All Men Are Created Equal

[Jac3510]

Isn't having the free will to choose an inherent human right?

No.

Free will is not a right. It is a fact of human nature. We, however, do not have the right to use our freedom to sin. That we do is an evil. It is a sin, and as I said above, all sins, all evils, are regulated. Some are regulated on a societal level. Some are regulated on a familial/interpersonal level. Some are only regulated at the personal level. All are regulated at the divine level. But when we use our freedom to sin, we are doing something we do NOT have the right to do.

[RickD]

That's ok j, I really don't want to waste my time trying to prove something which is not only self evident but also the core of human rights, I am baffled that you even would question this. Just sitting in your chair and asking yourself this question would give you the answer you demand of me.

You could tell me plainly ofcourse that you agree with me that its an inherent right...or not.

And for all your right arguments, they do nothing, have zero effect on helping a gay teen.

Neo,

Pardon me for my brain fart, but I missed this somehow. What exactly are you telling jlay is an inherent right?

Choosing a partner to marry.

Ok thanks.

So, what I understand you to be saying, since you're a believer in God, is that homosexuals have an inherent(God-given) right to "marry" whoever they choose.

Is that what you're saying?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Isn't having the free will to choose an inherent human right?

No.

Free will is not a right. It is a fact of human nature. We, however, do not have the right to use our freedom to sin. That we do is an evil. It is a sin, and as I said above, all sins, all evils, are regulated. Some are regulated on a societal level. Some are regulated on a familial/interpersonal level. Some are only regulated at the personal level. All are regulated at the divine level. But when we use our freedom to sin, we are doing something we do NOT have the right to do.

Thanks Jac.

[Mallz]

Hmm.. re-reading my post, I'd like to clarify what I meant by 'it's their right given by God to live how they want.'
Just by being a created being we are given rational minds and are living in a setting to excersize our free will. Isn't it still everyones 'right' to choose sin over goodness? It goes against our nature, and is wrong to choose a sinful path, but if someone decides to walk away from God, then that means there's an option to.

I don't condone or believe the Church should condone or recognize gay marriage.
But I'm still seeing this popular topic a word semantics game. Marriage is not a term congruent between Christians and everyone else. They take the word and apply their own definition. We can stand by what marriage is, but if worldy governments/societies want to condone same sex marriage how they define it, shouldn't we 'seperate' ourselves from the world so to speak? And from their definition?

The problem I see around me (Oregon, heavily liberal in thought and practice) and from reading around the country, is that in general people don't know what marraige really is, and don't agree with it. It's like refusing to say the sky is blue but instead neon rainbow colored. At this point, what can you do but hold firm that the sky is actually blue and show that it is. If they don't want to see and want to pervert the definition of marriage.. then they will. And they will go on seeing a neon rainbow colored dilusion.

Thoughts?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hmm.. re-reading my post, I'd like to clarify what I meant by 'it's their right given by God to live how they want.'
Just by being a created being we are given rational minds and are living in a setting to excersize our free will. Isn't it still everyones 'right' to choose sin over goodness? It goes against our nature, and is wrong to choose a sinful path, but if someone decides to walk away from God, then that means there's an option to.

I don't condone or believe the Church should condone or recognize gay marriage.
But I'm still seeing this popular topic a word semantics game. Marriage is not a term congruent between Christians and everyone else. They take the word and apply their own definition. We can stand by what marriage is, but if worldy governments/societies want to condone same sex marriage how they define it, shouldn't we 'seperate' ourselves from the world so to speak? And from their definition?

The problem I see around me (Oregon, heavily liberal in thought and practice) and from reading around the country, is that in general people don't know what marraige really is, and don't agree with it. It's like refusing to say the sky is blue but instead neon rainbow colored. At this point, what can you do but hold firm that the sky is actually blue and show that it is. If they don't want to see and want to pervert the definition of marriage.. then they will. And they will go on seeing a neon rainbow colored dilusion.

Thoughts?

I obviously agree with everything you said, my definition of marriage is much different to the secular community, I would even go as far to say that a hetero secular marriage is not my definition of a true marriage. If hetero secular people are allowed to marry according to their definition then so should homosexual people be allowed to marry according to their definition, they deserve equal rights in the eyes of secular law even if I don't morally agree with it, which I don't.

