I still find it extremely presumptuous of one sexual persuasion to assume that they have the right to tell those of another what their rights are WRT marriage. Who gave us that right? What if studies found that many of of social ills are due to the high divorce rate among heteros and it's resultant impact on their children? And then this same study goes on to find that children of gay couples are much more well-adjusted and prepared for adult life? Shall the gays outlaw ( ) hetero marriage? The most dangerous call police can respond to is a family disturbance; hetero husbands. Many many murders are due to hetero marriage. Daily we hear of it, even the children are murdered. (When was the last time you heard of a gay parent murdering their children?) Should we outlaw hetero marriage?
Man, this thread has passed me by. Guess I'm spending too much time in GARM. I won't go into the homosexual parenting thing at all. But, I wanted to respond to those who addressed me. Outlaw, I don't think you're seeing things right on a couple of points. While sodomy was illegal for a long time, it is no longer so. And, that's trailed no-fault divorce by only several decades. There are still laws on the books discouraging adultery as well, like who can rent a hotel room with whom. Those are disappearing as well now. Not wholly fair, but the three do seem to be heading in the same direction together. So, you think that was everyone left of the religious right wing that did the work there? Couldn't it have been the same with divorce? Did you hear about the "Covenant Marriage" law someone was trying to pass in Louisiana. The idea was that it would create a new class of marriage that had a contract that was harder to break -- essentially reintroducing a Christian marriage into the laws (I think it did not pass, mostly due to protest by women's groups). I would say that the religious wing has been as disapproving of adultery and divorce as they have homosexuality (at least in principle, though I'm sure much more than a handful have fallen into sin on each of those points). The difference in fervor may be only because two of the wounds are old and the third is new. As for religion dictating our law: we have to write it somehow. We will apply one philosophy or another (really, a hybrid). Why is an atheistic theology any less oppressive than any other? Subtomic, It may just be ignorance on my part (after all, I was studying communists, not patriots, when I was in school), but what precisely is there in the Constitution that dictates what components should be key in determining law. I'll concede already that the Constition itself is a very rational document that commands a very rational governmental structure which is a testament to its time. But, other than telling us what we aren't allowed to do (re the rights of the citizenry), I don't really know of anything. Assuming it is the case, and assuming also that Jesus is the Son of God and his death on the cross paid for the sins of those who profess faith in Him, and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (my right to hold to these assumptions is protected by the Bill of Rights) -- assuming all that, isn't it the most rational and logical thing in the world to do as the Lord commands, as expressed in the Bible? In other words, I don't think pursuing logic as a basis of argument will get you very far. Here's the realpolitik approach: given that we live in a representative democracy, when the will of the people determines that they want gay marriage, it will eventually happen (account for some lag for politicians to get with the program). Or, with some lucky breaks in the court system, activists can circumvent the will of the people and institute it anyway. If some people want to ban it on religious grounds, it won't much matter if they get outvoted (conversely, if politicians are unresponsive to the people's will, the courts might be). The people will get what they think they want, for better or worse. That's how it has always been. It seems to me an inevitability that it will eventually happen: gay marriage that is.
Consider for a moment: The Catholic Church still does not allow women to become priests. Their reasoning is that Jesus was a man, and all of Jesus' chosen disciples were men, and therefore God wishes the ministers of His Word to be men. Think that sounds just a little weak? Has the Church ever considered that Jesus also went against the custom of the time by speaking and associating with women in public? Did the Church ever concede the possibility that Jesus' disciples were all men out of necessity? Would having a female disciple have done him any good if she got stoned to death when she tried to preach? I may be grossly wrong when I say that a whole lot of people think the Church is being ridiculously old-fashioned and out of touch with reality by holding fast to this argument. They're reading into something that simply isn't there. [Note: Unless you subscribe to the second story of creation in Genesis, which says that Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs (Genesis 2:22). This is contradicted, however, by the first story of creation, which says that man and woman were created at the same time (Genesis 1:27). Guess which story was the more recent in time? You guessed it: the first one.] What's really important is the parallel between the issue of female priests and the idea of homosexual marriage. Both issues are based upon a few assertions of the Bible that have a questionable degree of modern applicability. Genesis 1:7 says that the sky is a dome, and that outside the dome is water. In other words, we are living on a flat earth under a transparent dome which keeps the water from pouring in and drowning all of us. Okey-Dokey. The joke letter that appears in the first post on this topic (originally sent to radio's Dr. Laura, a vehement opposer of gay marriage) reveals other assertions of -morality- that the Bible makes, claims that seem ludicrous out of context of the time they were written. My point is that the Church is sometimes (or often) wrong, and the Bible itself is sometimes wrong in its historical AND moral assertions. I'm quite sure I ruffled feathers on that one, but I make no apologies for saying it. We can argue all day about what "wrong" means, but in the strictest sense, the Bible is not always factually accurate. Sometimes it's not even close. God may be infallible, but the Bible was written by men, and men are VERY fallible. Even with all that said, I don't think gay marriage is a question of religion. Yes, it is true that a country should reflect its citizens' moral standards, but I would argue that something like stealing or murdering is different because IT AFFECTS SOMEONE BESIDES THE AGENT HIMSELF. I've never heard of anyone suffering because two gay people in a loving, monogamous relationship were having sex. I can understand if this straight bystander finds the idea personally repulsive, but guess what? Your head swivels for a reason. You have eyelids for a reason. Use them. Lastly, for a the record, I'm not an atheist... just so no one can call me an ignorant heaten who needs to be saved.
