toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Psalmist]

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?​

Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Against it.

Same-sex marriage is immoral, it is not natural.​

​

 

[zippy2006]

:think: I appreciate the direction you are headed with your argument. That said, is that what anyone is advocating? Like I mentioned previously, I don't think government should have any say in marriage.

Your argument is interesting, but I don't find it realistic. The fact is, the government does have a say in marriage, in fact marriage has fallen to almost a purely civil affair in many places. Plus it is largely held that the family is the building block of society, so it isn't overly surprising that the government is involved here. Do you actually think there is a possibility that the gov't will get out of the marriage business altogether?

Think about it. Did Paul advocate action against the Roman government for allowing (in limited ways) polygamy? He did say that Christian Deacons and Elders should be husbands of one wife (literally "a one-woman man"), but he didn't suggest that believers in his day try to change Roman law.

But the Christians were a vast minority set against the common moral practices of their society. That no longer holds in the same ways...:noid: Paul did advocate about community living and the duties of the community.

It is my view that we must argue secularly and convert to kill this dreadful beast. The natural law is no abstraction, and its reality shows in a number of demonstrable ways. At this point in time, the most dangerous view is that which has conceded the fight, that which not only has stopped trying to uphold a Godly society, but also ends up voting for measures that will ultimately destroy it. Many Christians in this thread aren't advocating any kind of fight, they sit at the bottom of the giant slippery slope of modernity, unable to even see or comprehend the height from which they have fallen. I'm glad you showed up

I don't know, but it is something worth considering.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

I've been against it for a long time...:chuckle:

lain:...a long time.

Me too. :thumb:

 

[John Mortimer]

From my current perspective, Christian marriage of same-sex couples is nonsensical. I mean, why would same-sex couples want to pretend that the Christian Church approves? :idunno:

If we are talking civil, (secular-legal), marriage then of course I'm for it.

For Christianity though, marriage is something very symbolic and particular. Why Gay & Lesbian people would want anything to do with the Christian church beats me. I see why they would want something to do with Jesus Christ - but that's a very different matter.

 

[Son of Jack]

Your argument is interesting, but I don't find it realistic. The fact is, the government does have a say in marriage, in fact marriage has fallen to almost a purely civil affair in many places. Plus it is largely held that the family is the building block of society, so it isn't overly surprising that the government is involved here. Do you actually think there is a possibility that the gov't will get out of the marriage business altogether?

You're right. I'm probably not being realistic about this, but I'm okay with that.

But, as believers, we are citizens of another country whose law has already been set. But, I'll explain a little more below...

But the Christians were a vast minority set against the common moral practices of their society. That no longer holds in the same ways...:noid: Paul did advocate about community living and the duties of the community.

Really? Look at what our culture values. Is it really all that different than what Christians in Pauline Rome experience? Don't we just express our brutality and secularism in different ways?

Now, I agree that Paul did believe that we, as believer, should live peaceably in our cultures whenever we were able. More on this below (again)...

It is my view that we must argue secularly and convert to kill this dreadful beast.

Agreed, but though legislation?:think:

The natural law is no abstraction, and its reality shows in a number of demonstrable ways.

I don't disagree.:thumb:

At this point in time, the most dangerous view is that which has conceded the fight, that which not only has stopped trying to uphold a Godly society,

I'm not advocating giving up the fight, but taking it to the ground that will ultimately turn the tide. As to the Godly society, The Father is busy building it. We call it the Body of Christ. The Body is His Holy Nation. Remember Augustine talked about this. We are a City within a city.

but also ends up voting for measures that will ultimately destroy it.

Only if the Body begins legislating itself...:chuckle:. My view is that government is a completely ineffective tool for changing the hearts of men. Legislating morality is a dangerous thing to my mind. At least, not on this matter. It's like placing a bandaid on a gaping mortal wound.

Many Christians in this thread aren't advocating any kind of fight, they sit at the bottom of the giant slippery slope of modernity, unable to even see or comprehend the height from which they have fallen. I'm glad you showed up

:e4e: I don't think it is that they don't believe in fighting, but I'll let them answer for themselves.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

so you think women should vote

that wasn't the question

Seriously, are you simply being coy or have you suffered a head injury of late? Either way the answer is there. Either understand that or don't, but this is the last time I'm going to answer this sort of response without a more thorough swing of the old stick.

Completely up to you, of course. :e4e:

 

[Zeus]

Who married Adam and Eve?

