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

[theresatwist]

Agreed. I'm just looking forward to science finding the "gay gene". Then all the arguing might be put aside and it will be looked at as a quirk of nature vs. a abomination.

FWIW, my gay friends are NOT damaged, abused, neglected, raped, mentally ill. The hold high paying jobs, are in loving relationships, travel the world, read wonderful books and enrich the lives of those who are lucky enough to be called friends, myself included.

How can love between to consenting adults be wrong? How can a relationship which nutures and fulfills be classified as against nature? As for parts fitting, well, our bodies aren't jigsaw puzzles with only one right way to fit together. Many hetro couples have found other ways to "fit together". 'Nuf said.

Just my 2 pennies for what they are worth.

 

The beginning of an article that was published this week in the NYT:

 

"The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies."

[theresatwist]

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.

 

Peek a Boo: I'm sure you have other reasons too, however I'm not sure you want to use predominance as an argument. Only about 10% of the population are left-handed. It is estimated that a similar percentage of the population is gay.

 

These other examples such as cannibalism I find week as well. How is cannibalism analogous to two people who love each other deeply and want their committed relationship recognized by society?

[LizzyBee]

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

 

Some things I have heard of:

A gay couple gives each other durable power of attorney so they can make medical decisions for one another. Doctors and courts give the right to make medical decisions to the biological next of kin instead.

 

A person who has been in a long-time committed same-sex relationship is in intensive care or dying and can only be visited by family members. Their partner is not allowed to visit in spite of written directives otherwise.

 

Legally, a gay couple who owns real estate together cannot have the tenancy by entireties protection that married couples are entitled to. They cannot make tax-free transfers to one another; if a transfer exceeds the gift tax exclusion amount, they are subject to gift taxes. Gay couples don't have the estate tax exclusion that married couples have. Depending on their income level, they may pay more income taxes than they would if they were married.

 

These inequities and many others can't be remedied with legal documents. On one hand, I am not in favor of gay marriage. OTOH, I think it's beyond sad that a gay couple with a long and loving history can be kept apart when one of them is sick or dying. I think that's far worse than any of the financial disparities.

[theresatwist]

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...[/quote

 

The insurance question: If it is true that we originally decided to provide insurance benefits for one's spouse because women were staying home and taking care of the kids then do you think we should get rid of that benefit for all married women who are out in the work force?

 

There are plenty of regular health issues married men and women have the require a huge amount of medical expense. I don't think gay men have more medical expenses on average than anybody else.

[theresatwist]

I do think physiology is something that should be considered. I would not type out the specific details, but if people are aware of the various physical "complications" of the male physical homosexual act in particular, that is evidence to me that that is not the natural function of those parts. Especially when compared with how male and female fit together perfectly. And the fact that homosexual contact cannot contribute to reproduction. If there is any acknowledgement of a Creator at all, I would think it should be fairly obvious that there was a plan in our physiological design. But we have gotten so into the emotional aspects of homosexuality, and the protected rights of homosexuals as a minority, that I don't think many people are thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

 

There appears to be homosexuality in all species. I think it does serve a role: population control. Infertility, as painful I understand it can be for many heterosexual couples, I believe has the same origin.

[Tammy]

I was going to ask what she was talking about....but I decided against it, LOL. I can't imagine medical expenses being any different just because a man is gay.

[kokotg]

Immigration rights is another big legal issue that a lawyer can't help you with. I was just reading in Time a little while ago about a lesbian couple with 2 sons and one of the moms is now facing deportation because they can't legally marry and she has no other way to stay in the country.

[Perry]

.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Perry

[phathui5]

FWIW, my gay friends are NOT damaged, abused, neglected, raped, mentally ill.

 

Not to poke, but how do you know they weren't sexually abused?

 

Both of the gay guys that live next door to us were sexually abused as children, one horribly so.

[st_claire]

Not to poke, but how do you know they weren't sexually abused?

 

Both of the gay guys that live next door to us were sexually abused as children, one horribly so.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that homosexuality is caused by any sort of abuse or mental illness or anything like that at all.

