I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[56FordGuy]

Would most heterosexuals agree that homosexual relations are unnatural and sexually deviant? If not, then I guess it would be ok to have sexual relations with animals, and be able to marry animals.

That's quite a stretch there, don't you think? I mean, I know they say guys are dogs, but your interpretation seems a bit literal!

So, how many wives do you have? I mean, since there were Biblical characters with multiple wives that's cool, right?. And who was it that got seduced by one of his daughters? Lot, I believe?

Edited September 4, 2012 by 56FordGuy

[Guest ThePunisher]

That's quite a stretch there, don't you think? I mean, I know they say guys are dogs, but your interpretation seems a bit literal!

Unnatural is unnatural. There's no way around it.

[Smith]

All the benefits of marriage can be had through civil unions, living trust, wills, etc. As far as insurance is concerned ether problem with that is that family policies are built around the idea of child producing families. I'm still against the government writing policies based on socio political ideology.

The biggest impact reason I'm against gay marriage, outside of the moral and definition reasons already mentioned, is that the state well be dictating to the church what it can and can't believe and hold to as far as theology and practice. I believe that if it is made legal there will be "new" civil rights and discrimination suits against churches and pastors who do not acknowledge or accept the practice. If it its recognized as a right, them it has to be protected by the government and that is done through the legal system. You will then have the very thing strickj was arguing so adamantly against. The starte, in essence, would become the religious author of theology and practice. Some will say that is far fetched, but I always thought it was far fetched that the generation that lived thorough the Cold War would elect a a socialist President. Just look at what Obama Care is threatning to do to hospitals who well not preform abortions.

[56FordGuy]

It occurs commonly in animals. Doesn't get much more natural than nature. Besides, the argument from most gay folks is that it is natural to them.

Ah, I found it. Abijah had 14 wives in 2nd Chronicles 13:21, and Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian as a second wife in Genesis 25:1. There are others, but thos are the first two that I found.

[Chucktshoes]

It occurs commonly in animals. Doesn't get much more natural than nature. Besides, the argument from most gay folks is that it is natural to them.

Ah, I found it. Abijah had 14 wives in 2nd Chronicles 13:21, and Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian as a second wife in Genesis 25:1. There are others, but thos are the first two that I found.

Wait until you get to King Solomon!

[G27]

Unnatural is unnatural. There's no way around it.

So your suggestion is that homosexual behaviors do not exist in nature (outside of humans)?

Edited September 4, 2012 by crimsonaudio

[Moped]

The easy way around all this is for Government bodies to recognize only Civil Unions, after a certain date. Governmental bodies would no longer issue Marriage Licenses. Rather a Civil Union Contract would be drawn up between the people in the relationship and would be the legal defining document for benefits, adoption, divorce, inheritance, etc. If couples wish to go further and have the recognized religious organization of their choice, marry them, then they may do that. Let religious institutions recognize "Marriage" and Governmental Bodies recognize Civil Unions, but not Marriage.

All Marriage Licenses issued prior to the "Certain Date" would still be recognized, but as a Civil Union.

[G27]

God's standards of a man and woman in marriage is absolutely satisfactory with me. If God is against homosexual behavior, then society should adhere to his guidance in this matter, unless of course we're to become a heathen nation.

Well, as others have mentioned, many in the old testament had many wives as well as concubines, so I assume this should be law as well?

Assuming you believe in following God's biblical will as government policy, I would ask you about Deuteronomy 22:22 - should this also be one of our laws?

[TMF]

Unnatural is unnatural. There's no way around it.

The Internet is unnatural. So are antibiotic medicine, birth control, condoms and blow jobs. When the gov tells me that I can't have any of those because it is "unnatural" then you better believe I'm going to be using my rifle against the gov. Especially over the last one.

[Chucktshoes]

The Internet is unnatural. So are antibiotic medicine, birth control, condoms and blow jobs. When the gov tells me that I can't have any of those because it is "unnatural" then you better believe I'm going to be using my rifle against the gov. Especially over the last one.

Here! Here!

