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

[B. W.]

Eh, well... I found out about this recently. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/su ... ?hpt=hp_t1

In short, the DOMA was ruled unconstitutional.

The comments are quite a mix. Some calling it "The Future", some calling this "TRUE Morality", and others calling this flat-out wrong. And some comments accusing "religious" people of being crazy, etc... Some people reducing opposition to this ruling as merely being the subjective "dislike" matter.

Haven't seen all of the reactions here, but there's a variety of 'em.

Reminds me of what 2 Timothy 3:1, 2, 3, 4 and Romans 1:22, 24, 26, 27, 28c speaks about...

Spinning toward the last days...
-
-
-

[CazPerth]

Is the man who commits adultery - even with his eyes - any less of a sinner than the man who has had a 23 year faithful relationship with another man? Jesus told us marriage is between one man and one woman.

No, these are no different. But as for your comparison, why do you feel the need to clarify the faithfulness of the two homosexuals, as if that is admirable or somehow makes them any more noble. It just means that they have been faithful to what God calls an abomination.

We agree they are not different. Both are sins and hence my comparison of one sin against another, who shall judge which is greater? I did not present one as more admirable but as equal in that they are only one example of many immoralities according to the Gospel (one is adulterous but male/female, one is faithful but male/male or female/female). You have chosen to give one sin greater weight than the other but what is your justification?

I am not sure because I haven't actually counted but I *think* adultery is mentioned more times than homosexuality. However, BOTH are considered sexual immorality. I may have been led to counsel porn addicts (are they more acceptable?) but I was not. You are assuming that the couple I speak of are engaging in "abominations" what if they were to decide to follow Christ and thenceforth live together in a loving but asexual relationship? Are they still sinners?

love and peace
Carolyn

[BryanH]

I haven't been here in a while and it seems that same things are discussed again and again especially when it comes to gay marriage.

I have participated in this discussion before and just wanted to say a few things; some of them are related to this topic, some are more or less.

1) Muslim polygamy: although you are allowed to marry multiple women, you CAN'T actually do it unless YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM, ALL of them.

2) At some point "being gay" was present in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM). They removed it from there because being gay is not actually a mental disorder. Gay people are quite normal people just like you and me, the ONLY difference being that they feel attracted to same gender partners.

3) Gay people (men and women) have existed since the "dawn of time". Since doctors haven't been able to clearly explain this fully from a biomedical perspective, the only explanation you have is that it occurs naturally given the long time frame of it actually being a reality. Basically history is full of gay people. Being gay is not a trend, it is part of the human condition.

*** This I have said before: homosexuality happens naturally within the animal kingdom (please feel free to do research yourself if you have problems believing it). Although we don't want to compare humans and animals, many scientific studies have started with animal research which has been extrapolated and confirmed through further studies for human behaviour.

4) Longitudinal psychological studies have proven that gay parents are the same or BETTER than heterosexual parents in terms of raising children (please feel free to explore the American Psychology Association website and not only for such studies). Children raised in gay families do not grow up to be gay unless they are gay to start with of course. Get that through your skull.


PS 1: History has been changed time and time again by MINORITIES. That is how change happens. Christianity was a minority at some point. Now Christian people have a problem when they find themselves at the other end of the stick.Tough luck! History has the tendency to repeat itself. I can't take credit for that. Blame history

PS 2: As many people on this topic here have said, but didn't actually say it very clearly: (this is my personal opinion)

Christianity and people affiliated with it are trying to promote and force a MONOPOLY on MORAL VALUES.
I know you guys think that your GOD is the only one true GOD and he has given you precise moral laws, but other people DISAGREE with you and you need to RESPECT that.

I think that the word RESPECT is the key here. You simply refuse to acknowledge other points of view if they don't fit the bible dogma.
Basically you want to preserve your freedom of choice, but you don't want others to have the same rights as you. Be very careful with this kind of approach as it can be self-destructive.

