An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Belk]

This has already been done in history, and secularists are attempting to do it again. It is not a coincidence that they are behind the attack on marriage either.

Bring it on. Obviously you do not recognize any difference between civil rights and non civil rights issues. Given that, the Constitution is essentially null and void today. The sooner Christians realizing we a playing a game whose rules have been abandoned by the opposite side, the sooner we can move on with our lives.

We are at this very moment a nation without laws. We are essentially functioning out of force of habit, and the opposition rumbles and strains for an excuse at every occasion to destroy us and our faith.

I am called a "conspiracy theorist" by some on these forums for saying such things, but the simple fact is that civil rights are delineated in the Constitution. The right to religion is in there. The right to redefine marriage is not. In point of fact, the right to engage in alternative lifestyles is not. That's why homosexuality was illegal at the time, and no conflict was seen to exist.

I wish more of you would threaten freedom of religion, and do so on TV and on the radio. It would crystallize the issue for a good many Americans, though I still am not sure this country has enough decency left to take a stand on much of anything. At least I would be able to tell more surely how tenuous a position I am in currently.

I will make no comment about conspiracy theorist, but yes, I think you are seeing things as much more dire then they truly are.

And yes, the right to engage in a alternative lifestyle is enshrined within the constitution. It is called "Pursuit of happiness" and unless the state can show a compelling interest for why it should not happen, no one should be able to restrict it based on their personal ideology.

Likewise changing the definition of marriage is enshrined in the sections dealing with creating laws and governance by, of, and for the people. We as a society have the right to change the laws of the land as we see fit so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. The gays are making the case that laws restricting them from marriage violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. Many judges are agreeing with them.

 

[Shane Roach]

You left this part out of your post



Saying that God (who he does not believe to be real to begin with) would agree with him on one point =/= "Perfectly in sync".
[/font][/color]

It is in fact the case that democracies can indeed legislate on the basis of sin if the majority feels the sin is important enough to forbid. This fact is often lost in these discussions because we as Americans tend to want to give space for others and their beliefs, but as this trend reverses itself and Christians are attacked, we ought to bear it in mind that if the only reason someone wants something to be illegal is that they believe God would prefer it to be illegal, that is as good an excuse as any to vote for someone who states they will do all in their power to keep the thing illegal.

The freedom to participate in religions is limited to those religions which do not inherently violate the civil rights of others. No religion requiring human sacrifice of an unwilling victim, for example, could stand. In conflicts between values, religious or otherwise, normal legal processes apply as normal.

There is no injunction in the Constitution to legalize anything that is only illegal because people believe it to be immoral due to their religious traditions. None whatsoever. That's why we have elections.

 

[Shane Roach]

Lighthorseman,

I'm going to have to cut and paste your two-post discussion from last night into a word processor, and possibly revisit the relevant previous posts, meaning it's going to be a while, but I am not ignoring it.

 

[Belk]

It is in fact the case that democracies can indeed legislate on the basis of sin if the majority feels the sin is important enough to forbid. This fact is often lost in these discussions because we as Americans tend to want to give space for others and their beliefs, but as this trend reverses itself and Christians are attacked, we ought to bear it in mind that if the only reason someone wants something to be illegal is that they believe God would prefer it to be illegal, that is as good an excuse as any to vote for someone who states they will do all in their power to keep the thing illegal.

The freedom to participate in religions is limited to those religions which do not inherently violate the civil rights of others. No religion requiring human sacrifice of an unwilling victim, for example, could stand. In conflicts between values, religious or otherwise, normal legal processes apply as normal.

There is no injunction in the Constitution to legalize anything that is only illegal because people believe it to be immoral due to their religious traditions. None whatsoever. That's why we have elections.

True, and historically it was rather common for sin to be legislated against. As America has become more diverse religion wise it seems to be becoming more secular as well. In the process those areas with the sin laws still on the books seem to be changing in response to the citizenry.

 

[Maren]

oh really? but what if the 2 cousins are really in love with each other and want to get married? Its happened

This is one of my favorites. In the United States, two first cousins can get married in many states and, since marriage (other than same-sex marriage) is protected by the Full Faith and Credit clause, that means as long as two cousins marry in one of the states that allow it they can then move to any stated (even ones where it is outlawed) and still be recognized as married.

But even more interesting, and a major blow to those who claim that procreation is the primary reason the government allows marriage, in about half the states that allow first cousins to marry the couple must first show they are unable to procreate. If procreation is the primary cause of marriage, it makes no sense to allow two people to marry only if they cannot procreate. That the government allows marriage while requiring a couple to be unable to procreate shows that procreation is not the reason the government recognizes marriages.

