Forum | Welcome | Debate Rules | Links | Facebook | Twitter | Donate  
Debating Christianity and Religion
A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)
 
 FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Politics and Religion
Author Message
McCulloch
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:24 pm  Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values? Reply with quote

WinePusher wrote:

I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.

McCulloch wrote:

But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.

WinePusher wrote:

It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.


Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?
Cathar1950 Offline
Site Supporter
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Total posts: 10466
Location: Michigan(616)
Age: 64
Gender: Male

60440.77 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 101: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:16 pm   Reply

It seems to me that "real" family values would accept and love those gay members of their families.
I suspect homosexual behaviors and such have been with us since we became sexual being.
The human race is still flourishing and it doesn't seem to have destroyed us. Given we evolved as a status seeking and sex went along with status there would be a number that didn't have mates.
Back to top
View user's profile   
micatala Offline
Site Supporter
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Total posts: 8246
Gender: Male

63351.11 tokens
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 102: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:58 pm   Reply

Thanks for the thoughtful response Faith Seeking. I'll make some comments on items in the last two paragraphs.

Faith Seeking Understanding wrote:



The difference with straight and gay people is that straight people would more likely grow up with sexual boundaries and continue through the rest of their life with them, but gay people begin by exploring beyond these boundaries, where they may at some point settle this down, but lust may never get questioned as society encouraged it and it is what helped them chose homosexuality.


This is making some assumptions about gay people versus straight people that I am not sure are justified. The biggest unjustified assumption concerns choosing homosexuality.

Secondly, even if these assumptions are correct, why should that affect laws on gay marriage?

I would agree that general societal attitudes can affect the behavior of individuals. I am a propenent of lessening the "sexualizing" trends in our society. However, I think this applies to both orientations (or all if you think there are more than two) equally.




Quote:
To be selfless is a matter of the heart and so is lust and for us to debate this will take time and a deeper study, but it is one of my points.


I won't say too much on the topic of lust and whether it is always bad or not. I would question assumptions that lust has signficantly different dynamics among gays versus straights.

And again, with respect to the law, lust should be irrelevant.

With respect to family values, each couple, gay or straight, and each individual are free to deal with "lust" or other sexual feelings in their own way. I would agree, such feelings could pose a threat to monogamous relationships if not handled maturely.

However, I fail to see how allowing gay marriage increases this threat. Why would it not decrease the threat? Consider that Paul recommends widows and even others remain unmarried as he is, but that he says it is better to marry than to burn with lust. Even disregarding the legal issues, it seems to me bad religion to allow heterosexuals to marry in order to deal with their sexuality in a healthy way and then not allow the same for gays.

Quote:
Im not here to label gay people or even separate them, but we do need to look into the effects of being gay and societies imapact before we can come to any conclusion. We cannot jump the gun so to speak with stubborn selfish view's and just say, yeh go for it.


I guess I would challenge you to provide specifics. In my view, if we allow a behavior for one group that poses a threat to society in the name of freedom or practicality, we should do the same for others. Is there any even potential societal harm you can point to that might be caused by gay marriage that we do not allow heterosexuals to cause?


Quote:
At the end of the day we all think that we are so smart that we can make this choice without even doing studies on both sides and then coming together in non confrontational group studies, to freely explore why and whats happening. But because it has to do with peoples sexual lustful drive, we want them to freely chose for themselves because then our own lustful drives can be accepted in society all the more.


What laws do we have against lust at the present time?

I also don't buy the notion that allowing gays to be married somehow encourages others to be more lustful or to have more sex. This seems to be a big assumption.

ANd, I have to say again, even if it did, how does this justify banning gay marriage?

Quote:
"As long that it doesn't hurt people its ok?." Or is it that we may hurt ourselves and our families, that should be the question.. We all need to take a good look at ourselves and realise why we debate this and lets humble ourselves to love each other enough to selflessly see the truth in love.


I agree that supporting and promoting stable families and monogamous relationships is a good thing. This could be done through legal means, but some of what you are alluding to would seem to me to be outside the realm of what government can do or should even attempt. Humility is a virtue that can be fostered individually or in a religious setting. I am not sure how the government should be involved in such an endeavor, though.

I am also not sure why any efforts along these lines need to be different for gays than for straights. Humility, to the extent it is a good thing, would apply to both groups, would it not?