[PaulSacramento]

What does God say about the rights of gay people? Should gay people have the same rights as everyone else? I don't know what the Bible says about that.

I assume you mean marriage.
Nope, marriage is not a "god given right" or anything like that.
In the legal since, it is a agreement between two parties for the common good.
Legally, gender is irrelevant.
The bible doesn't really speak about rights per say, I mean there is no "Right of free speech" or "right to peacefully protest" or things like that in the bible ( not that I can recall anyways).
I think what you are asking is quite simply this:
Is gay marriage permitted in the bible? The answer is NO.
Is it right, under God, for same sex people to have sexual relations? The answer is NO.
Will God forgive those that do?
That is up to God of course and up to the individuals repenting.
Does God love gay people? IMO, yes BUT He does NOT love the act of homosexual SEXUAL relationships because they are NOT what God intended for Us.

Gay people have as much "right" to God's love and forgiveness and Grace as we do, BUT it is up to them to decide what to do with that love, forgiveness and grace.

[Philip]

If hetero secular people are allowed to marry according to their definition then so should homosexual people be allowed to marry according to their definition, they deserve equal rights in the eyes of secular law even if I don't morally agree with it, which I don't.

What is allowed or not allowed, in the U.S., comes from the majority will of voters and the judges appointed by those elected into office. People often want to be able to do all manner of things, but they are against the law. So just because someone or group wants a "right," it doesn't mean that it is assumed or granted. And just because someone wants something to become law that I think shouldn't - don't we both have the right to vote for those (hopefully) on the side of the issues that we are? And as for believing that people should be able to do whatever they want - well, just THINK of the mayhem if that were true. A man may want to marry his dog - should society and our laws allow that? Ooh, but we might be crushing his rights. And what would PETA say?

As for the Lord, He does give us the ability to choose things that He says are sinful. But He also allows and builds in consequences for those choices. So He gives us the freedom to reap what we sow. And this terrible mistaken belief that it is GOD who chooses one's homosexuality for them, that they are BORN to it, is extremely naive and not supported by the facts. And popular opinion does NOT equal the facts.

[Mallz]

And this terrible mistaken belief that it is GOD who chooses one's homosexuality for them, that they are BORN to it, is extremely naive and not supported by the facts. And popular opinion does NOT equal the facts.

This I believe and there is a lot of truth to your in-depth post before. I've studied and reviewed this topic heavily from different angles (including direct social study through friends and strangers) and so far the evidence points to programming, instead of a 'gay' gene.

[PaulSacramento]

If hetero secular people are allowed to marry according to their definition then so should homosexual people be allowed to marry according to their definition, they deserve equal rights in the eyes of secular law even if I don't morally agree with it, which I don't.

What is allowed or not allowed, in the U.S., comes from the majority will of voters and the judges appointed by those elected into office. People often want to be able to do all manner of things, but they are against the law. So just because someone or group wants a "right," it doesn't mean that it is assumed or granted. And just because someone wants something to become law that I think shouldn't - don't we both have the right to vote for those (hopefully) on the side of the issues that we are? And as for believing that people should be able to do whatever they want - well, just THINK of the mayhem if that were true. A man may want to marry his dog - should society and our laws allow that? Ooh, but we might be crushing his rights. And what would PETA say?

As for the Lord, He does give us the ability to choose things that He says are sinful. But He also allows and builds in consequences for those choices. So He gives us the freedom to reap what we sow. And this terrible mistaken belief that it is GOD who chooses one's homosexuality for them, that they are BORN to it, is extremely naive and not supported by the facts. And popular opinion does NOT equal the facts.

The whole "born gay" thing is still to inconclusive so I caution BOTH sides not to use it.
Even IF a person is born gay ( science proves that there is a "gay gene") then that doesn't mean that God made them gay anymore than it means they if a person is born with homicidal tendencies or pedophilia-like tendencies that God made them that way too.
For all we know, being Gay could be a "birth defect" ( a defective gene) or it could be 100 different issues that may still be genetic and have nothing to do with God.

[Jac3510]

Hmm.. re-reading my post, I'd like to clarify what I meant by 'it's their right given by God to live how they want.'
Just by being a created being we are given rational minds and are living in a setting to excersize our free will. Isn't it still everyones 'right' to choose sin over goodness? It goes against our nature, and is wrong to choose a sinful path, but if someone decides to walk away from God, then that means there's an option to.

