Question for those opposed to same sex marriage

IreneAdler said:

But the church aspect of it is what causes the problem. And I appreciate the semantics of marriage, but you don't often see the other groups causing a stir about it (and being Messianic I get the Jewish thing as well, better than most I'd think). In the US the main argument against gay marriage is religion. Why not make two seperate entities and leave it at that. The government gets what they want, people get secure legal unions if they want, others get to have their secluded idea of what marriage should be. frankly I dont' see why it matters what you call it. I think the whole idea that your religious beliefs dictate someone else's life is stupid, yes, even mine.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying... the point most people I know make is that whatever it is called.. the legal term must be the same for all couples who have make the legal commitment to each other. Currently it's a marriage license, and a marriage certificate -- no matter if you intend to make the ceremony a legal one or a religious one. I don't think most people have an attachment to a specific word, I think they have an attachment to equal process, equal protection, equal access for WHATEVER it is that legal coupling is called.

right. just change the term. (and exclude religious people from being able to cause a legal union to occur)

if you remove religion from the political aspect, then you can't require the religious aspect to be legislated. kwim?

IreneAdler said:

but that is what you meant right?

It's kinda strange because you cannot be MADE to call yourself married and in essence, could live together for 50 years without being that, not be taxed, etc. The civil union thing would of course come with the icky taxation thing I'm sure, but then good little Christians could get married and not be taxed because marriage wouldn't be a part of governmental workings. (which I think would be great cause if I get married again, it will be in a church and I'd love not to be penalized for doing it)

Click to expand...

Actually depending on the state you live in it might be necessary to legally protect yourself against being considered married. NOLO press has a book about living together and legal protection to avoid ending up in a legal mess because you end up as "common law" or "defacto" (NOLO press actually has a number of good self help legal books)

I just know the common laws in Texas. You're right, it varies state to state which is a pain in the butt, but hey, states rights and all that.

IreneAdler said:

right. just change the term. (and exclude religious people from being able to cause a legal union to occur)

if you remove religion from the political aspect, then you can't require the religious aspect to be legislated. kwim?

Click to expand...

But the religious ceremony isn't legislated now. The only way it would be is if one was required to have a religious ceremony. If people want nothing to do with the government when it comes to marriage then THOSE people should be the ones who don't get a license. They should simply have a ceremony in their home or house of worship, and call it a day.

The family that advocates really bad child discipline techniques; (the pearls) in one of their newsletters they talked about their daughter's wedding, how she didn't get a license because they didn't want any association with an entity that would eventually allow same sex marriage because it would taint their own marriage. Either you want the "legal" involvement or you don't.

but the ceremony causes a civil action to occur in government. That's my fuss. Somehow there has to be a middle road where everyone gets their cake and eats it too. like I said, I'd much rather lose a term than have people fighting over legislation for eons.
it's really unnecessary that religious leaders have the right to cause a legal union.

IreneAdler said:

right. just change the term. (and exclude religious people from being able to cause a legal union to occur)

if you remove religion from the political aspect, then you can't require the religious aspect to be legislated. kwim?

Click to expand...

The problem I've seen is the majority of Christians want the US to recognize their religions marriage -- and they will fight against civil unions for all as strongly (perhaps more so) then marriage for gays. Maybe some of that is they do not want their marriage (regardless of what their church recognizes) legally on the same level as gay couples.

Whether nations recognise same-sex marriage doesn't alter the fact that both the Old & New Testament tell us that it is not for believers in Christ. Giving up homosexuality is not as hard as giving up your life - many christians around the world are doing just that in the persecuted church. Anyone can be homosexual: prisoners, sailors etc have been known to turn to homosexuality while away from the opposite sex. Homosexuality was rife in the ancient world.

In the U.K we have gay marriage (civil partnerships). The hate crime legislation and other new legislation is discriminating against christians in various ways. For example people have lost jobs & income for refusing to take part in gay adoption, civil partnership ceromonies etc.

Godstone said:

Whether nations recognise same-sex marriage doesn't alter the fact that both the Old & New Testament tell us that it is not for believers in Christ.

Click to expand...

If you think that marriage is a purely Biblical concept, then please explain to me why you aren't against atheists and agnostics (who outright deny the existence of God) getting married.

Giving up homosexuality is not as hard as giving up your life - many christians around the world are doing just that in the persecuted church.

Click to expand...

I'm going to need to see proof of that before I can believe it.

Anyone can be homosexual: prisoners, sailors etc have been known to turn to homosexuality while away from the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not the same thing as having homosexual sex. You can have homosexual sex without actually being homosexual, though it probably won't be pleasurable to you if you aren't homosexual. Homosexuality involves actually being sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Prisoners and sailors aren't actually attracted to people of the same gender; they're just desperate to relieve their pent-up sexual energy. So no, not everyone can be homosexual.

Homosexuality was rife in the ancient world.

Click to expand...

So what? That doesn't mean that it's bad.

In the U.K we have gay marriage (civil partnerships).

Click to expand...

Why are you against gay marriage, when you can clearly see that nothing bad has happened as a result of it being legalized in your country?

