Gay Marriage

[Big J]

I am curious to hear what everyone thinks.

Please don't read too much into the answers.

1-MM, MF, FF should all be legal marriages.
2-MF = Marriage, MM, FF are civil unions.
3-MF = Marriage, MM, FF should not be able to do anything.

(many atheists are rough on polls, always reading more into them than are intended)

For those of you who vote for #3, I really would like to hear why you are against civil unions for gays.

Finally, for anyone who has no clue...a civil union is basically a kind of contract (you are "married" (for lack of a better term) for purposes of the secular government--health benifits, tax breaks, and so forth).

 

[Malohaut]

Hmm. Marriage. Interesting, yet difficult topic. Let me try to answer it this way.


Take a 6 year old girl and a 30 year old man. Should they have intercourse? What about a 4 year old girl? A 2 year old? Should they have their undeveloped organs stimulated prematurely? Let's say a 6 year old is introduced to such practices. How will she view it when she grows up? Will it be a constant craving, or will she have issues?

Such intimacy requires the proper frame of mind and the proper age of consent, and if done at an improper time can be damaging both physically and mentally.

Let's look at another example. Let's say you're driving your thunderbird down the interstate. Oops. You've come to some sort of traffic jam. Must be rush hour traffic. Looks like the vehicle behind you doesn't seem to want to wait. Is that a German Tiger Tank? Now you know that a tank just isn't proper driveware for our public roads now is it? Sure, it can be done, but it would be slow going, would be hard to navigate the off ramps, and imagine what the parking would be like?

In the above two examples, the actions can be performed. And if people wanted to do it bad enough, they would find a way. But just because some people want to do those things doesn't make them appropriate.

Both in the laws of nature and in the design of God, intimacy is a man and a woman. The male is physically and psycologically designed to be a care provider and a protector. The female is physically and psycologically designed to be the caretaker and nurturer. Together, they make a more complete family. Their natures compliment each other and they can more easily take on different aspects of a marriage and a family.

Now whenever you put two males or two females together, yes they can take care of roles and divide responsibilities, but they do not offset each other as naturally, and as such, one must go against their natural design to fulfil the role of the opposite sex.

Now I do admit that sometimes a man and woman of today will have opposite roles: the woman would provide the income while the man takes care of the home. Yet even so, their natural opposite designs allow for unity even in reversed roles.

I ask that you be patient, as its hard to put into words what it is I'm trying to say. But hopefully you can get a vague idea of my point and maybe someone can elaborate for me.


Besides, I'd like for you to read and consider a scripture that might explain why physical intimacies are the way they are:

Romans 1 : 21 - 27 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


So anyway, that's my 2 cents on the matter.

 

[mpty]

Quote[/b] ]Romans 1 : 21 - 27

Yep. -It's continued today...

*frown*

 

[CCGR]

Homesexual relationships will exist, no matter what. I have no problem with civil union between them but don't ruin the sanctity of marriage.

 

[MaxX]

As I said before, I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do, it's their world and they'll do what they like. I'm looking foward to a better place.

 

[Hquest]

We can see how homosexuality has caused a split in the church when a practising gay bishop was ordained a month ago. Homosexuality, I believe is a wrong, but no worse than any other sin.
I have a friend who is a non-practising homosexual, but remains celibate and unmarried because of his christian faith.

 

[Pelagrin]

Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Nov. 21 2003,8:39)]Homesexual relationships will exist, no matter what. I have no problem with civil union between them but don't ruin the sanctity of marriage.

civil union == marriage (by another name)

They may not be 100% exactally the same, but regarding the sanctity of marriage being ruined...I'd say its too late.

To quote shakespear:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[CCGR]

yeah I misinterpreted civil union, I know they will live together etc, no stopping it. I son't support marriage, another thing to ponder is should they adopt kids? That's scary...

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Nov. 24 2003,7:52)]another thing to ponder is should they adopt kids?  That's scary...

Gays already do adopt kids.

I wanted to hear people's reasons why they opposed a civil union.  

To put it another way, gays already do get married. I know a few that have gotten married.  Honestly, there are 2 components to marriage...the religious/social part and the civil law part.  Which part makes "marriage" marriage?  If someone goes to the county courthouse and gets married before a justice of the peace, are they married?

Bottom line, the first part (religious/social) is going to happen no matter what.  Gays are just pushing for the legal part (like a civil union) because they want tax breaks, being on their "spouse's" insurance, and such.

Just to give everybody else something to ponder...many of the same arguments that I have heard [elsewhere opposing gay unions (civil or full marriage)] were put forward opposing interracial marriages.  (No one here does that, do they?  Or are there some BJU alumni here?)