I heard Ron Reagan talking on Fresh Air the other day about gay marriage, and I think he summed it up very nicely. It is against the law because it makes people uncomfortable. I've yet to see one rational argument against gay marriage. The arguments are always that it's against somebody's religion, what will happen to other hetero sexual marriages if homosexuals are allowed to marry etc. I don't think people being uncomfortable is a reason to ban something especially when it comes down to passing an amendment in our constitution.
man, lots daughters really know how to par-tay! i prefer the less vengeful new-testament god. as far as gay marriage, if you arent gay than why should you care? two gay people that you have never met and will never meet get married and all of a sudden your marriage is weakened? that is just silliness. if you dont like gay marriage than dont have one, but dont try and stop others from living a life that makes them happy. the anti-gay/intolerance crowd always points to the sanctity and tradtions, but fail to realize that times have changed. 200 years ago women had no rights in marriage, did not own property and had no rights as far as seeking divorce or custody of children or property. women could not divorce their husbands. it was clearly not an equal relationship. it used to be against the law for a white person to marry a black person. you used to be excommunicated if you got a divorce. i could go on, but the point is that the institution of marriage evolves and changes. when you claim that gay marriage upsets the tradition and sanctity of marriage, what traditions are you exactly refering to? if a church or religious group doesnt want to have gay marriages in their church than more power to them. they shouldnt have to, but they shouldnt be so active in trying to prevent others from living their lives they way thats best for them. the message of jesus is one of love, compassion, understanding and tolerance. its ironic that the biggest bible thumpers are so full of hate, intolerance and lacking in compassion.
it is directed at people who feel that their own marriage will be weakened by 2 gay people who they dont know and will never meet getting married. my point is, if you dont like gay marriage than dont have one. mind your own buisness and let people live their own lives. you dont have to condone or support gay marriage, but what right do you have to try and stop it? you are trying to project your own values onto others who may not share the same values that you do.
That does sound weak. However, I've never heard that reasoning before. I would think a more logical support for denying women the priesthood would be the teachings of Paul. For example, 1 Timothy 3: Or the controversial 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: There are plenty of people who'd take issue with those passages. But, to represent that the interdiction against women in the priesthood is some weak inference from the gender of Jesus and the apostles isn't right.
Obviously you have studied the Bible more extensively than I, and I must admit that my reasoning is mistaken (or rather, my explanation of the Church's reasoning is incorrect). However, my conclusions still stand: of the passages you cite, it seems to me that 1 Timothy 3 is a rather weak argument, as it does not ban women specifically, and 1 Corinthians 14 has already fallen out of use... women speak in churches all the time. So while I thank you for correcting me, I must say the passages you cite do not display the Church as being any less backward in this case.
I read this entire thread with the hope of finding a real legitimate arguement against gay marriage. I have also spent the last several months honing in on every media source I could looking for a credible reason to deny two loving people their union. I have yet to find it. But again and again I hear the constant bible verse quoting and references to it'll damage traditions, etc. The tradition was damaged a long time ago. Not by heathen gays undermining the santicity of this christian covenant but by these christians themselves. Murdering their spouses for insurance money, giving into lust and cheating. People the only sure thing in life is that things change. You think heterosexuality is the norm? It ain't. Neither is homosexuality. Bisexuality is becoming the norm especially among the new generation who are just entering that confusing phase of figuring out who they are and what they're attracted to. Teens who do not have such a strong affinity for the religious scruples drummed in the heads of their parents. Teens who are much more willing to try new things and a lot more tolerant than we give them credit for. This is a whole new world and Bush and co. need to remember one thing: no matter how much he wishes otherwise there is still a separation of church and state in this country. And just because the vast majority of people in America are christian doesn't make them correct or their teachings reason to pass laws.
on what planet is bisexuality becoming the norm? seriously. any numbers to back that up, or just a gut reaction?
reasonable is as reasonable does, no? i won't quote one parable for you here but the point for me is why does anyone care wther gays marry or not. why, why. why, besides biblical issues, do you care?
The thing about Gay Marriage I love is that it seems good for everyone. Those who don't believe in it for religious reasons don't have to participate in it. Those who don't like it because there won't be any children born of that marriage don't have to participate in it. Yet those that do want to make a legal and ceremonial commitment to someone of the same sex are free to participate in it. Everybody wins. People who don't like it are free to not join a gay marriage, and people who do like it are free to get married. Again I'll say the reason people don't like it is because they aren't comfortable with it. That's not a good basis for a constitutional amendment.
Now I've heard there was a secret chord That David played, and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do you? It goes like this The fourth, the fifth The minor fall, the major lift The baffled king composing Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Your faith was strong but you needed proof You saw her bathing on the roof Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew her She tied you To a kitchen chair She broke your throne, and she cut your hair And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah You say I took the name in vain I don't even know the name But if I did, well really, what's it to you? There's a blaze of light In every word It doesn't matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah I did my best, it wasn't much I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you And even though It all went wrong I'll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah
Marriage is a bond Not a means to insurance Health, Life, or Dental. This seems forgotten The Bond. If the love is there... It's only paper.
