Coalition wants constitutional amendment against gay marriage

I do not believe homosexuality is immoral. I have no problem with it.

I would ask, that someone who does believe it is immoral explain to me, using any resources at your disposal(including the Bible), why it is immoral.

I await your response.

------------------
It was the time of the preacher, in the year of '01
Now the preachin' is over, and the lessons begun . . .

 

I believe the argument is:

* God intended sex to be the physical expression of the marriage covenant.

* The marriage covenant is restricted to men and women.

Under that scenario, then, homosexuality automatically displeases God.

I don't have a lot of familiarity with the Old Testament, but I believe that there is also a verse in Leviticus that expressly forbids homosexuality.

 

Achebe -- aren't you assuming in your answer to Traj's question that homosexuality is genetic? That hasn't been proven, has it? That's really the only reason I seem to be currently non-commital on this issue, that I can think of.

I don't think homosexuality is immoral. I do think it is "different", which it is by definition, which is neither bad nor good. I have another question, though--why shouldn't a society be able to define what marriage is? Marriage isn't an inalienable right, is it? If the majority of the society agrees that marriage means whatever, shouldn't that be what marriage is (excuse my lack of eloquence please)? I may not think that there's anything wrong with homosexuality (which I don't, as previously stated), but I may see no benefit to society to changing the definition of marriage. How can that be homophobic? What rights are being violated, seriously? The right to marriage? As stated before, both Clinton and Gore support the Defense of Marriage Act. Are they homophobes?

FYI, this issue was put to a vote in the liberal city of Austin a few years back (same sex partners receiving benefits, maybe more like 5 or 6 years back probably), and was completely slaughtered. If it came up again I probably would not vote, because I can't really make my mind up on the issue.

Also, haven, per some stats that Jeff posted a while back, the split between anti-abortion and pro-abortion people in the US is currently 50/50.

 

The Human Rights Campaign and gay advocacy groups are not necessarily concerned about the definition, but the rights associated with being married.

Not too long ago, I questioned the movement (and resources expended) to pass legislation for the right of gay couples to marry -- didn't understand why a couple needed the church, state, or a certificate to recognize their union.

But a member of the Texas Human Rights Campaign explained that couples not legally recognized as "married" do not have the same legal rights (power of attorney and two other important rights in regards to decision-making) as "married couples." (One partner can "adopt" the other partner and therefore, be afforded the same powers of attorney; but the "adopted" partner would lose, for example, all rights to inheritance from his parents.)

...

In regards to homosexuality and evolution...if homosexuality was mal-adaptive or contrary to the survival of the species, natural selection would have removed the "gay gene" from society.

And yes, I believe homosexuality is genetic.


To borrow from another poster...out like Ricky Martin at a Fire Island circuit party.

University Blue

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

 

Good question/point. I really don't know the exacts... but even this question reminds me why religious people would have such an issue w/ homosexuality. The assumption seems to be that homosexuality is simply a behavior, just like premarital sex or underage sex... and as such is free to regulation, etc.

IMO, and that's simply all that it is, homosexuality would seem to be an environmental or chemical issue (and here I am insulting homosexuals by stating that it's a 'mental state', i.e. off of the norm; but, pick your poison, you're either eliciting simply 'a behavior' that's free to public regulation, or you're physically/mentally in a different state... no offense).

Both Clinton and Gore are from a faith based tradition that is intolerant of homosexuality. Gore did however agree w/ Vermont/NH/whatever's civil unions law... which seems to be fine with me. If you acknowledge that homosexuals are inherently different, you can recognize that they don't fit the scheme of your faith based tradition yet warrant the same (equal, not special) rights as heterosexuals.

Homosexuals aren't going to be able to have their union approved in every church, some churches are dynamic others static on this issue... fine, it's their priority. The government though, isn't supposed to ask the Church which civil rights should or shouldn't be enforced. The government has a duty to ensure that we all have equal access to resources.

 

Aren't the Biblical passages promoting marriage ONLY referring to an institution as blessed by the Church?

How many hetero, childless couples are out there?

They are not contributing to the growth of our society any more or less than a gay couple. Hetero couples are not compelled to have children to derive the practical benefits of the marriage institution.

Why can't we marry gay couples in civil services and leave the mainstream churches alone?

------------------
"How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."

 

I don't have much time today-- deadline. I do appreciate what has been written since I went to bed last night (Achebe, Kagy, TheFreak, mcmark). All of that does at least sound to me like trying to discuss the issue, and also an honest attempt to answer my question.

