Jump to content

Menu

Your Opinion on Marriage


What kind of marriage(s) should be legally recognized?  

  1. 1. What kind of marriage(s) should be legally recognized?

    • Marriage between one man and one woman only.
      351
    • Same sex marriage and/or civil union should be allowed but not plural marriage.
      52
    • Plural marriage (presumably between 1 man and 2 or more women) is OK, but not same sex marriage.
      0
    • I don't care as long as all parties are consenting adults.
      99
    • I don't know.
      9


Recommended Posts

All of nature is not male/female... the are all sorts of variations of reproduction, fish who can change sex depending on the group dynamics, asexual reproduction, etc. The are a number of animals who engage in homosexual behavior, especially primates. Have you really talked to your BIL, asked him when he CHOOSE to be gay?

 

To go in to a discussion about when my BIL chose to be homosexual will not really address the basic morality of what he is doing. And homosexuality is not throughout nature although there are aberrations. Consider this:

 

 

"The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

 

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.

 

- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.

 

- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.

 

- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.

 

- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?"

(taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html)

 

Again - seriously consider. Is it right or wrong for men to have sex with each other? If you think it is right then that's what you think. Our Creator says otherwise and really no matter how much you try to argue otherwise - something that is wrong is wrong. No matter how much you want it to be right. If someone doesn't want to see that, then they simply won't. I'm certainly not going to try to convince you otherwise because I can't. You're going to believe what you choose to believe.

 

Having said that - homosexuality is just one sin out of a multitude that people commit everyday. It is just one sin out of many that will keep a person separated from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 420
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I would say that we were all performing the voting in the same way and with the same choices, so no it shouldn't be called something different. I think all government-recognized unions (including the possibility of family or non-sexual unions between two consenting adults) for specific legal benefits should have the same name.

 

The religious, 'covenant,' or other aspects of the relationships could have different names though, considering the fact that we all have different definitions of what that means to us personally. I think most of us can agree on a definition for voting. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh... So while I'd love to live in a world where we could section off our private lives... it just ain't gonna happen. So I guess as long as all the parties to the marriage contract are consenting adults of the same species and none are too closely related... gentlemen, you may kiss the bride(s).

 

I think I love you, Phred. :D

Thanks for posting that--- I couldn't agree more!

 

By the by, I voted that I didn't care, as long as they were consenting adults.

 

Astrid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, people who don't believe in your god (or indeed any gods) who are able to conceptualize generalizable moral frameworks (some more fluid than others) without leaving it to whim.

 

Where do they get their moral framework from? Does it come from within them? Do they make it up? I would really be interested to know how they "conceptualize generalizable moral frameworks" Who is the final authority then on right or wrong? I would really be interested in you expanding on this a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go in to a discussion about when my BIL chose to be homosexual will not really address the basic morality of what he is doing.

 

So if you really believe he chose to be gay, when did you choose to be straight? Or are you only straight because that's what God wants you to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your definition of marriage would be a sexually-based (or the possibility of sexual relationship as in a marriage where no one's getting any :) ) relationship in which both partners want the commitment in writing? I can see that it would be difficult to be in that situation and feel that someone is telling you that you can't call it a marriage.

 

It is so difficult when people have different definitions for something with the same name! I don't see any way around that in this situation, though, without someone feeling descriminated against.

 

Thanks for answering my questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not politically correct - but the God of the bible is the one true God. The other gods are false gods. I am not going to go into a sermon about it here,and do hope I'm not flamed for this, but if you are truly interested in knowing more about this, please pm me and I'll be happy to talk more with you about it, one on one.

 

No flames, unless you consider this a flame, but you you should probably read the rules of this board.

 

I certainly don't begrudge you your opinion, however. It's shared by a good many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if gay marriage was not illegal? Would these men have left these lovely, innocent women alone and not felt compelled to live a lie and hurt people?

 

I'm beginning to think we're talking about two different things.

 

Acceptance of gays so that they don't feel pressured to live dual lives, etc., is one thing. The government legally recognizing gay marriage is another. You can have one without the other. There can be acceptance of couples who are not legally married, and there can be discrimination against couples who are (for example, discrimination that some in biracial marriages face). I really don't think that the federal government recognizing same sex marriage is going to change the way people feel about gays or the way gays come to terms with their identity, and I don't think any of that is the reason gays want the right to marry in the first place. I don't see how offering a man an opportunity to marry another man will somehow encourage him out of the closet and into a same sex union and remove whatever social/familial pressures that have been keeping him in that closet. I highly doubt a gay man will marry a woman because he really, really, really wants to be married so badly that he would rather marry a woman than be single. He's not being pressured to marry, he's being pressured to suppress a desire... and for reasons that legalizing gay marriage doesn't begin to address.

 

Using the "office talk around the water cooler" analogy that Phred mentioned, I really don't think that a gay man standing at the water cooler will receive a different reaction to "My hubby and I" than he would receive to "My partner and I". Whether or not they are legally married will matter very little to how that goes over. The people who accept them would accept them either way. The people who wouldn't... well, they're not going to change just because it's a legal union.

 

Just my two cents,

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think we're talking about two different things.