 

To the best of current scientific knowledge, it is a combination of genes and chemical reactions in the brain during gestation.

[st_claire]

I really need to ask lol....what sort of "medical procedures" did she mean?

[Marylou]

My answer is "no". I don't believe the kind of argument your're interested in exists.

 

And I think that discussions like this (morality) tend to go in circles because we all ignore the gorilla in the room, IYKWIM.

 

Albert Mohler has a fairly recent book on sexuality you might find helpful.

 

If you are researching to help a friend, I hope you find what you need to be helpful and loving to him/her.

[GoldenMolly]

I have not had the time to read all of the replies so I apologize if I am way off from where the discussion has headed but in reply to the OP...

If you are not using faith/God then there is nothing wrong with it, you have no basis other than majority rules in society, what you have been taught, or what the government says is okay. But alot of others acts would be okay too then. As far as hurting someone else with being gay, maybe the two individuals are happy, but someone is getting hurt-their Creator but that is a faith-gased argument:glare:

As a side note I find it interesting that many people don't find anything wrong with homosexuality or at least don't want to say there is and are more accepting of it even though God forbids it. But if a man wants more than one wife he is considered a freak even though God allows polygamy and we see many great men of the Bible practicing it. Just goes to show you that society has corrupted alot of issues but that does not make them right.

 

Molly

[justamouse]

Whoa. So being gay has been compared to incest, assumed abusive backgrounds the list seems endless.

 

There's an article from Brian McLaren that I love on this.

 

http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/synchroblogging-on-sexuality.html

 

Brian D. McLaren is an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among

innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.

 

 

Which was a part of http://btgproject.blogspot.com/2009/05/announcing-btg-synchroblog.html

 

^ Which is Bridging the Gap :

 

BTG has been developed as an interactive DVD resource for small groups. Intended to be a catalyst for courageous conversations and fearless, love-based relational engagement with gay neighbours, BTG seeks to address prevalent questions, attitudes, and hang-ups that keep Christ-followers from hanging out and being 'Jesus with skin on' for the gay people in their circle of influence.

 

Here's what I know. Sexuality is not a choice. You don't wake up one morning and decide to be gay. You ARE, and telling a person who is gay that the way God made them is a sin is actually saying that God screwed up.

 

I can't wake up and decide to be black, as much as I want to. And telling me that I'm going to hell for being white bread doesn't do much to draw me nearer to Christ.

 

So here's the thing. I am not God, and all I know is that gay people love, and want to be loved. I will not be their judge.

[swimmermom3]

Not to poke, but how do you know they weren't sexually abused?

 

Both of the gay guys that live next door to us were sexually abused as children, one horribly so.

 

So were 2 of my dd's LDS friends. It's been known to cause mental upset regardless of your s*xual orientation.

[coralloyd]

What is marriage? It has always been between a man and woman. If we start to change the defintion of the word, it allows for more changes down the road (like polygamy). Social Security, health care, custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, spousal citizenship, ect..will all be stressed and have to go through severe changes. And all this potentailly without limit on the # of spouses, or their gender.

 

 

 

 

Edit: This is more than a "how you have s*x issue". You have to think beyond peoples feelings of love toward eachother to the possible ramifications for all of us.

Edited August 7, 2009 by coralloyd

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

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

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I would think that people would want to encourage, stable, long lasting relationships in the context of marriage for both gay and straight people IMHO. I do not see gay marriage as a threat to my own marriage. Gee, I know that I was always "boy crazy" so to speak and being exposed to my dear parents gay friends when I was a child would never make me gay. I believe that most people are born gay or straight and we cannot expect them to change their very nature. I do think that gay people should be afforded the right to marriage.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[theresatwist]

What is marriage? It has always been between a man and woman. If we start to change the defintion of the word, it allows for more changes down the road (like polygamy). Social Security, health care, custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, spousal citizenship, ect..will all be stressed and have to go through severe changes. And all this potentailly without limit on the # of spouses, or their gender.

 

 

 

 

 

It put a fair amount of strain on many systems when we freed the slaves too.

 

I wonder if people made the same arguments about what will come next when we started to allow interracial marriages?

