Gay Rights

[Reactionary]

It's very difficult to judge what a country is like by picking one or two factors and then comparing. Secularists will often mention Nordic countries as the happiest and wealthiest, and mention secularism as the cause for that phenomenon. They forget, however, that those countries, just as the most of their Western counterparts, were built on Christian values which haven't been lost until the day, despite efforts from many.

Sweden is one of the happiest, wealthiest, and most gay-friendly places on Earth. It's working fine for them. America is by and large anti-gay and is going through the most tumultuous time in our history since the Great Depression.

So, your conclusion is that economic prosperity and happiness of a nation depends on how it treats homosexuals? And at the same time, you grant yourself the right to state that someone else makes claims without basis. Seriously, friend, get a grip.

Also, I take offense to the idea that children need to be brainwashed with the idea that boys need to be masculine and girls need to be feminine. I have straight friends who don't fall under those particular "norms." Did their parents fail them by not teaching them to be "proper" boys and girls? Honestly, that frame of thought should have died out years ago.

So, boys should be feminine and girls masculine? Are you attracted to "masculine" girls, Ivellious?
I don't know, but during my (short) life I've found that a majority of girls aren't particularly attracted to "feminine boys".

Seriously, what's the deal with this unisex schemes? Men are women are different, what a surprise! This doesn't mean, as some want to convince us, that we're not equal, but it's a fact that we're different. I don't see why we should run away from that.

[Ivellious]

Reactionary, when referencing the Nordic countries, I'm pointing out the fallacy (and straight up lie) that gay marriage destroys society and nations as a whole, as CallMeDave repeatedly claims. Those countries are generally speaking the only major examples of countries that have accepted gay marriage and parenthood, so they are the best examples for demonstrating that gay marriage does not destroy countries. I'm not saying the reason that they are successful is because of gay marriage, but if someone wants to claim that accepting gay marriage destroys society, I think the Nordic countries prove that statement wrong in every way.

Again, I'm not making any conclusion about gay marriage's impact on those countries. I'm saying that if you want to say that gay marriage is harmful, however, you have to reconcile with the fact that there is no good example that supports that point.

And I don't see the point you are trying to make about boys and girls. I have no problem with girls who aren't wholly feminine. I know plenty of somewhat effeminate guys who are very popular with the girls. You are right, I'm not particularly attracted to extremely masculine girls, but that doesn't make them any less as a human being or a contributor to society. My point wasn't to say that we should make children go against the grain. But my point is that individuals are different, not just to be divided between men and women. That's like making total generalizations about black people as opposed to whites. You're right, there are physical differences, but we shouldn't tell kids that their outward appearances automatically define every aspect of them.

[wrain62]

Ivellious, not pertaining to the topic but yuo must be a very patient person. Your presence is a blessing.

[RickD]

Reactionary, when referencing the Nordic countries, I'm pointing out the fallacy (and straight up lie) that gay marriage destroys society and nations as a whole, as CallMeDave repeatedly claims. Those countries are generally speaking the only major examples of countries that have accepted gay marriage and parenthood, so they are the best examples for demonstrating that gay marriage does not destroy countries. I'm not saying the reason that they are successful is because of gay marriage, but if someone wants to claim that accepting gay marriage destroys society, I think the Nordic countries prove that statement wrong in every way.

Ivellious, according to wikipedia, in Norway, same sex marriage was recognized on January 1, 2009. In Sweden, ss marriage was recognized may 1, 2009. Is 3 years really enough time to make the claim that same sex marriage does not destroy society? By the way, also according to Wikipedia, Finland and Denmark, don't even recognize ss marriage.

[Ivellious]

I understand that it isn't much of a sample size. But can you justify saying that same-sex marriage destroys society without any kind of evidence to support it? Can you justify making political and legal choices on what amount to nothing more than religious-based hunches? The examples of Sweden and Norway have shown zero impact on society.

I have nothing to prove here. I'm not making unsubstantiated claims here, CallMeDave and others have. I'm not saying that I know it has no impact, but I can safely say that there has been no evidence provided to support the claim that it does harm society. I'm only saying that one shouldn't make assumptions to back their views when all the current evidence points to the contrary.

[RickD]

I understand that it isn't much of a sample size. But can you justify saying that same-sex marriage destroys society without any kind of evidence to support it? Can you justify making political and legal choices on what amount to nothing more than religious-based hunches? The examples of Sweden and Norway have shown zero impact on society.