 

[Andreusz]

The fact is that marriage does not currently exist for gay couples

I find this Americocentrism deeply offensive. Listen, THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD BESIDES THE <staff edit> UNITED STATES! And some of them recognise gay marriage.

and has not existed for them in all but a vanishing few examples worldwide and throughout time.

They are not vanishing, but increasing.

 

[Maren]

Lets start simple:

Is marriage a right, or a privilege?

If you claim it is a right, then provide me with the fundamental reasoning behind this assertion. Not a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court also declares that murdering children in the womb is a right. I must assume you agree with them on that one, as well, from your argument here.

I quoted the Supreme Court because the are the ultimate authority on what constitutes a right per the US Constitution -- which rights we are talking about here. That you now want to take it to a philosophical discussion makes it impossible to "prove" any rights, as all rights defined under US law are basically philosophical opinions.

Now, if we are still talking about US law, then I have proven that the right exists. To me, and perhaps I'm wrong, you have found you are wrong about the claim under US law and thus are shifting the goal posts to a philosophical discussion about what rights exist.

And let me point out a rather deep logical fallacy in your reasoning on this point. You accept: "The Supreme Court said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't accept: "God said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't want a "fundamentalist Christian" ruling over you, but you don't mind a fundamentalist secularist.


Do you always put words in other folk's mouths like this? Just wondering.

Wow, the irony of you claiming I put words in your mouth right after that previous paragraph where you put words in mine. I never claimed that about the Supreme Court, other than I believe the Supreme Court is the final authority on Constitutional rights under the US Constitution. I've disagreed with the Supreme Court at various times, I was even discussion one case where I disagreed with one of their rulings. However, as a firm believer in the Constitution I recognize that no matter how much I disagree with a Supreme Court decision that their decision determines US law.

And who is this "fundamentalist secularist" I supposedly don't mind having rule over me? Umm... not the US Supreme court, of which every member claims to believe in God (5 Catholics, an Episcopalian, a Protestant, and two of the Jewish faith). I suppose you could mean the US Constitution but, then again, seems like an awful lot of Fundamentalists Christians claim that the Constitution was inspired by God.

This is what I said: The state's primary interest in marriage is children. Not social stability, not increasing the savings rate, not in caring about people who "fall in love." For instance, to quote a recent Supreme Court case:


Interest in what, precisely? What comes out of a pregnancy?

Yes, you stated it was the "primary interest". But my point still stands, you've never shown any evidence that is the primary reason, much less a reason at all, that the government recognizes marriage.

And, as I posted in a different reply, what tends to show this isn't the primary reason is laws such as some states have when it comes to cousins marrying -- where they actually require the couple to prove they cannot procreate prior to issuing the marriage license. If procreation were the primary reason for marriage, we would not have laws that only allow marriage if couples are unable to procreate.

As for what comes out of pregnancy, hopefully a child. However, you case asks about pregnancy, not marriage, therefore it is not evidence. I've never stated that the state does not have an interest in childbirth -- but what is interesting is that the laws governing childbirth and children does not require marriage. And no law that governs marriage requires children.

You argue the State supports marriage because it increases savings rates.

Actually, I never actually stated that. What I actually said was:

In fact, the government has multiple reasons for promoting marriage, and this is why marriage does not being at the birth of the first child or at conception, or also why a couple that has a child together automatically become married.

Rather, married couples (even those without children) are more stable; they work harder, save more, are more law abiding, etc.

So, again you are doing nothing more than putting words in my mouth to create a straw man. The reason I gave is that the government is promoting stability in its citizens, an increase in savings is merely one effect of that stability. And while you may have issues with the way I worded some of the the effects of the increased stability, it does not change the fact that married couples are more stable as a group than unmarried people.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

I find this Americocentrism deeply offensive.

Why? I understand you would like to see a same sex union recognised as marriage that but gay coupling isn&#8217;t seen as marriage in most of the world but why is that offending you? And why would it offend you any more than offending others by being what they see as clearly dysfunctional and un-natural?

 

[Maren]

Excellent post.

Please don't be deceived, there is little truth in the OP, as I've shown a few times in this thread and a different one. In fact, I've shown that it was Catholics who asked the two legislators to introduce the bill in the Connecticut Senate, and that it had previously been introduced by a non-gay Republican in the Connecticut House. The reason for the bill was because of rampant embezzlement (85% of dioceses) in the Catholic Church in the United States, including a priest embezzling 1.3 million dollars in a parish in one of the Senators district.

And isn't it interesting that the Bill specifically named the Catholic Church instead of just churches in general.

It specifically names the Catholic Church because Connecticut actually has separate laws governing the major religions in the state. This post, in another thread, provides a good overview of the Bill including links to the laws currently governing the Catholic Church (and other specific religions) in Connecticut.

