Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

Heterosexuals have done most of the damage to the term and idea of marriage. If you don't realize, it was until this century that homosexual individuals could get married so any damage that was ever done to marriage up until that point is all due to heterosexuals.

Marriage as recognized by the state is completely different then marriage as recognized by a religious institution. There are a lot of things that homosexuals can do that can granted them the same rights as heterosexual marriage couples, but it comes at a significantly larger cost of time and money. Time and money for paperwork and often those types of situations are only covered in that specific state, so say you are traveling your "rights" become completely null and void. And there is nothing that a homosexual couple can do that can ensure they receive 100% of the rights a heterosexual couple is given when they sign a marriage certificate. And that is ALL they have to do, pay for and sign a piece of paper.

I believe in the importance and respect of marriage and the family unit, but I also believe that family units come in many different shapes and sizes these days and no one can tell me that the love offered to children in a heterosexual household is no better nor worse then that offered in a homosexual household.

Heterosexuals have not. Leftists have had an anti family agenda going back to Marx and Engels. This is where the damage comes from. It's a heck of a thing for the same people who have worked to undermine marriage so long to now blame that on others, then use it as an excuse to further undermine what is left of it.

The reason gays might have further time and paperwork involved is that their relationships have never been, and are not now, set in any specific sort of social model. Therefore everything is unique for each and every couple in a way that it has never been for male/female couples. It needs to stay that way until gays themselves establish and recognize a pattern. Merely plugging into the current pattern forged for heterosexual couples is really not even good for gays.

 

[beechy]

This has been asked and answered multiple times. Are you stating there is no circumstance when it is necessary for the law to deal with issues unique to procreation? What, do the kids automatically belong to the government at birth, and the parents themselves have nothing to do with it?

Multiple times indeed. Again, procreation is not unique to marriage. Do you think the US should enact and enforce laws making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage?

There has always existed a set of expectations regarding men, women, what they owe to one another and what they owe to their kids. Part of this set of expectations has been marriage throughout history in the vast, vast majority of times and places.

Defining gay relationships as marriages too simply undoes the meaning of marriage as it pertains to straights, where it is not merely a social issue but a function of the unique relationship between man and wife, and between parents and their biological children.

Do parents have different responsibilities to their biological children then they do to their adopted children? Should the law impose different (fewer?) responsibilities on parents with respect to their adopted children then it does with respect to their biological children?

The mockery of the unique importance of this relationships has already resulted in devastating effects that are documented concerning the effect it has had on kids in this nation. Marriage and sexual responsibility have been mercilessly attacked and mocked by the left for the last 50+ years, and the damage is obvious.

Letting gay people get married is not a mockery of marriage and sexual responsibility.

We don't need gay marriage. We need marriage reform for the future of our actual, biological families.

Would this reform include an exclusion of marriage for couples with non-biological families?

Everything gays need concerning property, child rearing and the like is available to them. In the event they have a biological child, marriage and/or other laws relevant to child welfare already apply.

Marriage does not apply to anyone unless they choose to get married. A couple is not automatically married just because they have a child together.

If they are adopting, artificially inseminating, or whatever else, that is all different from the normal way of having kids anyhow and, again, laws already cover those issues, including single or couple adoption and so forth.

Same exact thing can be said of any and all straight couples who don't have biological children.

 

[beechy]

Therefore everything is unique for each and every couple in a way that it has never been for male/female couples. It needs to stay that way until gays themselves establish and recognize a pattern. Merely plugging into the current pattern forged for heterosexual couples is really not even good for gays.

I don't understand what you mean. What sort of "pattern" needs to be established, and why?

 

[Shane Roach]

What's your point?

That you appear to be cherry picking references and portions of references in order to poison the well, and when people of your same political bent and you do this, while tossing accusations at someone like Philothei, people notice it, even if you try to bury it under spam.

Further example --

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

It's the same story over and over. People argue for gay marriage, present so called proofs, get their proofs disproved, and then bury the issue with comments like, "we always back our statements with real proof, which is why we always win."

This despite massive accumulating evidence to the contrary.

I believe Philothei read her reference, and indeed I believe if you were to check, what she said is supported by the newer reference you provided as well. You had a few points to make, and that's fine, but where does this accusation about reading the citation come from? It's typical, totally extraneous and off topic, and what's more I think this is done by the same people, over and over, for a reason -- to bury the legitimate conversation and taint any pro-Christian viewpoint.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Heterosexuals have not. Leftists have had an anti family agenda going back to Marx and Engels. This is where the damage comes from. It's a heck of a thing for the same people who have worked to undermine marriage so long to now blame that on others, then use it as an excuse to further undermine what is left of it.