 

I just don't think these sorts of arguments hold much water.

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

 

The breakdown thing may still simply be a perception.

 

Your statistic only speaks to out-of-wedlock childbirths. I assume "breakdown" would entail something more then that. Huge numbers of dysfunctional families, through-the-roof crime statistics, crumbling infastructure, maybe a plague or two. Surely just an increase in out of wedlocks births can't constitute a whole societal breakdown on it's own.

 

That's rather like saying a cough constitutes a case of pneumonia.

[Pretty in Pink]

My answer is "no". I don't believe the kind of argument your're interested in exists.

 

And I think that discussions like this (morality) tend to go in circles because we all ignore the gorilla in the room, IYKWIM.

 

Albert Mohler has a fairly recent book on sexuality you might find helpful.

 

If you are researching to help a friend, I hope you find what you need to be helpful and loving to him/her.

 

 

I am the OP; I think this response was directed my way so I want to chime in again. I'm not researching to help a friend. I'm researching because I am really struggling to reconcile my own Christian faith with my views on gay marriage. I'm exploring the boundaries between personal faith and politics, where they converge and when and if they should remain seperate. I'm not trying to stir the pot though I understand this is a hot topic. I really appreciate everyone who has taken the time to weigh in on this thread. Thank you all. Sincerely.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

What is marriage? It has always been between a man and woman. If we start to change the defintion of the word, it allows for more changes down the road (like polygamy).

 

 

 

 

IMHO, I think that polygamy is a whole other "ball of wax." With polygamy there is too much potential wiggle room IMO for abuse since there will tend to be one in a position of power and an unequal relationship. Therefore, I think polygamy should be illegal and it really has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

[coralloyd]

It put a fair amount of strain on many systems when we freed the slaves too.

 

I wonder if people made the same arguments about what will come next when we started to allow interracial marriages?

 

I just don't think these sorts of arguments hold much water.

 

 

So are you ok with anyone having the legal rights of marriage, as long as they're "in love"?

[kokotg]

What is marriage? It has always been between a man and woman. If we start to change the defintion of the word, it allows for more changes down the road (like polygamy).

 

Again, this line of thought totally mystifies me. Marriage HASN'T always been between one man and one woman. Polygamy is a very traditional form of marriage in many, many cultures. So saying in one sentence that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because it's so non-traditional that it could lead to the (re)legalization of a form of marriage so "traditional" that its roots go back thousands of years in hundreds of different cultures....it doesn't make much sense to me.

[Marylou]

I am the OP; I think this response was directed my way so I want to chime in again. I'm not researching to help a friend. I'm researching because I am really struggling to reconcile my own Christian faith with my views on gay marriage. I'm exploring the boundaries between personal faith and politics, where they converge and when and if they should remain seperate. I'm not trying to stir the pot though I understand this is a hot topic. I really appreciate everyone who has taken the time to weigh in on this thread. Thank you all. Sincerely.

 

I think what you're doing is great. BTW do you have dishes in your sink?????

 

 

Oops, wrong thread :D

[OnTheBrink]

So were 2 of my dd's LDS friends. It's been known to cause mental upset regardless of your s*xual orientation.

 

My EX (who's gay) was molested by his father. His father (also gay) was molested by an older cousin.

 

Just sayin'.

[GoldenMolly]

 

 

Here's what I know. Sexuality is not a choice. You don't wake up one morning and decide to be gay. You ARE, and telling a person who is gay that the way God made them is a sin is actually saying that God screwed up.

 

I can't wake up and decide to be black, as much as I want to. And telling me that I'm going to hell for being white bread doesn't do much to draw me nearer to Christ.

 

So here's the thing. I am not God, and all I know is that gay people love, and want to be loved. I will not be their judge.

 

 

I agree you don't just wake up and decide to be gay, in most cases. I have seen young children who have gay tendencies and as adults are gay-no one is surprised. Did God screw up? No, people did. There is disease (which can effect genetics), abuse, and many other bad things in this world as a result of man's sin, not because God screwed up. Any of these factors can contribute to a person being gay just as a person can have desires for any sinful act.

