There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[userr123]

America was founded upon Christian beliefs. If you stop and think about it, if this nation were to follow the doctrine of Christianity, it would be a much more peaceful and successful nation that it is right now. If you look at the Ten Commandments, you don't even have to be a Christian to believe in those laws. It can almost be considered common sense that if everyone were to follow them, it would solve many of the problems that are occuring.

[r~]

America was founded upon Christian beliefs. If you stop and think about it, if this nation were to follow the doctrine of Christianity, it would be a much more peaceful and successful nation that it is right now.

Love your neighbor as yourself.
All exist with full and equal right of peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness.

Forgive the sins of others as you would have yours forgiven.
Governments are instituted to secure the inalienable right of liberty for all.

Cast not stony Words at other sinners.
No law shall be construed to deny or disparage the self-retained right of liberty for any.

There is no male or female in the spirit of Christianity.
There is no rational reason against same sex marriage.
Only stony Words cast by those marked as Phundies.

I am
ItS
reborn

[micatala]

America was founded upon Christian beliefs.

Although I think a reasonable case can be made for this, and many of the founders were certainly Christian, this country was also founded with the principle of freedom of religion included.

If you stop and think about it, if this nation were to follow the doctrine of Christianity, it would be a much more peaceful and successful nation that it is right now.

Do you mean the government should follow the doctrines or the citizens? I would actually agree that if the citizens followed the teachings of Jesus, especially the ones he identifies as the most important, this could help us to be a more peaceful and successful nation.

However, religious beliefs, at least in our context, are beliefs that people accept and practice voluntarily. It is explicitly unconstitutional to force anyone to accept a particular religious belief or practice against their will.

If you look at the Ten Commandments, you don't even have to be a Christian to believe in those laws.

Maybe you should go through the list again. "You shall worship the Lord God" as a law of the land would be quite unconstitutional. Of the 10, only 2 are commonly enacted as laws (stealing and murder) and you could make the case that the law tacitly recongnizes "honor your father and mother". Lieing is not illegal except in particular circumstances.

Are you really sure you would want to make all 8 of the others the law of the land?



What other Biblical teachings would you make the law of the land? Would it be OK to make Mosaic Law in toto into law? If the 10 commandments, why not the whole thing?


What about Jesus teachings? Should we enforce "the meek shall inherit the earth?" How about "sell all that you own and come and follow me?"


In a society that recognizes religious freedom, it seems to me we should only enact laws which can be justified on the basis of assisting in the good functioning of the society. Murder and stealing thus fit.

Prohibiting gay marriage, in my view, does not as the only justifications I see for such laws are either

1) Purely religious (e.g. the Bible says so) OR
2) Justifications which treat gays unequally or make unfounded assumptions about gays.

In this latter are justifications which have to do with promoting procreation and child-rearing. If we allow heterosexuals to marry and not have kids, or allow the existence of single parents, or allow divorce for heterosexuals, etc., we cannot use the problems these create to justify not allowing gays to marry.



A good test for the reasonableness of a statement about gays or homosexuality is to replace the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' with 'heterosexual' and see if the statement still makes any sense, is rationally supportable, or seems like good public policy.

Ok since you think those verses are non-relevant, I will present more that talk directly to homosexuals.

Leviticus 20:13a "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

Unless you are willing to live by the whole of the Levitical and Deuteronomical laws, then this is irrelevant. This law was all given as one law, described as decrees of the Lord, but it was given specifically to the ancient Hebrews.

This law includes probably of dozens of decrees no thinking person today would consider relevant or binding.

1Corinthians 6:9-11
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Niether the sexually immoral nor idolatoers nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.l

This is speaking to an audience that has voluntarily accepted Christianity.

Why should these teachings apply to the whole of the wider society?

Matthew 19:4-5
"'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'

And yet, the Bible clearly condones polygamy.

I agree, this is a reasonable description of the normative relationship, even the ideal. However, one thing being pointed to as an ideal or norm does not mean that all other alternatives should be banned.

Again, polygamy was condoned in the OT and NT.

Single parents are accepted today. Divorce is legal. Extended families are also legal and arguably very healthy.

This clearly states that marriage is made to be between one man and one woman.

This was addressed specifically to the normative relationships of the day, and was specifically cited to counter the OT teaching on divorce FOR HETEROSEXUALS. It is reading a bit into this to say this says anything about gay marriage.


Now, I am not going to speculate on what Jesus might have thought or said about gay marriage were he here. However, I would be pretty confident he would not support using the civil authorities to force everyone to follow religious doctrines, even doctrines he himself taught.[/u]

[McCulloch]

Homosexuality is not a natural thing; it is a choice that people make and no one is born gay no matter what they say.

