Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[beechy]

No you are not trying to build one. You already have one of the sort you are insisting on, and you are not being hurt.

I'm trying to build a family. I want to get married because of that -- not because I'm trying to destroy families. It is true that I can have a family without getting married, but that is true of straight folks as well.

Yours is a different situation though than someone who wakes up some morning with the child inside them, and you refuse to acknowledge that truth.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is the person who is "wak[ing] up some morning with the child inside them" a married or unmarried person?

That, incidentally, is why the interracial issue is irrelevant. It's not as if black men could not impregnate a white women, or white men the same for blacks. So the issue existed whether or not the state chose to acknowledge it.

You alleged that people who are pro- gay marriage are not interested in strengthening marriage because if that's what they really cared about, then they would focus their efforts on lowering divorce rates and reducing the number of kids available for adoption.

I brought up the interracial marriage cases as an example of another group of people who focused on something other than lowering divorce rates and reducing the number of kids available for adoption.

With gays, the issue simply does not exist. And if you want to adopt, guess what... you can. Single people can adopt. Adoption is a separate issue.

If straight people want to procreate, guess what ... they can. Straight people can procreate whether they're married or not. Procreation is a separate issue.

 

[Shane Roach]

Let's say the husband in heterosexual Couple 1 is infertile, so they conceive a child through an anonymous sperm donor. And Couple 2 conceived a child the old fashioned way. What legal policies do we need to wrap around Family 1 that are different than the policies we need to wrap around Family 2? Do you think Couple 2 has a greater need to be married than Couple 1, since Couple 2 can conceive a child together and Couple 1 cannot?

There's no simple answer. For one thing, surrogate mothers do tend to have their say about the issue. I am not aware of any surrogate fathers who have come looking, and it is simpler to ensure anonymity, but there is a question as to whether or not it is really ethical, at least to me, to do this sort of thing.

The whole point of marriage is to be able to simplify our ability to know who a child's biological father is?

No, it's to be sure that we plant our corn at the appropriate time.

It's about establishing lines of responsibility that automatically come up when people have real, biological families.

See that's what's funny (again), you ask for these differences, but when they are demonstrated you just obfuscate, and it is exceedingly transparent.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dishonest comparison between race and behavior. Another sign of where this push really comes from.

How is an accurate comparison dishonest?

I think gay marriage will eventually increase the number of divorces.

Lesbians forced me to divorce my wife!

Certainly the attitude toward the family one must take to fail to see the difference between gays and straights where family is concerned cannot help but undermine the model of a healthy family.

How exactly?

Nothing like this happens all at once. It took years for divorce to reach the debacle it did, and years more to connect the divorce rate to problems we are seeing sweep over society now.

But none of you care a whit for that.

And the upswing was right after the legal recognition of interracial marriage….hmmmm…concidence?

 

[Shane Roach]

I brought up the interracial marriage cases as an example of another group of people who focused on something other than lowering divorce rates and reducing the number of kids available for adoption.

You're not lowering divorce rates by marrying gays. Get honest. You brought it up to insult people who disagree with you, and this site famously encourages that sort of behavior.

There's probably more militant ex Christians posting on CF than on atheists.org.

 

[OllieFranz]

Romans 1:18-2:3
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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: 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
​

Romans 1:22-27 shows exactly what God thinks about homosexuals.

And in the same passage, Paul tells us that He thinks exactly the the same thing about all sinners, including the proud, whisperers, the unmerciful, those without natural affection, and those that judge the people described in the earlier paragraphs.

He goes on later in the letter to re-affirm that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23, emphasis mine), and that keeping the law cannot save anyone, but ony Jesus can (Romans 8:3)

So the question becomes "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"(Matthew 7:3)

Anything between another person and God is between them, we have enough to worry about with our own problems, unless the other person is part of our responsibility (such as a minor child) or is actively seeking to harm someone.

 

[beechy]

You're not lowering divorce rates by marrying gays. Get honest. You brought it up to insult people who disagree with you, and this site famously encourages that sort of behavior.

There's probably more militant ex Christians posting on CF than on atheists.org.

I'm not claiming that gay marriage lowers divorce rates. I'm pointing out that neither gay marriage nor interracial marriage lowers divorce rates and, in this sense, both are equally ineffective at "strengthening the institution".

 

[beechy]

Lesbians forced me to divorce my wife!

LOL!! I'll take you to the courthouse myself if I have to!!!

 

[beechy]

There's no simple answer.

The simple answer under the law is that Couple 1 and Couple 2 have the same right to get and stay married

For one thing, surrogate mothers do tend to have their say about the issue.

Unless they enter into an agreement ahead of time (as is usually the case) where they promise they will not claim any rights to the baby.

I am not aware of any surrogate fathers who have come looking, and it is simpler to ensure anonymity, but there is a question as to whether or not it is really ethical, at least to me, to do this sort of thing.

There's no such thing as a "surrogate father" -- just sperm donors (the female equivalent is an egg donor). So you're unsure as to whether people should be allowed to conceive children via sperm and egg donors? Should Couple 1 just not have kids at all, then? Or do you think it is ok for them to adopt?

No, it's to be sure that we plant our corn at the appropriate time.

Except that people can plant their corn whenever the heck they want to.

It's about establishing lines of responsibility that automatically come up when people have real, biological families.

People that have real, non-biological families also have lines of responsibility.

 

[KCKID]

Romans 1:22-27 shows exactly what God thinks about homosexuals.

Not so. Paul's words are NOT the words of God but the words of Paul. Evidence to the contrary would need to be provided.

Romans 1:18-2:3

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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: 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
​

And in the same passage, Paul tells us that He thinks exactly the the same thing about all sinners, including the proud, whisperers, the unmerciful, those without natural affection, and those that judge the people described in the earlier paragraphs.

He goes on later in the letter to re-affirm that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23, emphasis mine), and that keeping the law cannot save anyone, but ony Jesus can (Romans 8:3)

So the question becomes "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"(Matthew 7:3)

Anything between another person and God is between them, we have enough to worry about with our own problems, unless the other person is part of our responsibility (such as a minor child) or is actively seeking to harm someone.

We also really DO need to acknowledge that the words allegedly penned by Paul in the Bible were penned by a fellow human being who referred to himself as 'the chief of sinners'. He confessed that the things he should not do, he did, and vice verse ..."O wretched man that I am!" While some of Paul's writings come across as being quite arrogant and sexist he was at least honest.

 

[Philothei]

I'm not claiming that gay marriage lowers divorce rates. I'm pointing out that neither gay marriage nor interracial marriage lowers divorce rates and, in this sense, both are equally ineffective at "strengthening the institution".

The fact that Gay marriages are "as" bad as straight marriages means what? How is this helping to say that Gay marriages are "successful" ?

And how does this proves them to be good? Compairing them to Heterosexual or interactial marriages ? I do not understand the correlation here.

It just proves that the marriage in homosexuals is as "bad" as the rest.That by far does not make it "normal" or on "target". Still homosexual unions are failing now if heterosexual marriages are "failing also" does not matter a bit. It is a fallacy and very decieving.

It just proves that Homosexual unions are not stable.. regardless of what heterosexual marriages. We know and that is not an excuse to say that the Homosexuals are "just as bad".

The institution of marriage is between a man and woman as it was historically established. It was never between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Homosexual unions are irrelevant to the "institution of marriage".

 

[BigBadWlf]

The fact that Gay marriages are "as" bad as straight marriages means what? How is this helping to say that Gay marriages are "successful" ?

This borders on a strawman.

Beechy is correctly pointing out that the same arguments being used to justify anti-gay discrimination in legal recognition of same gendered marriage could have been (and were) used as arguments to justify discrimination against interracial couples and to confront a personal attack made against her.

Interracial marriage is based on equality not some ridiculous non sequitr

And how does this proves them to be good? Compairing them to Heterosexual or interactial marriages ? I do not understand the correlation here.

I think the point is that the same excuses made to “prove” interracial marriage as bad a generation ago are being recycled today

It just proves that the marriage in homosexuals is as "bad" as the rest.That by far does not make it "normal" or on "target". Still homosexual unions are failing now if heterosexual marriages are "failing also" does not matter a bit. It is a fallacy and very decieving.

It just proves that Homosexual unions are not stable.. regardless of what heterosexual marriages. We know and that is not an excuse to say that the Homosexuals are "just as bad".

Kind of grasping at straws here aren’t you?

The institution of marriage is between a man and woman as it was historically established. It was never between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Except all the times that it was.

But even if your claim were accurate so what? Historically no western culture did away with slavery until very recent times. Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make it good or moral or just? Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make ending slavery a bad thing?

Homosexual unions are irrelevant to the "institution of marriage".

And not that many years ago people were saying the same thing about interracial marriage

 

[b&wpac4]

The institution of marriage is between a man and woman as it was historically established. It was never between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Homosexual unions are irrelevant to the "institution of marriage".

Definitions and traditions become irrelevant once they are superseded. Once you understand that the Supreme Court will continue to knock down any law that bans homosexual marriage once it reaches there, it becomes the logical conclusion that homosexual marriage will happen. Everything else is just posturing.