 

[Avesther]

Well, as a Christian this is what I believe:

1. God sanctified marriage as one man and one women. This is the religious component.

2. God is also the head of the state. Even if the state does not want God there. See point one about what God sanctified as marriage. This is the social component.

The problem is, that the church has allowed the marriage and the authoritiy of marriage be seperated. What is left is now a relative term of marriage. Today, gays. (hypothetical) Tomorrow 50 year old men with 2 month old babies. And if you think that is disgusting and should not be allowed, then by what authority are you not allowing 50 year olds to not have their way with 2 month olds?

 

[MaxX]

No one's. Did Lot try to force everyone in Sodom to morality? No. They had gone to far. The only thing he could do was to find any God-fearing men left (which there were none of) and get them out before it was destroyed.

I think christians would be wise to follow that example.

 

[Avesther]

I think as Christians, we are called to proclaim the coming of the Lords' kingdom and the only way to enter it is through Jesus, as our saviour.

And if they choose to ignore the proclaimation, well, then so be it.

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Nov. 25 2003,12:12)]Well, as a Christian this is what I believe:

1.  God sanctified marriage as one man and one women.  This is the religious component.

2.  God is also the head of the state.  Even if the state does not want God there.  See point one about what God sanctified as marriage.  This is the social component.

The problem is, that the church has allowed the marriage and the authoritiy of marriage be seperated.  What is left is now a relative term of marriage.  Today, gays. (hypothetical) Tomorrow 50 year old men with 2 month old babies.  And if you think that is disgusting and should not be allowed, then by what authority are you not allowing 50 year olds to not have their way with 2 month olds?

Thank you, GP. (I don't agree with the slipperry slope that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia. That is wrong because of lack of ability to consent.)

I admire you for having the guts to take a stand.

 

[Atown]

well my personal veiw and opinion is to gather up all the homos and put them (no women included) in city, county, or watever u wanna call it and put a 15 foot wall alll around this area and wire it with explosives so noone can get out and in 40-50 years they all be dead, either that or we can nuke em all but the previous sugestion is more humane.

 

[Zero Hotz]

man and woman only any other thing is bad sinful and disgusting

 

[4t0p]

Quote[/b] (Atown @ Nov. 25 2003,2:36)]well my personal veiw and opinion is to gather up all the homos and put them (no women included) in city, county, or watever u wanna call it and put a 15 foot wall alll around this area and wire it with explosives so noone can get out and in 40-50 years they all be dead, either that or we can nuke em all but the previous sugestion is more humane.

As nice as your view point is, the idea of 'nuking' ppl that you disagree with their life choices is somewhat less appealing and in fact scary to me, I mean while we're nuking the homosexuals let's just get everyone that isn't Christian in a line and we'll shoot them ... heck let's shoot some of our fellow Christians too just for good measure -.-

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] (Atown @ Nov. 25 2003,3:36)]well my personal veiw and opinion is to gather up all the homos and put them (no women included) in city, county, or watever u wanna call it and put a 15 foot wall alll around this area and wire it with explosives so noone can get out and in 40-50 years they all be dead, either that or we can nuke em all but the previous sugestion is more humane.

I could be wrong but wasent Billy Grahm asked what he would do if his son was gay, in which he replied I would love him all the more because he would need it? Or somthing like that. We as christians as hard as it can be are to love everyone not go on a killing spree. We must love all and do what we can to lead them to Yeshua. Why would you not include women?

 

[Avesther]

BigJ,

It is my hope, that the slippery slope to pedophilia, is averted.  But there is no prancing around the truth of my statement.  Albeit rather extreme, a more milder, acceptable form is no doubt around the corner.

For instance, many third world countries will not prosecute those who practice pedophillia, such as South Africa.  Recent cases there show that judges are more then willing to through out those cases because there is a very strong believe that you can not get aids, or even cure it, if you have sex with children.  There is a case (I am sorry, I can't find the link right now, but I have posted it to this board over a year ago) where by a gang of some 16 men raped a 3 year old girl and the judge threw out the case.  It wasn't thrown out because it was an abomination, rather, because of the very heavy set belief that you can not get aids this way.

And although I understand completely, that is a third world country we are talking about.  In Canada, my foresaken home country, there is pressure to decrease the age of sexual consent from 14 to 12.  If this were to happen, why stop at 12, how about 10? 8? 6? or 3?  Why not at any age?  Who is stop it?  And to make matters worse, the group putting pressure on the Canadian government to push through the same sex marriage bills is the same group pushing for a reduced age consent and a bunch of other crud.