Those who actually study nature disagree with you. But no matter, we do not outlaw actions because they are unnatural so your point is irrelevant.

It is a sin and yes, God did give us the freedom to choose, although it does not justify it whatsoever. We (Christians) are supposed to spread the gospel across the world and not watch everyone else crumble under sin right in front of our eyes. It is not right to just stand by and watch a person ruin their life because of bad choices when you know you have the truth and the power by God to change their lives. No where does it say that God allows for homosexuality.

Clearly, your religion is opposed to homosexuality. Again this point is irrelevant since we do not base our laws on anyone's religion.

Ok since you think those verses are non-relevant, I will present more that talk directly to homosexuals.

Leviticus 20:13a [...]
1Corinthians 6:9-11 [...]
Matthew 19:4-5 [...]

This clearly states that marriage is made to be between one man and one woman.

This is a clear case that your religion should have rules regarding marriage to be applied to the members of your religion, similar to the rules other religions may have about dress and diet. There is no basis for imposing the rules of your religion on those who do not share your faith.

America was founded upon Christian beliefs.

No it was not. It was founded on Enlightenment values. For example, the Christian scripture can be used to support the divine right of kings. The USA was founded on the enlightenment principle of the consent of the governed or sovereignty of the people.

If you stop and think about it, if this nation were to follow the doctrine of Christianity, it would be a much more peaceful and successful nation that it is right now.

Well, it would be a much different nation than it is right now.

If you look at the Ten Commandments, you don't even have to be a Christian to believe in those laws.

Which ten are you talking about? Having no other gods? There goes freedom of religion. Keeping the Sabbath? Should we stone the Christians who keep Sunday holy?

[Tuff]

I bet like 20 years ago, many of the same people here voting "yes" would vote no.

The difference? The "pressure" from the Hollywood crowd, and general change in mindset seems to have indirectly persuaded even the religious haters of same sex marriage 2 decades ago, into going along with it.

Just my thought

[flavi0]

"What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals marrying is not Gods will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to fit together sexually. With the natural purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman"why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of"or at least far less opposed to"gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you (John 15:18-19).

from gotquestions.org

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 16 Post 155:

I can't tell if that's an "O" or a "0", so forgive me for the misspelling if it occurs.

History argues against gay marriage.

I've never been much for the "it's always been this way" arguments. Just because history has been one way does not mean we can't change the future.

Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another.

It also recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate, otherwise normal psychological state. Even so, whether some institution or school of thought 'recognizes' something or not is no reason to create and encourage discriminatory policies and laws.

In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children.

I'd like to see these reports, however, your statement alone fails to address homosexual couples who forego children. It also fails to address heterosexual couples who are unable to have children.

Psychology argues against gay marriage.

Please document this claim.

In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to fit together sexually.

Oh please. Homosexuals are otherwise perfectly happy with the way their parts "fit" together.

With the natural purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose.

Again, this fails to address homosexual couples who have no truck with raising children.

Nature argues against gay marriage.

Baloney. That homosexuals exist is "nature". That they wish to enjoy the same rights and benefits others in society have, they are "natural".

Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented?

For one, many oppossed to gay marriage have used some quite hateful language - I point out that FlaviO has not. This statement appears to imply only homosexuals have acted in some untoward manner regarding their opposition. There's been stupid and foul things offered from both sides of this issue.
For another:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I contend when folks speak for, or enact oppressive, discriminatory laws and policies aimed at a particular group, they meet this definition.

Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of"or at least far less opposed to"gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

I don't see it so much as "aggressively pushing" so much as I see it as "standing up and demanding equal treatment under the law".
Also, "civil-union" lacks the prestige and emotional content of "marriage".
We tried "separate but equal"; it didn't work out too well.

The answer, according to the Bible...

Hold up on that car wash gentlemen.
I personally don't need, or require ancient tales to inform my decisions in this, the twenty-first century.

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it.

Please don't try to use the Bible to tell me what I deem "immoral and unnatural".
I contend that what harmless acts folks do in their own privacy is a moral decision only they have a right to.
I further contend that since homosexuals exist, they are by definition "natural", and any use of "unnatural" to describe them or their acts is nothing but opinion on one's part.
These are human-danged-beings, doesn't that count for anything?

The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage.

I contend homosexuals are "normal" to begin with, in that they are my fellow human beings and I refuse to condemn what they do in the privacy of their own homes.
You do seem to imply the best course of action is to allow gay marriage, so that's a start.

The truth is known because God has made it plain.

Horse feathers. Now your getting into positive claims, and I caution the reader here that such claims can't be shown to rise above the level of myth.