I do not tell anyone they will go to Hell because they are gay , they will go to Hell because they do not have a saving faith and personal relationship with God. We all sin in one way or another and any one of those sins (homosexuality or stealing gum from the store as a child) is enough to separate us from God without accepting Jesus's sacrifice for us. I don't like to see the hate toward gays and they do get judged heavily. I have never seen this approach bring anyone closer to God, yet it still persists.:confused:

 

Molly

[theresatwist]

So are you ok with anyone having the legal rights of marriage, as long as they're "in love"?

 

I don't believe they are "in love." I believe they are in love. Yes, I absolutely support gay marriage.

 

Do I support any two people who love each other being able to marry? No. I don't think you should have the right to marry your son. However, I don't think we're in any danger of that happening. (I also think the nature of parent-child love is different from romantic love.) Gay marriages have been legal in Spain since 2005. None of the end-of-the-Earth scenarios that are talked about here have come to pass.

[coralloyd]

Polygamists might not see it as differently as you do. Don't think they won't see gay marriage as an open door. They will fight for their "rights".

[theresatwist]

Polygamists might not see it as differently as you do. Don't think they won't see gay marriage as an open door. They will fight for their "rights".

 

I don't know that I have a problem with polygamy. To be honest, I haven't given it much thought. I don't know that I know enough about polygamy to have a real opinion. But polygamists aside, I don't think we should deny people rights based on a slippery slope argument. If we allow people to own guns next thing you know they'll want nuclear weapons in their homes...

 

Again, you say "rights," I say rights.

[theresatwist]

My EX (who's gay) was molested by his father. His father (also gay) was molested by an older cousin.

 

Just sayin'.

 

I might be interpreting your post incorrectly so please excuse me if I am. That said...There are plenty of young girls who have been raped by their (straight) fathers. Sexual abuse and inappropriate sexual behavior happens in both sexual communities (gay and straight). I don't think that tells us anything about gay people or straight people in particular. I think it tells us something about humans.

[coralloyd]

I don't know that I have a problem with polygamy. To be honest, I haven't given it much thought. I don't know that I know enough about polygamy to have a real opinion. But polygamists aside, I don't think we should deny people rights based on a slippery slope argument. If we allow people to own guns next thing you know they'll want nuclear weapons in their homes...

 

Again, you say "rights," I say rights.

 

You have to look down the road, to not do so is irresponsible. And how is it that marriage is now a right to anyone who wants it? Maybe you should think more about polygamy and other such things, that gay marrige could open the door to. Once you say it is a right, the 1st Amendment comes into play, for anyone who feels they have the right.

 

I wish I could argue the point more, but I have to put the kiddos to bed. So, good night.

[Erica in PA]

I don't believe they are "in love." I believe they are in love. Yes, I absolutely support gay marriage.

 

Do I support any two people who love each other being able to marry? No. I don't think you should have the right to marry your son. However, I don't think we're in any danger of that happening. (I also think the nature of parent-child love is different from romantic love.) Gay marriages have been legal in Spain since 2005. None of the end-of-the-Earth scenarios that are talked about here have come to pass.

 

Why shouldn't a person be able to marry her son? If the concern is biological defects, what if the woman is past the age of child bearing? Then on what basis would you deny those individuals the "right" to marry?

 

As fast as Spain goes, three years is an incredibly short time in the span of human history. Even speaking as someone who does expect to see a negative effect on the institution of marriage if it is changed to include relationships other than male-female, even I would not expect to see societal changes *that* quickly. These things take time to develop, and generations of people to come and go, before things as central as the definition of marriage can be changed, and all the ramifications of that are realized.

[GoldenMolly]

IMHO, I think that polygamy is a whole other "ball of wax." With polygamy there is too much potential wiggle room IMO for abuse since there will tend to be one in a position of power and an unequal relationship. Therefore, I think polygamy should be illegal and it really has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Not trying to hijack the thread. My point was that people are starting to view homosexuality as acceptable (which according to the Bible, God does not) and polygamy as terrible (which the Bible says IS acceptable). Society seems to be the guide today for morality, not God (based on what is in the Bible). So if you are looking for an argument against homosexuality that is not faith based it really comes down to what society or the government dictates as moral.