Achebe, I do believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, my religious beliefs play a part in that. I have made up my mind based upon the teaching of the Bible, but that does not mean I have done so blindly or without thought. I had to do a lot of thinking about whether or not I believed the Bible to be a true, objective standard. I came to the conclusion that it is. Some people may be critical of that and yet all they have to offer is subjective standards (I think...). I'm not opposed to reason, and fully admit that if I didn't believe the Bible to be true I wouldn't care one way or another about homosexuality. If I didn't believe the Bible to be true, there aren't too many things I would get worked up about.

Just for kicks, here are some of the passages some people base their beliefs on:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (Leviticus 20:13).

Yes, that was the Old Testament and it's no more binding the animal sacrifice, but there are others.

"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans1:26-27).

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Now, let me ask you this: If you believed what those passages say, could you in all good conscience be neutral on the subject? I can't be a Christian without believing the Bible. I can't approach the Bible in a "Luby's Cafeteria" fashion, picking and choosing what I want. I have to decide whether or not I believe the Bible is correct or public opinion. I know it seems an impossible conclusion to some of you, but I've concluded the Bible is reliable.

I started this post with, I don't have much time today. Well, I now have a little less. But I do want to end with this: I am not a controversial person by nature. It's just not me. As I've written the things I have, I have written them realizing that perhaps outlaw, etc. would be reading them. I don't hate or fear him; I don't consider what he does any more (or less) immoral than any of the guys on the BBS who have committed adultery.

One more clarifying point: I don't believe the Bible necessarily condemns an interest in the same sex. It condemns sexual relations between people of the same sex and, yes, lust for the same sex. I've known people who considered themselves homosexual who weren't "practicing" homosexuals. I don't see that condemned. Just FYI.

Okay, I've really got to go. I talk to you guys more later.



------------------
The sky is falling!

 

Not sure where it was posted or who posted it..but someone talked about the possiblity of one gay partner adopting the other in order to share certain benefits. We read a case about this in law school where the courts said public policy wouldn't allow such a mockery and perversion of the adoption process..I tend to agree.

I do agree, as I said earlier, that this all comes down to whether or not people are born gay or if its a choice of behavior. Around 1992, a study was done (don't ask me how) that indicated that it was chemical. They have tried to duplicate that study over the last 9 years or so, and have never been successful. The quote I read from the scientist involved in the original study (the one that did find a chemical link) was that this meant the chances of it being related to chemistry were next to nil. I certainly don't know...I'm certainly not a scientist.

I have had many gay friends...mostly males...and have noticed that they were greatly affected by the father figures in their lives. From abuse to those that grew up with no father figure at all, I always related their more feminine behavior to that fact, even as a kid. My best friend in elementary school is gay. His father and mother divorced and he never saw his father again. He grew up under the influence of a very nurturing mother and grandmother. Other stories of others that I knew were much sadder...most involving abuse. I know one girl who was involved in a lesbian relationship for 7 years. She was abused by her father sexually...she grew up hating men. She felt accepted by an older woman, and at 18, she moved in with her. Finally, at age 25, she felt what she was doing was just wrong. Three years later she was engaged and married..she now has a child.

The answer to this question is one I don't begin to know. In my experience, it seems these behaviors are produced primarily by social factors (in Christian terms, the sins of others blossoming in the lives of their children --"sins of the father will be revisited on the sons."). Do I believe homosexuality is wrong??? yes. Do I, nevertheless, accept gay people as individuals worthy of love?? absolutely! Jesus didn't say we had to accept all the behaviors of others...so please don't use Christ to justify the actions of everyone in the world...He loved us despite our sin. I'm certain he loves homosexuals as well. However, he also says there are consequences for sin. If homosexuality is a choice...and if that choice is objectionable to God...then I don't think there's much discussion left to be had. Of course, I can't claim to know what God will ultimately do.

Another interesting point is whether or not it's ok, even if it is genetic. This just in...alcoholism is genetic...does that make it ok to be an alcoholic and destroy your life with all the things that go along with the dependency? Just a thought.

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

 

That is most certainly the religious argument and it really depends on how you base your assessment of WWJD. Jesus re-wrote the book on religion. He was the Genesis (sorry for the pun) of Christianity. The Old Testament was used as a basic framework for the religious practice because it had been followed by those who were in Jesus' lineage.

There are lots of things in the Old Testament that didn't even apply in Jesus' time let alone today. Things like shaving, eating pork, women being allowed to walk around without veils, drinking alcohol and having sex during a woman's menstrual cycle were all considered immediate tickets to hell, or close to it.

