Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

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

In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.

Off topic:  I find it odd that people feel the church has any say so regarding the recognition of particluar marriage.  If God gave men and women the right to marry, then why do they need church approval?

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

People used to say the same thing about a mixed-race marriage.

Interacial marriage was only forbidden in the OT - and only forbidden between Jew and Gentile.  Even the OT didn't forbid a white Gentile from marrying a black Gentile.  Now, in the NT, even the wall between Jew and Gentile was been torn down.

But marriage in the bible, OT and NT, has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

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

This all comes down to the nature or nurture argument.

We all, without choice, were born with a sinful nature.  And the bible defines every sin within the realm of that innate sinful nature.  That is why we must be born again, not of flesh, but of the Spirit of God.

So, should I have the right to steal, murder and cheat just because I was born with that desire?  Absolutely NOT.

Therefore, since "this all comes down to the nature or nurture argument," the argument appears to be over!

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

using your superstition and some book written thousands of years ago...

funny how this superstitious book written thousands of years ago has this "born that way" out flanked.

And it is easily provable since anyone who has raised kids knows that children don't have to be taught to lie and covet, rather kids do those things naturally.

Certainly, with ALL your smarts, you should be able to outwit such a silly old book.

---

If homosexuals are 'born gay' then who the hell are you to tell them how to run their lives.

They can run their lives as they see fit, just don't tell me we have to change the definition of marriage just to placate the shame of their perversion.

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

I dont need to 'oustmart' a silly book

Well, if it is so silly, how did it have this "born that way" argument nailed thousands of years ago?  And why is this silly book's "born that way" conclusion proved completely accurate by simply observing the behavior of every child?

---

re: perversion
I dont know where to start with this one, but I really think you need some help, you are truly a hateful person

Funny how I have never quite figured out the logic of labeling someone "hateful" simply on account of calling homosexual behavior immoral.  Why am I not labeled hateful for my exact same beliefs concerning fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc, etc?

Who is it that loves, is it the one that is consistent, or is it the one being inconsistent?

1Cor 13:4-8 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

It would seem to me that love is consistent; not inconsistent like your logic.

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

I truly believe that if Jesus were here today he would weep at your kind of narrowminded hateful thinking

Gay people love eachother and are kind and good people. I know many of them including my family members and its people like you that have lost the ability to learn how to love your fellow man.

...i suggest therapy

How does referring to certain sexual settings as sin equate to making a judgment on whether someone is loving or kind to their partner?  How did you make that jump in logic?

Do you think just because I view fornication as sin I am making a judgment that fornicators are hateful and unkind?

Jesus spoke against sexual immorality and commanded an adulterous woman to stop sinning.  And the account NEVER states that Jesus made a judgment as to whether the woman was loving or not.  He simply instructed her to leave her life of sin.

As far as me needing therapy…where is the error of my logic?

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

I think one of the greatest PR tricks in history has been perpetrated by the gay and lesbian movement.  The word "homophobe" means a fear of homosexuals.  If you are opposed to homosexual relationships, then you are labeled as one who fears it.  Fear implies that you are being irrational about it.  There is no word for simply being against homosexual activity being used in common parlance.

Agreed, such labeling is very inconsistent and hypocritical.  Notice they don't assign phobias when someone speaks out against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, witchcraft, etc, etc.

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

I know quite a lot about [the bible] having gone to a catholic school for 13 years...And when someone calls my sister (or my cousin or one of my best friends) 'perverted' I can only think that Jesus would be appalled that they havent learned to love thy neighbors

So then, by your definition, calling someone a pervert shows that you don't love your neighbor, and that Jesus would be appalled by such name-calling?

If you really believe that, then I would STRONGLY suggest you get a refund on your 13 years of Catholic schooling because they failed to point out to you that Jesus called an entire generation "perverse", yet he died for their sins....proving that equating the pointing out of perversion with not loving your neighbors is a product of your imagination.
 

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

I'll not touch on homosexuality... California Dreamer seems to be doing a good juob with it

Yeah, and he is advising people to try fornication too.

----

Re: Witchcraft...

So you're anti-Wicca, too?

I make it my duty to accept any action as "clean" as long it as it doesn't trangress what is clearly labeled as sin in the NT.  I'm not going to tell you how to dress or what to eat or how long your hair should be because the NT doesn't label such actions as sinful.  But, it does define "sin" and it says that sin is "obvious".

Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature ARE OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

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

I thought we left all the people blathering on about 'fornicators' and 'sinners' back in the 19th century.

what is sad is that the 21st Century Republican party still embraces these people and lets them write the party platform.

Hopefully soon the "Swarzenegger Wing" win the fight for the soul of the party, otherwise within 50 years the Republicans are going to go the way of the 'Whigs'

It's no surprise you find the mere notion of "sin" and “sinners” quaint, outdated and hateful.  But Christ Jesus was so concerned with sin; he died so that we sinners could overcome it.  As it is written: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom 5:8

And far as the homosexuals or anyone else in your family is concerned...You claim that pointing out sin to them would be hateful, but isn’t real love demonstrated by the willingness to confront and help someone overcome their weaknesses?

Noah loved his family enough to build an ark in order to save them.  What are you doing to save yours?  

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

Dude...why are you quoting passages out of some book as if that proves your point.

Because that is the way Jesus taught truth; and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I try to imitate his pattern of teaching.

---

And I love my family members...that is how I love them.

Love requires confrontation of wrongs:

1Cor 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

2Cor 7:8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it--I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while-- 9yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.


---

If you had a son who was gay would you tell him he is an immoral sinner.

If you had a son addicted to drugs, would you sweep it under the rug by simply "loving" him, or would you demonstrate your love by spurring him to overcome his bad habit?

---

 Call me crazy but I think calling them immoral fornicating sinners isnt really 'love', in fact the last time I looked that is called 'hate' and dont try dressing it up any other way.

I know...I know...and you also think confronting a drunk of their alcoholism equates to 'hate'...and you also think Jesus was hateful every time he spoke about sin...and you also think Jesus was hateful in dying for our sins.

Why don't you just admit that you hate everything that Jesus stood for, just like those who killed him?

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

And I love my family members...that is how I love them. Call me crazy but I think calling them immoral fornicating sinners isnt really 'love', in fact the last time I looked that is called 'hate' and dont try dressing it up any other way.

Go argue with these verses; I'm tired or arguing with someone who claims correction is not a part of love:

Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, REBUKE him, and if he repents, forgive him." (spoken by Jesus Christ)

Pro 27:5 Open REBUKE is better than secret LOVE. 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Rev 3:19 Those whom I LOVE I REBUKE and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

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

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

No, nothing too serious.  Just the price of sin being death.  Go back to sleep...

Eph 5:14 "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

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

I am reminded of a qutoe that my Jesuit mentor quoted to me when I realised I was an atheist
"some of the most christian people I have met are not Christians"
- Gahndi

If you are trying to say that I am not acting as a true Christian, then please point out to me where I have deviated from Christ's teaching.

---

I guess according to you, since I love my sister, I hate Jesus.

No, I never said that.  You said that pointing out one's sin is hate, and I responded by proving that love includes rebuking.  And I proved it from Jesus' own words.  

What exactly do you think of this statement from Jesus:

Luke 17:3 If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

---

how dare you equate my family members with alchoholics, murderers, thieves etc. You are the one who needs a readjustement, in your tolerance for others.

Well then, since you sir are so self-righteous as to not dare associate you and your family with sin, I'll equate myself and my own family with every sin listed in the bible.  I don't mind at all if me and my family are labeled sinners, for it is written, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst (1Tim 1:15)."

You call me intolerant because I name sin, but I am not ashamed to have myself and my family labeled as 'sinners' along with all the alcoholics, murderers, and thieves.   Yet you won't even 'dare' to allow you and your family to be numbered with them?!

---

throw all the stuff you want from any book you want, it doesnt change the fact that you think you have some right to tell other people how to live their lives and that the way they love is invalid and that society should shun them....not very christian of you.

It is perfectly Christian of me to include 'rebuke' as part of the definition of love, in spite of your wayward opinion that I don't have the right to preach the gospel.

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

This argument just amazes me.  Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong for religious reasons, how can you support imposing those religious beliefs on others?

Wouldn't a change in the legal definition of marriage equate to forcing a religious belief upon society?

Also, we currently don't allow bigamy based on the fact that Christianity teaches against it, paying no attention to the fact that Judaism and Islam accept such behavior.

In fact, we declared our independence from England based on a religious belief that God has given the right to be free.

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

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

OK, so then, retaining the current definition of marriage doesn't force homosexuals to believe gay marriage is wrong.  Correct?

