marriage rights to homosexuals,

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

.... because it will prevent a lot of the economic and sexual exploitation that still prevails in the homosexual community, but has been reduced in the heterosexual community. I'm a firm supporter of marriage, or at least legalized co-habitation, which prevents the wealthy and powerful using and abusing sexual partners for a while, then throwing them out when they get bored with no financial compensation. If you say you love someone, you should put your money where your mouth is (no sexual innuendo intended) :auto

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

The Bible clearly states Gods opinion on this. The word used is "abomination".....I think that's pretty clear.

With this in mind, anyone who believes in God and/or the Bible does not have a choice in this matter...the decision has already been made.

Gay marriages? Fine.....but if they call themselves Christians it's a bad joke. Whether or not a government decides to recognize them or not is not as big an issue as compared to whether or not we accept them. History has shown time and again that you cannot legislate morality. Since this (the US) is a predominately Christian country (read the Constitution and memoirs of the founding fathers if you have any doubts), I don't believe these "marriages" should be recognized. If money is the issue, give the same tax breaks for "co-habitization" with "significant others".

BTW, has anyone noticed the prolific use of "politically correct" terms in discusions along these lines? Hmmmm.

bbchris

This is a difficult one for me to side on. I have gay/lesbian friends who are obviously in love and have relationships. I love to see people happy. I think once you OK same-sex marriages, you OK children in that condition. It definitely is a moral issue. I think everyone has a right to love. I'm Catholic so I have trouble accepting it's an evil sin. I wonder why God thinks that. Doesn't God also say 'masturbation' is a sin?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

The Bible does not take a stand one way or the other on masturbation....though the OT refers to certain things surrounding it. (It is referred to as "spilling your seed", for men, in the King James version.)

BTW, beastiality falls into the same camp as homosexuality.....both being referred to as "an abomination".

Many consider AIDS to be a "judgement" on a sexually promiscuous society. (Please note that this does not mean that anybody but God passed this supposed "judgement".) Is it a coincidence that AIDS has hit the homosexual populace particularly hard? I don't think so....there are good statistical reasons for it. Infidelity and the destruction of the family unit go hand in hand as well. There are a great many clear-cut reasons why same-sex monogamy without adultry is the way to go for the long-term survival of our culture....not to mention our species!

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Genesis 38:8-10

Quote:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

So because Onan didn't want to impregnate his sister-in-law, God strikes him dead.

Evidently, Onan disobeyed a direct order. Thus it could readily be argued that it is not the act of Ciotus Interruptus Onan performs on his sister-in-law itself that invokes the creators anger, but his refusal to follow a specific order.

I'd be pretty pissed too.

...........................................................

Leviticus 20:13

Quote:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death

It seems lesbians are out of the loop then. :laugh

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

About Lesbians you may be right. Your first quote could be considered misleading.

In those days, it was considered a proper course of action to take on your brothers wife if something should happen to him...the idea being that you could continue his part of the family (so to speak). It was something you did in a way similar to taking care of an elderly relative today. So, I believe God viewed what he did as not fulfilling his social/moral requirement and cheating his brother....though only God knows for sure.

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

.... loony Christian hypocrisy. Dropping bombs on civilians is OK, but pulling your todger is a mortal sin. Sometimes I think we haven't progressed at all, not one little bit, since the 17th century.

I wonder how many sins the average spotty teenager commits from the early teen years up to the first shag? Enough to condemn them all to the fiery furnace for all eternity, no doubt .......

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

I personally believe that it's awfully arrogant of anyone to believe the government has some power to consecrate relationships. I personally believe that straight marriage should be abolished in the traditional sense. If people want to have a ceremony in church, great, even gay people do that now. As far as any kind of individual partnerships for legal purposes, why should that only extend to people of opposite genders?

And what is gender? What constitutes a 'male' or 'female'. We can look at chromosomes and say XX is female, XY is male. But what about the small segment of the society that is XXY, or XYY? What are they? And what happens with sex changes? Legally, once the sex reassignment is done, legally your gender changes as well, so then a woman (once a man) can now get married to a man. Hmmm.

There was a time not that long ago where the majority of Americans thought that interracial marriage was an abomination and many used the Bible to justify their position. Such an approach now seems idiotic.

Gay people should be able to enter into any legally binding agreements with any other person they choose to, and if marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people, get rid of the word marriage and call it a mutally agreed upon partnership and leave consecration of vows to religious institutions.

As far as concerns over children, many many gay people already have kids, not a thing to be done about that, and just like straight people, some are great parents, some are not great parents, but in this country reproductive rights are pretty cut and dried with or without government sanctioned marriages.

Read all about ME!

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

"I personally believe that it's awfully arrogant of anyone to believe the government has some power to consecrate relationships."

I completely agree.....they have nothing to do with the relationship aspect of it.

"I personally believe that straight marriage should be abolished in the traditional sense."

Now I don't get this one at all. First you say the government has nothing to do with it, then you say it should be abolished? Most people would assume you mean that it is the government that should do the abolishing. With that in mind, you first say it is none of the governments business, then you say the government should abolish it. Please clarify.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

"There was a time not that long ago where the majority of Americans thought that interracial marriage was an abomination and many used the Bible to justify their position. Such an approach now seems idiotic."

The Bible never uses the word "abomination" for this. It simply states that it should be avoided. There is a lot of strife generated within families due to this....I believe that this is the point that was being made. Strife is not a good thing.

Reading much of this is enlightening to me. It seems there are many who don't understand the Bible, that think they do. I suggest some reading is in order!

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

I don't think it's contradictory to say that the government has no place in the establishment of relationships and therefore marriage should be abolished. That seems to make sense to me. If you don't think that the government has any business in personal relationships then why is the government in the business of sanctioning marriages? It is a values statement that is arrogant, that one way of life is inherently better and therefore deserves a greater legal standing than the other. That's why this discussion exists, because some people want to have a benefit due to their 'superior' way of living. That seems goofy to me. Abolish it all. Don't sanction any personal relationship through the government ever. If we took that route, we wouldn't be needing this conversation.

As far as my Biblical references, I didn't say that the Bible said that interracial marriage was an abomination, but that many people used the Bible as a basis for interracial marriage as something that should remain illegal. And I'm guessing that it wouldn't be real difficult to find people who used the word 'abomination' at those times (and even now) to describe how they felt about interracial marriages.

I personally don't care a lick what the Bible says about homosexuality, I'm not a Christian, so those values are of no consequence to me or my family. If a Christian feels that homosexuality is an 'abomination' because the Bible says so, then I suggest they not be gay.

Read all about ME!

LarreeMP3 · Joined: 12 Apr 2002 Posts: 1935

The government must give same sex couples all rights of marriage by law. At the same time, the government must not try to force religeous institutions to accept and perform religeous same-sex marriage ceremonies.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Marriage was a religious institution long before this country even existed. This government, at some point, decided to recognize this. No Christian institution recognizes same sex marriages.....or they are not Christian. This predominantly Christian government, therefore, has no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages.

The can still get "married" if they like, but it's too late for the gays to be "grandfathered" in.

I was a little surprised at what you said Larree.....I thought you were Jewish. Nothing in the OT about same-sex marriages.

LarreeMP3 · Joined: 12 Apr 2002 Posts: 1935

Quote:
"I thought you were Jewish. Nothing in the OT about same-sex marriages."

I am Jewish. And Jews don't follow the "OT" because there is no "OT" according to Jewish faith.

And if you READ what I wrote again, you will see that there is no contradiction! I am calling for seperation of church and state in regards to this issue!