Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Gustaf]

The point on popular opinion is still invalid. The whole point of laws is to protect the minority from majority opression, once again something that Republicans of all people should be understanding of.

On Sweden, I once again thank those who point out our national crisis. I was not at all aware of the sharp increase in divorces since we legalized civil unions, what was it (Lidaker?) a year ago or so? I do know that the yuong generation is the most religious and valueing of morals in decades, but I guess that doesn't fit your prejudice. But I have felt a little less moral since we allowed gays to engage in civil unions, I guess it works like a plague or something...

[The Duke]

The point on popular opinion is still invalid. The whole point of laws is to protect the minority from majority opression, once again something that Republicans of all people should be understanding of.

On Sweden, I once again thank those who point out our national crisis. I was not at all aware of the sharp increase in divorces since we legalized civil unions, what was it (Lidaker?) a year ago or so? I do know that the yuong generation is the most religious and valueing of morals in decades, but I guess that doesn't fit your prejudice. But I have felt a little less moral since we allowed gays to engage in civil unions, I guess it works like a plague or something...

Over half of first born children in Sweden are born out of wedlock.  Sweden has a problem.

[Lunar]

You pointed out that this problem exists throughout Scandinavia, including countries that haven't legalized gay marriage.

The leading variable in that wedlock statistic is that plenty of loving couples in Sweden have decided to merely get a civil union and not be officially married by the church.

[The Duke]

NO, only in three countries that recognize either gay marriage or civil unions (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) have had rapidly rising illegitimacy rates.  Finland has no such problem.

[Lunar]

I was referring to Iceland.   Anyway, I'm too lazy, but I'm interested in the numbers in Canada and Belgium since it was legalized in both of those.

And it seems like those rates were rapidly rising even before gay marriage was legalized.  I simply see "X happened, Y happened" rather than "X caused Y" here.  I could argue that more seagulls flew over Stockholm in the 90s than any other year, and that out of birth wedlocks also increased but that doesn't prove that one caused the other.

[Smash255]

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument.

By the way before you start accusing me of being an atheist or anti-Christian I'm not in fact I am a Christian.

Anyway the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.  We are in different times.  Parts of the bible call for slaves to obey their masters, wives to submit to their husbands, for the husband to be in charge of the relationship and not a 50/50 partnership.

So those that say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says being gay is wrong, well do you think slavery is right?  Or the man controlling everything instead of having an equal partnership is right??

[Gustaf]

72% of Swedish children aged 1-17 live with both their biological parents. I don't know how this relate to other countries though. Children born out of wedlock in the sense that they have never lived with both their parents has risen like this:

1966-1975: 2.1%

1976-1985: 3.1%

1999:          4.8%

I will look for more stats later...the point remains that the notion that there has been a sharp increase in recent years due to the legalization of civil unions is utterly ridiculous.

[The Duke]

The rate of first born children being born out of wedlock is up 5% since civil unions were legalized.  You can judge for yourself whether that is a sharp increase or a minor one.  What isn't subjective is whether the rate of illegitimacy is higher or not.  It is higher, check with Eurostat, they have a website and they are a demographics organization run by the EU.

[Gustaf]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

[The Duke]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

?

[Lunar]

I think comparing the data for Belgium and Canada would  be far more informative.  Too lazy to do it though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

By the way before you start accusing me of being an atheist or anti-Christian I'm not in fact I am a Christian.

Ok, then tell us from what acts Jesus was commanding people to repent?

---

We are in different times.

Are we or are we not still under the New Covenant?  And if we are, how did you conclude that rules of the New Covenant changed and who do you think changed them?

---

So those that say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says being gay is wrong, well do you think slavery is right?

The NT did NOT state that slavery was right.  In fact, an entire book of the NT is set aside on the subject with Paul instructing a slave owner (Philemon) "to do what you ought to do" and give the slave (Onesimus) his freedom.

---

Or the man controlling everything instead of having an equal partnership is right??

I see you have a problem accepting the fact that God created Eve to be a help-mate for Adam.   And I guess you have a problem with the bible comparing the authority between Christ and the Church to the authority between a husband and a wife...or maybe  you think the rules have changed and the Church now is in a 50-50 relationship with Christ so that the Church no longer has to obey Christ.

You need to read the verses in the bible that include the word "covenant".  I trust you will find that whenever God makes a covenant, he does NOT change the rules of the covenant.

