

A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment; you're making a lifetime committment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole "breakdown" is a perception. If you look at history there have always been people shouting about the degradation of society. There has always been poverty, suffering, crime, etc. Nothing in that realm has changed much. In fact, this is probably one of the more peaceful and prosperous times throughout our known history. Give me a time and place where things were way better.

.

 

In 1934 less than 10% of US births were out of wedlock.

 

Country 1980 Current

Japan 1% 2%

Italy 4% 21%

Spain 4% 28%

Canada 13% 30%

Germany 12% 30%

Ireland 5% 33%

Netherlands 4% 40%

United States18% 40%

United Kingdom12% 44%

Denmark 33% 46%

France 11% 50%

Norway 15% 54%

Sweden 40% 55%

Iceland 40% 66%

 

Now explain again about how breakdown is simply a perception or do you not think that a child needs a father and a mother.

 

I will read your answer in the morning as it is midnight here in Europe..

 

Good night.

Edited by pqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting considering that the divorce rate in the US is close to 50%. Apparently half of married people don't consider marriage all that important. Marriage has nothing to do with propagation of the species. Dogs, rats, cats, insects don't marry as far as I am aware. They seem to have no problem propagating.

 

The bold part is a terribly inaccurate and not logical statement. It's also hurtful.

 

Indeed, it is because I consider marriage important that I divorced. My marriage was paper only; not a marriage at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Which specific legal rights will you not have, that cannot be remedied with a lawyer's help?

 

 

I guess I'm too much of a hippie peace-lovin' gal. :D

 

I think it's sad that I have to go pay an attorney to get the same legal rights that a heterosexual couple enjoys just for showing up and being themselves. I'm showing up and being myself too.

 

I don't have any theory or fancy detailed study to quote from. I'm just one person doing what's best for me and my family. It wouldn't matter to me if I had to live out the rest of my years in a cardboard box, should my spouse die before me. I know for a fact that I'm a better person having spent all of these years together.

 

To me it's just sad that other people don't see our relationship that way. None of it makes me angry or bitter. Just sad. But to each their own.

 

These threads always amuse and confuse me. I should have known better than to peek in at this one, so I'm out. :auto:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this may totally seem niave.. I'll admit that I've only met a handful of homosexuals.. But my non faith based arguement is that the ones I've met have all had mental issues. Either bi-polar, sexually abused, physically abused or the like.

 

My gay friend, for whom 'Calvin' is named, is one half of the longest-lasting couple of my generation that I know: twenty-five years this year. I look forward to attending their civil partnership ceremony next year and wish it could be a marriage. If anything were to happen to husband and me, this couple would be high on the list of people I'd like to bring up my boys.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm just saying that homosexuality is really a non-issue to me. I don't see it as wrong. I think they deserve the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to be covered on life and health insurance policies. Really, again, this is turning into a theological arguement masked in "society".

Folks, gay couples aren't asking for the sanctity of marriage within the confines of a church or religious group. They are asking for a legal union to acknowledge them as a couple with legal rights of a couple.

This really isn't about sexual taboos including incest with family members. I respectfully decline to continue in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's sad that I have to go pay an attorney to get the same legal rights that a heterosexual couple enjoys just for showing up and being themselves. I'm showing up and being myself too.

 

 

Not every employer offers affordable spouse coverage, even for married folk. it was cheaper at one job for me to have my own insurance than what was offered via dh's employer, so no perqs for being married;)

It costs married folk as much to draw up a will as it does unmarried folk, and yes, married folk should STILL have a will.

Anyone can be stipulated as a recipient for life insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reasons aren't faith-based, but child-based. I guess I can't say I oppose gay marriage, but I oppose bringing children into the world without proper role models. It logically follows that children will come after marriage, and I strongly believe that both boys and girls need role models of both sexes.

 

I feel the same way about single parenthood and divorce. I don't think having children is a responsibility to be taken lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't think of any non-faith based reasons for it to be a problem, and quite frankly, as a pastor, i can't think of any faith-based reasons, either. there are 8 kinds of marriage outlined in the bible,

 

:confused:

well, yeah, if you completely discount some pretty big chunks of scripture, i guess i could agree that there's no faith-based reasons. But quite frankly, that type of scriptural handling would eliminate you as a pastor for many Christians.

 

are you saying that the Bible forbids/doesn't recognize a marriage built on mutual consent?? or just that you can't find it explicitly spelled out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Country 1980 Current

 

United Kingdom12% 44%

 

 

Now explain again about how breakdown is simply a perception or do you not think that a child needs a father and a mother.

