The Religious Liberty to Support Same Sex Marriage...

[sean michael]

Gurney, you have some very good points, and lets face it, until the past decade, we as Christians have lived without any of the hardships or persecutions most Christians have faced in most countries at most periods of time. We are spoiled to have nothing to do but bask in the awesomeness of god and share his love and majesty with the world around us. These persecutions are coming, and not in a small trickle, but in an avelanche, and it isn't the gays fault, or the miscreant, god holds you and I, the beleivers, accountable, not the heathen.

 

[sean michael]

And you're right about the civil rights effect, and again, the church has its hand in it, with all the political correctness and seeker friendly doctrine bending we've made ourselves ripe to either fully bend over, or be accused of waffling in our values and standards to suit our own needs. If christ were here, I qm certain he would not even entertain this discussion. Its a distraction.

 

[truthseeker32]

No, I'm saying the current state of marriage in this country is completely irrelevant to Christianity and whatever secular laws are applied to it are of no consequence to Christianity.

Really, you can't think of any way in which such legislation could affect those who oppose it?

1) state marriage is a contract, which can lawfully be breached by either party, for any reason, or even for no reason at all. 2) state marriage allows for the marriage of satanists, pegans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and all other people typed regardless of their stances for or against Christianity, so supposing Christians should delegate state marriage according to Christian values is a fairy tale that went out the window before it ever had a chance to be real.

As a Christian, do you not believe that Christian morality is more than just an arbitrary set of rules that only Christians should follow? Are our morals a force for good that should be taken into the world to combat evil, or are our morals as arbitrary as Jewish dietary law?

Christian marriage is not a contract between two people, each party with responsibilities to the fulfilment of the contract, contingent upon the other party fulfilling their responsibilities. True Christian marriage is a covenant, not between a man and a woman, but between a man and god, and between a woman and god. It is a covenant to god, without condition or contingency, to be a godly spouse to the other party, regardless of the other party's responsibilities and performance.

And do you think that marriage exists as such because God wishes that everyone adhere to this principle of marriage because it is best for the world, or do you think it is a rule that is only good for Christians. In other words, which view of marriage is better for society?

There is no simularity to marriage of the state, its like saying gays shouldn't be allowed to hide Easter eggs because that's just for Christians. Why do we hide the eggs on Jesus? Its all duckspeak

If a person's argument is that gay marriage should be opposed because the Bible says so, they are putting forward a poor argument. My argument is that gay marriage, first of all, isn't even a thing, and primarily that it should be opposed because it is not a good thing, just like dangerous levels of air pollution or any other enemy of society should be opposed. Unfortunately, the popular opinion among the American populous seems to be that the state has no role in promoting the good, but rather it should simply defend a person's right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cause direct physical harm to others.

 

[sean michael]

Truthseeker, I feel your passion, and let me assure you, believing its the governments role to cause us to do what's good is the reason the government is now mandating birth control as a human right, in fact Washington state is going so far to include abortion provisions required by law to be covered by any insurance provider in the state. It is the reason hitler tried to make mankind stronger, by purifying it, having the government decide what's moral, outside of basic protections from harm is a horrible horrible idea which has destroyed this country's 2 centuries worth of progress in 4 short years, and its only just begun.

 

[sean michael]

I don't need the government dictating my morals, that's what god gave me common sense for

 

[sean michael]

Your argument that gay marriage isn't a thing is a lot like my argument that state marriage isn't a thing, at least as it pertains to god and christianity

 

[sean michael]

You have very good points, they just don't permeate the facts in this debate. Yes, all of god ways are good, yes, for all people. What do we do if people don't want to hear the gospel?
A) sue the schools for god to be allowed
B) prevent secular people (gays) from engaging in secular institutions ( state marriage)
C) shake the dust off our feet and spend our time giving what's valuable to those who actually value it

 

[Tallguy88]

Sorry, but you lost me at Rev Emily.

Just because someone is a minister in a church other than your own, where they could not be a minister, does not, in and of itself, render their argument invalid and without merit.

Oh, wait. It's a woman?

Never mind. They don't have valid opinions.

Carry on my wayward son.

 

[Tallguy88]

What most people are missing in this debate is realizing how the ideologies and laws in our society shape and change it. For example, many people believe that people should have a right to look at pornography because, as they claim, their activities do not harm others. I believe this opinion stems from a failure to recognize that "harm" extends beyond readily observable effects like physical abuse. Pornography distorts the users mind, inclining them to see people they are attracted to as objects. It can ruin relationships or prevent the creation of them altogether. Further, it perpetuates the ideology that the "good" in society is merely whatever you want it to be, so long as it doesn't cause immediate harm to others.

Likewise, it is very tempting to think "why not let them get married? It isn't going to affect me!" Perhaps it won't. Perhaps it will be an exception to the rule, but I would wager that just like so many other ideas perpetuated in society (drugs, tobacco, alcohol, casual sex, abortion) gay "marriage" is going to alter society's view of a relationship, a family, and thus will affect the moral perspective of future generations.

I, for one, wish to see marriage as more than just something people have the right to do because they feel like it, and only as long as they feel like it.

How does tobacco alter society's view of a relationship?

 

[truthseeker32]

How does tobacco alter society's view of a relationship?

That was written poorly. I brought up tobacco as something that has been harmful because of how it was seen and perpetuated in society.

 

[Tallguy88]

Civil marriage is a civil right insofar as people who enter into it receive real and tangible benefits from the state that people who cannot enter into it are barred from receiving.

As such, certain solutions to this issue include one or more of the following:

1. To affirm that certain classes of people are indeed barred from marrying based on arbitrary standards.

2. Allow marriage for all without consideration for their sex.

3. Remove all legal benefits from marriage, thereby negating the issue entirely.

4. Allow the legal benefits of marriage to be had by people in an arrangement not dependent on the sex or sexual relationship of the individuals and have it be separate from marriage.

