A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[Volos]

Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.

Richard and Mildred Loving had the right to marry someone of the same race.



To marry someone of the opposite gender would entail lying and lying often. Please explain to me why a Christian is advocating the baring of false witness.

Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.

And we have yet to hear an actual reason other than those based on hate, fear, contempt and/or personal prejudice as to why marriage should be restricted to members of the opposite gender. Do you have such a reason?

The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.

we are normal.

 

[Volos]

Considering that marriage is an institution spanning more than 3,000 yrs, being restricted to men and women the whole time, wouldn't the burden of proof here lie with those who are for gay marriage? Just a question.

Actually the burden of proof would be on those making the claim that marriage is universal to heterosexuals.

 

[Volos]

What liberty does gay marriage provide that civil unions do not?

You might want to read up on the Supreme Courts decisions about segregation, they noted that separate is not equal.

 

[Volos]

Liberty for all . . . a position of anarchy perhaps, are you suggesting liberty for rapists, child molesters, beastists, incest, murderers and racists. Or do I misunderstand you?

Are you suggesting that law abiding members of a minority do not have nor should not have equal rights?



Being homosexual is not the equivalent of any of theses things. Equal rights for all means for ALL not just white heterosexual Christian males

 

[ahman]

Actually the burden of proof would be on those making the claim that marriage is universal to heterosexuals.

why would that be the case?
if you're seeking to CHANGE something, then you need to give good reasons why, or nobody will listen.

it is not a change that is a given if people who do not agree cannot back themselves up, it is a change that will occour when you prove to the majority of people that it is not harmful in any way, which, you have also failed to do.

some people think it harms them, prove to them it doesn't.

if you can't prove your case, don't accuse others of not being able to prove theirs.

 

[Volos]

why would that be the case?
if you're seeking to CHANGE something, then you need to give good reasons why, or nobody will listen.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.



If you or someone wishes to claim that marriage has always been exclusive to heterosexual couples then you must back up that claim with evidence.



The big problem with this claim (aside from the fact that different cultures at different times in history have had different definitions of marriage) is that attempting to use the notion that marriages ahs always been exclusive to heterosexual couples is a logical fallacy specifically an appeal to tradition or history. This is the way we have always acted or believed. This is what our ancestors did or believed. Therefore, it is the way we should act or believe.

The basic assumption, then, is that whatever was good enough for our ancestors should be good enough for us as well. In this, it bears a strong resemblance to the Argument from Antiquity, which asserts that whatever is old must also necessarily be right or good — or at least better. However if this were to be followed then slavery would still exist because slavery has always existed, women could not vote because they were not allowed to vote before being granted suffrage and so on.

it is not a change that is a given if people who do not agree cannot back themselves up, it is a change that will occour when you prove to the majority of people that it is not harmful in any way, which, you have also failed to do.

If you would bother to actually read this entire thread you might notice hath the OP was specifically asking for evidence that legal recognition of same sex marriage has some definable, personal harmful effect on himself, his marriage, and/or his family. So far no one has provided such an example of this supposed harm.





Note that it is those supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians who are making the claim that somehow legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow harmful. As noted it is a claim that they (and apparently you) cannot back up.



You are suggesting that I prove a negative. This as anyone with even a passing knowledge of logic and/or debate would know is impossible. No one can prove “that it is not harmful in any way” any more than you can prove that invisible intangible unicorns do not live on Pluto.

if you can't prove your case, don't accuse others of not being able to prove theirs.

Please note that my claim is not that legal recognition of same sex marriage is harmful or not harmful, rather the claim being made is that the claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow personally harmful is not supported by those making the claim. Your post here certainly supports my claim….thank you.

 

[informedforGod]

Are you suggesting that law abiding members of a minority do not have nor should not have equal rights?

No, I would never do such a thing, but what I am asking is firstly, is marriage a right, and secondly in determining what marriage entails it is neccesary to examine its purpose and history both of which are heavily on the hetro side.

Being homosexual is not the equivalent of any of theses things.

The specific actions are different, but why is it that the things I mentioned are illegal and homosexuality is not? (This is not an argument but an honest question)

Equal rights for all means for ALL not just white heterosexual Christian males

There is nothing I said which could be remotely construed as even suggesting that only white heterosexual Christian males deserve legal protection, but I do appreciate your attempt to demonize by insinuating I would take such a negative position.

As for your point . . . well almost. American law is by and large based on the idea that personal choice should not inflict negative will on another person (a few exceptions are present, but these represent philosophical incongruities in specific reference, and I alway speak against compartmentalization). Equal rights are for people who do not obey the law (since I am commonly misinterpreted I will clarify that I don't think homosexuality is or should be illegal, this a general point, not specific).

As far as homosexuality is concerened. Laws exist for the stability and betterment of a people and are decided by the people. Two different issues, first: If homosexual marriage cannot be shown to more positively contribute to the stability or betterment of American civilization it becomes a secondary issue. As a secondary issue it falls pray to the second point. Regardless of whether it is in anyone's opinion morally right, if the majority of American's do not want homosexual marriage to be legal than guess what . . .

 

[Volos]

No, I would never do such a thing, but what I am asking is firstly, is marriage a right,

According to the Supreme Court of the United States it is.

and secondly in determining what marriage entails it is neccesary to examine its purpose and history both of which are heavily on the hetro side.

Again the logical fallacy of the appeal to history/tradition. Historically interracial couples were not allowed to have their marriages legally recognized, by this line of reasoning interracial couples should now not be allowed to have their marriages legally recognized.



The purpose of marriage depends entirely on the individual defining its purpose. When looking at the common defining purposes of marriage: the physical, social and spiritual uniting of two persons, the uniting of two families, the creation of a new family, the potential base for rearing children it becomes clear that there is no reason why same gendered married couples cannot and do not perform these functions.

The specific actions are different, but why is it that the things I mentioned are illegal and homosexuality is not? (This is not an argument but an honest question)

The simplest reasoning states that legal recognition of same sex marriage harms no one and harms nothing. This cannot be said of any of the other examples you compared legal recognition of same sex marriage to. On an individual level rape is certainly harmful as is child molestation as is incest (which almost universally involved child molestation) murder defiantly harms and so does racism. But as it has been noted several times in this thread no one has been able to identify just how legal recognition of same sex marriage is personally harmful.

There is nothing I said which could be remotely construed as even suggesting that only white heterosexual Christian males deserve legal protection, but I do appreciate your attempt to demonize by insinuating I would take such a negative position.

An inference made from your comparison of gays and lesbians to rapists, murders and child molesters.



And BTW I appreciate your attempt to demonize me with the above comparison.

As for your point . . . well almost. American law is by and large based on the idea that personal choice should not inflict negative will on another person (a few exceptions are present, but these represent philosophical incongruities in specific reference, and I alway speak against compartmentalization). Equal rights are for people who do not obey the law (since I am commonly misinterpreted I will clarify that I don't think homosexuality is or should be illegal, this a general point, not specific).

Equal right are for people who do not obey the law?????







I have to assume you meant that Equal right are for people who DO obey the law. That said, why then are you arguing for discrimination against law abiding citizens?

As far as homosexuality is concerened. Laws exist for the stability and betterment of a people and are decided by the people.

And just how is legalized discrimination promoting either stability or the betterment of anyone?

Two different issues, first: If homosexual marriage cannot be shown to more positively contribute to the stability or betterment of American civilization it becomes a secondary issue. As a secondary issue it falls pray to the second point. Regardless of whether it is in anyone's opinion morally right, if the majority of American's do not want homosexual marriage to be legal than guess what . . .

A generation or so ago the majority of Americans did not want civil rights either. That did not make restricting civil rights from people of color good or moral, just very sad. Civil rights are based on the constitution not popular opinion and we should all be thankful that this is the case.

 

[informedforGod]

Again the logical fallacy of the appeal to history/tradition. Historically interracial couples were not allowed to have their marriages legally recognized, by this line of reasoning interracial couples should now not be allowed to have their marriages legally recognized.