Quote:
We should pull down the social wall of only giving gay people two choices. Your gay or your not. Lets have that 3rd choice for them to choose, not us. My point is that its when we see the affects of being gay do we see whether gay marriage affects family values.


I am not following you here. Gays do not choose to be gay any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual. All the evidence indicates orientation is not a conscious choice for the huge, huge majority of people, including most of those who self-identify as gay. I also am not sure what you mean by "us" choosing.

On your last sentence, I'll again ask for specifics. What do you mean by family values? What effects do you see of allowing gay marriage on these values?
Back to top
View user's profile   
Faith Seeking Understandi Offline
Student
Joined: 25 Feb 2011
Total posts: 23
Age: 40
Gender: Male

218.87 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 103: Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:53 am   Reply

Thanks for your reply. Its good to see that people have an opportunity to talk about this topic freely and with people who has spent time looking into this social concern. But i think that we are slightly on two different topics. I thought it was a topic on the affect of traditional values so what i tryed to discern is what is traditional values. Not on the topic of whether it is right for gay people to get married.

Personally as being a Christian i believe that marriage has more a cultural concern than it has with family values. They do both intertwine but marriage is more cultural. When we look into culture we see that culture has an element of time and place and contains differing social elements. Today to be a true Christian who maintains celibacy and considers the covernant of marriage as being an act of self sacrifical worship, which expresses my utmost love to God, while having placed my future hope for marriage 2nd below God, puts marriage socially and culturally as one of importance. Today many westerners say that they are Christians but really their not. Westerners place Christianity as part of culture but they act more like Canaanites and other cultures during biblical times than the Israelites. Actually one of the acts of Baal worship was to get drunk and get in touch with the spirits and have orgies and do homosexual acts. Some while even cross dressing. Obviously these are two separate cultures. So in saying when someone from another culture comes and adopts or puts on a cultural act from another culture and then disrespects them by questioning why they carn't is wrong. Also when that culture is mocked for their acts of worship it then can become racial, which can even be regarded as racism towards Christians

In regards to marriage being a contract, i don't like to think that man can put their own spin on things of God, but it was first institutionalized by a Christian culture. Similarly the same can be said by how the Israelites developed their cultural laws and ethics. So as a fairdinkum Christian man i will defend my family and my institution with marriage. Thats family values right there.

In regards to lust affecting both gay and straight people both having that issue is so true and I'm glad that you said that. But what I'm saying is that we do not have the sufficient studies on the developmental aspects of gay people to determine any social or internal attitude that may vary. And a big factor that has affected this at large is the social impact upon the people doing thes studies by enforcing a pro gay feel. It is a bias thought. What i don't understand is that if straight people get picked at inside and out in regards to relationships and themselves as individuals, good and bad, then why don't gay people. Also in regards to the affects of single sex parenting their has been studies on the effects of single people raising kids where they found that it benefits children's development to have both sex's raise that child.

In regards to Pauls statement on lust, the bible says that any lust is no good. What Paul was saying, was to a church who probably had an issue with lust. He says that for them it is better to get married than to be tempted to sin with lust. Lust is never seen as good in the bible and to remain single without lust is a gift. When we get married hopefully love will over rule lust as they are both a matter of heart that are of two extremes.

Overall what i am saying is that i see legal marriage as being different to family values. In regards to family values my gay sister has amazing family values but for her to get married is when she steps onto my side and picks on her brother. And she knows that. Its the same when i go to a gay bar to catch up with her. I know that i would have to respect them, as i do, because i'm on their turf. If i don't like it, i politely go. Its all done in love. And with lust, all i am saying is that we haven't touch the surface in regards to studies, as majority if any at all in an unbiased way and to the indepth manner of heterosexuals. So why not with gay people. I believe that people ignore this issue by jumping the gun and attack Christians on marriage so that they can pass this essential topic. Why not. As a man I've been picked and prodded by science and many ways.

Also with that 3rd choice issue that i have in regards to my sister, what i'm trying to say is that my sister doesn't get the freedom to look into the many differing studies of scientific thought of homosexuality as straight people do as it is heatedly contested. One choice of freedom that it can take away is her making that choice to see whether its ok to be gay or not. Societies ways of ranting and raving is her main influence and of cause when both parties are heated,she will go towards a side that accepts her. And i blame Christians for this as well, which i have firmly put across in bible college myself. Its because of all this that i cannot speak to my sister about my thoughts on her being gay. I want civil discussions into anything that has to do with homosexuality. Its when we calm down on both sides that we can then come up with the true well being of gay people.