 

 

A large proportion of the 'out of wedlock' children in the UK are born to stable, long-term couples. Both my nieces were born without their parents being married; the parents have now been together for around twenty five years.

 

I rejoice when I see stable relationships (gay or straight) but I can't see how an increase in illegitimate children is an argument for denying gay people the right to marry.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I can't say I oppose gay marriage, but I oppose bringing children into the world without proper role models. It logically follows that children will come after marriage, and I strongly believe that both boys and girls need role models of both sexes.

 

I feel the same way about single parenthood and divorce. I don't think having children is a responsibility to be taken lightly.

'

 

I'm not sure that "logically" is accurate here in the strict sense.

 

While I agree children need role models of both genders, being gay/lesbian or a single does not exclude children having those needed models.

 

Having both genders married and present in the home does not mean those role models are healthy, appropriate or good.

 

I don't know of ANYONE who feels parenting should be taken lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite natural actually

Here.

 

 

so...legalizing cannibalism is next on the social/legislative agenda?

Then the ability to kill our young after birth? negligent parenting indeed!

and this whole getting-jailed-for-killing-the-wife's-lover thing will soon be an archaic practice since it's obviously natural to kill off the competition? :D

 

i agree that there's plenty of examples of gay behavior in nature. But the fact that we find examples of it still doesn't negate that the male/female role is way, Way, WAY more predominant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rejoice when I see stable relationships (gay or straight) but I can't see how an increase in illegitimate children is an argument for denying gay people the right to marry.

 

Laura

 

 

The bold part? That's what I agree with. I can't logically "prove" it but I believe society and children (and employers, churches and business) benefit with stable, committed, sanctioned relationships - gender of the participants irrelevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is pretty much where I am :)

 

i will not vote FOR gay marriage because I do believe the Bible is pretty clear in Romans 1.

 

However, neither will i cry a river of loss if gay marriage is legalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, gay couples aren't asking for the sanctity of marriage within the confines of a church or religious group. They are asking for a legal union to acknowledge them as a couple with legal rights of a couple.

 

 

eh.... kinda:

I look forward to attending their civil partnership ceremony next year and wish it could be a marriage.

 

there ARE plenty of gay couples insisting on something called a *marriage* --civil unions are as good as separate but equal facilities for colored were. they know their history. :)

 

I do wish Christians would stop harping about the legal paper marriage certificate and focus more on the faith aspect of a Godly marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/comnews/4.7-1996-04/cn_2.html For those who think that civil marriage is not necessary to give complete legal rights to a homosexual couple. This article suggests about 6000.00 worth(based on the average hourly fee in my city) of safeguards from an attorney for basic rights that are automatically bestowed upon a person when they marry legally . It is not simple either. Hospitals frequently ignore durable health care powers of attorney duly drawn when it is a situation of life partner rather than spouse . Next of kin can barge in and basically take over regardless of durable power of attorney or a duly executed living will. It is 500.00 for an attorney to walk into court to begin proceedings to enforce the wishes of those documents. Greedy, controlling , vengeful families can wreak havoc on the best planning I am capable of doing as an attorney. You might not like the implication but it is never out of "concern" not when they have refused to speak to the person for years... Do not for a moment assume that rights automatic with a legal marriage are simply a matter of drafting something up for x, y and z circumstances. It is absolutely unreal how much it can cost. Many simply cannot afford it. I am very pleased to live in a state where equal rights under the law are extending to cover all persons. There seems not to be any argument that is not faith based simply because it is a relatively new social arrangement. We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Which specific legal rights will you not have, that cannot be remedied with a lawyer's help?

 

Here's 75 pages worth of a federal government report on the issue outlining the legal benefits that are granted automatically and without cost to anyone obtaining a legal marriage.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

 

A minimum of "1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." Even states which do allow same sex marriages cannot confer these benefits on the married couple because they are not federally recognized marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this may totally seem niave.. I'll admit that I've only met a handful of homosexuals.. But my non faith based arguement is that the ones I've met have all had mental issues.

 

This is exactly what some people say about homeschoolers! "All the homeschoolers I know are weird..." or have problems or are not socialized.

 

Actually, here is an email that I got from an old friend last year when I told her via email that I was going to homeschool my kids:

 

Hi Sharon!

 

Thanks for the note. How was your Christmas? Did the kids enjoy it?

 

Have you talked to folks who home-schooled? From what I've seen, I wouldn't recommend it. All of the home-schooled kids I've met have really lagged in social skills. I'm sure that's not the norm, but it's been the issue with every kid I've met. But that's just my opinion!

 

We're doing okay here. The kids both had strep last week, but they're better. <snip>

 

:001_huh:

Edited by Jumping In Puddles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...