To the OP politics and God are 2 different things and often they do not agree (moreso every day it seems). You have to decide if your faith is in God's Word or the government and man, unfortunately the 2 do not coincide. For me it is a no-brainer but I know other's are still struggling in this area. I hope you come to terms with it and find your answers.:001_smile:

As for the quote above, I think abuse can happen in any relationship, polygamous or monogamous. Why do you think there are battered women's shelters today in a non-polygamous society? I agree that there are cases of abuse (underage, forced marriage, etc) but if you are dealing with consenting adults why make it illegal? I don't think it is right for everyone but it should be an option-land of the free, you know. Today a man can have an affair, even have children with the woman, possibly leave his current wife and children through divorce or continue "on the side" and it is acceptable but if he were to take responsibility for both it should be illegal? Wanting to be responsible is illegal but cheating on your wife is not. hmmmmm

Anyway, I don't want to hijack too much, so if we want to go on with this discussion just start a s/o thread and we can go from there. Otherwise I have said my peace.;)

 

Molly

[theresatwist]

You have to look down the road, to not do so is irresponsible. And how is it that marriage is now a right to anyone who wants it? Maybe you should think more about polygamy and other such things, that gay marrige could open the door to. Once you say it is a right, the 1st Amendment comes into play, for anyone who feels they have the right.

 

I wish I could argue the point more, but I have to put the kiddos to bed. So, good night.

 

I don't think I have a problem with polygamy. However, I also don't think we should deny one group of people a certain right because we don't want to have to grant that right to a third group of people. The internet cause a lot of harm in society. But if the inventors of internet had only thought about how it would lead to a proliferation in identity theft we wouldn't have this wonderful tool. I appreciate your point about having to look down the road, but I think that can be carried too far.

 

I'm not sure which part of the First Amendment you're concerned about...petitioning grievances? I believe people should always have the right to petition no matter how ridiculous I believe their request to be.

[Erica in PA]

You have to look down the road, to not do so is irresponsible. And how is it that marriage is now a right to anyone who wants it? Maybe you should think more about polygamy and other such things, that gay marrige could open the door to. Once you say it is a right, the 1st Amendment comes into play, for anyone who feels they have the right.

 

I wish I could argue the point more, but I have to put the kiddos to bed. So, good night.

 

It's more than a slippery slope argument. It is based on principle-- how are we as a society deciding who can be married, and who can't? Until this point, one thing that was agreed upon was that it had to be an adult man and an adult woman, as the building block of society where children *could be* conceived and raised. That was the underlying principle. If we take that away, as must be done to change the definition of marriage to include couples of same gender, then to what will we change the definition? Any consenting adult who claims the right to be married? I don't see any logical basis to now include homosexuals, but not polygamists. Or close relatives. Or any other consenting adult who wishes to be married. That's the problem.. I feel that we are on the verge of fundamentally changing the definition of an institution that has served us well for thousands of years, with no clear new definition, or even a compelling reason for the change, other than to put a public stamp of approval on homosexuality.

[theresatwist]

Why shouldn't a person be able to marry her son? If the concern is biological defects, what if the woman is past the age of child bearing? Then on what basis would you deny those individuals the "right" to marry?

 

As fast as Spain goes, three years is an incredibly short time in the span of human history. Even speaking as someone who does expect to see a negative effect on the institution of marriage if it is changed to include relationships other than male-female, even I would not expect to see societal changes *that* quickly. These things take time to develop, and generations of people to come and go, before things as central as the definition of marriage can be changed, and all the ramifications of that are realized.

 

Marriage, I believe, is a romantic relationship, not a familial one. A mother and son already have a legal relationship, that of parent and child. That is the basis I would use.

 

I can't really counter the three years is an awfully short period of time argument. That's true. I might have something more substantive to say if you were talking about specific ramifications.

[schsmom]

There is a difference between sex/reproduction and marriage.

I don't agree at all. When two people of the same sex get married how can you deny reproduction.

So ok my answer is yes its an issue...gay married people can't reproduce.