---

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument....the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

[Smash255]

By the way before you start accusing me of being an atheist or anti-Christian I'm not in fact I am a Christian.

Ok, then tell us from what acts Jesus was commanding people to repent?

---

We are in different times.

Are we or are we not still under the New Covenant?  And if we are, how did you conclude that rules of the New Covenant changed and who do you think changed them?

---

So those that say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says being gay is wrong, well do you think slavery is right?

The NT did NOT state that slavery was right.  In fact, an entire book of the NT is set aside on the subject with Paul instructing a slave owner (Philemon) "to do what you ought to do" and give the slave (Onesimus) his freedom.

---

Or the man controlling everything instead of having an equal partnership is right??

I see you have a problem accepting the fact that God created Eve to be a help-mate for Adam.   And I guess you have a problem with the bible comparing the authority between Christ and the Church to the authority between a husband and a wife...or maybe  you think the rules have changed and the Church now is in a 50-50 relationship with Christ so that the Church no longer has to obey Christ.

You need to read the verses in the bible that include the word "covenant".  I trust you will find that whenever God makes a covenant, he does NOT change the rules of the covenant.

---

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument....the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

Did it express exactly that slavery was right??  Well no, but telling slaves to obey their masters???

It said that wives should SUBMIT to their husbands.  Basically that husbands should own their wife.  Now we have come past that haven't we??  Or do you honestly think you should own your wife?? and that she should have to submit to you??  How backwards is that???

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did it express exactly that slavery was right??  Well no, but telling slaves to obey their masters???

Slaves obeying their masters is NOT condoning slavery.  It simply means that if you yourself are a slave, then pour yourself into your work, knowing that it is Christ whom you serve.  It also says that "if you can gain your freedom, do so." (1Cor 7:21)

--

It said that wives should SUBMIT to their husbands.  Basically that husbands should own their wife.  Now we have come past that haven't we??  Or do you honestly think you should own your wife?? and that she should have to submit to you??  How backwards is that???

Submitting doesn't mean being owned, it simply means obeying.  I obey a lot of things (city law, county law, state law, federal law, my boss), but that doesn't mean that I am owned by these things.  For no one owns me except Christ.

---

Also, you failed to respond to my question:  Are we still under the authority of the New Covenant?  If so, then how did you conclude that the laws of the covenant have been changed?


You also failed to respond to this question:

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument....the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

[Smash255]

Did it express exactly that slavery was right??  Well no, but telling slaves to obey their masters???

Slaves obeying their masters is NOT condoning slavery.  It simply means that if you yourself are a slave, then pour yourself into your work, knowing that it is Christ whom you serve.  It also says that "if you can gain your freedom, do so." (1Cor 7:21)

--

It said that wives should SUBMIT to their husbands.  Basically that husbands should own their wife.  Now we have come past that haven't we??  Or do you honestly think you should own your wife?? and that she should have to submit to you??  How backwards is that???

Submitting doesn't mean owning, it simply means obeying.  I obey a lot of things (city law, county law, state law, federal law, my boss), but that doesn't mean that I am owned by these things.  For no one owns me except Christ.

---

Also, you failed to respond to my question:  Are we still under the authority of the New Covenant?  If so, then how did you conclude that the laws of the covenant have been changed?


You also failed to respond to this question:

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument....the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

The problem is when people use the bible as a way to hate or deny people rights.  For wives submitting to your husbands, that basically means owning, obeying that what a husband says goes.  That line of thinking is so backward.  My point is this the general theme of the bible is good, but to believe things as so black & white word for word is wrong because when you look at various passages of the bible some of them make absoltley no sense in today's world and go against what we stand for as a country such as equal rights

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is when people use the bible as a way to hate or deny people rights.  For wives submitting to your husbands, that basically means owning, obeying that what a husband says goes.  That line of thinking is so backward.  My point is this the general theme of the bible is good, but to believe things as so black & white word for word is wrong because when you look at various passages of the bible some of them make absoltley no sense in today's world and go against what we stand for as a country such as equal rights

So, then, you believe the Apostle Paul was being hateful and denying women rights when he instructed women to follow the Garden of Eden pattern by submitting to their husbands?

And you also believe the same of the Apostle Peter?

