Evidence for God from Science

In November of last year, my home state held arguably one of the most contentious and hard-fought public votes in the history of our statehood. A narrow margin defeated a proposed amendment to our state's constitution that would have officially defined legal marriage as between one man and one woman in the state. Homosexual marriage was and still is illegal/not allowed, but the amendment did not take effect.

Now, after settling in a bit, our state's congress is apparently preparing for another battle over the definition of marriage. At a rally at the capitol building, it was announced that a group of legislators were in the process of writing a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the state. According to the author, it will contain language that would allow any church or other official place of worship to solemnize a homosexual marriage, but no place of worship would be required to do so under any circumstances. Since this is just a bill and not an amendment proposal, the vote will occur only within the legislature, and not be taken to the public vote.

While I can't post a full bill here since it isn't written, it appears as though this bill will be rather short and sweet; allow non-heterosexual couples to marry legally and gain the rights and privileges that come with it, and allow (but not force) places of worship to solemnize the marriage themselves, as they can already do with straight couples.

Now that two states have legalized gay marriage this last fall, it appears as though more and more states are opening up that question themselves and even bringing the issue to a vote. Thoughts or concerns on this trend, or the specific situation I outlined above? On gay marriage in general?

Same sex marriage is simply a logical outworking in a secular culture.

rodyshusband wrote:Same sex marriage is simply a logical outworking in a secular culture.

Agreed. Ditto for divorce, common-law unions, precocious intimacy, multiple partners and a host of other modern developments. Next in this evolution of mores should be polygamy.

And welcome back!

FL

Same sex marriage is simply a logical outworking in a secular culture.

You might classify this as being a negative, but we do indeed live in a secular society. We are protected from any one particular religious view being forced upon us, at least in theory. It is therefore logical that carious laws that came from conservative religious beliefs might be struck down in favor of providing fairness to those who would prefer to not follow your religious views. As long as the new societal norms cause no harm to the society, it is indeed the "logical outworking" of a society not ruled by religious ideology.

And, for the record, the "logical outworking" of an ultra-religious conservative nation has been shown to be inquisitions and witch-hunts. I don't know about you, but I'll trade those for gay marriage any day of the week.

Agreed. Ditto for divorce, common-law unions, precocious intimacy, multiple partners and a host of other modern developments. Next in this evolution of mores should be polygamy.

I would disagree. Polygamy is not necessarily a natural next step because it is not clear whether it has a neutral impact on society. At least in recent times in the US, polygamist communities have shown that they are far more susceptible to harboring child sexual and emotional abuse than the mainstream (and legal) methods of raising children. For this reason, I would argue that it is not clear whether we should allow polygamy.

Compare that to monogamous gay couples and you will see almost no comparison. Gay marriage has no negative impact on society and no one can show that gay parents damage kids when raising them (at least no more than straight couples do).

Ivellious wrote:Polygamy is not necessarily a natural next step because it is not clear whether it has a neutral impact on society.

Society is changed by any modification of its mores. Gay couples getting married and rearing children won't have a ''neutral impact on society'' either. Our Western societies are ready for homosexual marriage now. As individual rights & freedoms continue to evolve, there should be an enlarging of the meaning of marriage to include more non-traditional forms that are presently tabu.

Ivellious wrote:Gay marriage has no negative impact on society and no one can show that gay parents damage kids when raising them (at least no more than straight couples do).

I'm quite sure the same statement could be made by proponents of polygamy in those countries where it is legal.

In any event, polygamy is already with us but is generally hushed.

FL

Gay couples getting married and rearing children won't have a ''neutral impact on society'' either.

Not entirely neutral, but it won't drastically impact society in a negative way. Sure, it will change society; you would conceivably see more children raised by homosexual couples, you will see a general increase in married couples (due to homosexuals getting married being added to the mix), and so on, but none of these will hurt the society as a whole. No more so than letting black people marry white people or the like.

I'm quite sure the same statement could be made by proponents of polygamy in those countries where it is legal.

Like the anarchic countries in Africa? Polygamy is not legal in any modern western nation. Indeed, it does happen (illegally), and we can clearly see that these situations have a higher incidence of child abuse. There's no similar argument to be made against gay couples.

Ivellious wrote:Not entirely neutral, but it won't drastically impact society in a negative way. Sure, it will change society; you would conceivably see more children raised by homosexual couples, you will see a general increase in married couples (due to homosexuals getting married being added to the mix), and so on, but none of these will hurt the society as a whole. No more so than letting black people marry white people or the like

I'm not talking about impacting society in a negative way...you are. All I'm saying is that society will change.