I don't condone or believe the Church should condone or recognize gay marriage.
But I'm still seeing this popular topic a word semantics game. Marriage is not a term congruent between Christians and everyone else. They take the word and apply their own definition. We can stand by what marriage is, but if worldy governments/societies want to condone same sex marriage how they define it, shouldn't we 'seperate' ourselves from the world so to speak? And from their definition?

The problem I see around me (Oregon, heavily liberal in thought and practice) and from reading around the country, is that in general people don't know what marraige really is, and don't agree with it. It's like refusing to say the sky is blue but instead neon rainbow colored. At this point, what can you do but hold firm that the sky is actually blue and show that it is. If they don't want to see and want to pervert the definition of marriage.. then they will. And they will go on seeing a neon rainbow colored dilusion.

Thoughts?

As I said, no one has the right to use their free will sinfully. In fact, we precisely do not have that right, and it is because we do not have that right that to so act is sin.

Given the fact that we do not have the right to use our free will sinfully, the question is, what mechanisms do we put in place, and where to do we put them, to curb such behavior? And on that front, there are three answers:

1. Personal virtue -- moral education and living out the life of Christ;
2. Social standards -- not here referring to laws but rather those things that society condemns (think shame and honor aspects of culture);
3. Governmental regulation -- those things that society has declared that are not to be practiced as a matter of law

Given the fact that no one has the right to sin, and given the fact that homosexual behavior is sinful, it is obviously impossible to argue that society, much less the Church, should endorse it by granting it the status of marriage. So the question becomes, at what level do we, as a society, deal with homosexual behavior? Sodomy laws would be the third and highest level. Social standards would point to social ostracization , for instance. Or we could just leave it as a strictly private matter and encourage people to overcome it through faith and their virtues. Note that if we deal with this at the second level, that includes doing so at the first; and if we deal with it at the third level, that includes dealing with it at both the first and second.

My own view is that this should be handled at the level of social standards. We should not make sodomy a legal offense. But it should be socially unacceptable, a shameful thing.

But above all, what we must not do is endorse what is sinful (objectively speaking, for it is intrinsically disordered, as per natural law) and give it the title "marriage." That is wrong.

[Mallz]

It sounds like my train of thought was promoting a double standard favoring 'the rest of the world' by allowing 'their' definition to take place of reality. It's not enough that we don't recognize it as marriage, or the Church, but even in their terms. Because if we allow ourselves to be dictated by false terms, and endorse these terms by saying 'I recognize your 'false' marriage' is in fact agreeing to it. And promoting it, where it should be opposed, for their benefit. Kind of like agreeing by silence.

On the other hand, if we as Christians completely step out of the world, it will degrade exponentially faster and Christ will come soooo much sooner (This was a joke)

[Jac3510]

I hear your concern. But try to go back and read what I was saying and leave the Church out of it. I am talking about society. I am talking general, not special, revelation.

For instance, you don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong, and we don't have laws against murder because the Bible does. I can make a perfectly cogent case that society ought to outlaw murder without referring to a single verse of Scripture. Of course, I can also make an argument based on Scripture. Or I can make a hybrid argument. And, of course, the Church would and should insist that a just society would outlaw murder. All that is fine as far as it goes. But the fact remains that society ought to outlaw murder and we don't need Scripture to make that claim.

The same is true with homosexual behavior. Of course we can make a Scriptural case, and of course the Church should not endorse the view. We shouldn't be surprised when the Church insists that a just society does not condone homosexual behavior, either. But all that is rather beside the point. I am saying that from a strictly societal perspective, no one has the right to do that which is intrinsically disordered--to sin, to use biblical language--and therefore society (not the Church, but SOCIETY) is NOT obligated to recognize or condone such behavior. On the contrary, society has both the right and obligation to suppress that behavior, and it has at least three mechanisms to do so (as per my last post). And so, the question we should be debating is not, "Should society allow gay marriage?" That's actually a simple question to answer. It's only because of the moral confusion of people today that it isn't. The real question is what mechanism for suppression is appropriate to this disorder.

[Mallz]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for spelling it out further to me.

Question: Is there anything coming from social standards that is not congruent with scripture?

If so, does that mean personal virtue (as labeled #1) is a premise and necessity for #2 and #3?