 

Acceptance of gays so that they don't feel pressured to live dual lives, etc., is one thing. The government legally recognizing gay marriage is another. You can have one without the other. There can be acceptance of couples who are not legally married, and there can be discrimination against couples who are (for example, discrimination that some in biracial marriages face). I really don't think that the federal government recognizing same sex marriage is going to change the way people feel about gays or the way gays come to terms with their identity, and I don't think any of that is the reason gays want the right to marry in the first place. I don't see how offering a man an opportunity to marry another man will somehow encourage him out of the closet and into a same sex union and remove whatever social/familial pressures that have been keeping in that closet. I highly doubt a gay man will marry a woman because he really, really, really wants to be married so badly that he would rather marry a woman than be single. He's not being pressured to marry, he's being pressured to suppress a desire... and that's for reasons that legalizing gay marriage doesn't begin to address.

 

Using the "office talk around the water cooler" analogy that Phred mentioned, I really don't think that a gay man standing at the water cooler will receive a different reaction to "My hubby and I" than he would receive from "My partner and I". Whether or not they are legally married will matter very little to how that goes over. The people who accept them would accept them either way. The people who wouldn't... well, they're not going to change just because it's a legal union.

 

Just my two cents,

Robin

 

I think you are absolutely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you really believe he chose to be gay, when did you choose to be straight? Or are you only straight because that's what God wants you to be?

 

Ah, but you misunderstand. I did not say I believed or disbelieved he chose this. I simply stated that discussing it would divert our attention away from the real issue here. Is it right or wrong for men & women to have sex with each other. That's what all this boils down to any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but you misunderstand. I did not say I believed or disbelieved he chose this. I simply stated that discussing it would divert our attention away from the real issue here. Is it right or wrong for men & women to have sex with each other. That's what all this boils down to any way.

 

I think if you answer my question you will get the answer to yours. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. I realize that family and friends don't want to get married according to the traditional definition. I'm still trying to sort out why homosexual partners want to get married by comparing it to other things, I suppose. (Which may not be at all logical, but I didn't learn logic in public school and haven't started reading through the logic textbooks as my oldest is only six. :) )

 

If it is about taking care of health issues for someone that is dear to you and you are committed to, then I was thinking about other relationships in which that might be an issue. Apparently, there are other legal ways to resolve those issues.

 

So I see that it is a combination of issues, really, and probably depends on which couple you're asking as they each have different pronounced dificulties or frustrations within their relationship. And, as has been mentioned in many posts, it comes down to a definition which may seem arbitrary to some and life and death to others.

 

I'll bow out, considering myself in above my head until I've read through those logic courses. :) Thanks for discussing the issue with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue. I keep going back and forth. I have some random thoughts about it from my Christian perspective. I'm a conservative Christian but I have a problem with Christian groups working hard to pass laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. I think if churches stuck with preaching the Gospel instead of trying to pass laws to ensure everyone else is doing what they are supposed to the world might be a better place. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It saddens me to see people breaking God's law (which we all do daily) but is the answer to pass a law? Has anyone ever been reconciled to God by following law? I think the Church's role is to show the world that we all have sinned and fallen short and stand in judgment but God himself gave us a way to reconcile with him. I think that message gets lost in all this political talk and Christians get so worked up about what laws we should or shouldn't pass.

 

The twist is that we have a responsibility to be involved in government decisions because of the form of government we have. My politically-involved, conservative brother has taken the position that the government should have nothing to do with marriage. I'm not sure I agree. I need to do more thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you answer my question you will get the answer to yours. :001_smile:

 

It wasn't until he met this older man when he was in his early twenties. It was then he started living this lifestyle. He didn't always. So, yes, he did choose it.

 

ETA: I have a very good relationship with my BIL. I love him dearly. He doesn't believe as I do and I don't believe as he does but we don't let that affect our relationship. So Jenny, will you answer mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't until he met this older man when he was in his early twenties. It was then he started living this lifestyle. He didn't always. So, yes, he did choose it.

 

ETA: I have a very good relationship with my BIL. I love him dearly. He doesn't believe as I do and I don't believe as he does but we don't let that affect our relationship. So Jenny, will you answer mine?

 

But I asked when did you choose to be straight?

 

And no, I have no problem with homosexuality. It's not my thing but I don't see it as a sin or going against nature. I knew I was straight pretty darn early, lets say K/1, that I can remember. Unless your BIL is Bi, I'm guessing he had feelings for the same sex long before his late 20's. My dh's aunt tried to date men, she really wanted to be straight, to be loved by her southern family. But she could not be what she was not, and it cost her big time. She gave up the love of her father, her sister, and many friends. I really doubt she did this just for an "O".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain behaviors are right, and certain behaviors are wrong. On top of this foundation, we build law.

 

I infer here that you feel our laws should be built on the tenet that homosexuality is wrong and that it is a behavior which can be corrected or chosen. Is that correct?

 

 

In reality, the whole universe is a theocracy, with God on the throne. He has communicated to us (both in our hearts and in His Word) "His rules," and He has also given us the power to choose whether or not we will align ourselves under those rules.

 

 

In whose reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Having said that - homosexuality is just one sin out of a multitude that people commit everyday. It is just one sin out of many that will keep a person separated from God.

 

My comment earlier was not well thought out, but here's the bigger point anyway. I do see a marriage as a committment between a man and a woman - in front of God. As someone (sorry, I've lost track) was saying, there is a moral law, things are right or wrong. Even if you don't believe in God, everyone has an idea of right and wrong. Where did that come from? Survival instinct? I believe that it is from God.