The reason gays might have further time and paperwork involved is that their relationships have never been, and are not now, set in any specific sort of social model. Therefore everything is unique for each and every couple in a way that it has never been for male/female couples. It needs to stay that way until gays themselves establish and recognize a pattern. Merely plugging into the current pattern forged for heterosexual couples is really not even good for gays.

How have they not? They've been the only ones allowed to get marriage up until this current century. Plenty Christian heterosexual couples have been guilty of "undermining marriage." And how have leftist had an anti-family agenda? Because they might view families in a different manner then right thinking individuals?

And I don't even understand the point you're trying to make in that last paragraph so please elaborate. What patterns are you talking about?

 

[LittleNipper]

If a woman has a hysterectomy, should she and her partner stop selfishly having sex since they know there is no way they're going to get pregnant?

One may consider that stranger miriacles have occurred but never between two men or two women. However, it might also be considered that there are instances where after such an operation the woman has much discomfort. In such cases, the husband and wife married for better or for worse. They should remain married and not have sex...

 

[b&wpac4]

One may consider that stranger miriacles have occurred but never between two men or two women.

How do you know it never happened?

 

[Mercy Medical]

One may consider that stranger miriacles have occurred but never between two men or two women. However, it might also be considered that there are instances where after such an operation the woman has much discomfort. In such cases, the husband and wife married for better or for worse. They should remain married and not have sex...

You didn't really answer the question...

 

[LittleNipper]

Okay, but you stated that having sex for sex's sack is evil. So what if they are using protection and are having sex for sex's sake with no intention of getting pregnant. Yes, there is always that possibility, but their intentions are to just have sex to get off. So what then? What about oral sex or anal sex? Are those evil in a marriage as well? What about couples that are incapable of having children? Should they refrain from sex because they are incapable of procreation?

I feel such acts are wrong unless the ultimate goal is to have a baby. It is never impossible to have a baby until death do they part. There are at least four instances in the Bible were infertile and or elderly couples gave birth to a baby. None of them were of the same sex.

 

[LittleNipper]

You didn't really answer the question...

Yes, I did. Where a couple is trying to have baby, even if medicine suggests this is very unlikely, they are doing the act for the correct purpose and not for an evil intent.

 

[Mercy Medical]

I feel such acts are wrong unless the ultimate goal is to have a baby. It is never impossible to have a baby until death do they part. There are at least four instances in the Bible were infertile and or elderly couples gave birth to a baby. None of them were of the same sex.

Thanks for bolding and underlining the last part. I would have thought otherwise if you wouldn't have brought that up...

 

[LittleNipper]

How do you know it never happened?

When has it happened?

 

[LittleNipper]

Thanks for bolding and underlining the last part. I would have thought otherwise if you wouldn't have brought that up...

Sorry, but b&wpac4 obviously did or at least he's grabbing for straws...

 

[b&wpac4]

When has it happened?

You believe God allowed a woman that never had sex AT ALL to have a baby. Why is this a bigger stretch for you? Do you believe that ALL God's work is contained in the Bible? Nothing ever happened to was contained outside of it?

 

[b&wpac4]

Sorry, but b&wpac4 obviously did or at least he's grabbing for straws...

Sorry, but LittleNipper thinks God can be contained in a book or he's grabbing at straws...

 

[Mercy Medical]

Yes, I did. Where a couple is trying to have baby, even if medicine suggests this is very unlikely, they are doing the act for the correct purpose and not for an evil intent.

Okay, so do you believe that since you think having sex without the intention of having a child (even in a marriage) is evil and immoral that the government should somehow mandate that and make sex without the intention of having a child illegal somehow?

 

[LittleNipper]

Sorry, but LittleNipper thinks God can be contained in a book or he's grabbing at straws...

I believe GOD revelations to man can and are contained in a very special book that we call the Bible. Enough to easily say that sexual impropiety is not either ignored by GOD nor promoted by HIM.

 

[b&wpac4]

I believe GOD revelations to man can and are contained in a very special book that we call the Bible. Enough to easily say that sexual impropiety is not either ignored by GOD nor promoted by HIM.

So, God never blessed a single person that didn't absolutely deserve it?

 

[rosenherman]

I have a couple of gay friends.
The thought of them perishing in hell for eternity because of their sexuality disturbs me.

It's just not fair.
Then again, what is.

They will perish in hell because of their unwillingness to repent of their sins and accept Jesus sacrifice for the propitiation of those sins. Their homosexual activities are a sin just as sex outside of marriage is a sin, and stealing, and lying, and putting anything before God. That is the sin, not because they desire someone of the same sex.

 

[rosenherman]

So, God never blessed a single person that didn't absolutely deserve it?

Now, come on b&w, you know that none of us deserve the blessings of God. We couldn't.