Nick is such a little cutie!

 

[john w]

What natural law?

Can you post the natural laws?

Nature has homosexual critters. And it's estimated (hard to poll otters, etc..) they are at about the same % as we know of homosexuals in humanity.

Seems natural law works FOR the marriage, not against it.

"Nature has homosexual critters. "-IXOYE

And animals eat their young.

Rape would be a great way for "survival of the fittest."'

Release animals, that are part of nature, from cages, zoos....

 

[John Mortimer]

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?​

Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Against it.

Same-sex marriage is immoral, it is not natural.​

​

Hi Psalmist :wave:

Do you mean marriage in the Christian sense?

Do mean that it is immoral because it is not, (in your view), natural - or do you mean that you think it is both immoral and not natural?

BTW - this is not an attack.

 

[zippy2006]

Really? Look at what our culture values. Is it really all that different than what Christians in Pauline Rome experience? Don't we just express our brutality and secularism in different ways?

Yes I agree in some ways (hence my :noid. But to a large extent it is different, we live in a nation where the majority call themselves Christian, and I suppose that is the key difference on my view. We are fighting for the status quo, they fought for change.

Agreed, but though legislation?:think:

It isn't legislation, it's anti-legislation. Why in the world would the government be obliged to sanction the marriage of same-sex couples? I mean, we have it right, why not fight to keep the order? :idunno:

The natural law is no abstraction, and its reality shows in a number of demonstrable ways.

I don't disagree.:thumb:

:e4e:

I'm not advocating giving up the fight, but taking it to the ground that will ultimately turn the tide. As to the Godly society, The Father is busy building it. We call it the Body of Christ. The Body is His Holy Nation. Remember Augustine talked about this. We are a City within a city.

I didn't mean to implicate you, I understand your position and acknowledge it.

Only if the Body begins legislating itself...:chuckle:. My view is that government is a completely ineffective tool for changing the hearts of men. Legislating morality is a dangerous thing to my mind. At least, not on this matter. It's like placing a bandaid on a gaping mortal wound.

We have a bandaid on the mortal wound, why not leave it where it is while at the same time focusing on your plan? Especially if the majority of citizens agree with the status quo? It is the ugly head of relativism rearing itself again; many people know God and know that homosexuality is disordered but they believe that their perspective is null and void because it is somehow "religious." Beans.

:e4e: I don't think it is that they don't believe in fighting, but I'll let them answer for themselves.

I speak of those who believe that homosexuality is not disordered.

This feels like a tea party in the heart of a tornado :chuckle: :cheers:

 

[Selaphiel]

many people know God and know that homosexuality is disordered but they believe that their perspective is null and void because it is somehow "religious." Beans.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

You are confusing what I (and others) said. What I was saying was that religious opinions should have no special influence in a secular society, not that an opinion was wrong because it was religious.
And you should not presume what other people know or do not know. I do not think homosexuality is disordered. All things points to it being common in nature. That is not enough to establish it as moral of course, but add the fact that it is act between two consenting adults that have no negative consequences in itself.
Sure you can point to religious scripture, but that carries no special weight in a secular society.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree and I consider it problematic that someone could go through seminary and come out thinking that homosexuality is fine and dandy.

It is not like we just decided that it was ok.

Then let's hear your reasons. Why should homosexual marriage be legalized? Why is homosexuality rightly ordered?

Incidentally, so can the corruption of marriage. That is precisely why marriage has remained pure for our entire history. God's command is just common sense.

Opposing homosexuality is not common sense.

It is, as some 6000 years have shown.

The reason why marriage has remained as it was throughout the majority of history is because religion dominated society throughout the majority of history.

:squint: This is a terribly biased and non-factual statement. What religion? Where? Homosexual practice has existed for a very long time, and often times (such as ancient Rome) was not necessarily looked down on. But never once was "gay marriage" brought up. :chuckle: The idea is really laughable, and the Greeks would have had a ball with the concept.

Secular states have not existed that long and it is not as if everything changes on day 1, things takes time.

..."With secularism comes salvation" :crackup: We have abortion, euthanasia, "homosexual rights," and large-scale genocide down pat. Apparently the consequences don't take too long. :idunno:

Murder is a fundamental violation of the basic human rights that our society is built on.

So is homosexuality, but no one seems to care. More on point, how about assisted suicide? Should suicides be allowed to take their life and should hospitals help them in doing so? Polygamy?