In today's Christianity, there are many denominations who have openly accepted openly gay people into the church with no judgement on them. Some have sanctioned gay unions and even performed them. I think it has to be up to the church whether or not they view their religion as a living, breathing, changing thing or if they want to remain beholden to their faithful tradition.

Either way is fine. That is what faith is all about. The key here is whether or not that religious faith should intrude on the rights of everyday citizens who may or may not believe the same things.

The argument that allowing homosexual union would destroy the American family or damage evolution is an overdramatization. It is part of what ends up making the argument so emotional.

My grandfather actually told my mother that she would ruin my life if she pursued her own career because women were meant to stay in the home. I'm glad she didn't listen to him.

------------------
How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters

 

We agree!!!! Hot damn, it's a good day!

------------------
How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters

 

Max: You make really good points, but I don't think the validity of homosexual relationships should be judged solely on one's genetics. They just found that reproduction can occur with out sperm or men. Technically, in a lab, it only requires genetic material and it doesn't matter where it comes from. It does require a female to give birth however. Are men suddenly now obsolete? (My wife made a joke about it, but I'll leave that be. )

The point is that there is so much we don't know about our own bodies and minds, it seems silly to place a judgement on anyone based solely on whether or not their behavior meets some code of genetic ethics. As a religion, I completely understand the decision. As a society, I don't get it.

Oh, and on the psychology of homosexuality, it is true that there are quite a few men and women who have turned to homosexuality after abuse as children. There have been numerous studies done and it is common. However, it doesn't account for the discrepency in sheer numbers. Not all homosexuals were abused and not all abuse victims become homosexuals.

In fact, it is far more common to become an abuser or to contract an addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex than it is to become gay. I've read quite a lot about this issue for various reasons and homosexuality is not a likely response to physical or sexual abuse. It is one possibility but is on the lower rung compared to other behaviors.

------------------
How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters

 

Good question/point. I really don't know the exacts... but even this question reminds me why religious people would have such an issue w/ homosexuality. The assumption seems to be that homosexuality is simply a behavior, just like premarital sex or underage sex... and as such is free to regulation, etc.

IMO, and that's simply all that it is, homosexuality would seem to be an environmental or chemical issue (and here I am insulting homosexuals by stating that it's a 'mental state', i.e. off of the norm; but, pick your poison, you're either eliciting simply 'a behavior' that's free to public regulation, or you're physically/mentally in a different state... no offense).- Achebe

The fact that science has not yet determined whether homosexuality is a behavior or a genetic error is why people disagree on this subject.

Those of you who come to this BBS and say that homophobia is analogous with racism are assuming that homosexuals are born with same sex preferences. You have no more scientific proof of your stance than a Christian possesses if he/she views homosexuality through Biblical verse. In both cases, a leap of faith has to occur.

The fact is that homosexuality may very well be a lifestyle choice resulting from childhood trauma or the need to be accepted. I don't know, and neither does anyone else here.

The majority of working America sees homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and think they are being asked to redefine marriage to accommodate a behavior. If they are correct, than what other lifestyles will have to be logically accepted because homosexuals are allowed to marry. This leads me back to the question-

If we allow homosexuals to redefine marriage, how can we logically disallow the marriage between a father and son, if they pledge to be loving and monogamous?.

Society has drawn a clear line that says only men and women should get married. Homosexuals are asking that society move the line, and allow them the same right- even though there is no scientific evidence that supports moving this line.

Once the metaphorical line is moved to accommodate "love", I say you cannot logically deny any other lifestyle choice without the clear scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition.

I feel pretty strongly about gay marriage. Put it bluntly: treating gay people any differently than anyone else is just like being a racist. No difference to me. And if religion decrees otherwise, that part of your faith is full of crap and worthless. -Haven

I wanted to include this quote to observe that bigotry comes in many different forms.

In Liberal Elitist America, Christians are fair game 365 days a year.

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

 

Wanted to jump in sooner, but...

Its laws like this that make me distance myself from my Repiblican brothers and sisters. I feel I know Bush pretty well, and he will never sign this.

When I was in Washington for the inaguration, the religous overtone to the lunches and dinners I attended made it hard to eat.

------------------
"Chucky who? I thought we were talking about basketball?" Charles Barkley

 

Kingrene:

You're wrong.

Let's play a logic game (very rudimentary).

What is essential to marriage?

Love, trust, mutual protectio, empathy, nurturing. And?

