Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Angel]

bluethread,

This is more of a personal question but it's relevant to this debate because personal values can influence throught for the good or bad. What's your view on gays being together in a relationship and having sex. Do you consider this moral or immoral? Are you a Christian?

I ask these questions because you seem to be arguing like you're on the sideline or something. You seem reluctant to offer your view on gay marriage from a 'moral' aspect. From my experience, some people who don't reveal this do so because they don't want to be looked at as hiding behind their religion or opposing gay marriage based on religion, eventhough that is the case, SOMEtimes.

As a Christian, I was against gay marriage on moral grounds, but I readily admitted it was only because of my religion and not for real legal or rational/evidenced reasons.

I am not speaking in general but specifically about gay sex and marriage. Under your belief system ( on this page, post #233 you called it "Adonai's way") that gay sex is wrong? You mentioned some relationships MAY not be and this again shows your reluctance to answer a question in a straightforward manner. Do you have something to hide here that plays into my point of SOME Bible believers not wanting to admit the religious aspect for their opposition of gay marriage? Would Adonai say gay sex MAY not be accepted?

There is no provision for gay marrage in the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is among Adonai's ways. Any reluctance I have is based on the fact that people tend to judge things based on their prospective, rather than taking the time to examine people's beliefs in context. The reference to the term unclean as a "tribal taboo" is a case in point.

So your position on gay marriage/sex involves religious reasons. Thank you for being honest.

[bluethread]

Edited for proper nesting below.

[bluethread]

There is no provision for gay marrage in the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is among Adonai's ways. Any reluctance I have is based on the fact that people tend to judge things based on their prospective, rather than taking the time to examine people's beliefs in context. The reference to the term unclean as a "tribal taboo" is a case in point.

So your position on gay marriage/sex involves religious reasons. Thank you for being honest.

The one I have presented just recently, yes. However, before this I was seeking to find a position that is consistant with regard to jurisprudence in the USA, in accordance with parameters set out by autodidact. Presenting my religious views, would have been irrelevant, that is why I was reluctant to state them. As I said at the outset, I was attempting to set aside my bias and examine the issue based on reason and legal precident.

[Angel]

There is no provision for gay marrage in the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is among Adonai's ways. Any reluctance I have is based on the fact that people tend to judge things based on their prospective, rather than taking the time to examine people's beliefs in context. The reference to the term unclean as a "tribal taboo" is a case in point.

So your position on gay marriage/sex involves religious reasons. Thank you for being honest.

The one I have presented just recently, yes. However, before this I was seeking to find a position that is consistant with regard to jurisprudence in the USA, in accordance with parameters set out by autodidact. Presenting my religious views, would have been irrelevant, that is why I was reluctant to state them. As I said at the outset, I was attempting to set aside my bias and examine the issue based on reason and legal precident.

Before what, your postings here or before your biblical beliefs? If you held your same bible beliefs before your postings here then your point is irrelevant about how you started out your posts here. I find that religious belief is a factor on if people agree with gay marriage/sex. I don't see how someone can claim to adhere to a system that opposes gay marriage and then claim that that it did not influence their beliefs on the issue.

[bluethread]

Before what, your postings here or before your biblical beliefs? If you held your same bible beliefs before your postings here then your point is irrelevant about how you started out your posts here. I find that religious belief is a factor on if people agree with gay marriage/sex. I don't see how someone can claim to adhere to a system that opposes gay marriage and then claim that that it did not influence their beliefs on the issue.

Before your specific iquiries. The discussion prior to this point centered around governmental recognition of marrage, not the definition of marrage in general. I began by recogizing that governmental recognition of marrage was the primary focus of this thread. I then sought to define the terms, but that proved to tedious for some on this thread. Therefore, I settled on looking at case law. Since this is all related to secular jurisprudence, any referrence to the Scriptures would have been seen as irrelavant at best. In fact, even some of the things related to legislating marrage in general, but not directly connected with the 14th amandment defense of homosexual marrage were seen as having no relavance. I am not going to waste time in areas where there is no chance of finding a point of agreement. No use in beating a dead horse, as they say.

[Angel]

Before what, your postings here or before your biblical beliefs? If you held your same bible beliefs before your postings here then your point is irrelevant about how you started out your posts here. I find that religious belief is a factor on if people agree with gay marriage/sex. I don't see how someone can claim to adhere to a system that opposes gay marriage and then claim that that it did not influence their beliefs on the issue.

Before your specific iquiries. The discussion prior to this point centered around governmental recognition of marrage, not the definition of marrage in general. I began by recogizing that governmental recognition of marrage was the primary focus of this thread. I then sought to define the terms, but that proved to tedious for some on this thread. Therefore, I settled on looking at case law. Since this is all related to secular jurisprudence, any referrence to the Scriptures would have been seen as irrelavant at best. In fact, even some of the things related to legislating marrage in general, but not directly connected with the 14th amandment defense of homosexual marrage were seen as having no relavance. I am not going to waste time in areas where there is no chance of finding a point of agreement. No use in beating a dead horse, as they say.

NOthing that you've said here takes away from my point of RELIGION being one reason why some oppose gay sex and marriage.