Romans 2:14

 

14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,

 

The arguments holding up the eating of pork, or stoning of adulterers is a moot point in Christianity because Christ made it clear that the old law has been fulfilled. We are no longer under the law of Moses, which is where those things are found. In the NT it makes clear that eating unclean food is only a problem if it is causing someone else to lose their faith. The adulterous woman was forgiven, not stoned because there is no one on earth who could stand in judgement of her, except Jesus, and he chose to forgive her.

 

However, homosexuality is still listed as a sexual impurity in the NT. So is adultery. But we are not called to go stone the sinners, we are COMMANDED to love them. From a religious point of view, I still can't get my brain around homosexual marriage. It goes against what I believe the definition of marriage is. But the adulterer leaving his (or her) family is just as sinful, it's just more socially acceptable. That doesn't make it right.

 

My job isn't to change society, my job is to live as much like Christ as I can, and depend on him to help me through the sticky situations. I have had dear friends who are gay. They weren't my "gay friends". They were just my friends, who lived a lifestyle that I do not think is right. I have a cousin who is living with his girlfriend. I don't believe that is right either, but it doesn't change the fact that I love him dearly. The worst thing I could do with either of these situations is stand up and explain how awful their choices are. It wouldn't change anything for the better and it's not my job anyway.

 

I know if you don't believe the bible, or that God is God that sounds like a bunch of malarky, but it is what it is. I'm not sure this is worded much better than my last post...I"m having writers block or something today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually not arguing. :) I guess I'm asking you to define the relationship and the cut-off point. And if the issue is discrimination, it seems to me that the way to fix it is to not descriminate.

 

And I think they should have given blacks the right to vote (obviously). And dogs shouldn't be allowed to vote for people, but they're welcome to vote for dogs. :)

 

I suppose I am also arguing for people who want a non-sexual commitment, honestly, and not saying 'but why stop there' in a 'but why can't dogs get married' sort of way.

 

 

Heidi,

 

I remember hearing a segment on NPR about an asexual support group. Turns out 1% of the population is so disinterested in sex that they don't even bother. So there was a specific group, and I can't remember the name, and they all got together and talked about this sort of thing...some of them even ended up marrying each other because they wanted marriage, they just didn't want sex and so they had celibate marriages from the get go.

 

I'm not finding that particular group in google though...just some jokes about t-shirts "Asexuality: It's not just for Amoebas anymore" and "A pride" (reference to sheep study sound like a satire from the Onion, but I think they are serious)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my street, we have a gay couple whose marital issues are so similar to my own. Henri and I laugh about it all the time. Down the hill, there's a huge house of FLDS women and children - the father died several years ago, leaving 6 wives, 49 children, and who knows how many grandchildren. Neither family look like what I have chosen but they have the same issues as the rest of the community. I don't feel that my type of family is threatened by theirs at all. I think the people who bounce from partner to partner, who abuse or neglect their families, or who abuse drugs and/or alcohal pose a far great threat to our community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I asked when did you choose to be straight?

 

God has created us in HIS image. We are all created "straight" as you put it. In the beginning, God created male & female. Not male & male or female & female. I wasn't always a Christian but I am now and I believe it with all my heart.

 

Let's just agree to disagree shall we? No hard feelings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God has created us in HIS image. We are all created "straight" as you put it. In the beginning, God created male & female. Not male & male or female & female. I wasn't always a Christian but I am now and I believe it with all my heart.

 

Let's just agree to disagree shall we? No hard feelings?

 

None, but you still have not answered... but that's ok too.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I infer here that you feel our laws should be built on the tenet that homosexuality is wrong and that it is a behavior which can be corrected or chosen. Is that correct?

I believe that good (righteous) laws are based on an alignment with the Creator's rules.

 

By definition, our nation is a democratic republic. Ours is "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The laws of this nation, for better or for worse, reflect the values of its people. Certainly, people should not be forced to vote against their beliefs. I'm not advocating that at all. Everyone has been given a free will by the Creator, to choose His ways or not.

 

I do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that it is chosen. I do not think it can be "corrected" in any other way than any other sinful behavior can be "corrected" (I would use the words "forgiven" and "forsaken"). To me, the word "corrected" implies some kind of deformity, physical abnormality, or chronic health problem. According to the Bible, homosexual behavior is none of these things. I believe that, just as all of us have been born sinners, with tendencies/weaknesses toward committing specific kinds of sin (laziness, addiction, greed, etc.), one could be born with tendencies toward homosexuality. The good news is that none of these sins are unforgivable!

 

In whose reality?
Aye, therein lies the rub. (See my previous posts.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not politically correct - but the God of the bible is the one true God. The other gods are false gods. I am not going to go into a sermon about it here,and do hope I'm not flamed for this, but if you are truly interested in knowing more about this, please pm me and I'll be happy to talk more with you about it, one on one.

 

OK, so let's say the other gods are false. What *else* would you like to mandate for people who don't believe the same as you?

 

And isn't this *exactly* why most people in this nation are against the Islamic extremist governments in *other* countries because we *don't* think religion should be mandated by law? You can't have it both ways. The majority religion gets to mandate religion or they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your quote from the Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, he can read the same Bible I am reading and can read the context I am reading. If it is not in the context of the Scripture then it does not really matter what he reads into it. The context you apply to that passage is just not there at all.