[PaulSacramento]

A few things:
Homosexuality does not happen in the animal kingdom, bisexuality does.
A species ( unless it reproduces without the sex act) would die out if it was a homosexual species.
Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexual behavior because, quite simply, it deviates from the norm for the human species that needs hetrosexual activity to procreate.
Remove the "passion" we feel about defended OR attacking homosexuality and base it solely on science and the simple, UNEMOTIONAL fact is that homosexuality is NOT in the best interest of the human species and is a deviation from the norm, the ideal.

Sex and all that goes with it, is about procreation and propagation of the species.
I know we like to romanticize this and that and so forth BUT the point is that the goal of sex is procreation and without hetrosexual sex, the human species would die out.

Homosexuality is NOT natural in the strictiest ( scientific) science of the world as it applies to the purpose of human sexual realtions.
It is a deviant behaviour because, it LITERALLY deviates from not only what is the norm BUT what is best for the human race.

All that said, we can't deny that homosexuals are NOT responsible, ie choose, to be that way and they must be loved and respected and given the same rights as heterosexuals.

How does that apply to marriage?

If homosexuals want to marry they should be allowed to BUT not in a church/religion that who's doctrine is against homosexuality.
Civilian only.

[Philip]

The ONLY question that matters in this debate over homosexual issues: Is there a God who has mandated standards for EVERYONE's sexual behavior or not? And so if there is such a God, what does He have to say about marriage and same-sex sexuality. All else is opinion and conjecture. If there is no such God, then the debate is pointless and all personal opinion. My natural self has all kinds of desires that the God of the Bible calls sin. And to pursue my natural desires is a choice. Might I struggle to not pursue that which I naturally desire? Absolutely!

But whether or not something is a naturally occurring desire has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong - not if there is a Standard - or a God Who sets them. I say there is and He has! And are we slaves to our naturally occurring desires or do we rule over our desires via our deliberate choosing? MUST we always do what we desire? SHOULD we always do what we desire? WHY or WHY not? This is the crux of the matter.

[PaulSacramento]

The ONLY question that matters in this debate over homosexual issues: Is there a God who has mandated standards for EVERYONE's sexual behavior or not? And so if there is such a God, what does He have to say about marriage and same-sex sexuality. All else is opinion and conjecture. If there is no such God, then the debate is pointless and all personal opinion. My natural self has all kinds of desires that the God of the Bible calls sin. And to pursue my natural desires is a choice. Might I struggle to not pursue that which I naturally desire? Absolutely!

But whether or not something is a naturally occurring desire has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong - not if there is a Standard - or a God Who sets them. I say there is and He has! And are we slaves to our naturally occurring desires or do we rule over our desires via our deliberate choosing? MUST we always do what we desire? SHOULD we always do what we desire? WHY or WHY not? This is the crux of the matter.

And that is a valid point, for those that BELIEVE in God.
And those that don't?
Should we always do what we desire?
Some will reply that, if no one gets hurt and no laws are broken then, why not?

In regards to homosexual marriage, the crux in a secular society of laws ( which is what we have) is: Do homosexuals have the same human rights as hetrosexuals?
The right to pursuit life, liberty and happiness as long as what they do doesn't infringe on those same rights of others.

[BryanH]

Homosexuality does not happen in the animal kingdom, bisexuality does.

Bisexuality includes homosexuality... Now you want to argue that animals also follow their mating instinct[heterosexual], an instinct that humans have learned to control... Ok...
Well, that separates us from animals...

A species ( unless it reproduces without the sex act) would die out if it was a homosexual species.

Lol. You didn't think this through very well. We are not talking here about 100% homosexual species. That is IMPOSSIBLE ) That species wouldn't have existed in the first place. We are talking about sexual diversity found in a specie in regard to homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexual behavior because, quite simply, it deviates from the norm for the human species that needs hetrosexual activity to procreate.

No offense Paul but you are using big words that have put you in a very awkward position right now. First of all, "THE NORM" you are talking about has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The human race needs heterosexual sex and there are lots of people doing that more than they should. That doesn't mean that gay people should be treated as DEVIANT and ABNORMAL. Every specie has diversity. Gay people are part of that diversity. Gay people are not a majority. So what? Let me remind you again that Christianity was once a MINORITY which FOUGHT for THEIR RIGHTS. Christians were a bunch of deviant and abnormal people once. There were thousands and thousands of slaughtered people because they only believed in God. Does history teach you nothing?