The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked.

Alright then; I challenge you to show the Bible is the "word of God".

Given it is admittedly written, printed, distributed, and interpreted by humans, how can we know the Bible is an authoritative "word of God"? I mean, other than "Well see, the Bible says so ri'chere?"

The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible.

IMO, I think a lot of this "vehemence and anger" occurs when religious folks try to oppress folks based on Bronze Age tales. I think a lot of it comes when folks make claims to truth without actually offering any empirical evidence that such claims are the vaunted "truth".

Dang the oppressor! Fear him! Fight him! Let him never know a moment's peace! We are the oppressor's nightmare! We haunt his dreams and his every waking moment! Never let the oppressor rest!

Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book.

I think it is also a natural progression when folks have been forcibly kept silent for vast periods of time. Homosexuals have reached a certain, undefined critical mass and are asserting their claims to personhood, and all that entails.

There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Yes, the Bible does seem to be chock full of insults and derision for those opposed to its claims.
Its adherents often display this same attitude towards those they oppose.

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful.

Can you "clearly and consistently" prove the Bible is the authoritative words of the proposed God? If not, I suggest there is no reason to base modern policy and laws on Bronze Age thinking.

According to the Bible...

You seem fond of quoting the bible. I offer you this quote:

Put up or hush up.

Offer evidence the Bible is the authoritative words of the proposed God, or admit that you base your position on opinion, conjecture, emotion, or a combination thereof.
--------------------------
In summary, all I see is yet another sermon seeking to condemn my fellow human beings based solely on some God's not being cool with someone's otherwise harmless lifestyle.
I contend that until such Biblical claims can be shown to be the actual wants and wishes of the proposed God, there is no reason to adhere to its clearly bigoted message.

(edit cause I notice one of them words mighta run afoul)

[micatala]

"What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals marrying is not Gods will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

In a country where freedom of religion and freedom of association is constitutionally guaranteed, why should we enact Biblical teachings into law?

Furthermore, if you think we should ban gay marriage based on biblical teachings, which other teachings should we also use to inform the creation of laws?

Jesus teaches that a man should not divorce his wife except for marital unfaithfulness. He taught that a man should not marry the divorced women. Would flavi0 suggest we make divorce and remarriage illegal?


The Bible teaches that "you must worship the Lord God alone." Should we make this the law of the land?


Those of us, including myself, who are Christians have taken on this identifying label voluntarily. Each of us, as Christians, is free to define what Christianity means for us. See Romans 14 for example on this point.


On what basis should some Christians decide what other Christians should believe or practice? Furthermore, on what basis should some Christians decide everyone else, Christian or not, must follow their understanding of Christian teaching or particular Christian or biblical teachings tthat they think everyone should follow?

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to fit together sexually. With the natural purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

Even if you had a good case that homosexality was unnatural or somehow not psychologically or emotionally valid, why should these views be given the force of law? You have given no reason why gay marriage should be illegal. We typically only make things illegal when they present significant and immediate danger of harm to others.

Nothing you say here addresses the usual criteria for making things illegal.

[JoeyKnothead]

In a country where freedom of religion and freedom of association is constitutionally guaranteed, why should we enact Biblical teachings into law?

Furthermore, if you think we should ban gay marriage based on biblical teachings, which other teachings should we also use to inform the creation of laws?

Jesus teaches that a man should not divorce his wife except for marital unfaithfulness. He taught that a man should not marry the divorced women. Would flavi0 suggest we make divorce and remarriage illegal?


The Bible teaches that "you must worship the Lord God alone." Should we make this the law of the land?


Those of us, including myself, who are Christians have taken on this identifying label voluntarily. Each of us, as Christians, is free to define what Christianity means for us. See Romans 14 for example on this point.


On what basis should some Christians decide what other Christians should believe or practice? Furthermore, on what basis should some Christians decide everyone else, Christian or not, must follow their understanding of Christian teaching or particular Christian or biblical teachings tthat they think everyone should follow?

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to fit together sexually. With the natural purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

Even if you had a good case that homosexality was unnatural or somehow not psychologically or emotionally valid, why should these views be given the force of law? You have given no reason why gay marriage should be illegal. We typically only make things illegal when they present significant and immediate danger of harm to others.

Nothing you say here addresses the usual criteria for making things illegal.

Post of the year candidate.

I must confess that when I first came here I had a very, very negative opinion of all theists. I know now that "folks is folks" and that some theists are rational, reasonable, "right dang good" human beings.

[East of Eden]

Again this point is irrelevant since we do not base our laws on anyone's religion.

We do base our laws on the will of the people, which even in California is against gay marriage.