I have nothing to prove here. I'm not making unsubstantiated claims here, CallMeDave and others have. I'm not saying that I know it has no impact, but I can safely say that there has been no evidence provided to support the claim that it does harm society. I'm only saying that one shouldn't make assumptions to back their views when all the current evidence points to the contrary.

Ivellious, I can certainly understand what you're saying. I don't think there has been enough time or evidence to show whether or not "same sex marriage" will have an effect on any specific society. Do I believe the small percentage of "same sex marriages", will have a detrimental effect on society? I really don't know, to be honest, how much of an effect it could have.

[Ivellious]

That's kinda my point. If you can't demonstrate anything that would support that particular point, one shouldn't make it at all, or risk being called out on it.

[RickD]

That's kinda my point. If you can't demonstrate anything that would support that particular point, one shouldn't make it at all, or risk being called out on it.

All I can say, is if you respectfully call someone on something, then there's no problem here. The key word being respectfully. I have absolutely no problem calling out someone about a claim he makes, that I feel is wrong. Sometimes we get overly zealous about a topic we're passionate about, without really thinking it through.

[Reactionary]

Reactionary, when referencing the Nordic countries, I'm pointing out the fallacy (and straight up lie) that gay marriage destroys society and nations as a whole, as CallMeDave repeatedly claims. Those countries are generally speaking the only major examples of countries that have accepted gay marriage and parenthood, so they are the best examples for demonstrating that gay marriage does not destroy countries. I'm not saying the reason that they are successful is because of gay marriage, but if someone wants to claim that accepting gay marriage destroys society, I think the Nordic countries prove that statement wrong in every way.

As Rick already pointed out, gay marriage has been legal for only about three years in Norway and Sweden. That's definitely not enough time to evaluate the effects on the society. We would have to wait for at least a couple of decades to see how children raised in such unions will grow up.

Again, I'm not making any conclusion about gay marriage's impact on those countries. I'm saying that if you want to say that gay marriage is harmful, however, you have to reconcile with the fact that there is no good example that supports that point.

If you look at my posts, you'll see that I never claimed that. I'm just being skeptical with most novelties of the modern day society, that's all.

You are right, I'm not particularly attracted to extremely masculine girls, but that doesn't make them any less as a human being or a contributor to society. My point wasn't to say that we should make children go against the grain. But my point is that individuals are different, not just to be divided between men and women. That's like making total generalizations about black people as opposed to whites. You're right, there are physical differences, but we shouldn't tell kids that their outward appearances automatically define every aspect of them.

I agree that individuals are different, but everyone has certain traits that define them in some way. For instance, I'm a white male. I didn't choose to be one, I was born that way. Now, I could attempt to change my gender or race, but it wouldn't work - while it's possible to have a surgery, it won't change the information in the genetic code. Opposing discrimination (based on anything) is a good thing, but it doesn't mean we should ignore the differences between us. My point is that being different doesn't imply that one side is somehow superior to the other.

[jlay]

I,
as already pointed out, we've yet to have enough time to see how redefining marriage will affect the culture in the long term. For me, I think the argument is fruitless. The reason being that cultures who normalize Gay sex, already have a much different collective moral ethic. So, how can we speak about moral decay when that society already has a subjective moral ethic that Christians would judge as low. Imagine the early church making such arguments. The Roman empire promoted and permitted all sorts of debauchery, yet they were wealthy and powerful beyond measure.

It's kind of like the old adage cheaters never win. Bull crap, cheaters win all the time. Sure, sometimes they get caught. But the US economy is a perfect example of how corrupt people can and do advance in a socio-economic sense. This makes, "only the strong survive," a virtue. Many outside of the US are wise enough to dismiss the results of being the wealthiest and strongest world power in light of all the corruption. Is the wealth and health of a nation a measure of 'goodness.' Certainly men like Hitler had an ideal society in mind. The attempt was to weed out the genetically weak, whether according to race or disease or socio-economic status. Obviously 'destruction' will have different meaning to a Christian ethic than it does compared to a secualar human ethic.

Under such an ethic, the inherent truth of a word has little meaning. The word, "marriage' has no inherent value to you or them, so redefining it is que sara sara. For example, I doubt you have any real issue with what is happening to Catholica Charities. Nor do you have any real concern that someone who holds fast to traditional marriage can now be labled as a bigot, and even prosecuted for standing up for their moral positions. Such as clergy being prosecuted for refusing to perform gay unions. You may not see this as destruction, but certainly the implications are real.

I think looking at such socio-economic data only glazes over the deeper problems that will result.

[cnk12]

My opinion is that they should be able to get married in any Church willing to marry them. If a particular church is willing to marry them, what's the problem? It's not for anyone else to judge; we're all sinners.