But you are right. The Left's reign of terror is just beginning since Obama's election. Barney Frank outright insulted a sitting Supreme Court Justice on the news, Antonin Scalia, calling him a "homophbe" (the stupidest word in the modern lexicon). I believe that is the first time thast a politician has attacked a justice like that.

Thats okay. They have their day, for now. But their antics will cause a backlash after a while because they just don't get that the majority of America is a little right of center politically and culturally.

Sorry, politicians have been insulting Supreme Court Justices for years (though perhaps the barbs aimed at Clarence Thomas have been as bad as any), on both sides of the aisle. And what I find ironic, Scalia has a habit of insulting other Supreme Court Justices as well as others he disagrees with.

 

[Maren]

In fact topically in the UK in a national newspaper on Sunday we have a report of a Christian couple who own a hotel also in trouble with refusing a gay couple a shared room. As they have pointed out they have always been refusing unmarried couples rooms and no-one has made formal complaints to the authorities. Of course gay same sex couples can not get married in the UK, it’s a civil partnership, just seems everything is ok until gays don’t get what they want.

Please, you posted a commentary already which shows why the hotel owner is in trouble. Since civil partnerships in England are equivalent to marriage a hotel owner cannot refuse a room to a couple with a civil partnership that he offers to a married couple. If the couple is unmarried/not in a civil partnership he can then refuse them the room. If he allows a room to a married couple but not to any same-sex couples (regardless of their legal status) he is in violation of the law and will lose his lawsuit.

 

[Andreusz]

^ SHane Roach speaks as if America is the only country in the world. This is what is meant by Americocentrism.

 

[Shane Roach]

It creates a completely different framework for the law to evolve without presenting the difficulty of having the two separate types of relationships constantly pulling the same set of laws in different directions.

Why? In what fashion would family law as it satands not fit homosexual couples as well as it fits heterosexual couples? Again, specifics please?

First let's just get it out of the way that we both know the laws are different in different states and nations.

In current family law, the mother tends to get custody and the father tends to get visitation. In gay couples, who is the mother?

http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/VA/chsupport/alim2.htm

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

&#8220;Historically, alimony was seen as a continuation of a husband's obligation to support his wife but the law now states that alimony may be awarded to either husband or wife, depending on each one's ability to provide for his or her own needs and the ability of the other spouse to provide for them. In reality, it is very rarer that husbands receive alimony awards from their wives.&#8221;

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Here we have a wreck already in progress. Why, if both parties are now capable of supporting themselves, does anyone owe anyone alimony? The historic foundations of this law are already broken. It was previously based on the fact that women did not have independent incomes by and large. Even today, women are not as financially able as men, so one could argue that is at least some legitimization for paying alimony to a woman. In theory alimony could be payed to a man, but in practice it hardly ever is. Why is that? I think the reason is fairly obvious. The man should not need the extra income. Now add homosexuality into this mix. If both are men, or both are women, what real relevance does any of this have? Shouldn't they both have been working the whole time? There is absolutely no historical basis for homosexuals to owe alimony at all.

Do you honestly believe a woman who has sacrificed years of her life raising a child is not owed money if the man divorces her to compensate for progress she'd have made in her own career? Do you honestly think this applies to gays at all? Again, which one is the &#8220;mother&#8221;? Which one is the &#8220;wife&#8221;?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Is it fair that a woman, having had no children and having made much less money that the man in a relationship, can cheat on him and still end up with half of everything he owns, including things from before they married?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Is it fair that a woman, having spent 20 years of her life raising kids, can be left by her husband and without any income, having forgone the opportunities of a career for the sake of the family?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our current law is woefully out of date, and gets more so every day. In my opinion, throwing homosexual unions into this mix with not even so much as a whisper and a promise of reform is asking for big trouble. Huge trouble. With marriage being reduced to a document recording that two people love one another, want to live with one another and have sex, all the unique financial issues that are already slowly degrading into rubble merely do so at a faster pace. The end of marriage, not &#8220;as we know it&#8221;, but as a functioning institution at all.

The damage of such a thing can be seen in the results of single motherhood, and specifically the breakdown of the family in our black communities. You make reference to single parent families later, but I am including it here to situate it as firmly as possible in the context I mean for it to be understood.[/FONT]

You choose to frame it this way, and in doing so make a conflict with freedom of religion that is unnecessary. No one is in truth being denied equality. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are, by their very nature, different, and thus would likely require at least slightly different legislation to deal fairly with those differences.

I don't see it as an issue of religious freedom, its an issue of equality and sexual discrimination, which are also civil rights issues. We have a group of people who are being denied the right to do what they want to do based on gender. How is this NOT a civil rights issue?