Let me tell you something Paul: from where I stand right now, you seem rather deviant and abnormal in your overall behavior toward other HUMAN BEINGS. You want some HUMAN BEINGS to have less rights than you have and heterosexual people have.

homosexuality is NOT in the best interest of the human species and is a deviation from the norm, the ideal.

LOL again. There are 7.5 billion people on this planet and growing exponentially. We don't have the resources to sustain even more growth. Say again?

The Ideal? Can you offer me exact details on this ideal you are talking about. I haven't heard of one actually being defined.

Sex and all that goes with it, is about procreation and propagation of the species.
I know we like to romanticize this and that and so forth BUT the point is that the goal of sex is procreation and without hetrosexual sex, the human species would die out.

Already answered one of your dilemmas.

Now about romance... Mate, no offense, but human beings are long past just using sex for procreation.

Homosexuality is NOT natural in the strictiest ( scientific) science of the world as it applies to the purpose of human sexual realtions.
It is a deviant behaviour because, it LITERALLY deviates from not only what is the norm BUT what is best for the human race

Paul, look, I don't want to be rude or anything, but I strongly suggest you actually read a book or two about sexual relations and when I say that, I am mainly pointing towards psychological studies. You go ask any psychologist and they will ALL tell you the same thing. There is no such thing as NORMALITY. Normality is a very relative concept which changes periodically according to what the social norm agrees upon.

About being best for the human race I have two words for you: a) ADOLF HITLER b) 7.5 billion

If homosexuals want to marry they should be allowed to BUT not in a church/religion that who's doctrine is against homosexuality.
Civilian only.

You want to deny a HUMAN BEING rights based on their sexual preferences.

But now let's think about this matter the other way around: all Christian people should be denied civilian marriage. You should only be married in the face of God. That's what matters for you, right?

So next time you want to refuse a gay person marriage in a church, go have a civilian divorce first. If you are not married, well, never mind...

But whether or not something is a naturally occurring desire has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong - not if there is a Standard - or a God Who sets them. I say there is and He has! And are we slaves to our naturally occurring desires or do we rule over our desires via our deliberate choosing? MUST we always do what we desire? SHOULD we always do what we desire? WHY or WHY not? This is the crux of the matter.

Something that occurs naturally within nature doesn't have right or wrong value. It's just there...

You also talk about a Standard made by God. I said it before: your God is not my God. Ok? You can't transfer the standard your God gave you and Christian people towards all the members of the society? Do you understand that?

[PaulSacramento]

Bryan,
There is quite of bit of incorrect info in your post,please realize that to discuss this, we need to disrgard words that seem "emotional" only because we have made them so.
There IS a norm in sexuality and the norm for humans is heterosexuality and ANY deviation of that norm is deviant sexual behaviour ( that is what the word means, to deviate from the norm).
Bisexuality is NOT homosexuality.
Homosexuality is sex with the same gender ONLY, just as heterosexuality is sex with the opposite gender ONLY.
Bisexuality is sex with BOTH genders equally (more or less of course).

There are 7.5 billion people on this planet and growing exponentially. We don't have the resources to sustain even more growth

A common misconception, but still a misconception:

There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet.
Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot.
Now, physically, how big is the suburb of houses we’ve created?
Let’s see, 6,000,000,000 four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
What does 375 Million Acres compare to? Well lets see, The state of Texas is 171904640 acres. 375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas (2.18 Texases to be exact). It also equates to 3.6 Californias. Why Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.

The issue is NOT over population but population density, two very different things.
EX:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... dsMjvnVByw

As for you suggestion to read a book about sexual behaviour and such, been there and done that.


See, I can look at sex from the scientific and dispassionate view point, which is where we should look at it.
Sex is NOT love and is NOT relationships and people seem to forget that.

Look, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say people are born homosexual and say it is the norm when it is NOT and no matter how much you say there is no norm in sexuality or who is to define the norm, the reality is there IS a norm and it IS defined in biology and anything outside that norm is a deviation.