 

[Philothei]

This borders on a strawman.

Not so it is a fallacy. If a is somehow bad and b is bad then a and b are okay...logic which is non sensical....

Beechy is correctly pointing out that the same arguments being used to justify anti-gay discrimination in legal recognition of same gendered marriage could have been (and were) used as arguments to justify discrimination against interracial couples and to confront a personal attack made against her.

Is this a trhead topic? Did not think so.

Interracial marriage is based on equality not some ridiculous non sequitr

Homosexual unions and interactial marriages between man and woman is like apples and oranges...

I think the point is that the same excuses made to “prove” interracial marriage as bad a generation ago are being recycled today

Interacial marriage is irrelevant to prove any point ...Anyways the topic is about homosexuals and bisexuals last time I checked.

Kind of grasping at straws here aren’t you?

No pointing out the fallacy I mentioned above.

Except all the times that it was.

STill is.. .The majority of the earths's population are not in homosexual unions

But even if your claim were accurate so what? Historically no western culture did away with slavery until very recent times. Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make it good or moral or just? Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make ending slavery a bad thing?

and it is. Comparing slavery to marriage is alike? Slavery was a practice as old as recorded history it just changed its form in recent years we call it "labour" still people are "employed" by Lords. Just because we vote we are qualified as 'free man"? People can "chose" who they become slaves too... But that is another topic. Marriage is an institution dealing with intimate relationships among a man and woman.

And not that many years ago people were saying the same thing about interracial marriage

Apples and oranges again. Marriage between man and woman and different races is the same as among same sex? or tommorrow with animals?
Interactial marriages do not "change" the "identity" of a person. Homosexual unions do. Man created as a man and woman as a woman. The Bible never talked against interacial marriages. Actually the oppositite that there is not Jew or a Greek etc.

 

[Philothei]

Definitions and traditions become irrelevant once they are superseded. Once you understand that the Supreme Court will continue to knock down any law that bans homosexual marriage once it reaches there, it becomes the logical conclusion that homosexual marriage will happen. Everything else is just posturing.

It is not the same. Marriage by defenition applies to heterosexual couples because it was used for such unions. Just because they are called legally marriages that does not mean that they are. State cannot change the Christian definition on marriage. Last time I checked there was a seperation between church and state.

 

[b&wpac4]

It is not the same. Marriage by defenition applies to heterosexual couples because it was used for such unions. Just because they are called legally marriages that does not mean that they are. State cannot change the Christian definition on marriage. Last time I checked there was a seperation between church and state.

and I would fight any ruling that forced churches or any other religious institution from being forced to perform them. That being said, if what the state defines as marriage makes no difference to you... why does it seem to make a difference to you?

 

[Exhausted]

The Bible is not a good basis on which to argue against giving people political rights. You're demonizing yourself when you do it.

 

[Philothei]

The Bible is not a good basis on which to argue against giving people political rights. You're demonizing yourself when you do it.

What demonizing? If the majority still rules, some rights will eventually be infringed. Do I have a right to not let my kid be exposed to a lifestyle I do not wish for her to "be educated in"? Why my rights are less important than a homosexual couple coming to my kid's school to "show and tell" about their marriage? Teaching children a lifestyle that I do not "wish to teach it to my kid" I infringe in their right to live that lifestyle? :o

I do not think so.... That is where the state interferes with my family and my faith...

 

[Shane Roach]

People have a right to base their ideas about what would be good policy on anything they chose. If the US chooses to have Christian values, then the laws should reflect Christian values. If the US chooses to have no values, there's really nothing anyone can do about that.

But to single out someone's religion as being specifically unworthy of being considered as a source for values is essentially to do away with freedom of religion, which is not incidentally what most people who push gay marriage want for an outcome to begin with.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest anything but further harm coming as a result of gay marriage.

 

[Philothei]

and I would fight any ruling that forced churches or any other religious institution from being forced to perform them. That being said, if what the state defines as marriage makes no difference to you... why does it seem to make a difference to you?

Thank you but we will live to see this for sure! Read my previous post.!

 

[b&wpac4]

Thank you but we will live to see this for sure! Read my previous post.!

I don't think it's a "for sure" thing that we will see this. We have never, in the US, forced a church to perform any marriage it didn't agree to perform. I cannot get married to my girlfriend in a Catholic church, no matter how hard I beg OR take them to court. They can turn me away and I have no legal recourse, as it should be.

Likewise, an Orthodox Jewish synagogue would not perform a marriage between you and a man. You don't meet the requirements to be married there.

So, why do you suppose that will change?