I've always disagreed with how gay marriage is approached in all the avenues I've seen and has left bad tastes in my mouth. It needs to be directed elegantly and accurately and unified...

...

what mechanism for suppression is appropriate to this disorder.

..?
This is a topic I'm quit interested in and would like to solve. Any takers to help me?

[neo-x]

Given the fact that no one has the right to sin, and given the fact that homosexual behavior is sinful, it is obviously impossible to argue that society, much less the Church, should endorse it by granting it the status of marriage. So the question becomes, at what level do we, as a society, deal with homosexual behavior? Sodomy laws would be the third and highest level. Social standards would point to social ostracization , for instance. Or we could just leave it as a strictly private matter and encourage people to overcome it through faith and their virtues. Note that if we deal with this at the second level, that includes doing so at the first; and if we deal with it at the third level, that includes dealing with it at both the first and second.

My own view is that this should be handled at the level of social standards. We should not make sodomy a legal offense. But it should be socially unacceptable, a shameful thing.

And that is precisely my point...you are shaming someone on something they have really no control of and over...how effective is that? A child who is born gay, even if you leave him in a population of 1 million heterosexuals, that child is gonna come out gay and the vice versa is true for heterosexuals. Your straight child isn't gonna turn gay just because he is raised among gay people. Gay children come normally from houses of heterosexuals. And what if they are created by God this way? What if we find that yes sexual orientation takes place in wombs? How natural or unnatural is that? And how adequate is the natural law for this type of thing. Homosexuality is a sin, the bible clearly says it, I have no moral confusion in that regard. But the natural law view is inadequate to address this because it assumes that it is out of sinful lust that such unions take place. The problem is not "sodomy is not natural" since that doesn't happen in female-female unions, the problem is of same-sex being together in all and every way, families aren't shaped this way. And I agree with you that such union is unnatural, but I also contend that it is not anything to be shameful of by the society I can understand it being shameful in the church but outside of church its only odd...but why shameful?

Outside of church our biblical values don't necessarily apply. Your definition of right or wrong is a biblical definition, its not democratic in nature, its theocratic...but outside the system is democratic or non-theocratic to be precise, that system has its entire own structure of assigning values.

Muslims do marriage, every other religious or non-religious groups do marriage, marriage is not exclusive to Christianity. We can regulate marriage inside the church but outside of it, that is a different problem.

Don't get me wrong Jac, I clearly see the problems the church face...I am not advocating that we allow gay marriage in church, but outside of church, I really don't see why not. And really don't see what we lose, and I do see what we gain, some trust, some confidence, may be some openness to the gospel, may be less hostility.

The real question, which in fact takes priority above all, is where do gays stand in the kingdom of God?...as a teacher, and outreach guy this is my supreme concern. At the end of the day, I want to save a gay teen, a gay lady, a gay guy, why not...and my question is what is their status in the church, are they saved brothers and sisters or are they people who are not welcome in the church but are saved nonetheless? Marriage is just a trivial matter in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is we alienate the gay community, or do we reach out to them?

My personal interaction has left me wondering a lot about this...gay and christian are at complete odds but should they have to be? And at what cost? At any forum, Christians have stereotype that leaves gay people quite scared for their own self respect. and yet somewhere I do believe that Gays if they believe in Christ, shall be saved, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Just some time ago, I held a gay teenager, crying over my shoulder because he was so willing to commit suicide that his family was pushing him to marry a girl and they would not accept him. What do I tell this guy? Stop being gay?...believe me I tried, didn't help. Stop having thoughts of sex? that hasn't helped either. Moreover he is a christian, I don't doubt he loves God. And my question is where does this boy stand? I can tell him that this is sin but I get blank stares in return, his obvious question was he can't be with a girl, that repels him and I can't blame him because I feel the same if I am to be asked to be gay.

And my concern is for asexual and transgender people too.

[RickD]

Neo,

Excuse me for being so blunt, but I need to make a point. Jac wrote:

My own view is that this should be handled at the level of social standards. We should not make sodomy a legal offense. But it should be socially unacceptable, a shameful thing.

You responded:

Neo wrote:
And that is precisely my point...you are shaming someone on something they have really no control of and over...

Are you saying a man has no control over his desire to stick his penis in another man's anus?

You do realize the argument is against the behavior, not the tendencies, don't you?