 

The Bible does not *tell* me to keep slaves. It dealt with the *keeping* of them, but did not instruct me as a Christian to "go forth and get some slaves." There are many things in Scripture that the most learned of theologians have trouble truly understanding. As far as slavery goes, it did exist - it was an enormous part of the ancient world. I cannot say it was a good thing, but it existed. The Bible gives instructions on the treatment of them.

 

"How do you find ways around that which you cannot morally abide and yet find ways to support that which you cannot stand?"

 

I am not going around what is morally abhorrent to me. There are things that happened in Scripture that I just do not understand, but there are also things that no longer apply due to the saving work of Christ. [You mentioned dietary laws in another post.] I am willing to be honest with you. This does not change who God is though. We cannot know His mind and we cannot know why He does what He does or allows what He allows. Sin, and all the sinful behavior we see on this earth, was a result of the first disobedience of man against God. God did not create slavery - man did.

 

You asked, "Do you see how this looks from the outside?" Yes, I do. It must seem foolish to you and I accept that. God is a God of great mystery as scripture says and we are but "...His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." We cannot always know the "why" of God.

 

I am not sure what you are looking for in this discussion or if you are looking at all. I do see how it might appear to you, but have you really asked God to reveal Himself to you? Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds, and I don't mean to do so, but God is not a mythical god in the dark. He is real and vibrant and active in the lives of His children.

 

God's message is not about owning slaves, but being set free from the slavery of our sin. God's best to you, Phred. You do a good job of making me think. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so let's say the other gods are false. What *else* would you like to mandate for people who don't believe the same as you?
I know this question was not directed at me, but I don't think any one person is "mandating" anything for anyone else. That is not possible in our government, a democratic republic. Everyone has a voice and a vote. If any one person has more power than he should have to "mandate" anything, it is the individual renegade judge who makes decisions according to his own personal interpretation of the Constitution, circumventing the lawmaking process by, in effect, establishing an entirely new "law" all on his own. Certainly, b/c of our system of checks and balances, the people may take "lawmaking" action by their votes, but no one person is more powerful than the American judge.

 

And isn't this *exactly* why most people in this nation are against the Islamic extremist governments in *other* countries because we *don't* think religion should be mandated by law? You can't have it both ways. The majority religion gets to mandate religion or they don't.
I may have missed something. If so, please direct me...but where did anyone say that "religion should be mandated by law"? The law should not mandate religion; it should mandate behavior. Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so let's say the other gods are false. What *else* would you like to mandate for people who don't believe the same as you?

 

And isn't this *exactly* why most people in this nation are against the Islamic extremist governments in *other* countries because we *don't* think religion should be mandated by law? You can't have it both ways. The majority religion gets to mandate religion or they don't.

 

Very well put. I always find it interesting that those who do not wish to have someone else's beliefs pushed upon them are usually the ones pushing theirs on others the hardest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any one person has more power than he should have to "mandate" anything, it is the individual renegade judge who makes decisions according to his own personal interpretation of the Constitution, circumventing the lawmaking process by, in effect, establishing an entirely new "law" all on his own. Certainly, b/c of our system of checks and balances, the people may take "lawmaking" action by their votes, but no one person is more powerful than the American judge.

 

Judges don't make law, they interpret existing law. They use the Constitution as the basis for many of their decisions. The recent California marriage protection law was thrown out by the judge on the basis that it was against the Constitution.

 

I may have missed something. If so, please direct me...but where did anyone say that "religion should be mandated by law"? The law should not mandate religion; it should mandate behavior.

 

But if you are outlawing behaviors because they are against your religion (and I've seen ZERO argument against homosexuality other than it's condemned in The Bible) then how are you not mandating religion?

 

The extremist Islamic governments in question also mandate behavior-wearing the veil, not listening to music, banning lots of books and movies, etc. Those are the sorts of laws I was referring to.

 

Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?

 

No, actually, I wouldn't.

 

If we were to use the Constitution which clarifies the rights of the citizens to take away rights that would be abhorrent to me and against everything I was ever taught the US stands for. I don't intend to stand by as a citizen of this nation while people's rights are taken away. Because sooner or later my rights would be in danger as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law should not mandate religion; it should mandate behavior. Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

If the law should not mandate religion, then why are so many pushing for a law that mandates behavior on a purely religious basis? As Mrs. Mungo pointed out, I have yet to hear an argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion.

 

And I disagree as well with your last statement - I'm curious about your reasoning there. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It beats me how gay marriage can be a threat to hetero marriage. "Out" gays don't marry straight people. They marry (or whatever) other gay people. If new laws mean all those who are in hetero marriages and in denial about their gayness are going to divorce and marry someone of the same sex, it's still not a threat to hetero marriage. A marriage between a gay person and a straight person isn't much of a marriage. Maybe laws like this will prevent gay people from trying to be straight and getting into hetero marriages. It's pretty hurtful for the person they divorce. It's not like he or she could have done anything to save the marriage, eh?

Rosie- who's daughter's godfather is gay, and we WISH he'd find someone to settle down with! He keeps falling for guys who live overseas. Silly boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges don't make law, they interpret existing law. They use the Constitution as the basis for many of their decisions. The recent California marriage protection law was thrown out by the judge on the basis that it was against the Constitution.
Right. Because of one man's decision, the will of the many was disregarded. That is what I mean when I say that the American judge wields more power than any number of voters put together. No matter what most Americans think about this issue, judges can make their own binding decisions based on their own personal interpretations of the Constitution, establishing completely new precedents. No one else in America has this kind of power. It really bears a resemblance to tyranny (or several small tyrannies), if you think about it.