If you read the topic post (post #1 of this thread) you'd see it isn't just limited to 'legal' reasons. The topic is a general one asking about reasons why people see gay marriage as right or wrong. I started a new discussion within that topic which has to do with religious belief. From there I saw some reluctance from you to even reveal your religious position after I CLEARLY made it known that I'm looking for your RELIGIOUS standpoint. Other than wanting to appear that you're going by science and/or logic and not just religion, I can only speculate why else people would want to hide or disguise their religious reasons for opposing gay sex/marriage. So far you've admitted that your opposition to gay sex/marriage does involve religious reasons. I see no harm in making that known so that way people can see some of the things that influence or that are part of your beliefs.

[bluethread]

NOthing that you've said here takes away from my point of RELIGION being one reason why some oppose gay sex and marriage.

If you read the topic post (post #1 of this thread) you'd see it isn't just limited to 'legal' reasons. The topic is a general one asking about reasons why people see gay marriage as right or wrong. I started a new discussion within that topic which has to do with religious belief. From there I saw some reluctance from you to even reveal your religious position after I CLEARLY made it known that I'm looking for your RELIGIOUS standpoint. Other than wanting to appear that you're going by science and/or logic and not just religion, I can only speculate why else people would want to hide or disguise their religious reasons for opposing gay sex/marriage. So far you've admitted that your opposition to gay sex/marriage does involve religious reasons. I see no harm in making that known so that way people can see some of the things that influence or that are part of your beliefs.

I didn't mean to offend you. However, I was in a complicated discussion with autodidact and others regarding how one determines when a relationship should be recognized as a marrage for legal purposes and not about my beliefs. One reason why one would not disclose religious reasons for any opposition one might have for something is because some presume religious views make one closed off to discussions that are not based on religion. This is not necessarily the case of course and bias is not limited to those with religious views. This makes it difficult to investgate something properly. Therefore, I deemed it best to accept the limitation of the discussion to legal marrage in accordance with autodidact's wishes.

At the end of that discussion, given the seeming hostility to my inquiries, I was reluctant to give an unqualified statement of my personal belief system, lest it be presumed that everything that had proceeded that was anything other than an examination of whether or not a secular government should recognize homosexual marrage. Now, if you wish to discuss marrage in my belief system. I can do that.

[Autodidact]

NOthing that you've said here takes away from my point of RELIGION being one reason why some oppose gay sex and marriage.

If you read the topic post (post #1 of this thread) you'd see it isn't just limited to 'legal' reasons. The topic is a general one asking about reasons why people see gay marriage as right or wrong. I started a new discussion within that topic which has to do with religious belief. From there I saw some reluctance from you to even reveal your religious position after I CLEARLY made it known that I'm looking for your RELIGIOUS standpoint. Other than wanting to appear that you're going by science and/or logic and not just religion, I can only speculate why else people would want to hide or disguise their religious reasons for opposing gay sex/marriage. So far you've admitted that your opposition to gay sex/marriage does involve religious reasons. I see no harm in making that known so that way people can see some of the things that influence or that are part of your beliefs.

I didn't mean to offend you. However, I was in a complicated discussion with autodidact and others regarding how one determines when a relationship should be recognized as a marrage for legal purposes and not about my beliefs. One reason why one would not disclose religious reasons for any opposition one might have for something is because some presume religious views make one closed off to discussions that are not based on religion. This is not necessarily the case of course and bias is not limited to those with religious views. This makes it difficult to investgate something properly. Therefore, I deemed it best to accept the limitation of the discussion to legal marrage in accordance with autodidact's wishes.

At the end of that discussion, given the seeming hostility to my inquiries, I was reluctant to give an unqualified statement of my personal belief system, lest it be presumed that everything that had proceeded that was anything other than an examination of whether or not a secular government should recognize homosexual marrage. Now, if you wish to discuss marrage in my belief system. I can do that.

It's odd that you perceive disagreement as hostility, given that this is a debate forum. You know, the purpose is to debate. Nothing hostile about it.

[bluethread]

At the end of that discussion, given the seeming hostility to my inquiries, I was reluctant to give an unqualified statement of my personal belief system, lest it be presumed that everything that had proceeded that was anything other than an examination of whether or not a secular government should recognize homosexual marrage. Now, if you wish to discuss marrage in my belief system. I can do that.

It's odd that you perceive disagreement as hostility, given that this is a debate forum. You know, the purpose is to debate. Nothing hostile about it.

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

Angel, do you really require me to not only ignore autodidacts preferences in limiting the scope of the discussion but also insist that homosexual marrage be judged only on my personal preferences?

[Autodidact]

At the end of that discussion, given the seeming hostility to my inquiries, I was reluctant to give an unqualified statement of my personal belief system, lest it be presumed that everything that had proceeded that was anything other than an examination of whether or not a secular government should recognize homosexual marrage. Now, if you wish to discuss marrage in my belief system. I can do that.

It's odd that you perceive disagreement as hostility, given that this is a debate forum. You know, the purpose is to debate. Nothing hostile about it.

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

Angel, do you really require me to not only ignore autodidacts preferences in limiting the scope of the discussion but also insist that homosexual marrage be judged only on my personal preferences?

I haven't refused anything. On the contrary, over and over again I've invited you to examine anything you like. Further, I've gone down blind alleys and explored irrelevant minutae with you for page after page,n one of which has shed light on the subject. Where your logic was faulty, I showed it. Where your understanding of the constitution was erroneous, I explained your error. Here at RF we don't call that hostility. We call it debate, which is why we're here. If you don't enjoy debate, and find disagreement to be hostile, this may not be the most appropriate forum for you.