Just as outlawing murder does NOT force people to believe murder is wrong.  The law against murder couldn't care less about one's personally religious belief concerning murder; the law simply says don't do it.

---

Umm ... no, actually the case against legal bigamy is that it would mean that an individual could the legally deceive their spouse(s) and engage in multiple marriages.

The SCOTUS recognized the Christian origin of laws against bigamy:

"However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation...bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

Again, I'll quote the following: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation..." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

Why?  The SCOTUS doesn't consider whether a law has its reason based in religion, it just makes sure the law doesn't promote religion.  Your search criteria has nothing to do with judicial review.

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

It doesn't force them to change their beliefs but it does limit their rights based on the beliefs of others (thereby imposing the religious will of others upon them).

I don't remember ever hearing of the right to marry the same sex.  Nor did the framers of the constitution ever hear of that right.

Again, the laws reflect the beliefs of the people, regardless of the origin of the beliefs.  The only thing that matters is if the law is in agreement with the constitution.

---

This is a ridiculous comparison.  Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults.  Murder involves 1 person imposing their will on another person.

Wasn't comparing gays with murder.  I was simply showing how laws aren't intended to impose beliefs, rather they're simply intended to restrict certain actions.

---

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

1) No one would argue at the time that statement was made that American wasn't a "Christian country".
2) Also, is he not citing the wisdom of Christian countries?

---

I find it interesting though that you cite a ruling authored by a man appointed to the SCOTUS in 1863.

Well, I found it difficult finding a more recent case concerning bigamy.  But here is a reference to bigamy in Lawrence v. Texas:

"But society always . . . makes these moral judgments.  Why is this different from bigamy?" (Scalia)

FYI, I agreed with the Lawrence ruling striking down government interference in the bedroom (or at least I agree we should amend the constitution to protect the privacy of the bedroom), but I agree with Scalia's point that many laws have origins in moral judgments.

---

However, laws should be made if they make sense

The determination of whether a law makes sense if left to the people (either by elected representation or jury nullification), not to the courts.

---

My argument is that the law is idiotic.  Imagine Utah passing a law which stated that non-Mormon couples cannot be married there.

Granted such a law would be idiotic, but it is NOT the place of the court to determine the sanity of the will of the people.

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

jmfcst, what I'm looking for is a rationale for the law.  Something which goes beyond just "God says don't do that"....why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Well, gee, I didn't know there was still a debate raging on the destruction to society caused by sexual immorality.  If you want a purely provable scientific argument, then:

Sexually immoral people (as defined by the bible as those having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman) are less healthy than those abiding by the rules of the bible; for it is an undisputable scientific fact that the sexually immoral have:
1) increased death rates caused by STD's.
2) increased infertility rates caused by STD's.
3) Lower self-esteem.
4) Higher rates of suicide.
5) Higher poverty rates.
6) Higher drop-out rates.

I am shocked that there is still even a debate regarding the provable health benefits of living by the word of God.

---

why do you people care so much what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes. How can the party of personal freedom and responsibility want to control laws and extend the 'nanny state' in order to engineer monogomy.

Because I care about the lives of people, I believe there is intrinsic worth in individuals; therefore, I rebuke, correct, and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction.

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

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  

No, homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, regardless of how promiscuous.  Also, have you ever heard of a virgin gay wedding?

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

Yes, I have Jmfcst. It was a white wedding, but judging by the physical appearance of the bride, I cannot be shocked about their virginity.

Well, you know what they say is the source of virgin wool...ugly sheep.

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

You know I never bother to ask the couple at a wedding about their sexual history.  And that includes both hetero and homo sexual couples.

I googled it, but I can't find any stats on the number of hetero-marriage that had virgin weddings.  But I have heard the percentage is around 40%.

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

If you believe the people should be free to make their own choices and do what they please...

"The people" have made a choice, and that choice is to define marriage in agreement with what Christianity teaches to be the definition of marriage.

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

and the 'people' are against the silly ammendment.

That's because most people don't want to bother with wading through the gutter.

---

And the long term trend in all polls is towards acceptance. I would bet any amount of money that within 10 years CA will reverse the vote it made years ago....and as Californica goes, so goes the rest of the country...eventually

Agreed, but that is not news.  The bible has already painted a picture of the end-times as being filled with homosexuality.

[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?

[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?