I don't have much time to keep typing this message, but thanku for your comments. I may of missed some of your comments but hopefully we can talk some more later. Bible college is starting this year and i become more of a book worm, so hopefully we can catch up soon. Thanku again. God bless.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile   
Faith Seeking Understandi Offline
Student
Joined: 25 Feb 2011
Total posts: 23
Age: 40
Gender: Male

218.87 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 104: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:54 am   Reply

Hi there again. Just got back from class and I'm realizing that i don't have the time to debate so much for the next few months. Sad i know as i absolutely love this forum. But what i will add is random thoughts that has to do with homosexuality which i would love to bring up here as there is some very great minds who i'd appreciate their views.

One is why did the psycology board of America origanly say that it is ok to be gay? I can remember as a child that their were many gay bashings, their were fears that gay people were child molestorers and their were even gay serial killers. What the psycology board of America had to say was that its ok to be gay and that to be gay does not mean that they molest kids and so forth. There was allot of hatred towards gay people. And what the psychology board said worked, but what it did is disregard previous studies on the development of homosexuality as people began to "enforce" the complete opposite perspective without considering the studies already done because of the monstrosities committed against gay people. What happened was that hatred for gays turned into sudden hatred for thinking anything outside of," its ok to be gay."

One great theorist who's name, if i remember correctly, (had Sullivan in it), came up with a view that caters for all thoughts on this topic. Its got to do with introjection and projection and assimilation, in childhood development. When we are children,we look to the same sex. Boys look to their father, superman, batman and so forth in a form of awe. Girls look to their mother, barbie and so forth in a form of awe. Its like i want to be like them because their amazing. What they then naturally do is to begin to try on for size their attributes. A boy jumps off a roof and realizes that he is different. A girl looks to the figure of barbie a see's that its impossible to have those dimensions. Its extreme examples i know but you get the drift. When a boy recognizes that he cannot do what his hero's can do he then moves on to seek out more of who he truly is. And the same goes for woman. Gay people never do identify and assimilate what they truly are as they carnt seem to move on. So as they come to the genital stage of life, they are still looking on in awe with their same sex hero's. For guys its the hunky batman who has this way about him, and for woman its the hot woman who epitomizes womanhood. They then become sexually attracted to the same sex. Thats why a gay person says that they were gay as far back as they remember. What this reveals is an issue of identification and assimilation of ones true self, which may affect how they assimilate other stuff into their life also.

This theory makes perfect sense to me, on the topic of the basic concerns of being gay. The latter stuffs needs more study. But what my concerns is that theories like these that make perfect sense has been pushed under the rug for so long. My sister has the right to look into this and so does every other gay person, and it might explain some of their issues in life. People may rant and rave against these thoughts out of their selfish reasons but truly i do this in love, so why do people hate this. Is it because they don't want to know as this has got to do with lust, which is of a selfish nature.

Now I'm not singling gay people out here, because straight people have allot to answer for, in regards to orgies, adultery and so forth. And what does this have to do with family values? To be sexual in such a way ignores nearly all forms of healthy boundaries. The affects of this comes out in the way people talk and treat others and in so many other ways. (This is also another debate which i don't have time to get into.) So what does this say to our kids. Lots. But I hope that someone steps forward, speaks out, and humbly seek the truth. What would inspire this world for selfless acts of genuine love, is if a group of gay people did truly and honestly sort out the good points and bad points about themselves and make it known. You may save the world from themselves as it might also encourage straight people to do the same.

Thanku for this forum and opportunity to speak out. Good on ya.
Back to top
View user's profile   
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Politics and Religion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11
Facebook
Tweet

 






Barbelo

On The Web | New Kind Church | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter


Lo-Fi Version
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Hosted by Lunarpages.   Produced by Ecodia.
Igloo Theme Release v0.9 Created By: Igloo Inc. and PROX Designs in association with Kazer0 Designs.
Protected by CBACK CrackerTracker
6883 Attacks blocked.