[Smith]

The easy way around all this is for Government bodies to recognize only Civil Unions, after a certain date. Governmental bodies would no longer issue Marriage Licenses. Rather a Civil Union Contract would be drawn up between the people in the relationship and would be the legal defining document for benefits, adoption, divorce, inheritance, etc. If couples wish to go further and have the recognized religious organization of their choice, marry them, then they may do that. Let religious institutions recognize "Marriage" and Governmental Bodies recognize Civil Unions, but not Marriage.

All Marriage Licenses issued prior to the "Certain Date" would still be recognized, but as a Civil Union.

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO

As to all the flipant biblical references, it doesn't take a scholar to note that just because the Bible references or accounts for wrong actions is it implied or stated as being condoned. The fact scripture accounts for the imperfections in humanity works towards its credit, not against it. Scripture, properly understood, teaches us to work from imperfection to perfection. It does not assume utopia is attainable or possible in this present life.

[Oh Shoot]

All the benefits of marriage can be had through civil unions, living trust, wills, etc. ..

No,they can't. There is no procedure to make private or public sector pension plans pay off to surviving same sex spouse.

There are no legal documents that will compel the federal government give your social security bennies surviving same sex spouse. Or military benefits, from on base housing to survivor benefits. Or various income tax matters. Section 8 housing stuff. Food stamps. Just a few that spring to mind. I'm sure there are thousands buried in various state and federal programs.

To say none of those should exist is non sequitur, they do, and will continue to. And ever more so, looks like.

- OS

Edited September 4, 2012 by OhShoot

[56FordGuy]

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO

How do two unmarried adults file their taxes jointly? How does one leave their military retirement to the other? How does one become notified in an emergency (thinking car crash, first responders, etc) as next of kin? I agree that a lot of things commonly called 'gay rights' can be accomplished through proper legal paperwork, but it's a stretch to say that's not the real issue. Most gay folks I've talked to don't much care what the church thinks of them, they just want it to leave them alone. The ones that do want church interaction find it in various ways, including a growing number of gay friendly churches.

Dang, OS outposted me.

Edited September 4, 2012 by 56FordGuy

[G27]

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO

As to all the flipant biblical references, it doesn't take a scholar to note that just because the Bible references or accounts for wrong actions is it implied or stated as being condoned. The fact scripture accounts for the imperfections in humanity works towards its credit, not against it. Scripture, properly understood, teaches us to work from imperfection to perfection. It does not assume utopia is attainable or possible in this present life.

So, assuming a 'civil union' was to be legalized (granting all legal benefits of a traditional marriage), allowing all churches to disallow 'gay marriage' if they wish, would you be against this?

I'll never argue that scripture doesn't allow for human imperfections, my questions boil down to this - where do YOU draw the line? Are you wanting a theocracy or a truly liberty-loving government? It sounds like most of those here opposing 'gay marriage' do so because their holy book tells them not to. I caution this line of thinking as that attitude can very well bite you in the butt when the majority believes something different than you do.

Governmental religious tolerance (both ways) is the key to real freedom.

[Guest CCI]

All the benefits of marriage can be had through civil unions, living trust, wills, etc. As far as insurance is concerned ether problem with that is that family policies are built around the idea of child producing families. I'm still against the government writing policies based on socio political ideology.

The biggest impact reason I'm against gay marriage, outside of the moral and definition reasons already mentioned, is that the state well be dictating to the church what it can and can't believe and hold to as far as theology and practice. I believe that if it is made legal there will be "new" civil rights and discrimination suits against churches and pastors who do not acknowledge or accept the practice. If it its recognized as a right, them it has to be protected by the government and that is done through the legal system. You will then have the very thing strickj was arguing so adamantly against. The starte, in essence, would become the religious author of theology and practice. Some will say that is far fetched, but I always thought it was far fetched that the generation that lived thorough the Cold War would elect a a socialist President. Just look at what Obama Care is threatning to do to hospitals who well not preform abortions.

You don't need a church, nor a pastor! Court house and a judge can perform the vows of marriage!

[Moped]

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO

Folks that I know that are gay, could care less what any church thinks. That's not to say there are some out there that are this way though. Rather the ones I know, just want to be treated fairly by society and have the same benefits as straight couples.