The hate crime legislation and other new legislation is discriminating against christians in various ways. For example people have lost jobs & income for refusing to take part in gay adoption, civil partnership ceromonies etc.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to see proof of the bolded portion, please.

Godstone said:

Whether nations recognise same-sex marriage doesn't alter the fact that both the Old & New Testament tell us that it is not for believers in Christ.

Click to expand...

That is a personal opinion, one not held by everyone and one not supported by a literal and contextual reading of the bible.

Giving up homosexuality is not as hard as giving up your life -

Click to expand...

No one “gives up” their sexual orientation...and no one changes. There are people who are pressured into lying about their sexual orientation but in the end they cannot sustain the self-hatred required to do such a thing

many christians around the world are doing just that in the persecuted church.

Click to expand...

Persecuted? Society standing up and saying you don’t have the right to hate even in the name of Jesus isn’t persecution

Anyone can be homosexual: prisoners, sailors etc have been known to turn to homosexuality while away from the opposite sex. Homosexuality was rife in the ancient world.

Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is independent of any sexual behaviors. Gays are gay when not having sex….they were gay before they ever had sex. Just like heterosexuals were heterosexual before they had sex

In the U.K we have gay marriage (civil partnerships). The hate crime legislation and other new legislation is discriminating against christians in various ways.

Click to expand...

How? Your right to hate others ends when it infringes on their rights to have a happy and safe life

For example people have lost jobs & income for refusing to take part in gay adoption, civil partnership ceromonies etc.

Click to expand...

Can you provide actual references for these claims?

Verv said:

It will not have an effect on anyone else's relationship but rather an impact on society as a whole.

By condoning and normalizing abnormal behaviors the society begins losing cohesiveness and a sense of common morality and culture; the society thus begins losing its collective identity.

A society who has lost its collective identity is a society poised to go the way of Carthage, Rome & the Islamic Caliphate.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand where it is said that homosexuality is abnormal.
Psychologists everywhere have recognized that homosexuality is normal and occurs through out nature...

People usually use pedophilia as an example of the slippery slope.
However there are straight pedophiles as well.
So the pedophile excuse is irrelevant.

I would like to see an answer that does not use "abnormality" or "pedophile" in their answer.
These allegations have been proven fallacies.

Thank-you.

IreneAdler said:

Sure, you have to file paperwork.

My suggestion is seperate the two so there can't be this debate at all. Marriage = church (and some church bodies support gays and gay marriage)
Civil union = goverment and doesn't have to be about sex/sexuality but just union in a legal sense...
those who want both can have both (if they can find participating church bodies to do it)
and the government doesn't have to "force" marriage onto states which violates state rights.

Click to expand...

As it stands, all marriages are civil marriages. A church service does not make you married if you don't have a state-issued marriage license. So if anyone has the right to use the term "marriage", it's the state, not the church.

-- A2SG, but hey, we can all share the term, but the church shouldn't pretend they invented marriage, any more than they invented christmas....

Guys, I will come to this thread later and talk about neo-Confucianism and the formation of the Song Dynasty.

It may be very unpleasant for people, but there is a cultural context to every single thing that we do, and gay marriage has a tremendous cultural context that needs a historical reference point for the concept of morality on a large scale.

BigBadWlf said:

That is a personal opinion, one not held by everyone and one not supported by a literal and contextual reading of the bible.

Click to expand...

There's 2,000 years of teaching on the subject.

LightHorseman said:

Can't wait.

Click to expand...

You're sarcastic.

Zhu Xi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read this guy's work and get back to me.

If I did post anything it would mostly be just stuff from him and his contemporaries that launched a cultural revolution against what is essentially similar to what is happening in the West now.

History is an inevitable cycle; Confucianism has recognized this since the West was just building its first sense of civilization.

A2SG said:

As it stands, all marriages are civil marriages. A church service does not make you married if you don't have a state-issued marriage license. So if anyone has the right to use the term "marriage", it's the state, not the church.

-- A2SG, but hey, we can all share the term, but the church shouldn't pretend they invented marriage, any more than they invented christmas....

Click to expand...

SEMANTICS... the religious leader still has the right to make it formal. You can't just fill one out without an appropriate person performing it, whether it be clergy or civil. My proposition is that it not be clergy, ever. That way "marriage" is "sacred" for those who are scared to have other people get what they think is theirs.

Gays could always commit acts of civil disobedience by opening up their own insurance firms and their own versions of divorce courts.

That would be intriguing.

Warren Clark said:

I honestly don't understand where it is said that homosexuality is abnormal.
Psychologists everywhere have recognized that homosexuality is normal and occurs through out nature...

People usually use pedophilia as an example of the slippery slope.
However there are straight pedophiles as well.
So the pedophile excuse is irrelevant.

I would like to see an answer that does not use "abnormality" or "pedophile" in their answer.
These allegations have been proven fallacies.

Thank-you.

Click to expand...

Abnormal only means something that is not normal. It does not denote Good nor Bad! In a society where 95% of the population are dwarfs then a tall person would be considered abnormal. If you get my meaning