I think you are misunderstanding me. Separation between church and state does not mean that they can't agree, it means that the opinion of the church or any other religion should have no special influence.

Okay.

In the end it is a vote and we hope those voting for the moral option outweigh the others. The same goes for murder and abortion. The problem here is that you seem to be voting for the immoral option for some very odd reason.

There is a fundamental difference between murder and homosexuality. The latter is not a gross violation against another non-consenting person.

According to who? Certainly not the abortionists. But I will oblige to move to other analogies if you like. The point (and reason the current analogies work) is that law exists for the well-being of the human being. That seems to have been forgotten. Nowadays people seem to think murder is wrong only because it might injure them (selfishness). In fact it is wrong also because it injures the murderer, because the act in itself is immoral.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Psalmist]

Who married Adam and Eve?

Good question. They married each other?

Seriously....

Genesis 3:22-24
22 Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:25-32
25 Then God said, "But before I drive you from the garden, at noon the two of you meet me by the old round rock stone, 26 for there we will deal with this matter of the holy bonds of matrimony." 27 So Adam and Eve met God at the appointed place and time, and God said, "in Genesis I stated, therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, 28 and a Solomon somebody wrote a Proverb that states, whoso finds a wife finds a good thing, 29 therefore I have ordained that you Adam, the husband, be the head of the wife. 30 I now therefore instruct Eve to be your wife to submit to you, Adam, according to what Paul wrote in the yet to be published Oxford Bible, and that takes care of that. 31 You are now ordered to leave place, and if anyone asks you to see your marriage license and your matrimony rings, 32 tell them they got lost in the translation, or something like that."​

 

[zippy2006]

I don't think anyone is saying that.

You say it right here:

What I was saying was that religious opinions should have no special influence in a secular society, not that an opinion was wrong because it was religious.

But maybe you were just being vague? If the opinion is not necessarily wrong, why should it have no special influence?

I do not think homosexuality is disordered.

Which is why I wasn't speaking of you :idunno:

All things points to it being common in nature. That is not enough to establish it as moral of course,

Not only that, it does absolutely nothing to establish its moral standing.

but add the fact that it is act between two consenting adults that have no negative consequences in itself.

If it was a fact I would add it.

Sure you can point to religious scripture, but that carries no special weight in a secular society.

I can point to truth. A smart man once noted that there is not "religious truth," and "scientific truth," some seem to have forgotten.


In case you misunderstand my view:

1. Homosexuality is morally disordered
2. Through peaceful reasoning as well as Grace (argument and conversion) we will spread this truth.
3. There is nothing wrong with a state upholding 1 and dismissing the concept of "gay marriage."

 

[Son of Jack]

Yes I agree in some ways (hence my :noid. But to a large extent it is different, we live in a nation where the majority call themselves Christian, and I suppose that is the key difference on my view. We are fighting for the status quo, they fought for change.

Well, I'd argue that they didn't really fight for change so much as they lived for it. I already believe that because our government looks Christian in so many ways. It has led to a secularization of Christianity and not to a sacredization (made that word up) of the state. As Lewis said, that Jesus didn't really bring with Him a political theory or a social plan. He brought the Gospel with Him.

It isn't legislation, it's anti-legislation. Why in the world would the government be obliged to sanction the marriage of same-sex couples? I mean, we have it right, why not fight to keep the order? :idunno:

I'll go back to my original point. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I understand why they are, but I wonder if there would be any advantages for the believing people in this country (in particular) if the law was changed. I think there would be.:think:

I understand, though, that you think we would be giving up ground, but I'm not a postmillenialist. Well, at least, not most days.:chuckle:

I didn't mean to implicate you, I understand your position and acknowledge it.

I didn't think you did.:e4e:

We have a bandaid on the mortal wound, why not leave it where it is while at the same time focusing on your plan?

First of all, I'm not really advocating a change of any kind. That said, a person who understands the severity of their wound might go visit the doctor more readily, no?

Especially if the majority of citizens agree with the status quo? It is the ugly head of relativism rearing itself again; many people know God and know that homosexuality is disordered but they believe that their perspective is null and void because it is somehow "religious." Beans.

Now, I agree that in a democracy the law should be based on what the majority has come to a consensus on.

I speak of those who believe that homosexuality is not disordered.

:e4e:

This feels like a tea party in the heart of a tornado :chuckle: :cheers:

Dangerous and messy, but fun?