When you frame it as a civil rights issue due to sexual discrimination, what you essentially do is bypass the actual issue. Gay men are not being discriminated against based on gender. They are free to marry any woman they chose. It just so happens that such a freedom is worthless to a gay man. We do indeed have a group, but it is a group defined by their behavior. Behaviors are not automatically civil rights. If you want a behavior to begin to be treated as a civil right, you should be forced to go through the process of adding amendments to the Constitution.

You bring up left handedness later, but it is a related issue. I will address that now. The fact is that there has in fact been prejudice against left handed people, and perhaps to an extent there still is, but it is largely overcome by the simple fact that left handedness is not demonstrably different from right handedness except in the most superficial way. The issue worked itself out perfectly well using the normal legal process, and homosexuality can as well. It's just that it is not a given that homosexuals will be pleased with how it eventually does work out.

You are enlarging it by redefining it to include people whose relationships are not at all similar in practice. The only similarity is affection and sex, neither of which are of much consequence to family law.

And long term commitment. Seriously, what are the differences between a homosexual couple and a hetero one? And don't say ability to have children, as it has already been established that infertile heterosexuals are perfectly entitled to get married. So please, tell me... maybe if I understood how homosexuals are so different to heterosexuals, I'd agree more with your argument, but as it is, I just see couples in a long term loving relationship, one lot of whom are denied rights the other lot has access to.

I'm going to say children. I'm going to say children again, and again, and again, and give examples just as I did at the top of this post, until you stop presuming that simply refusing to address that issue is a proper explanation for your own beliefs. All of family law is predicated on the union of a man and a woman, the proper way to share assets, how to raise children, and what to do when the marriage goes wrong. That is the sole purpose of marriage law. I admit there are other cultural purposes, but homosexuals actually have access to those already. The reason they are not pleased with those is that getting a Wiccan marriage is simply not as culturally accepted as getting a Christian one. Nor is it as well respected to simply run to a nominally Christian church that all the other Christians recognize is actually apostate in its teaching. People simply know the difference. Gays want all the trappings of supposed Christian cultural acceptance without having to bother with Christianity itself.

They then have to piece it together from the ground up if they ever are to be married. I believe this deconstruction of the family, this constant re-invention of the wheel that liberals keep bringing to the floor in political issues, makes it harder and harder to maintain peace and civility. Slowly, people simply do not share anything in common anymore, and the bonds that hold a society together are strained.

"constant reinvention of the wheel"... once again, you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that 1950s middle class America is the social norm for all of history... when you talk about "traditional" families, I assume you are talking about the nuclear family? Which is almost exactly as traditional as marrying for love. Once again, for the vast bulk of human history, families have lived in an extended family format, the nuclear family is a quite new phenomenon
I point this out because it irks me that much of the wailing about the loss of "traditional family values", is actually about family values and models that are no more traditional than the motor car..

You have yet to firmly establish to my mind that family has changed all that much through the years. I was able to find in short order references to love in both the Bible and Medieval literature. The fact that the laws themselves governed things outside of love only supports my assertion that the law was itself intended to regulate issues of economic and social relevance to the couple and their offspring, and inasmuch as things have changed, I have pointed out that the changes are more of degree than of type, and that even there the law has not kept up thanks to constant liberal tinkering with the idea of ultimately just doing away with the responsibilities of marriage and family.

It seems no one wants to claim Libertarians, which is probably why they have a small party of their own now. I consider them to basically encompass some of the worst of both liberal and conservative thought myself, but that's just my personal politics and value judgment.

To argue that gay marriage is some sort of conservative agenda is really to strain credulity though.

And yet here I am, a political old school conservative, speaking in favour of consentual homosexual marriage. Make of that what you will.

What I make of it is that you are trying to define &#8220;old school&#8221; as being a member of a relatively new political party that pretends to be traditional but whose actual tenets resemble neither past political realities nor any measurable trend in current politics. Why you are doing this is beyond me, but also largely irrelevant, is it not? The Constitution is not a libertarian document. It makes only a tiny few exceptions to the general rule that people should elect legislators who run on platforms to legislate as the voter sees fit.

Well, it sure looked to me like thats what you were saying. However, I accept the possibility I may have understood. So please, why not correct me and explain how you think homosexuals should agitate for change?

I already did, and this has been an ongoing problem between you and I. I spent a LARGE amount of time just previous to this trying to find a post because you remembered it but could not or would not go back and find it yourself to show the context in which I made a comment about single parents. As for this issue, I remember this one well enough, and in fact have repeated it I think twice. Address the specific issues (such as hospitals denying visitation or the armed services being persnickety about letting people relocate together) rather than redefine marriage.

Please stop wasting my time by insisting I do all the leg work in our discussions. If you care about this, go back and look it up yourself. It gets old. It gets very, very old.

These matters are constantly bedeviled with the (forgive my anti-establismentarianism here) presumptuous nature of academics. One need not look far into the colloquial art and music of the times to see that love was alive and well in Medieval times, but most scholarship focuses on the habits of the wealthy, and really of the extremely wealthy.

a problem with the study of history is that those who recorded it tended to record that which was most relevent to their own class. Thus the chronicles of the middle ages tend to exclusively refer to the first 2 estates, as they were the ones who were a. literate and b. could afford scribes. However, if you would please take me at my word, mediaeval history is my passion (I even spell mediaeval correctly!) so please believe me when I say I am not basing this position on a 5 second scan of a wikipedia article.

Once again, of course there has always been love. My point is that throughout most of history, love has NOT been the primary motivation for marriage, but rather it has been a form of formalised contract and an attempt ensure a bloodline.

Another example just occured to me... the event that basically allowed Western protestantism to begin was the schism between Henry VIII and Rome over the issue of his divorce. He didn't want a divorce because he was in love withsome one else, he wanted a divorce because of his wife's failure to produce a male heir.

Now it is true we don't know exactly how the peasantry conducted themselves for much of times past, but "as above so below" has always been something of a truism, and it seems fair to assume that those lower in the hierarchy have always (as they do today) aped the fashions and practices of their social superiors. Once again, none of this denies the existance of love, merely points out that love was not the primary motivator for marriage. I mean, can you cite me a single example from the first 5 books of the Bible were marriage for love is even alluded to, let alone discussed?

For whatever reason you ignored all of the examples I already gave, but since I did not give one from the Pentateuch I will oblige you. After this I expect something besides just, &#8220;I said so,&#8221; when you insist that the fundamentals of marriage have changed so deeply that there are no longer any reasons to be concerned that family law should remain largely specific to those who can create families.

I may expect that in vain, but... I expect it, sooner or later.

The basis of marriage in Genesis:

Gen 2:22-25



22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.



24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.



25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
KJV

After God Himself led Abraham's servant to select a wife for Isaac, the following records that he loved her, thus emphasizing the degree to which the choice of God was appropriate for Isaac at the time.

Gen 24:67



67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah , and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
KJV

Jacob works for Rachel 14 years despite being tricked into marrying Leah first. Why?

Gen 29:18



18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
KJV

I'm being "picky" because most of what you are saying is assertion without any real knowledge. I am hoping the various additional tidbits of information I am giving will show you why I doubt your assertions, even if they do not necessarily disprove whatever it is you believe.

well thats a rather unfair claim, given that I have been able to back up all of my assertions with external citations, and even you yourself seemed to admit that what I am saying is in line with the thinking of "academe"... now of course, style yourself anti-establishment all you like, however I'll tend to believe what I can see evidence for and what comes from reasonable sources, I try not to belive things simply because they suit what I want to be true.

You only just recently began answering my posts with anything but dismissive one liners by and large, and to the extent you have provided any citations at all, I have provided counter citations which in this very response you simply chose to ignore, indeed not even to quote for the purpose of maintaining context. Your general lack of citation in previous discussions is not the whole story though. You have been presented by myself and others multiple times the concerns people have about the attack on family law through redefining marriage. The concern is in actuality not even close to difficult to understand. I have not seen any attempt at all by you or others to refute it. Rather, you all just dismiss it. You make claims that the same arguments were used to legimitze slavery, yet even now there are three web sites you told me were relevant to this, and I do not see them making the same types of arguments supporting racism as they do opposing gay marriage. Sure, they make claims on the Bible, but the arguments themselves bear no resemblance whatsoever to those against gay marriage, or indeed to those concerning whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

So no, you do not provide evidence. You simply dismiss other people's arguments and evidence.

It's always been that way is not my argument at all.

And yet you keep saying that heterosexual marriage has been the norm in most societies for most of time. Sounds like an argument from tradition to me...

Again you jettison all context. I have indeed argued that marriage is about a man, a woman, and their family that they have together. I have provided support for this belief. My argument for why gay marriage should not be conglomerated with marriage as it exists is because it is not suited to marriage as it exists. I argue that the family law surrounding marriage has been specifically designed to deal with men and women, and no other arrangement, and so far you have shown me nothing to indicate that this is not true. Only as part of my argument that marriage is an unsuitable institution for gays have I made the additional point that marriage has traditionally been restricted to men and women in refutation of the assertion by you and/or others supporting gay marriage that marriage has nothing to do with family.

Now, ironically, you have spent a lot of time trying to prove marriage has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with economic matters, yet your claim is that marriage is the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals because it represents a long term commitment between two people who love each other and have sexual relations and cohabit. So you basically argue against your own premise, all the while insisting I am &#8220;arguing from tradition&#8221;.

No. No, I am not. And there is a reason why you are not following the thread of my argument, and that reason is not that I and others have not explained it to you. It is because you have been allowed and even encouraged to simply mock at the answers you have been given, and not been required to respond to the arguments on their own terms.

You seem to be asserting that there is no difference between gays and straights, so my question is, why in all of history has this not been acknowledged?

Well, in some places it has been acknowledged. For all the times and places it hasn't, it hasn't been acknowledged because the contemporary social setting did not allow for or encourage such introspection on the matter(posting continues, don't reply yet)

In Greek culture man-boy love (of a sort) was extolled, but full grown men having such a relationship were often seen as shameful, although again there are exceptions. There was a LOT of introspection on the issue, recorded and available for your perusal. They simply did not see the relationship as appropriate.

Homosexuality in Rome was not terribly frowned upon, but still there seemed to be little tolerance for the idea that it substituted for family. I am not as up on Roman beliefs on homosexuality as I am on the Biblical or Greek, but where family was concerned, they appear to have accepted the norm that to have one you needed to be male and female and have your own kids.

American Indians, certain of them, supported the idea of gay unions largely due to a spiritual belief that the person was somehow special. Theirs was essentially a religious argument every bit as much as a Christian argument against the same practice.
So there seems to have been plenty of introspection. It just seems that historically no one agrees with your position.

I believe it strikes at the very heart of self-government to just begin to assign civil rights status to every liberty you find offensive.

And i believe that true liberty exists when you defend the liberties of others... EVEN THE ONES YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, which is what I believe i am doing here.

How is destroying self government somehow supporting freedom? In truth, you are the one who finds our democratic processes offensive, and you are by no means defending them. Indeed, you are arguing against people of faith even being allowed to use them at all, in any situation. Any time a court decides something relies too heavily on someone's religious values, you seem to believe the court can and should strike it down. Unfortunately, everything from murder to theft belongs in the general category of &#8220;religious values&#8221;.

All laws restrict freedom. Many are not directly related to someone's liberty ending up poking a knuckle in someone else's face. Laws are complex and represent the will of the governed if they are properly enacted. You seem to me to be attempting to bypass that. We've had that sort of government before. It's called an Oligarchy. The powerful may listen to the masses, but are under no onus to respect them. This form of government is precisely the type expressly denounced in the Declaration of Independence. You do not tax me, then use my money for whatever you like, and give me absolutely no say in the decision making process. We hold this sort of government to be utterly illegitimate.

Ultimately, even the most universally recognized "criminal behaviors" are only so because people hold the opinion that they are so. There has to be some recognition that every issue is not to be punted to the courts to be decided how you believe is best. What happens when the court changes and suddenly your values are no longer the ones they are attacking willy nilly?

I would hope that no one is attacking anyone's values "willy nilly". I acknowledge that homosexuality is something you believe in. I am "attacking", if you will, your values because I believe the right of homosexuals to have equality and justice supercedes your right to dictate to others how they live their lives.

You believe. What about what the majority believes? What about the very foundations of self government? What is the limit you place on your beliefs taking precedence over everyone else's? Are there any?

The court is not the place for creating the consensus necessary for a society to work and thrive. Nations need to form consensus on important matters.

Indeed, and thus, there is a SOCIAL CONSENSUS that EQUALITY is a good thing. Then the courts have been tending to point out where equality is lacking. Sometimes they point out that equality is lacking from areas that people don't like to examine too closely, but, as you say, the social consensus is that equality is to be the standard, and they make their judgements accordingly.

The courts have alternately been trying to fix things they cannot fix and usurping the role of the legislature. There is no real evidence that the court cases, even the ones that now find such broad support, were really at the heart of cultural change. Rather, the court cases came along when the culture had already changed enough that the decisions would not result in immediate anarchy. There is certainly absolutely no cultural consensus now as to whether the court has been right. That's a big reason why this topic is such a hot one.

You have yet to explain why the fears I have expressed are unfounded, other than to simply mock at them repeatedly.

Again, the burden of evidence lies with the person making the positive claim. You are claiming these fears are realistic, it is up to you to provide supporting evidence.

No sir. I am expressing my concerns to you, and you are claiming, without any explanation, that they are unfounded. Besides, this constant retreat behind what is essentially a rhetorical trick is sophomoric and tiresome. You owe society more respect than to simply dismiss anyone disagreeing with you as having unfounded or silly concerns, especially when those concerns are repeatedly voiced by many people from different backgrounds, education levels, and various social statuses.

How would you have me prove them false, other than pointing out the complete lack of any supporting evidence for them?

Most of life consists of making judgments based on something besides scientific proof. Resorting to such absolutism and refusing to explain yourself to others merely confirms that you have not thought the issue through.