Well... let's try some things that would preclude gay marriage.

Reproduction (this is the evolution argument traJ) - Doesn't fly. It's legitimate for a barren woman or sterile man to be married. It's also a legitimate choice to marry and not have children.

Sexual intercourse with a penis and vagina - so, hypothetically, if one partner has HIV and the married couple only performs oral sex, are they not a viable, marital unit? Or what if the man becomes unable to perform? Is it still a legitimate marriage? This argument seems a bit facile to me... also, I fail to see an argument justifying the necessity of penis and vagina to begin with; if marriage is simply a congress of sexual organs... then it's not very important.

Religious ceremony - well, marriages are officially liscenced by the state. It's very possible for a straight couple to get married without religious approval. Therefore, one can safely leave religion out of gay marriage. Not necessary.

Gay couples are capable of performing all the essential functions of marriage. Nothing precludes them from loving and protecting each other. The rest is just arbitrary tradition.

------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.

[This message has been edited by haven (edited July 11, 2001).]

 

Haven-

Your lecture is not convincing. I would like to make just a few points.

1. I am on record here as saying that I don't know the solution. Through debate, maybe I can get a little closer to the answer.

2. You claimed that I said that "no evidence" existed that people are born with a same sex preference. When I called you on your error, you conveniently brushed it aside.

3 You state that you don't "care about what Middle America thinks". You go on to say-
Emotions? What? You're the one arguing from the position of "tradition" and "morality"... that's emotional garbage.

I am arguing from a practical standpoint, not a moral standpoint. Society has to draw specific lines pertaining to conduct and human relations. In my opinion, you are arguing to redefine marriage, and not offering a logical reason for the change.

4. You write- I'm attempting to understand the fundamental essence of marriage and whether gay marriange infringes upon that essence. I've found that it logically does not, and you have not responded to this.

Our society deals with the "fundamental essence of marriage" quite nicely with a legal definition. This definition involves a man and a woman.

5. You wrote- Christian bashing? I'm critiquing people who rely on a non-autonomous moral system. That's not specifically Christian; many Christians do act autonomously. You're not doing so.

The vast majority of Christians and their churches believe deeply in the notion that homosexual marriage is wrong, and should not be sanctioned by any church. They also believe that marriage is a holy event. You dismiss these ideas as "full of crap and worthless". That is Christian bashing.



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

 

Kingrene:


Haven-

I've participated in hundreds of rounds of policy debate, and won most of them. Trust me when I say, I don't consider this lecturing.

Yet you fail to argue logically. You rely on tradition. That's weak.

Fine, I was wrong about what you were saying. That doesn't weaken my overall position.

And I argued above that the social distinctions can be logically proven to be arbitrary. There's my argument. You only responded with a disingenous comparison to incest/pedophilia.

But society still needs justification to be legitimate. You have failed to provide tihs justification. Power doesn't make right.

Once again, you're relying on mass morality to make your point.

You're taking that statement out of context; I believe that unjustified arguments are full of crap and worthless. If Christianity is "true" in its position on homosexuality, then its adherents should be capable of justifying this. Relying on Biblical stricture is not the same. And, I might add, justifying things in the name of religion has a very bad historical track record. I want people to be autonomous in their ethical arguments.

Saying "well, the bible tells me this so its true" is an extremely poor defense of aposition.



------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.

 

I love counterexamples as much as the next person, but comparing homosexuality with incest or pedophilia is a weak analogy.- Achebe

Nice cheap shot, but it does not work. I never compared homosexuality to incest or pedophilia. The question is, if we as a society are going to redefine marriage because two men or women "love" eachother, where do we draw the line?

You have a belief. Someone posted something that was different from that belief, spare us the theatrics.- Achebe

Theatrics?? LOL, I have tried to have a civil debate. Haven decided to chime in by telling people their belief systems are "full of crap and worthless". What is wrong with this picture?

How would two people of the same sex getting married and enjoying the same benefits most people take for granted have any affect on your life?- mc mark

Personally, my life would not be affected. However, I think that if we redefine marriage to include homosexual couples without absolute proof that people have a natural predisposition to homosexuality, then we will be one step closer to destroying the "sanctity of marriage" as an important institution that provides stability to our culture.

I still maintain that we can not logically stop other types of marriages if we allow homosexual marriage, but I appear to be in the minority with this point.



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

 

Can someone enlighten me as to what benefits a homosexual couple would gain from being married?



------------------
matirmama, alabdhabhuumikatva- if you can translate this, you will forever have my respect.