Now, once you accept that you then realize that same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with sex but human rights and that is what I have been saying all along.
There is no reason why, if homosexuality is a born trait, to people of the same sex should NOT be married by civil law ( religion is a different matter).
If two people are consenting adults and are mentally fit to be married ( of sound mind) then they should be able to.

If you had read my post without preconceived notions you would see that I am NOT arguing against same-sex civil unions, I believe that IF the state passes a law permitting such, then it is legal.

However, the state CAN NOT and SHOULD not force any religion to follow suit if it is against their doctrines.

[RickD]

Paul, FYI, we've reached 7 billion and counting:
http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Not quite the 7.5 billion that Bryan thinks, but well over your 'antiquated' 6 billion.


Carry on...

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, FYI, we've reached 7 billion and counting:
http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Not quite the 7.5 billion that Bryan thinks, but well over your 'antiquated' 6 billion.


Carry on...

LOL,
Fair enough, but I think the point still stands in that regard and anyone that has ever traveled the US can attest that the problem there is most certainly NOT over population, same with Europe and even China.
China still has HUGE areas of land that they do nothing with.

But that is a different subject...

[RickD]

Paul, FYI, we've reached 7 billion and counting:
http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Not quite the 7.5 billion that Bryan thinks, but well over your 'antiquated' 6 billion.


Carry on...

LOL,
Fair enough, but I think the point still stands in that regard and anyone that has ever traveled the US can attest that the problem there is most certainly NOT over population, same with Europe and even China.
China still has HUGE areas of land that they do nothing with.

But that is a different subject...

I just didn't want the facts to get in the way of your argument.

[PaulSacramento]

Everyone's a comedian....

[RickD]

Everyone's a comedian....

I can only aspire...

[Philip]

You want some HUMAN BEINGS to have less rights than you have and heterosexual people have.

And just how far do you want to take these manufactured "rights?" Should a man be able to marry a duck, a dog, a sheep, a goat? Three men marry one woman? Just because something is legal for all doesn't mean it's a good thing for society. And ALL so-called rights necessarily discriminate against someone, somewhere, shows favoritism in some way. The idea that the majority should always allow a minority to do anything and everything they want to can lead to some very bad places. And just making it legal for EVERYONE often does little better. Our society is killing itself over trying to be fair to everyone - it doesn't work! And our laws are often designed to encourage or discourage behaviors, like it or not. Plus, in America, we live in a democracy governed by a constitution - a document which limits various things and rights. People want to declare everything a "right," as if they are entitled to it - but this attitude is not constitutional. Most people who bandy about lose talk about what should be rights for everyone clearly know very little about constitutional law. And merely living in a democracy means that you will NOT always get what you want - no one does. But as for what we currently subsidize, let's quit subsidizing everything under the sun - married, single, homosexual or hetero.

Who said it should be a RIGHT for someone to have their lifestyle subsidized by the taxes of others? Let's make this easy, tax-wise, let EVERYONE be treated equally. And why should homosexuals expect the courts award them children which they can't produce themselves? Oh, yes, because heterosexuals can. But courts often refuse to acknowledge that having both a male and female in the home is important, that both genders bring important strengths to raising healthy children. Sure, there are children who might go unadopted if not for gay people adopting. But I can guarantee you that statistic is extremely small, a the tiniest percentage of gay couples want to adopt.

But, morally, it does very little good for unbelievers to debate believers over issues like this, as they have differing measuring sticks of what is right or wrong. So such debates are arbitrated by politics, courts, laws and government type - entities that are often conflicted over what is deemed "fair."

[RickD]

Philip wrote:
But courts often refuse to acknowledge that having both a male and female in the home is important, that both genders bring important strengths to raising healthy children.

Let me play Devil's advocate if I could. I know this is a generalization, but most homosexual male couples have one guy who is more masculine, and one who is usually more effeminate. Wouldn't the more effeminate partner be more in touch with his feminine side so to speak, and bring that into raising children? Essentially making the effeminate one the nurturing "mom" of the family?