Most of these are very specific to having children. The majority of homosexuals will not have them. When they do, there are extenuating circumstances. The laws need to be fitted to this specific, unique case and not just fused with established law on the matter. That's my concern.

So why not extend the child specific laws to the homosexuals who have kids... and the non child specific laws to the gays who DON'T have kids? Again, I fail to see the problem here? Just treat the same way we would treat heterosexuals who either have kids or don't have kids.

I've been arguing this since my return to CF.

I maintain that, at least at first, it would be better to be speaking in terms of civil unions. That way the legal struggles do not &#8220;cross contaminate&#8221;, for lack of a better phrase.

I see the rest of your post as basically a continuation of this train of thought. If there was something there you feel is not answered, I feel sure you will let me know.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

How are they similar? In no way except that they cohabit and have sex.

And that they love each other and make a commitment to be together through thick and thin... honestly, other than having kids, how is that NOT a marriage? In what fashion other than the children bit are hetero and homosexual couples different? You claim they are so very different, please show me how.

You constantly try to place yourself in the position of authority, and others have to answer to you, but we don't have to. That is part of what discussion is supposed to be about. You should be able to take your turn at the explanation phase of these discussions rather than just dismissing other people's beliefs out of hand and constantly demanding they provide you with explanations.​

I'm happy to provide explanations when asked. I thought I already did. Let me try again...

"Monogomous, loving, mutually supporting, mutually consenting long term committed couple who are also sexually intimate".

Did I just describe a gay or straight marriage?

 

[Wyzaard]

The freedom to participate in religions is limited to those religions which do not inherently violate the civil rights of others.

Well, that would indeed disqualify your religion then.

There is no injunction in the Constitution to legalize anything that is only illegal because people believe it to be immoral due to their religious traditions. None whatsoever. That's why we have elections.

The 9th amendment implies that citizens are presumed to have rights by default, and that onus for depriving them of such is on the state to provide a compelling interest in doing so, a fairly high bar. Believing something to be immoral is NOT a compelling reason as far as the health and well-being of the public is concerned.

 

[Wyzaard]

Bring it on. Obviously you do not recognize any difference between civil rights and non civil rights issues. Given that, the Constitution is essentially null and void today. The sooner Christians realizing we a playing a game whose rules have been abandoned by the opposite side, the sooner we can move on with our lives.

We are at this very moment a nation without laws. We are essentially functioning out of force of habit, and the opposition rumbles and strains for an excuse at every occasion to destroy us and our faith.

I wish more of you would threaten freedom of religion, and do so on TV and on the radio. It would crystallize the issue for a good many Americans, though I still am not sure this country has enough decency left to take a stand on much of anything. At least I would be able to tell more surely how tenuous a position I am in currently.

I would encourage you to step back, take a deep breath, <staff edit>; what you are intimating here is a call to arms of right-wing Christians against the rest of us.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, that would indeed disqualify your religion then.



The 9th amendment implies that citizens are presumed to have rights by default, and that onus for depriving them of such is on the state to provide a compelling interest in doing so, a fairly high bar. Believing something to be immoral is NOT a compelling reason as far as the health and well-being of the public is concerned.

Civil rights are spelled out in the Constitution. All other laws are left to the usual process.

 

[John1032]

I have known too many examples of 'martial unfaithfulness' between husband and wife.

Hi Andreusz, I try my hardest to keep within Scriptures and I couldn't find anything in Matt. 19 talking about unfaithfulnes between husband and wife, but the real word of "harness of heart", "adultery", and "bearing false witness".

In Matt. 19:9-12:

In verse 9, we need to understand the defining of the word "wife" as the main principles of this verse. This verse covers a multitude of things that confirms Deut. 24:1 that a couple living together is suggesting an actual marriage. And when our Lord speaks about "immorality", He is referring to ANY KIND of sexual immorality, premarital sex, extramarital sex, prostitution, homsexaulity and bestiality.

In verse 11, Our Lord is indicating that only a few people remain unmarried,that is marriage between male and female, NOT male and male or female and female.

In verse 12, we see many do not marry because some; were possibly born with no sexual drive or favour women; in those days had been castrated; forgo marriage for the sake of serving our Lord; and some have been given the Spiritual Gift of celibacy in order to serve our Lord (See 1 Cor. 7:7).

And as our Lord said in verse 17, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments", "you shall not commit adultery or bear false witness".

In the last days of perilous times we will continual unfaithfulness within the Body of Christ because of people who say that Paul writings are only opinions, and to think that all believers have abided in His Word for over 1900 years, and they NEVER said at anytime that Paul's opinions were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We see unfaithfulness and people remarrying two or more times, and have not considered their role in a marriage, and the "works of the flesh" intervenes, and the enemy destroying any chance of restoration and reconciliation as in the case of the number of high-flying evangelists who have fallen to the "wiles of the enemy" through "adultery", as in the case of a teacher/prophet of just a short while ago.