 

[Selaphiel]

Then let's hear your reasons. Why should homosexual marriage be legalized? Why is homosexuality rightly ordered?

See above. I see no argument for it being disordered. It is consensual and has no inherent negative consequences.
If the majority wants it legalized, then it should be legalized on that basis alone since it has no demonstrable negative consequences.

It is, as some 6000 years have shown.

Yes, human history shows a remarkable kindness towards minorities in general if you look at history.
You say common sense, I say the predictability of human cruelty against and intolerance of those who are different.

This is a terribly biased and non-factual statement. What religion? Where? Homosexual practice has existed for a very long time, and often times (such as ancient Rome) was not necessarily looked down on. But never once was "gay marriage" brought up. The idea is really laughable, and the Greeks would have had a ball with the concept.

There is no singular concept of marriage. What they thought back then is not really relevant at all. If you want to understand why the Greeks and Romans might have laughed at that concept you should read their understanding of the sexual act. Their views were founded on the "medical" opinion of the day. That opinion is nonsense today, so they might have thought otherwise if they knew better.

..."With secularism comes salvation" We have abortion, euthanasia, "homosexual rights," and large-scale genocide down pat. Apparently the consequences don't take too long.

None of those follow by necessity from secularism, that is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of secularists that are anti-abortion and against euthanasia. In fact, most medical associations are against euthanasia and that has nothing to do with religion.

According to who?

The definition of the words? A homosexual act is consensual otherwise it would be rape, murder is not the taking of a life against the someones will and thus a violation of their rights.

Nowadays people seem to think murder is wrong only because it might injure them (selfishness).

How could you possibly know what people in general seems to think about that?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, for any two persons in love, I don't really see why natural law decided by reason would include only opposite sex marriage. Now if you believe God is the source of natural law than I can see you having a point.

In the end, whether homosexuals are born that way or made, two homosexuals can adopt a charge off the state, have a family and even work together to benefit the country like any other family. The only difference is they can't procreate :idunno: .

Here is my view Quincy:

1. Homosexuality is harmful
2. The government should not condone things which are harmful to individuals as well as society at large, therefore the government should have no part in gay marriage


There are other points, but I think that is the main bulk of it. Now we disagree on 1, that much is certain, but I don't think we disagree on anything else. In fact if homosexuality is harmful, then it should not be condoned or taught in school, children should not be exposed to it, it should not be given an equal status with heterosexuality. I think you agree with all of that, keeping in mind the "if."


So the question at stake is only whether homosexuality is harmful or disordered, right? Your whole case rises and falls on the belief that it is harmless, just as mine rises and falls on the belief that it is harmful. Do we agree so far?

:e4e:

 

[Selaphiel]

If it was a fact I would add it.

Don't bother to post the standard statistics of fundamentalist Christianity on this issue. There is only one thing to say the whole thing and that is that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which is the most common fallacy of statistics.

 

[zippy2006]

Since I'm one of the people who said I would be OK with gay marriage (assuming the government is defining things)....

I've not much to say because Sela and bybee and Buzzword have pretty much covered my views.

However, I'm not sure how supporting the legalization of gay marriage means that Christ isn't Lord of a Christian's life? The legalization of gay marriage does nothing to a Christian's life or marriage.

:e4e:

The whole "you can do it but I choose not to" argument falls apart when what is at stake is whether it is condoned by society/government itself. So:

1. According to that idea, you should be in favor of legalizing cocaine, meth, heroine, polygamy, suicide, mutual pederasty, etc. Of course you wouldn't yourself engage in any of those activities, but they wouldn't affect your life at all :dizzy:

2. The Christian life is an outward life. We are called to convert, to sanctify, to be the salt of the earth. Supporting things which fly in the face of Christ's work, even if there is no intention of practicing them yourself, certainly does not align with Christianity. It's just a veiled selfishness imo. Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated. But what about the children who grow up in the depraved society you've helped create? What about the formation of individuals?

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Don't bother to post the standard statistics of fundamentalist Christianity on this issue. There is only one thing to say the whole thing and that is that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which is the most common fallacy of statistics.

They are merely stats. They draw strong correlations. Just because those correlations point toward you being wrong doesn't mean you get to simply group them with "the fundamentalists." Causation doesn't exist without correlation. Odd that you are the one claiming to be objective here and yet you are essentially willing to throw out all existing data while dogmatically declaring that it is uncaused correlation....:think: Sounds familiar :idunno: