A Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights

[JackRT]

Sojourner, in a note for these fora, asked these questions about same-sex marriages:

Is it a civil right?

Yes, it is. If it is legal for two people to marry for all of the other reasons, I cannot see why it should be illegal--or in any other way less than legal. I will make the assumption that both are of age, that one or the other is not being coerced, etc.​

Is it legal to discriminate against homosexuals or same-sex marriages?

No! Note I am saying LEGAL. It has been illegal for a long time to disciminate against blacks, Amerindians, Oriental, or any other race.

However, If (Note, I said IF) I was a gay man trying to get a cake or flowers for my wedding, if someone said NO, I would say, "well the baker down the street will make a cake for me. If you don't want my business, he does!"​

How does this affect the rights of religious organizations in regards to performing same-sex marriages?

Not all all. For instance, the Catholic Church will not perform same-sex marriage. That is their right. Neither I nor the government can (or should be able to) force my will on the Church.
​

The political and civil history of government involvement in marriage and how that pertains to the current debate.

I have heard people on the anti side say that same-sex marriage re-defines Marriage. Marriage has been re-defined so many times it makes my head spin. Just in my country alone (USA), marriage was re-defined by the Supreme Court by Loving vs. Virginia. It was re-defined by no-fault divorce. For that matter, the first time a Christian presbyter or bishop married a couple, marriage was re-defined.
If a same-sex couple should want to be civilly married, as long as they are of the same breed (human) and both are of age and neither is being coerced, fine.​

Note, I am saying that when it comes to civil marriage, there should be no difference.

It is also worth noting that from time immemorial it is not priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, pundits or judges who marry people. They merely witness and formalize the marriage. It is people who marry each other. IIRC it wasn't until the eleventh century that the church required that all weddings be conducted in accordance with Christian rites.

 

[truefiction1]

Does that make YOU guilty of the sins committed by Hitler? Absolutely not.

Unjust laws have been around since civilization began. "All have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God." Are you going to ask the USA to give back Arizona and California to the Mexicans? THEY stole it from the native Indians.

Unjust laws are going to continue to happen until Jesus returns. HE is the only just judge!

We don't think of sin in terms of guilt, but in terms of sickness, so do the sins of Hitler effect all of humankind? Yes. Do mine? Yes. Am I going to ask the USA to give back Arizona and California to the Mexicans? No, I might have told them not to steal it in the first place, but since I was not born yet and even if I had been they would not have listened, it's of no consequence. Corrupt laws will exist, but woe unto them through whom they come to exist. One who keeps Christ's commandments speaks against the offensive laws, and one who governs according to Christ's commandments votes against them.

 

[Smidlee]

Read Loving vs Virginia. Until then, it was against the law in America for a racially mixed couple to be married.

Read what I wrote, God's law is above man's law. The government at first didn't have anything to do with marriage.
God did divide the people with language which lead to the races to keep them out of trouble yet this doesn't apply to the believer. So it good to keep unbelievers separate or they will join up to rebel against God.

 

[Smidlee]

the bible lists over 60 abominations - but we never hear about any of those

You are speaking of Zipporah, a Cushite woman and eldest daughter of Jethro a priest in Midian. Midian was across the Red Sea from Egypt and the book of Ezekiel tells us that Cushites come from Arabia and Persia.

None of which changes the fact that fifty or sixty years ago people were saying the same thing you said but they were talking about interracial marriage.

It's the ungodly who tried to force people to accept homosexuality.
Now as far as keeping the races separate applied to the unbeliever to keep them joining up to rebel against God but this doesn't apply to the believer. It's good to keep the races apart since God was the one who did it the begin with.
The Jews vs Gentile division is for the purpose of God to separate a people to represent Him throughout the world.

 

[SilverBear]

Read what I wrote, God's law is above man's law. The government at first didn't have anything to do with marriage.

I think Monk Brendan was referring you to Loving v. VIrginia because of the extensive use of the bible and Christian morals the state of Virginia used to defend it's laws against inter-racial marriage

 

[Smidlee]

I think Monk Brendan was referring you to Loving v. VIrginia because of the extensive use of the bible and Christian morals the state of Virginia used to defend it's laws against inter-racial marriage

It was God who divided up the races (with language)

 

[SilverBear]

It's the ungodly who tried to force people to accept homosexuality.
Now as far as keeping the races separate applied to the unbeliever to keep them joining up to rebel against God but this doesn't apply to the believer. It's good to keep the races apart since God was the one who did it the begin with.
The Jews vs Gentile division is for the purpose of God to separate a people to represent Him throughout the world.

Yeah, this is what lawyers for the State of Virginia claimed in Loving v. Virginia, that God was opposed to interracial marriage and supporting interracial marriage was unChristian.

 

[Smidlee]

Yeah, this is what lawyers for the State of Virginia claimed in Loving v. Virginia, that God was opposed to interracial marriage and supporting interracial marriage was unChristian.

Of course it doesn't apply to the church as it did with Israel. Still the races will join up as one to rebel against God in the last days

 

[Monk Brendan]

It's the ungodly who tried to force people to accept homosexuality.

When did you make a decision to be heterosexual?

I am not trying to give you a hard time. I understand exactly what you are saying. The gay couple I know of never made any choice to be homosexual. They just grew up that way. Both came from good Christian families who knew the value of the Bible, and raised up their children to be faithful believers (which they both are, to this day.)

Now if sin is choosing to do what is thought to be evil, and there is no choice, how can it be sin?

Was Jesus tempted to do homosexual genital acts?

 

[Monk Brendan]

We don't think of sin in terms of guilt, but in terms of sickness, so do the sins of Hitler effect all of humankind?

Let's be real. Sin is sin. It is not sickness, it is rebellion against God's will. If you feel that guilt has nothing to do with such rebellion, then it is time to re-think that feeling. And yes, I am thinking about myself, and my sins.

 

[JackRT]

It's the ungodly who tried to force people to accept homosexuality.

Was it the ungodly who have marginalized, persecuted and even executed homosexuals?

 

[Smidlee]

When did you make a decision to be heterosexual?

I am not trying to give you a hard time. I understand exactly what you are saying. The gay couple I know of never made any choice to be homosexual. They just grew up that way. Both came from good Christian families who knew the value of the Bible, and raised up their children to be faithful believers (which they both are, to this day.)

Now if sin is choosing to do what is thought to be evil, and there is no choice, how can it be sin?

Was Jesus tempted to do homosexual genital acts?

You seem to agree with some of the atheist that we have no free will. Love in scripture is a choice or it's not genuine love.

 

[Smidlee]

Was it the ungodly who have marginalized, persecuted and even executed homosexuals?

The ungodly who forced gay marriage on the whole nation is the same ones who defends a group that think homosexuals should be put to death. The law of you reap what you sow.

 

[JackRT]

You seem to agree with some of the atheist that we have no free will. Love in scripture is a choice or it's not genuine love.

We have free will in determining our own actions but we have no choice over our sexual orientations.

 

[JackRT]

The ungodly who forced gay marriage on the whole nation is the same ones who defends a group that think homosexuals should be put to death. The law of you reap what you sow.

Your post makes no sense --- it contradicts itself.

 

[Smidlee]

We have free will in determining our own actions but we have no choice over our sexual orientations.

Says who? You often reap what you sow. I seriously doubt someone start out in life as a child molester, dictator ,etc but the choices we make can lead us into paths and desires we never thought we would have. Sin (like cancer) always starts out very small.

 

[Smidlee]

Your post makes no sense --- it contradicts itself.

No it's the liberals who on one hand supports gay marriage plus defends a ideology that want them dead.

 

[Monk Brendan]

You seem to agree with some of the atheist that we have no free will. Love in scripture is a choice or it's not genuine love.

Incorrect. Love IS a decision, and not a feeling. And we have free will because God has free will, and we were made in His image!

Look, I am not trying to give you a hard time. Even though God's law is higher than any of man's laws, then we have to allow others to function in that (man's laws) atmosphere.

What I have been talking about is civil rights and the rights of a US citizen. Not about the Kingdom of God. So, while I might abhor something that God hates--divorce comes to mind--I can't be out picketing the Supreme Court to get the laws about divorce and re-marriage changed.

 

[Smidlee]

We have free will in determining our own actions but we have no choice over our sexual orientations.

I know personally this is false. What you choice to dwell on will have a huge effect on one's desires.

 

[JackRT]

Says who?

“There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative conversion therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation” the American Psychiatric Association has officially stated. "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation are better adjusted than those who have not done so."

Perhaps the most famous case study in the failure of reparative therapy is that of two founders of Exodus International, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, who helped start Exodus in 1976 and worked to "convert" gay people for three years, until they fell in love and left Exodus in 1979. In 1982, they held a marriage ceremony and lived together until Cooper died nine years later. "The desires never go away," Bussee said. "After dealing with hundreds of people, I have not met one who went from gay to straight. Even if you manage to alter someone's sexual behavior, you cannot change their true sexual orientation."

As a heterosexual person I cannot imagine having to undergo some sort of therapy to convert me to homosexual. Moreover I cannot imagine it working. Homosexuality is certainly not a choice. Moreover, given the hatred, the condemnation and the persecution so prevalent in society, I cannot imagine anyone making that choice.