Homosexual Marriage (aka digging up a hot-button topic)

[Philip]

No, we do not live in a theocracy. Our laws are based upon how our government is structured and how our lawmakers legislate and how our courts rule. I am against the legalization of homosexual unions, as I do not want to subsidize them with benefits paid from my tax dollars, which helps perpetuate and encourages such unions, at least in some ways. I would rather us not have laws that legalize as an institution something that God says is wrong. However, we have long had many such laws (abortion laws comes to mind).

But as I do not wish to subsidize homosexual unions, I also would NOT expect registered/"married" homosexuals to subsidize spousal benefits within my heterosexual marriage. But as for what the government or homosexuals deem marriage is changes not one whit of God's views on it, nor does it change my views about it. The homosexual agenda is not just to seek equal rights and treatment, but to normalize homosexuality in the hearts and minds of heterosexuals, and to also utilize their taxes to do so. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, but nonetheless are more than willing to seek children of heterosexuals through the courts.

One great problem is that the courts often supersede the will of the majority, basically making the desires of the majority irrelevant. That is not to say that the majority hasn't often been wrong, nor that larger numbers equal righteous beliefs There should definitely be term limits on Supreme Court judges.

[Kurieuo]

I think the meaning today has been hijacked and warped beyond what your original forefathers intended.

The forefathers founded a country on the basis of religious freedom, where a government would not impose one religious belief on the entire population, and in turn would not impede the free practice of any religion a person so desired (so long as such a religion did not inflict harm upon others). How has this been hijacked? That seems to pretty much sum up how separation of church and state is applied today.

It are articles like the following, from "the other side", that I had in mind when making my statements (Separation of Church and State - What does the Constitution Really Say?):

Today there is much confusion about what the U.S. Constitution actually says about the separation of church and state. In many circles it is generally accepted as fact that "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution. Therefore, it is claimed that society must be cleansed from all public displays of religious values, characteristics, activities and icons.

Is that correct? Is "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, or was it our Founding Fathers intent to separate the two? This is a crucial foundational issue because the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court all take oaths of office swearing to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, by definition, any action taken outside the intent of the Constitution is unconstitutional. To find the answer, it is necessary to examine two issues: 1) what is actually written in the Constitution; and 2) what our Founding Fathers' intent was in writing it.

First, the Constitution itself. The First Amendment to the Constitution is supposedly where it says there is separation of church and state. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's it…no mention of any separation. So it is clear the Constitution itself neither endorses nor supports a separation of church and state.
...
> READ MORE <

[Kurieuo]

Again you're assume a secular position is somehow defaulted as better.

I think if you wanted a free society, where people are allowed to make their own choice of religion, secular government is the only way to achieve that. It's certainly not perfect but unless you prefer outlawing all but one religion...you don't have many other options.

History isn't in your favour here. If anything, we see governments with secular values have lead to greater atrocities... but human greed and desire for power is no respecter of beliefs.

A properly instituted Christian theocracy, that is built upon the same grace God demonstrated in Christ, that is indeed built upon what Christ would desire -- such would be a true Christian theocracy.

Not your legalistic, judgemental, non-understanding, billigerant Christian theocracy -- but a true Christian theocracy.

This I believe would be the best for all while respecting the beliefs of those who believe otherwise, yet setting in place caring laws that guide people from making bad choice and protect people from others.

But, the ultimate Christian theocracy, will be setup when all here in this temporary world is said and done.

As has often happened throughout history, persecution of believers (and non-believers) is much worse historically under secular rule.

I disagree. You are probably referring mainly to recent communist regimes, which demanded that religion be cut out of society to provide the rulers with better control of the population (or so they thought, anyway). This is not a secular society in the least. Secularism respects the religious inclinations of all people, allowing them to practice their religions freely and not requiring the entire society to adhere to one religion's beliefs over another. Massive difference between promoting secularism (all religions are equal, including atheism) and communist atheism (all religions except atheism or other state religion must be purged from society).

Then you do not abide by the church of Dawkins where the desire is to see Christianity destroyed -- oh but then those "pesky" Muslims would fill the vacuum.

But, as I understand you, you're not a fully-fledged Atheist... if truly Agnostic you'd waver inbetween as an agnostic secularist claiming not to know either way who is right/wrong...

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

I'd love having a country run by a government that believes in no design, no purpose, no evil, no good and nothing but pitiless indifference.

[ClassicalTeacher]

FL, you seem to know a lot about men molesting boys in afghanistan. Do you visit there often?

Nope! Afghan men do not molest these boys. Bacha bazi boys are part of Afghan culture. Men ''love'' them because it is not permitted for Afghan men to see women dance or sing, so Bacha Bazi boys fill these roles, and serve as a sexual outlet as well.