To me it is a family issue...gay couples cannot expect to have a married life and have it be "normal" like a man and woman. It just won't work. Even if it were legal it will never be the same. Because of that there will always be tension between them. It is doomed from the start.

[schsmom]

It's more than a slippery slope argument. It is based on principle-- how are we as a society deciding who can be married, and who can't? Until this point, one thing that was agreed upon was that it had to be an adult man and an adult woman, as the building block of society where children *could be* conceived and raised. That was the underlying principle. If we take that away, as must be done to change the definition of marriage to include couples of same gender, then to what will we change the definition? Any consenting adult who claims the right to be married? I don't see any logical basis to now include homosexuals, but not polygamists. Or close relatives. Or any other consenting adult who wishes to be married. That's the problem.. I feel that we are on the verge of fundamentally changing the definition of an institution that has served us well for thousands of years, with no clear new definition, or even a compelling reason for the change, other than to put a public stamp of approval on homosexuality.

:iagree:

[Erica in PA]

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' date=' 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.[/i']

 

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.

 

 

 

I do think it has been weakened. It's very sad. And I don't want to see it weakened any further.

[Marylou]

other than to put a public stamp of approval on homosexuality.

 

"As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief".

 

Very politically incorrect and taken from this article.

 

Maybe I need to get out more, but I have yet to meet a non-Christian who is not pro-homosexuality. And I have lived in many places.

[OnTheBrink]

I might be interpreting your post incorrectly so please excuse me if I am. That said...There are plenty of young girls who have been raped by their (straight) fathers. Sexual abuse and inappropriate sexual behavior happens in both sexual communities (gay and straight). I don't think that tells us anything about gay people or straight people in particular. I think it tells us something about humans.

 

I was simply sharing two facts. You may interpret them as you wish.

[Caitilin]

but I have yet to meet a non-Christian who is not pro-homosexuality

 

I don't follow this at all--what would that even mean? That seems analogous to being "pro-blondeness" or "anti-left-handedness." It's a description of a state, not something which we can change based on our attitudes.

[PiCO]

The main secular argument that I've heard against gay marriage is that it would put a strain on Social Security by increasing the number of people eligible for spousal benefits.

 

I think this is true, but I'm not against gay marriage because of it.

 

Actually, I think "marriages" should only take place in a church. I think the secular (legal) community should recognize legal unions registered at the county court or somesuch. I am an atheist, so I would not bother getting married- I would just have a legal union. Kind of like a business partnership. So gay people (or anyone else) would be welcome to have this same kind of union.

[Aggie]

Actually, I think "marriages" should only take place in a church. I think the secular (legal) community should recognize legal unions registered at the county court or somesuch. I am an atheist, so I would not bother getting married- I would just have a legal union. Kind of like a business partnership. So gay people (or anyone else) would be welcome to have this same kind of union.

 

PiCO....if a homosexual couple wanted to get legally married in a church, do you think the couple could force a church to host a wedding? I mean, if the couple wanted to get married in XYZ Church, and the church didn't believe in homosexual marriages, would the pastor be obligated to perform the ceremony? Or would it be discrimination if he didn't?

 

Any thoughts?

[Marylou]

I don't follow this at all--what would that even mean? That seems analogous to being "pro-blondeness" or "anti-left-handedness." It's a description of a state, not something which we can change based on our attitudes.

 

[i'm off to bed after I type this so if you don't see a response back, that's why :001_smile:]

 

I don't want to get OT, so I will refer you to my post #138

 

The gorilla in the room is "God and his designs." And having said that- (look on this forum, for example)- people who believe that statement about God (in this case regarding marriage) define marriage as one man/one woman. Those who don't believe marriage is a "religious issue" tend to be pro same-sex relationships. That's all I was trying to say.

 

But the OP wants non-faith based arguments. Which I believe don't exist. See post 138.