Ivellious wrote:Like the anarchic countries in Africa? Polygamy is not legal in any modern western nation. Indeed, it does happen (illegally), and we can clearly see that these situations have a higher incidence of child abuse. There's no similar argument to be made against gay couples.

Forget African basket cases! Forget about wacko Mormons in Utah and British Columbia! I'm talking about polygamy in Muslim nations which are not anarchic: all those nations on the Arabian peninsula, and Iran and Turkey, to name but a few.

Again, you are the one assuming polygamy is fraught with danger for children and society. I just recognize that it is on the way. I don't think children will be worse off for it.

FL

FL wrote:
Forget African basket cases! Forget about wacko Mormons in Utah and British Columbia! I'm talking about polygamy in Muslim nations which are not anarchic: all those nations on the Arabian peninsula, and Iran and Turkey, to name but a few.

FL, are you talking about the same countries whose motto is, "women are for making babies, and young boys are for pleasure"?

RickD wrote:FL, are you talking about the same countries whose motto is, "women are for making babies, and young boys are for pleasure"?

No. The Muslim country that tolerates a form of homosexuality (actually, pedophilia) between boys and men is Afghanistan. Effeminate boys are usually taken by powerful men and taught to dress & sing like women; and they are used sexually. The boys are discarded as they enter puberty.

FL

FL wrote:
No. The Muslim country that tolerates a form of homosexuality (actually, pedophilia) between boys and men is Afghanistan. The boys are usually taken by powerful men and taught to dress & sing like women; and they are used sexually. The boys are discarded as they enter puberty.

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

RickD wrote: 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

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote: 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.

RickD wrote: 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.

I don't think we are yet ready to accept pedophelia, although it is probably on the distant horizon.* Remember: your reaction to Bacha Bazi is what people in the 1960s would have had towards homosexuals getting married, never mind adopting kids. 50 years later, we've come a long way and our thinking has evolved to recognize that gay couples may marry and adopt.

I find it amusing that Ivellious can't see/can't accept that the next step in this evolution is acceptance of polygamy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

FL

*Love between men & boys was accepted in ancient Greece. NAMBLA is an organization that promotes this today; they are the forerunners of the liberation of pedophelia, just like the homosexual rights movements before them.

FL,

As much as I believe homosexual sex between consenting adults is wrong, it doesn't even come close to the emotions I feel when I read about child molestation. Whenever I see anyone hurting a child, it infuriates me.

FL wrote:
I don't think we are yet ready to accept pedophelia, although it is probably on the distant horizon.*

"We" as a society may get to the point of accepting pedophilia, but it won't be any time soon.

Remember: your reaction to Bacha Bazi is what people in the 1960s would have had towards homosexuals getting married, never mind adopting kids. 50 years later, we've come a long way and our thinking has evolved to recognize that gay couples may marry and adopt.

FL, I know you're just stating this as a"matter of fact" to prove a point, and I agree. Once the door
is opened to change the definition of marriage, then that opens it up for all kinds of "marriages".
Soon polygamy, then a ways down the road, legalized pedophilia.
If a society starts to justify sin, where does it end? There was a time when society KNEW homosexual sex was wrong, as well as pedophilia. Now, society is justifying homosexual sin. We as a society KNOW pedophilia is wrong. Just like we knew homosexual sex was wrong.

RickD wrote:FL, I know you're just stating this as a"matter of fact" to prove a point, and I agree. Once the door
is opened to change the definition of marriage, then that opens it up for all kinds of "marriages".

Yep! And have you noticed how a liberal/tolerant and open-minded person like Ivellious balked at the idea of legalized polygamy? There will come a day - and it is already here - where polygamy is accepted in our societies. Social and demographic pressures will make it legal in Europe in the not-too-distant future. You Americans are still a backward nation in this respect, but don't worry! you'll evolve!

RickD wrote:If a society starts to justify sin, where does it end? There was a time when society KNEW homosexual sex was wrong, as well as pedophilia. Now, society is justifying homosexual sin. We as a society KNOW pedophilia is wrong. Just like we knew homosexual sex was wrong.

Ahem...strictly speaking, pedophelia is - in most cases - a form of homosexuality. You - in your judgemental Western thinking - condemn the Bacha Bazi but who are you to judge another's culture?

Anyway, homosexual marriage & adoption by gay couples is already here. We need to move onto and overcome the next marital tabu: polygamy.

FL