Matt. 19 is our Lord's instruction to His Disciples, so how come His disciples of today are debating on a subject that was understood clearly through His instructions on "sexualy immorality" and "homosexuality". Disciples today don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to see what is being commanded to do and to abide by. Humans were not created to perform acts of homosexuality, lesbianism, or bestiality.

 

[John1032]

To John1032,
I agree with you.
There are plenty of references in the NT for us to know God considers same sex sexual relations are wrong. I would add to what you said Romans 1 and also Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. In Matt 19 martial unfaithfulness between husband and wife is ‘poreia’ and in 1 Cor 7 apart from celibacy, it is because of porneia that the each man should have one wife and each wife her husband.
All Lighthorseman and Polycarp1 do is say they don’t agree, they cant offer any scripture to support what they are saying.
The problem is for those of us who believe what the Biblical testimony says and believe it is God’s word and purpose, we do have evidence that we know God finds same sex relations offensive, they do not have evidence that we don’t.

Bush lawyers are a dime a dozen, as in the case of many of the comments I have read. Even in Matt. 19, our Lord says speaks on a "rich man to sell what he has and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow ME".

Therefore, what could we define from what our Lord is saying, and from that only rich men who sell everything will have a treasure in heaven. We all know that that "treasure" is eternal life, the same trophy that we receive at the end of the our race of endurance, and is called "evelasting life". But, many will still debate even those words in a form of godliness.

I've seen enough in ministry to know that "homosexuality" is a spiritual disease, and they are not born like that, because our Creator concieved and brought forth a perfect specimen in His image, and it wasn't until the child left the womb that the childs spirit was contaminated by the "wiles of the enemy" on the impartation of the wrong spirit.

Many homosexuals and lesbians have been delivered from their strongholds and strongmen, set free from their captivity of bondage, and healed by counselling through the healing ministry.

Yes, His Word is silent on many things, but commonsense is a thing that our Lord gave us when He created us---din't He?

And LightHorseman seems to debating on things that are not even suggested in His Word that all what Paul wrote was just his opinion. Lord give us strength and show the wrongs of our ways, in Jesus' Name.

 

[John1032]

For Shane Roach.


Hi Shane I am not a sticky-beak, but I have a habit of checking people out on Google and I punched in their user name, and yours popped up.

As hard as it is, there are always people who post on Christian forums who lack compassion or sincerity and they post a persons article onto obnoxious forums. I noticed one of your postings made a number of years ago on:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/fundies/fstdt_aug02.htm


Interesting, you must have made a good point on that posting for you to end up on "fundies".

Keep preaching brother!

 

[Shane Roach]

For Shane Roach.


Hi Shane I am not a sticky-beak, but I have a habit of checking people out on Google and I punched in their user name, and yours popped up.

As hard as it is, there are always people who post on Christian forums who lack compassion or sincerity and they post a persons article onto obnoxious forums. I noticed one of your postings made a number of years ago on:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/fundies/fstdt_aug02.htm


Interesting, you must have made a good point on that posting for you to end up on "fundies".

Keep preaching brother!

LOL!

That one was after about the 2,026th claim that atheism is the default position of all thinking people. Context, of course, is fully ignored. Not that I am backing off of the position, but that is not my preferred tone. Still...

Rom 1:20-21

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse :

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
KJV

What does anyone want me to say about that other than, "oh... wow. So I am really responsible to God." I don't think people comprehend that most of us who are "fundies" really do see the Bible, first and foremost, as speaking directly to US, not to everyone else. But once people begin to mock at or belittle God and the Bible, even the Spirit, I know I feel an obligation to say what is actually there in scripture as opposed to just sitting and watching falsehoods multiply and multiply without any contest from believers.

Anyhow, so wow. Yeah I did not even know that site existed.

 

[Belk]

LOL!

That one was after about the 2,026th claim that atheism is the default position of all thinking people. Context, of course, is fully ignored. Not that I am backing off of the position, but that is not my preferred tone. Still...



What does anyone want me to say about that other than, "oh... wow. So I am really responsible to God." I don't think people comprehend that most of us who are "fundies" really do see the Bible, first and foremost, as speaking directly to US, not to everyone else. But once people begin to mock at or belittle God and the Bible, even the Spirit, I know I feel an obligation to say what is actually there in scripture as opposed to just sitting and watching falsehoods multiply and multiply without any contest from believers.

Anyhow, so wow. Yeah I did not even know that site existed.

You have never hears of FSTDT? It was started by a guy who used to frequent these boards, Winace.