 

But if you are outlawing behaviors because they are against your religion (and I've seen ZERO argument against homosexuality other than it's condemned in The Bible) then how are you not mandating religion?

 

 

 

 

The extremist Islamic governments in question also mandate behavior-wearing the veil, not listening to music, banning lots of books and movies, etc. Those are the sorts of laws I was referring to.

 

 

Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?

No, actually, I wouldn't.

Do you think that homosexual people are as persecuted by our government as are those in Muslim countries who do not follow the Islamic religion? Are they imprisoned simply for being homosexual? Executed?

 

The fact that our government has not until now allowed homosexuals to unite in marriage (a term that has for millenia described only committed heterosexuals) is IMO not "persecution" at all. The burden of proof would seem to rest on the homosexuals to make the case that "marriage" means something different than it has since the beginning of time.

 

If we were to use the Constitution which clarifies the rights of the citizens to take away rights that would be abhorrent to me and against everything I was ever taught the US stands for. I don't intend to stand by as a citizen of this nation while people's rights are taken away. Because sooner or later my rights would be in danger as well.
My question is this: where does the Constitution (or any other authority) guarantee the "right to marry" to homosexuals? Would you also defend the "right" of adult men to marry thirteen-year-old girls, or the "right" of a man to have many wives (why doesn't a judge find child protection and "consenting adults" laws unconstitutional--he could, you know, if he wanted to, because these matters are not addressed in the Constitution, either)?

 

O.K....I don't think I've ever spent this much time on a discussion forum before! I have a headache. For the rest of the evening, I will be on the couch reading from my Victorian Ghost Stories anthology. Perhaps I'll peek in here again in a day or two if the discussion is still alive. Have a great evening, everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Because of one man's decision, the will of the many was disregarded. That is what I mean when I say that the American judge wields more power than any number of voters put together. No matter what most Americans think about this issue, judges can make their own decisions based on their own personal interpretations of the Constitution. No one else in America has this kind of power. It really bears a resemblance to tyranny (or several small tyrannies), if you think about it.

 

Do you think that homosexual people are as persecuted by our government as are those in Muslim countries who do not follow the Islamic religion? Are they imprisoned simply for being homosexual? Executed?

 

The fact that our government has not until now allowed homosexuals to unite in marriage (a term that has for millenia described only committed heterosexuals) is IMO not "persecution" at all. The burden of proof would seem to rest on the homosexuals to make the case that "marriage" means something different than it has since the beginning of time.

 

If you will look back at my posts you will note I never used the word persecution. I used the phrase government mandated religion. These are not the same thing and I didn't claim that they were.

 

My question is this: where does the Constitution (or any other authority) guarantee the "right to marry" to homosexuals?

 

Yes! This is the crux of the issue. The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all.

 

Have you read the decision by the court? In this case, I'm not referring to my opinion on the matter but to the decision of the court:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

 

Basically, the Constitution is set up so that a government can only restrict rights based on a compelling state (state here meaning government) interest. The court spells out their exact reasoning in pages 11 and 12 of the decision.

 

Would you also defend the "right" of adult men to marry thirteen-year-old girls,

 

They are under the age of consent and so are off the table.

 

or the "right" of a man to have many wives

 

I'm sure they could try. Personally, I think the laws on that would be WAY too complicated. In fact, so much so that I think it could represent a compelling reason not to change those laws.

 

(why doesn't a judge find child protection and "consenting adults" laws unconstitutional--he could, you know, if he wanted to, because these matters are not addressed in the Constitution, either)?

 

No, the government has a compelling interest in protecting children.

 

FWIW, from the NYT article on the subject:

The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

 

I thought it was an interesting comparison and one the court used, itself, in its decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: where does the Constitution (or any other authority) guarantee the "right to marry" to homosexuals?

 

Where does the constitution guarantee the "right to marry" to anyone?

 

Where does the constitution come right out and prohibit the "right to marry" of homosexuals.

 

Where does the constitution say that marriage is strictly the right of heterosexual couples?

 

Just because a certain religion states that marriage is between one man and one woman doesn't mean that people of other faiths believe that. This is where the constitution does come into play in that the 1st ammendment clearly gives all US citizens the right to practice the religion of their choosing or none at all. Thus making the rights it gives to US Citizens their rights regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

 

No where does the constitution give one religious group the right to define what "Marriage" is and who can obtain that status.

 

If you (meaning any person) are Christian and choose to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is is a religious joining so be it. That doesn't mean everyone has to. That doesn't mean my marriage which was not in a church nor did it include any God in anyway isn't a marriage. I'm committed to my husband and that is what our marriage ceremony was about, our love and commitment to each other. As many others and I have asked, if "marriage" is a word only to be used when a religious ceremony is conducted, and must involve a God, then what is my union to be called? And who decides which religion and which God is the only one to be able to use the term "Marriage" for a joining of 2 people in a committed loving relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges don't make law, they interpret existing law. They use the Constitution as the basis for many of their decisions. The recent California marriage protection law was thrown out by the judge on the basis that it was against the Constitution.

 

Just a little quibble: Under our judiciary system, judges do both - they make law and interpret law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I'm simply tired of discussing this. My opinion is this. Two people who love each other should have the right to marry each other regardless of their sex. I see no reason whatsoever to stand in their way. Arguments made based upon the Bible are simply not relevant to me in any way. Nor should they be relevant to how our government governs. The Bible tells us it's ok to keep slaves, yet we decided as a society that the Bible was wrong and changed this. People used the Bible as a basis to deny interracial couples the right to marry. We decided as a society that this was wrong and changed this.

 

The Bible has not been the final word on what is right and what is not. If you think homosexuality is immoral... then say so... like I have, it's your opinion, not God's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post to Pam above. I don't think it would make any difference one way or the other re: gays hiding behind marriages.

 

FWIW, this to me is not a religious issue (the legalization of gay marriages). The reason why the government sanctions marriage and gives tax credits for it is because they WANT people to marry and have children (i.e. future workers and tax payers). Healthy, growing families is vital to the future of a country. They give tax credits and favor to families and married couples for this reason. One of the fundamentals of government tax policy is to tax activity you want to discourage, and give tax breaks to activity you want to encourage. That's why they give tax breaks for certain expenses, like mortage interest and other business investments, because it will encourage those activities, and those activities are good for the country. It does not make sense to give tax credits to an activity that doesn't naturally lead to the outcome the government wants to promote. That is why I am not sure I believe that anything other than the traditional family should be recognized by the government for tax benefits. When you get right down to it, this is like a business decision on the part of the government with no emotion or religion attached to it at all. That does not mean that there can't be a way for same sex couples to enjoy some sort of recognition for the purposes of being the next of kin for decision making purposes, etc. (although I would argue that much of that can be taken care of with wills and powers of attorney). And if certain religious sects can conduct marriages that aren't recognized by the state, then I don't see why gays can't enjoy similar unions. I don't think that the government should *force* insurance companies to cover the partners of their gay policy holders... but more and more large companies are making that possible, and this really sparks a completely different discussion (health insurance). I don't think that insurance needs should be a reason to change marital law. And I don't think that the reason for the promotion of marriage (from a governmental point of view) leaves much room for recognizing gay marriage. Not that they are less in love, or less committed, or less productive as individuals... but because gay marriage does not help grow the population or bring added stability to social fabric. Not to any great extent, such that the government should start budgeting tax breaks for them all. I have gay friends that I love dearly, but this is the way I honestly feel about it. It sounds cold hearted, I know... and I'm sorry for that. But government and taxation usually requires a non-emotional point of view. I do think it would be good if gay couples had a way of having a civil union of some sort, because I'm sure that recognition and public commitment is very important to them, but I don't know that that union should receive the same governmental preference, if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, this to me is not a religious issue (the legalization of gay marriages). The reason why the government sanctions marriage and gives tax credits for it is because they WANT people to marry and have children (i.e. future workers and tax payers). Healthy, growing families is vital to the future of a country. They give tax credits and favor to families and married couples for this reason.

 

Gay couples have children all the time. And, of course, one needn't be married to have children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But shouldn't those rights include close friends (male or female) who want a bond that is personal and legal? If a new law is made, it should be one that discriminates against *no one.* (If discrimination is the issue.) If I was a woman with no family and chose not to get married, I'd want the possibility of having a friend make medical decisions for me if I happened to be in a coma.

 

Actually, the law says nothing about sex, and any single man can marry any single woman of age outside of close family relations (varies by state what counts). No one asks a man and woman at the licensing office, "So are you two going to have sex after this?" Nope. A minister might imply as much in a ceremony, but you can be married without a ceremony, or with a different type of ceremony.

 

And if the law were changed to allow same sex marriages, it wouldn't require that they be sexual (I would assume).

 

I think the law already permits people to marry friends and have friendly non-sexual marriages. It's just that you can only have one, and it carries major major legal obligations. If you divorce that friend, you may have to pay him alimony for years, give him your house .... all sorts of stuff. But if you are willing to bear the legal obligations (or get a good prenup) you can marry man you want for whatever personal reasons you have. And I assume the same would be true as states adopt same-sex marriage laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post to Pam above. I don't think it would make any difference one way or the other re: gays hiding behind marriages.

 

FWIW, this to me is not a religious issue (the legalization of gay marriages). The reason why the government sanctions marriage and gives tax credits for it is because they WANT people to marry and have children (i.e. future workers and tax payers). Healthy, growing families is vital to the future of a country. They give tax credits and favor to families and married couples for this reason. One of the fundamentals of government tax policy is to tax activity you want to discourage, and give tax breaks to activity you want to encourage. That's why they give tax breaks for certain expenses, like mortage interest and other business investments, because it will encourage those activities, and those activities are good for the country. It does not make sense to give tax credits to an activity that doesn't naturally lead to the outcome the government wants to promote. That is why I am not sure I believe that anything other than the traditional family should be recognized by the government for tax benefits. When you get right down to it, this is like a business decision on the part of the government with no emotion or religion attached to it at all. That does not mean that there can't be a way for same sex couples to enjoy some sort of recognition for the purposes of being the next of kin for decision making purposes, etc. (although I would argue that much of that can be taken care of with wills and powers of attorney). And if certain religious sects can conduct marriages that aren't recognized by the state, then I don't see why gays can't enjoy similar unions. I don't think that the government should *force* insurance companies to cover the partners of their gay policy holders... but more and more large companies are making that possible, and this really sparks a completely different discussion (health insurance). I don't think that insurance needs should be a reason to change marital law. And I don't think that the reason for the promotion of marriage (from a governmental point of view) leaves much room for recognizing gay marriage. Not that they are less in love, or less committed, or less productive as individuals... but because gay marriage does not help grow the population or bring added stability to social fabric. Not to any great extent, such that the government should start budgeting tax breaks for them all. I have gay friends that I love dearly, but this is the way I honestly feel about it. It sounds cold hearted, I know... and I'm sorry for that. But government and taxation usually requires a non-emotional point of view. I do think it would be good if gay couples had a way of having a civil union of some sort, because I'm sure that recognition and public commitment is very important to them, but I don't know that that union should receive the same governmental preference, if that makes sense.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Aside from the fact that, among straight couples, lots and lots of them get married and never have kids and lots and lots more of them have kids without getting married....gay people DO have kids all the time. I mean, really, it's not at all a freakishly rare thing. It would seem to me that legalizing gay marriage would, in fact, encourage MORE couples to produce future workers and tax payers, since it would give much more legal security with regard to custody disputes, rights of the non-biological parent in lesbian relationships, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just a "poor, maligned homosexuals" issue....

 

But what if gay marriage was not illegal? Would these men have left these lovely, innocent women alone and not felt compelled to live a lie and hurt people?

 

In our society, gay men [ETA: and women] have played straight for generations just to be marginally accepted by society, to not be disowned by families they adored and were adored by. If they didn't feel forced into living a lie, to making the desperate attempt to please their god and their fellow man by making "righteous" choices (marrying, procreating, attempting to pass, attempting to at least DO the "right" thing), would they be so hurtful?

 

The truth is, some heterosexual men get themselves confused by pornography. Pornography can be an addiction, so that a "user" needs harder and harder material to thrill him. A Playboy turns into Hustler, popup ads and spam turn into free porn, which turns into pay-per-view movies, and the content turns into anything-goes sexuality. Pretty soon a man won't know which way is up, has long since abandoned his wife for fantasies, and finds through various free, private, and easily accessible venues that there are other nameless, faceless, married men like him who need a shot of adrenalin, no strings attached, and no $$ required.

 

Did you know that many computers now have a "private browsing" tab? Many men know of it as "porn mode."

 

Poor maligned homosexual repressed by society? Google support for wives of gay men. There is little or no support for wives. If there is a support site, they tell wives that if they love their husbands, they should support them in their gay decision and let them go fulfill themselves. So who is the victim here? ISTM that more often than not, straight men married to straight women have gone iffy, have sought out homosexual fantasies, and have found trouble instead, hurting everyone in the long run. They don't mean to do it... they just "feel" that they can't help themselves.

 

In my experience with gay men, a very large percentage of them have been abused as children. The disorder perpetuates itself and causes heartache after heartache, and it is more often than not a learned pattern of affection seeking, not an inherent trait. Is it their fault? It is if they can't control it. To me, it's like saying looking at pornography isn't wrong for a married man, because they can't control it. Dang it, a grown up can control it, or he could if they wanted to. An alcoholic can control it too... if the desire for alcohol is managed early in life.

 

You can't blame this on society. Each man has to own his mistakes. With freedom comes responsibility. With marriage comes responsibility. I say, let a man be a man. Are we animals, that we are powerless over our base desires? Is this some holy roller religious "righteous" thing, or is this common decency that is totally attainable by the common man? Were men stronger 100 years ago? Yes, I know there were homosexuals 100 years ago. There weren't yahoogroups for small towns all over the U.S. set up back then to give them opportunities to cheat on their wives, though.

 

What has this to do with gay marriage? Well, I think it's a financial issue with gays, not a love issue. If you love someone, why do you need the government to endorse your love except for money? Based on years of data observing gay men, including family members, I must conclude that there are very, very few truly monogamous gay men... a fraction of them. The rest are living a debauchery (google "gay pride parade") that precludes long-term relationships. The gay lifestyle, in my opinion, is a hedonistic, barnyard lifestyle, one that dishonors the human person, and which is often promoted by sin. Those who promote it, often to very young children in public schools, assault married heterosexuals, rejecting us contemptuously as "breeders" and oh-so-ironically as bigots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, people who don't believe in your god (or indeed any gods) who are able to conceptualize generalizable moral frameworks (some more fluid than others) without leaving it to whim.

Where do they get their moral framework from? Does it come from within them? Do they make it up? I would really be interested to know how they "conceptualize generalizable moral frameworks" Who is the final authority then on right or wrong? I would really be interested in you expanding on this a bit more.

I am not able to address this concisely in this format, and I wouldn't expect you to be able to fully expound on your theology in this format either. If you are truly interested, here are some accessible modern texts. If you eat these up and want something even more substantial, I'd be happy to help.

 

The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos (short online article)

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists

Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy

Philosophers Without Gods

Ethics Without Gods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow!

 

heady stuff.... long thread!!

 

I voted "I don't care as long as it's consenting adults" and THEN read the thread, lol.

 

a few scattered thoughts, in no particular order:

 

========================

 

Pam, the response for "what about the other gods" really wasn't breaking board rules:

 

-------

These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology. Offending posts may be deleted. Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball.