[KidsHappen]

It's more than a slippery slope argument. It is based on principle-- how are we as a society deciding who can be married, and who can't? Until this point, one thing that was agreed upon was that it had to be an adult man and an adult woman, as the building block of society where children *could be* conceived and raised. That was the underlying principle. If we take that away, as must be done to change the definition of marriage to include couples of same gender, then to what will we change the definition? Any consenting adult who claims the right to be married? I don't see any logical basis to now include homosexuals, but not polygamists. Or close relatives. Or any other consenting adult who wishes to be married. That's the problem.. I feel that we are on the verge of fundamentally changing the definition of an institution that has served us well for thousands of years, with no clear new definition, or even a compelling reason for the change, other than to put a public stamp of approval on homosexuality.

 

Yes but the definition of adult woman was very questionable according to today's standards (in many places being as young as twelve) so traditional does not neccessarily equal good or right.

[JWSJ]

Maybe I need to get out more, but I have yet to meet a non-Christian who is not pro-homosexuality. And I have lived in many places.

 

I've met many Muslims and a few athiests that are not pro-homosexuality.

[Laura Corin]

I have not had the time to read all of the replies so I apologize if I am way off from where the discussion has headed but in reply to the OP...

If you are not using faith/God then there is nothing wrong with it, you have no basis other than majority rules in society, what you have been taught, or what the government says is okay. But alot of others acts would be okay too then.

 

I am quite willing to admit that the rules of Western society are based on the bible, but many of us accept those rules as just 'decent ways for interacting with others', without needing a religious basis to them. I think that you will find my children to be moral beings, despite one being agnostic and the other atheist.

 

Laura

[KarenNC]

PiCO....if a homosexual couple wanted to get legally married in a church, do you think the couple could force a church to host a wedding? I mean, if the couple wanted to get married in XYZ Church, and the church didn't believe in homosexual marriages, would the pastor be obligated to perform the ceremony? Or would it be discrimination if he didn't?

 

No, they could not force a church to host a wedding any more than a couple where one partner is divorced can force the Catholic Church to provide them with a religious wedding or a couple who is living together, where the bride is pregnant or that wants to serve alcohol at the reception could force a Southern Baptist minister to marry them in the church. A minister is free to turn down anyone for any reason, including that he doesn't like their choice of music, he doesn't believe in interracial or interfaith marriages, or he disapproves of what they plan to serve at the reception. A Justice of the Peace, however, would not be able to refuse to provide a *civil marriage* to any couple legally allowed by state law. The laws on who can marry whom vary a lot by state. In some states, first cousins can marry under certain conditions, allowable age (especially if the bride is pregnant) varies a lot, etc.

 

Actually, the legal issues are not a bar now to religious marriages for same sex couples, depending on the specific denomination of the specific faith (and sometimes the specific clergy member). There are many clergy who are providing religiously binding weddings for same sex couples and have for years. The ministers in those cases simply cannot confer *legal* status to that union and the over 1000 federal and state legal benefits and recognitions that come along with it. Also, just because a marriage is legal does not mean that it is going to be recognized religiously---for example the case of a couple where one was divorced who married civilly and the Roman Catholic Church.

 

In performing a wedding a minister is acting in two capacities--one as a representative of his/her religious organization and one as a representative of the state. The marriage, including heterosexual marriage, is only legally binding if the minister is properly authorized and recognized by the state in which the marriage takes place to be allowed to act as a civil servant in that capacity. Rev. John Smith of XYZ church of Illinois, for instance, may be able to both legally and religiously marry Joe and Suzy in Peoria, but, unless he goes through any required proper channels to get SC state approval, could only religiously marry them in Charleston---they would need a separate civil marriage to be legal. Conversely, Rev. Smith could perform a religious wedding for Jane and Ellen or Doug and Greg in Peoria all day long, but it wouldn't make them legally recognized.

[DawnM]

Believe it or not we have a very open homeschool group, many Christians but also many non-Christians. The non-Christians have joined right in with the very conservative views of some on things like homosexuality. I was actually surprized. The arguement I hear most often is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, only between a man and a woman. In fact, some have quoted Rush and I am quite sure he is not a born again Christian but he also believes in the traditional definition of marriage.

 

 

I am far more moderate than most of the group. Which of course means that noone likes me! :lol: I am far too liberal for the far right and far too conservative for the left.

 

Dawn