They have been doing this for about 20 years, maybe more.  But, I haven't been into Canadian politics for even that long.  Now 20 years ago people were say, oh no, it will never happen in regards to the gay marriage issue.  Now those same people are saying bring it on, its only fair and equitable.  Who nows, the same people saying "hey no, to pedophilia" today, may well be the champions of that cause in 20 years.

I do believe that society as whole has rejected the authority behind the moral standards of the bible.  Sure, it can be said that if all were taught good morals, and lived by such, our society would be much better.  But in that society, the definition of what is morally acceptable would have to be decided upon.  Certainly, all can agree that stealing is wrong and aught not be allowed.  If we are a freak of nature (and by definition of evolution, we are nothing more than a random roll of the perferbial die, hence a simple freak of nature), we should logically look back to that nature from whence we came and determine what it considers morally acceptable.  In said nature, we find all kinds of stealing going on.  It is survival of the fittest and if you can not fight for your food, mate or claim to land and subsequently suceed in that battle, then you shall starve, not get your seed into the next generation or have no place to live.

So, is stealling morally wrong in nature?  Appearantly not.  So, then how does our community determine what will be morally acceptable?  And here we now have quite a conundrum.

Can we as humans, evolved from a common ancestory with other animals found in the enviroment, have also created a moral fabric of what is right and what is wrong?

I think it is not possible, and quite inconceivable to have done so.  If survival of the fittest is the driving force behind our evolution, right down to our molecular and DNA level, then our outward actions would also align themselves to survival of the fittest.  Stealing and murder would be quite acceptable.

Somehow I am digressing.  grrr.  Excuse me please, but I digress only to make a point.  And that point is, that if we accept that God is the authority behind the moral fabric of our society and that God has laid out, in absolute terms, what is right and what is wrong, then we certainly can explain why we see items such as stealing and murder as wrong.

But, if we reject God, and\or Gods authority behind the absolute morality in the Bible, then what is the expected result?  I say we should expect relative morality based on how we feel.  A mentallity of "so long as their actions don't affect me, then it is okay" leads to complacency.  Complacency on trivial matters leads to complacency on matters that are much more significant.

I know in Canada, the whole gay marriage movement really started with a simple request to be voluntarily acknowledged by governments.  They received it.   Soon, gay pride parades poped up through out Canada.  And when a mayor of a city said "No" to having a parade, the movement demanded legislated achnowledgement.  They received it, it was only fair after all.  Just because Calgary doesn't have a hetro pride parade, I guess that means gays require more recognition.  That lead to the government giving homosexual common law unions equal tax treatement.  Its only fair, they do after all meet the Canadian requirement in that they have cohabitated for 6 months together.  (Watch out roommates in college, you might be deemed homosexual in accordance with the income tax act.)  And now, well, the gay rights movement has special days, equal tax status, legislated recognitions, the next step, logically, and really, its not that big of a step when you think about it, is the right to be lawfully married.

And remember, at least in Canada (I honestly do not know about how it is in the USA), the people pushing for small victories in the gay marriage, which is now on the verge of seeing its true agenda come to fullfillment, are the same people pushing to lower the sexual consent age.

Like I said earlier, small victorys, 12 today, 10 tommorrow, 8 isn't that big of a step is it?  Hey, children under 5 don't have reasoning skills yet, why should they be protected under a law they don't understand?  Although, I would love to continue to ramble, let me leave you with this.  The governments and courts are succeeding, with small victories, in removing the parents right to bring up their own children as they sit fit.

I have been in a struggle with my sons school over my right to raise my child without their interference.  Without getting into details, I see first hand how fast the institutions that were set up to protect our rights are quickly destroying them to serve some sick, unknown purpose, I am sure.

God Bless you all, especially if you actually read this far and understood it.

!!!Peace out!!!!

 

[Grand Master]

Suvival of the fittest doesn't necessarily refer to individuals. It has more to do with passing on genes that will help the species to survive, not the individual. I hope you can see that co-operation and helpfulness would be beneficial to the human species, helping it to survive. I think it could easily be argued that morality could have evolutionary origins.

 

[Kidan]

but at the same time, if you believe in evolution, then homosexuality flies in the face of that. or is it just that no homosexuals are fit to survive? BTW how can survival of the fittest NOT refer to individuals. YEs I know it's survival of the fittest of the species, but those fittest are the individuals. besides haven't they done away with the survival of the fittest and gone to a more bell-curve evolution theory now?

but in response as well, the slope from homosexuality to pedophilia is not that long or steep. We already have fun groups usch as NAMBLA which are direct offshoots of the homosexual movement.