[Katabole]

we're all sinners.

By making that statement, I assume then that you are a Christian?

what's the problem?

Matt 19:4(KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Just wondering why you as a Christian believer would take a contrary position than what is written in the book of our faith that the author of, spoke in the above lines?

Marriage was created by God between one man and one woman. That is the unwavering Christian position for the last 2000 years or so.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Why would you support the position of those who God is eventually going to judge and destroy? Homosexuals do not enter into the kingdom of God as the Bible makes crystal clear.

1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I can understand why a non-Christian would support gay marriage. I do not understand the position of those who claim to be Christian, that would support gay marriage.

Taking a position against gay marriage as a Christian has nothing to do with judgment. It has to do with discernment.

From personal experience, I have told a number of people I have genuinely cared about, that gay marriage is wrong when they decided to accept and proceed with that lifestyle. And because of my Christian position on this moral value, I lost them as friends and was considered a homophobe and a person to be avoided. I told them out of love because I believe in the Christian God and I believe God is righteous.

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

When I stand before Christ on judgment day and just say He asks me, "So you claimed to believe in me, yet you supported all those things which I detest and even told others that there was nothing wrong with those actions?" I can honestly answer Christ back and say, "I told them what you claimed in your Word as truth because I believed your Word and I loved them, and they rejected me."

I hope you can do the same cnk 12, take a stand and be bold on judgment day, if you are indeed a Christian.

[Ivellious]

Katabole, I'm interested in your point here.

So, doing homosexual things (let's be clear that homosexuality is not the question here. That is a condition or a state of being, not a choice, and not a disease or a problem. It is how people are made, plain and simple) is considered a sin. Why is it that, if all sins are generally created equal, that homosexual acts automatically keep you out of heaven but if you, say, kill somebody you can still be saved through Christ? I don't often here the "group x will be kept out of heaven no matter what" except when referring to homosexuality. That is strange to me.

[Katabole]

Hi Ivellious

(let's be clear that homosexuality is not the question here. That is a condition or a state of being, not a choice, and not a disease or a problem. It is how people are made, plain and simple)

That is your opinion.

So, doing homosexual things

is considered a sin.

Yes, according to the verses in the Bible I listed in the previous post.

Why is it that, if all sins are generally created equal,

It would depend on which group of Christians you were speaking to. Catholics believe there is a difference in the level of sins; venial sins and mortal sins. I'm not a Catholic but the list of sins of the flesh in 1Cor 6:9,10 and Gal 5:19-21 are generally equal but there are those who would disagree.

that homosexual acts automatically keep you out of heaven but if you, say, kill somebody you can still be saved through Christ?

Murderers are also in the list in Galatians and automatically keeps a soul out of the kingdom as well. Read the entire list.
Christ can forgive sin. I wouldn't be a Christian if Christ could not forgive sin. Homosexuals can easily be saved through Christ. Homosexuality is not the unforgiveable sin.

I don't often here the "group x will be kept out of heaven no matter what" except when referring to homosexuality.

That's because various sects within Christianity made a point of making homosexuality more serious a sin than say adultery or stealing when it isn't and in some cases militantly attacking those who are proponents of it and frankly it's given Christians who consider sin, sin---a bad name.

Katabole, I'm interested in your point here.

Well I was responding to cnk12's post because I believe in Christ's definition of marriage. However, with your initial statement in quotes, it seems your worldview conflicts with the Christian worldview regarding this subject.

Marriage had already been messed with a long time ago Ivellious, way back in Genesis by a son of Cain:

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Hope that helps.

[Ivellious]

I don't remember anyone saying in the Bible that all people are created to be attracted to the opposite sex. Just that it should be illegal for anyone to do things sexually with the same sex.

You are right, I am attracted to the opposite sex only so I can't tell you from experience that homosexuality is a made-up thing, but I have never heard someone who identifies as homosexual or bisexual that they are living a lie or that they are just choosing to go against their natural desires. As far as the law in America goes, I have a problem with bans on same-sex relationships or sexual acts (not marriage itself, but many states still prohibit sexual relationships of homosexual people). It incriminates them for something that a straight person (i.e. everyone making these laws) cannot possibly prove. That's a "guilty until proven innocent" case right there, which is wrong in my opinion.

I admit I wasn't aware there was a list of sins that were totally bad. But don't you kind of contradict yourself by saying there is a list of sins that permanently ban you from heaven (including homosexuality), but that Christ can still save a homosexual? Or are you saying that you are among those that don't believe in "mortal sins" and that only certain Christians believe in the "unforgivable sins" deal?