And I think it will happen. Being Gay is no problem to my kid's generation. They are very open and accepting about it in High School now. Another hurtle was crossed when Gays were accepted into the Military. It may not happen overnight, but within the next 10-20 years, I believe it will.

[Oh Shoot]

... If God is against homosexual behavior, then society should adhere to his guidance in this matter, unless of course we're to become a heathen nation.

Hey, I'm proud to be an American Heathen.

Seriously, I find the suggestion that this country should legislate based on anyone's interpretation of "god's will" to be quite repugnant.

Perhaps we should harken back to the days of our heritage when the King of England was also the head of the Church, and the Pope was his veep.

- OS

Edited September 4, 2012 by OhShoot

[strickj]

Perhaps we should harken back to the days of our heritage when the King of England was also the head of the Church.

- OS

First thing this land fought and died for. First thing the Founders put down in ink. Before that little gun thing, even. Shame it's ignored. You'd think the Constitution party would be.... well, Constitutional.

Edited September 4, 2012 by strickj

[Smith]

Couple problems. 1 tax "breaks" and the like were established to support the traditional family as it had been understood was the core of society by providing propagation and a solid traditional family would support and govern itself. Thus relieving the burden on the governments social programs. They've turned that on its head so essentially that's thrown out the window. 2 with the above idea, the state "partnered" with the church to support marriage through various economic incentives. However, as had been stated, that is now turning against that idea.

If be fine if the government got out of marriage altogether. Since it is a religious institution to begin with. I don't see that happening, so this will come to a reckoning as OS and Mike pointed out. Somebody will be left in the lurch. Sometimes there its not a win-win.

I'd rather a minority miss out than the government to co-pt the church and tyrannically force its will on the vast majority. As the OP referenced about statistics. Again making the stated and church one.

We are in more agreement than disagreement. We are just approaching it from different points.

[Chucktshoes]

You'd think so Strick, but you'd be wrong. You've been talking to the American Taliban.

[strickj]

Derka derka Bakalakadakah

Equika righka to allka.

[Chucktshoes]

Derka derka Bakalakadakah

Equika righka to allka.

If only they would see that when the wish to legislate morality and behavior based upon their religious beliefs, they are acting exactly the same the Taliban. I say this not as an atheist or even a very liberal Christian, but as a reasonably conservative one. The Lord's desires for us must be taken on willingly and happily. Just as the liberals get no credit for charity by using the government's gun to support people by way of social welfare programs, we get no credit for morality by forcing folks to live in a manner in which we approve by legislating Christian morality.

[BigK]

I have strong religious beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage. I also believe that lying, stealing, murder, and many other things are wrong, too. The fact that some of these things are illegal and others are not makes no difference. I'm not against murder because it's illegal. I'm against it because it's wrong based on my Christian upbringing.

That doesn't mean everything I believe is wrong should be illegal and it doesn't mean everything I believe is right should hold the power of law either. If it did, blasphemy would be illegal and being truly repentant would get you out of jail.

So, I believe that gays should be allowed every privilege under the law that I have and that the government should not honor Church marriages. We should all have to get civil unions to appease the government in order to get all the benefits they dole out to get our votes. Likewise, I'll get married in a church, if want all the benefits God doles out.

[G27]

I have strong religious beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage. I also believe that lying, stealing, murder, and many other things are wrong, too. The fact that some of these things are illegal and others are not makes no difference. I'm not against murder because it's illegal. I'm against it because it's wrong based on my Christian upbringing.

That doesn't mean everything I believe is wrong should be illegal and it doesn't mean everything I believe is right should hold the power of law either. If it did, blasphemy would be illegal and being truly repentant would get you out of jail.

So, I believe that gays should be allowed every privilege under the law that I have and that the government should not honor Church marriages. We should all have to get civil unions to appease the government in order to get all the benefits they dole out to get our votes. Likewise, I'll get married in a church, if want all the benefits God doles out.

BIG +1. You said it better than I could have in 100 posts, thanks.

[Links2k]

OK, so, in essence, your argument against gay marriage being recognized by the federal government is that the bible says it's sinful, would you agree with that?

You are applying too much logic to the argument. You risk being accused of asking "gotcha" questions. Seems clear to me. Good job.