Personally, I support both number three and four above. Removing legal benefits from marriage and attaching them to civil unions would negate any possibly forced redefinition of "marriage" while at the same time allowing all the former benefits of marriage to be had by both gays and straights. Marriage could then return to its proper place as a religious rite without any interference from the state.

 

[truthseeker32]

Truthseeker, I feel your passion, and let me assure you, believing its the governments role to cause us to do what's good is the reason the government is now mandating birth control as a human right, in fact Washington state is going so far to include abortion provisions required by law to be covered by any insurance provider in the state. It is the reason hitler tried to make mankind stronger, by purifying it, having the government decide what's moral, outside of basic protections from harm is a horrible horrible idea which has destroyed this country's 2 centuries worth of progress in 4 short years, and its only just begun.

We must recognize the distinction between government making people do something, as is the case with the birth control mandate, and the government not recognizing something. I am actually sympathetic to the libertarian perspective that the government shouldn't have anything to do with defining marriage, since the government can only work for the good in society if it knows the good, which is often not the case. One of my fears is that, as has been the case in Massachusetts, gay marriage legislation will turn into exactly what you fear: the beginning of a society where public schools teach students that the definition of marriage is broad and there is no such thing as gender. This is a slippery slope argument, and this may not come about. I hope it doesn't.

I do have a question for you though. You state that you think it is the government's job to protect us from harm. What is "harm" and who decides?

I don't need the government dictating my morals, that's what god gave me common sense for

Person X's common sense says abortion is good, person Y's common sense tells them abortion is bad. How do we determine whether abortion is good or bad?

 

[Tallguy88]

That was written poorly. I brought up tobacco as something that has been harmful because of how it was seen and perpetuated in society.

I see. In that case, I more or less agree regarding the damage the things you listed can do to society or an individual.

I would only add that certain things you listed can be used in moderation or in a way that is not harmful (tobacco, alcohol, certain drugs) while other things (casual sex, pornography, certain drugs) cannot be safely used in moderation without the negative effects potentially affecting the user.

Was that legalese enough for you? ?

 

[Tallguy88]

Truthseeker, you say you worry that schools will stop teaching about gender. Did you know that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no such thing as gender? At least insofar as it is implied that gender is separate from biological sex.

I'm not sure I agree with that assertion.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I read "Rev Emily" and then stopped reading.

she should be called Rev. Evily

 

[truthseeker32]

Truthseeker, you say you worry that schools will stop teaching about gender. Did you know that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no such thing as gender? At least insofar as it is implied that gender is separate from biological sex.

I'm not sure I agree with that assertion.

Did I say that? Once again I must clarify. I am afraid that society will continue to go about calling things that were once considered disorderly perfectly normal as they have with homosexuality. "Oh, you aren't inclined to use your sexual organ according to its purpose? Nothing wrong with that. You were born male, but you believe you are actually a woman trapped in a man's body? Nothing wrong with that. You are a boy who wants to use the girls bathroom or locker room because gender is an artificial construct? Nothing wrong with that."

 

[Tallguy88]

Did I say that? Once again I must clarify. I am afraid that society will continue to go about calling things that were once considered disorderly perfectly normal as they have with homosexuality. "Oh, you aren't inclined to use your sexual organ according to its purpose? Nothing wrong with that. You were born male, but you believe you are actually a woman trapped in a man's body? Nothing wrong with that. You are a boy who wants to use the girls bathroom or locker room because gender is an artificial construct? Nothing wrong with that."

Again, I agree that "society" is too quick to dismiss tradition in favor of sexual a free-for-all. However, there exists evidence that trans-sexualism is the result of biological factors, not purely psychological ones. As such, I am not so quick to condemn those who feel the were truly born into the wrong sex. If they have the genitals of a male, but the brain of a female, what is their gender? What if they have male parts on the outside, and ovaries on the inside?

I believe that most transsexuals are male to female. This would make sense biologically since all people have female chromosomes, but only half have make chromosomes. As such, it could be that the X chromosome is somehow overriding the Y chromosome, at least in certain aspects.

It's all very interesting from an intellectual standpoint. And it helps me to see that homosexuals and transsexuals are not just degenerates trying to bring down society, but people with real problems that could potentially be "cured" with genetic therapy, if the technology advances to that point. Whether people would accept such treatment, is another matter, of course.

 

[sean michael]

Yeah truthseeker, this whole thing is a slipperyslope either way it goes, unfortunately, and that's BECAUSE common sense has been overridden by political correctness. And, no, nobody's common sense tells them its OK to kill babies. Poorly formulated doctrine, need for personal solution, and godlessness, tells somebody its OK to kill a baby

 

[sean michael]

Progressive liberalism is coming on like an avelanche in all of these debates, and its winning the day. Nobody wants to call it political, and I don't care what you call it, its a large agenda of a godless minority who have taken over the world.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yeah truthseeker, this whole thing is a slipperyslope either way it goes, unfortunately, and that's BECAUSE common sense has been overridden by political correctness. And, no, nobody's common sense tells them its OK to kill babies. Poorly formulated doctrine, need for personal solution, and godlessness, tells somebody its OK to kill a baby

I would also add lack of support or viable alternatives to that list.

I'll wager that very few women who get an abortion do so without great personal anguish. I personally know of two women who had abortions. One did it because she thought it was the only way to save her marriage. I didn't work. And I know it haunts her to this day (35 years later).

So who's sin is greater? The woman who has an abortion because she feels she has no other choice? Or the people who convinced her she had no other choice?