[Smash255]

The problem is when people use the bible as a way to hate or deny people rights.  For wives submitting to your husbands, that basically means owning, obeying that what a husband says goes.  That line of thinking is so backward.  My point is this the general theme of the bible is good, but to believe things as so black & white word for word is wrong because when you look at various passages of the bible some of them make absoltley no sense in today's world and go against what we stand for as a country such as equal rights

So, then, you believe the Apostle Paul was being hateful and denying women rights when he instructed women to follow the Garden of Eden pattern by submitting to their husbands?

And you also believe the same of the Apostle Peter?

I don't know if I would say hateful.  What I am saying is times have changed.  While the general message of the bible as a whole is a good message not everything that is in the bible is relevant 2,000 years later because times have changed.  The way the world worked back then is different than the way the world works now.  Just because it was ok for men to control their wives back then, doesn't make it ok for men to control their wives now, and the same thing is true in certain other issues today.  Overall concept, good, but that does not mean that everything in the bible is correct 2000 years later

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1st) Human nature has NOT changed since the garden, that is why God's word is revelant to this day.

2nd) It was not society that placed man as the head of the woman, rather it was God himself:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

3rd)  Since it was God himself who put a wife in submission to her husband, who is telling you that God changed his rules?

[Smash255]

1st) Human nature has NOT changed since the garden, that is why God's word is revelant.

2nd) It was not society that placed man as the head of the woman, rather it was God himself:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

3rd)  Since it was God himself who put a wife in submission to her husband, who is telling you that God changed his rules?

the bible in part is the writer's interpretation of God's word, not exactly God words himseelf.  to believe a man should control is wife is just plain SAD.  What do you think the wives job is.  To cook, clean & be in the kitchen barefoot & Pregnant???  If it was up to you would you ban women from the workplace??  Ban women from voting???

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the bible in part is the writer's interpretation of God's word, not exactly God words himseelf.

That's not what Jesus and the Apostles believed:

Jesus himself said "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)...which means it can not fail - it is flawless.

Paul said "All Scripture is God­breathed" (2Tim 3:16)...meaning that all scripture is inspired by God and is the written word of God.

---

to believe a man should control is wife is just plain SAD.  

No, what is sad is that you have allowed yourself to give way to your fear (2Pet 3:6).

---

What do you think the wives job is.  To cook, clean & be in the kitchen barefoot & Pregnant???

The bible gives the picture of a "wife of noble character" in Proverbs 31:10-31 and her virtues include:

1) gains the confidence of her husband
2) brings her husband good and not harm
3) is eager to work
4) wakes before dawn and works til after dark
5) Cares for the needs of her family
6) has her own entrepreneurial business
7) she makes sure her business is profitable
8...cares for the poor
9) clothes herself with strength and dignity
10) speaks words of wisdom
11) fears the Lord

---

 If it was up to you would you ban women from the workplace??  Ban women from voting???

No, I wouldn't ban these things.  Nor do these rights have anything to do with God commanding a wife to submit to her husband.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

to believe a man should control is wife is just plain SAD.  

No, what is sad is that you have allowed yourself to give way to your fear (2Pet 3:6).

I wrote this thinking you were a women.  Then I read your profile- your a 'male'!  So here is some advice:

1) Get control of your imagination by studying the word of God.  Then you won't be tossed to and fro by fine sounding arguments.

2) God has given you, as a man, certain responsiblilities.  Therefore, obey God and be the type of man he is asking you to be.  Stop listening to world, it wants to change you into something you're not.

[Gustaf]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

?

You would actually believe EUrostat? Their executive director got arrested last year for corruption...their reports use themselves as sources, which is ridiculous. And they have a tendency to only publuish their material in French...I wouldn't trust them to do anything whatsoever right.

[Horus]

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:
 
      .
 
"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)
 
     
Legal Marriage
Civil Unions
No Legal Recognition  
  % % %  
   ALL -- 28 - 29 - 40  
   Republicans -- 13 - 33 - 53  
   Democrats -- 32 - 28 - 36  
   Independents -- 37 - 27 - 33  
   18-29 years -- 43 - 32 - 25  
   30-44 -- 29 - 25 - 44  
   45-64 -- 26 - 29 - 41  
   65 & older -- 12 - 32 - 51  
   Northeast -- 35 - 31 - 33  
   Midwest -- 26 - 23 - 47  
   South -- 23 - 26 - 48  
   West -- 31 -  36 - 28

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Hooray for civil unions!

[Storebought]

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.