---------

 

The question WAS asked, point blank, and from that theological perspective, there's only one answer. Answering a direct question isn't breaking board rules :)

 

===============

 

um.... I do agree that there are two distinct issues at play: a theological one and a secular [Constitutional] one. I am one Christian that does NOT look forward to a theocracy. Well, maybe when we all get to Heaven ;). However, whoever mentioned that we have the right and duty to exercise our freedom and voice in gvt according to our religious beliefs is absolutely correct. Those in a position of legal judging will have to decide whether the will of the people is Constitutional or not. God will decide if our actions and judgments were GODLY or not. example: I do NOT believe that the will of the people should decide to allow slavery or abortion, yet it has before and does now.

 

===============

 

Phred, the Bible DOES plead for freedom of slaves. Read Philemon. Paul upholds the law while pleading for a Christian resolution. I think this is an excellent role model for us.

 

==============

 

I also agree that there is no attack on "marriage" --unless we're discussing how easily the courts dole out divorces, lol. I haven't decided whether gvts should skip the marriage thing altogether or allow it across the board. For now I am leaning "allow it across the board."

 

=================

speaking of which.......a definition:

 

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

 

 

--------------

 

for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to ASSUME that the United States legal system sees marriage more as a "consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." if I vote against allowing homosexuals to "marry", i should vote against allowing atheists to marry, against cohabitation, sex before marriage, polygamy, and adultery. And i would. i do believe that the State will eventually rule to allow homosexual marriage, and Constitutionally they would be correct in doing so, because I agree that the rights of the majority can not trump the rights of individuals per the Constitution.

 

Since the powers not enumerated in the Const. are left to the states OR to the people [respectively], The right to marry is a state issue, UNLESS it is abridging an individual's rights. I actually think the right to marry is as fundamental to individual liberty as is privacy, yet neither are enumerated. Another plug for "don't put that bill of rights in there! people -and the gvt- will think they are the only rights guaranteed to them!!" :)

 

But more easily, I do agree that California's equal protection clause was properly protected in thie ruling. But dh doesn't like that any more than me wanting to write in Ron Paul, lol. Wonderful discussions all week in my house ;)

 

I do wish the Constitution was a Christian document, but it simply isn't. i will need to vote and act the ways i believe to be Godly, and acknowledge that the Constitution under which our gvt acts does NOT demand a Godly response. And is another reason i will NOT be encouraging my kids to choose a profession that requires a strict adherance to the Constitution as part of their job description. Know it --YES. Do NOT place your livelihood in its hands :)

 

===========

I actually saw an answer about "when did you choose to be straight" -- who was involved in that Q&A session? I'm losing track, lol. Anyway, the ANSWER was [paraphrased] "I was MADE in His image, so from the Beginning."

The choice was made by God, from the beginning. The only "choice" is to depart from God, and we all choose that. We're all always committing some sort of criminal and/or unethical act. And we all have the option to NOT act on our desires, no matter how innocent, natural, or foul they appear.

=====================

 

 

as far as morality and theology go, well.... I agree that being moral is not limited to religious types or even one religion. Christianity is not about being a moral person ;)

 

==========

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing it is "wrong" is not the same thing as legislating against it.

....

how could I rightfully impose my religious teachings on you. ...no matter how wrong I believe you to be.

 

 

Any argument, imnsho, that one group's religious teachings should dictate law is an argument for theocracy.

 

I do agree that YOUR faith may allow for others to NOT be believers of that faith, but there ARE religions that don't share that loophole. There are at least a couple interpretations of Biblical Scripture that insist on a proselytizing view, and therefore would demand that all be brought into accordance w/ God's Word. And yes, many would welcome a theocracy, as long as it lines up w/ their belief of God.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that, but i do see how many believe it to be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you completely. But right and wrong are not the same thing as legal and illegal... there are many wrong actions which are not illegal, yes? And there can be right actions which are illegal. Or legal positions which are wrong and illegal ones which are right.

 

I hear your sadness that we as a society cannot come to a consensus on many issues, but do you believe that legislation is the best route to creating consensus? That making something legal implies condoning it?

 

Do you see the fundamental problem here? The founders on the US government were strongly and deliberately opposed to having a state religion - they saw at least some of the perils of that approach, and established our wall between church and state.

 

 

I do agree that just because something is immoral does not mean the gvt can judge it. Requiring that the gvt judge/ issue a consequence for every. little. action. would shut it down. [wait a sec.....i kinda like that, lol].

 

 

But yes, i do agree that there are some things the gvt will simply decide it CAN't do at this time, for either lack of practical enforcement or to secure an interpreted right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that all legislation includes some system of morality or at least has a particular value attached to that piece of legislation. Whether the issue is abortion (pro/against), welfare statutes, Social Security for seniors, even lesser torts and laws---all of them make some kind of statement about what we believe. When we enact a certain piece of legislation, say, to increase Social Security benefits, we as a society are stating, in essence, "It's important to us that senior citizens receive more benefits."

 

To me, there is always an underlying belief which plays out in what we do and what shape our society takes. The same is true of education; I don't believe it's possible to be wholly neutral in teaching virtually any subject in education. Extreme biases can be downplayed, but a particular bias of some type or another almost always exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Amy in MS

Eliana,

I was hoping you'd chime in. We've never "met" but I just want to express how much I appreciate your even-handed, thoughtful input on just about ever topic I've seem you post in.

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing a couple same-sex couples I have to vote for allowing it, legally. I figure, if YOU do not approve of same-sex marriage then.... don't be in one. No need to outlaw marriage for consenting adults who love each other enough to want to be legally bound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...