You guys really have to get out more.

FL

FL, I did a quick search on "Bacha Bazi". That's some sick $h!t. Pardon my French, but that infuriates me! It's not ok to have sex with women, but young boys are fine. The depravity of humanity knows no bounds.

Coming into this discussion a little late, but I also checked out the "Bacha Bazi". Geesh! With BO at the helm here, I'm sure that will come to a neighborhood near you!!

[ClassicalTeacher]

Jac,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. I always appreciate and benefit from your input.

A secular culture would argue from 2 points:
1.) Who are you to say what "love" is and what "love" is not? It's up to the individual to determine what love is for them (post modern worldview)
2.) If a child needs to be loved, what is wrong with an adult "loving" them? Isn't it "better" for a child to be "loved" by an adult who wants to "love" them then by a parent who has rejected the child?

In a culture where pragmatic emotion rules, consent become less of an issue... If I "feel" I am doing "good", what else matters?

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/ca-wt-04-19-02/
ink.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01091326

I would also add that the two points you provided above are indicative of a society pickled in moral relativism and nihilism.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Marriage is a religious concept, so what do governments have to do with God? They can try to forbid, corrupt or redefine what is holy, but it'll still remain what it is - divine in nature.

Agreed, however, "marriage" is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Matrimony, on the other hand, is a religious covenant between a man, a woman, and GOD (aka: a sacrament).

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Agreed, however, "marriage" is a civil contract between a man and a woman.

Would that mean that if a jurisdiction recognizes a same-sex legal union, it can righfully be called a marriage? Here is my dilema:

My wife and I have a couple of long-time lesbian friends, a couple. One of them wants to be ''married'' and the other does not. The one who does not want to ''marry'' has the more docile personality, so we are expecting a wedding invitation, eventually. I would not want to bless such a union with my presence but my wife thinks we should go to preserve the friendship.

So...if a gay marriage isn't a matrimony, could my wife and I attend our friends' ceremony and keep everyone happy? HELP!

FL

[RickD]

FL, you're in a tough situation. I always understood someone's presence at a wedding as an act of approval of the union. All I can say is to follow your conscience.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

FL, you're in a tough situation. I always understood someone's presence at a wedding as an act of approval of the union. All I can say is to follow your conscience.

My conscience tells me to take trip overseas while the ''wedding'' is on. Since I don't have a real job, I can do this.

However, I do recognize this to be a cop out.

FL

[RickD]

FL, you're in a tough situation. I always understood someone's presence at a wedding as an act of approval of the union. All I can say is to follow your conscience.

My conscience tells me to take trip overseas while the ''wedding'' is on. Since I don't have a real job, I can do this.

However, I do recognize this to be a cop out.

FL

I was going to suggest a "vacation". And, it's not a cop out. It's tactful. The klowns approve of this approach.

[Philip]

FL, I would think that, as long-time friends, they should also know of your Christian values and how important they are to you. Attending a ceremony that purports to unite two same-sex individuals sexually and in a supposed "marriage," shows approval for such a terrible ceremony, one that makes a mockery of God's very building block of society. IF these two ladies know you are a committed Christian and are truly your friends, why would they be shocked or offended if you begged off on an occasion/event that they surely must know goes against YOUR beliefs? Or are you only able to be friends wit them if you remain quiet about your own values? And as for your wife, who is she more worried about offending - two lesbians or GOD?

IMHO, if these two are incensed at you staying true to your values, then it's not much of a friendship. And loving people who are unbelievers may sometimes include offending them - as NOT supporting them in determined/blatant sin is far more compassionate because it may make them re-consider their moral choices. But going along by supporting it sends the message that it's no big deal.

[RickD]

I would think that, as long-time friends, they should also know of your Christian values and how important they are to you. Attending a ceremony that purports to unite two same-sex individuals sexually and in a supposed "marriage," shows approval for such a terrible ceremony, one that makes a mockery of God's very building block of society. IF these two ladies know you are a committed Christian and are truly your friends, why would they be shocked or offended if you begged off on an occasion/event that they surely must know goes against YOUR beliefs? Or are you only able to be friends wit them if you remain quiet about your own values? And as for your wife, who is she more worried about offending - two lesbians or GOD?

IMHO, if these two are incensed at you staying true to your values, then it's not much of a friendship.

Or, you could just take a vacation.

[Philip]

Richard, you are looking a little sickly lately? Bad grapes?

[RickD]

Richard, you are looking a little sickly lately? Bad grapes?

Bad grapes?

[Philip]

Vino.