Rightfully so due to a lack of evidence for, and overwhelming evidence against the idea that interacial marriage was in anyway harmful. Appeal to history/tradition is not a logical fallacy but a standard of reason asserting the burden of proof. (not to mention that I was speaking directly for historical reason for marriage, and cause for the idea, not restrictions i.e. interacial, homosexual)

The purpose of marriage depends entirely on the individual defining its purpose. When looking at the common defining purposes of marriage: the physical, social and spiritual uniting of two persons, the uniting of two families, the creation of a new family, the potential base for rearing children it becomes clear that there is no reason why same gendered married couples cannot and do not perform these functions.

Meaning of my question: What is the purpose for government recognition or marriage.

The simplest reasoning states that legal recognition of same sex marriage harms no one and harms nothing. This cannot be said of any of the other examples you compared legal recognition of same sex marriage to. On an individual level rape is certainly harmful as is child molestation as is incest (which almost universally involved child molestation) murder defiantly harms and so does racism. But as it has been noted several times in this thread no one has been able to identify just how legal recognition of same sex marriage is personally harmful.

Interesting.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/samesex.htm
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0063.html
But lets get to the root of the problem, is homosexuality itself harmful?!
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/4.htm
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Additionally, incest is not universally involved in child molestation, but legal cases regarding it are because the is by and large the only reason why incest laws are enforced. Speaking of comparisons . . . lets look at polygamy. Any health risks: none other than normal heterosexual marriage. Any negative social implications: no, presumably it would acutally strengthen lasting hetro marriages (due to the emotional stability of wives being able to relate to each other as a family unit, sisterhood, not lesbianism)

An inference made from your comparison of gays and lesbians to rapists, murders and child molesters.
And BTW I appreciate your attempt to demonize me with the above comparison.

I did not compare gays and lesbians to rapists murderers and child molesters. I asserted that liberty for all is too broad of an idea to be realistic. If someone kills my best friend, I don't think he is entitled to the same freedom I am. He should be punished by the law. I did not compare gays and lesbians to rapists murderers and child molestors. This is a gross misrepresentation and misinterpretation of my statements.

I have to assume you meant that Equal right are for people who DO obey the law.

hmm, yes I seem to have made a typo. whoops.

 

[stray bullet]

it is normal

Sexual orientation is not a risk, it is not a choice, choosing to live honestly and openly is a choice however and I think that his what you truly fear that if one of your children were homosexual that he/she would choose to be honest about it.

Actually, if I had a gay child, I'd want them to be open about it. If I had a child that was bisexual or had some same-sex attractions, I'd certainly prefer they feel acting on that isn't right.

Gay marriage, in my opinion tells them otherwise.

 

[stray bullet]

To marry someone of the opposite gender would entail lying and lying often. Please explain to me why a Christian is advocating the baring of false witness.

I am not advocating that homosexuals marry people of the opposite gender.

And we have yet to hear an actual reason other than those based on hate, fear, contempt and/or personal prejudice as to why marriage should be restricted to members of the opposite gender. Do you have such a reason?

As I said- civil unions give them their rights. Marriage essentially promotes homosexuality and is therefore, not something many people are going to favor.

we are normal.

Of course, but many people believe that homosexual relationships are not.

I didn't post in this topic to make anyone feel bad.

I am just giving the honest and upfront reason why some people are against gay marriage.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Not when the default is liberty for all.

Wouldn't liberty be not being married at all?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

You might want to read up on the Supreme Courts decisions about segregation, they noted that separate is not equal.

Actually, "separate but equal" was and is a legally justifiable position. It was only when it was demonstrated that "separate" did not equal "equal" that it was overturned.

Therefore...

Gay marriage activists must first petition for civil unions, then once they achieve civil unions accumulate evidence that they aren't equal to marriages.

IF civil unions can be administered as fairly as marriages, then there exists no right for gay marriage.

The burden of proof remains with the gay marriage activists to first prove -- not speculate -- that civil unions are not an acceptable substitute for marriage.

 

[zbignew]

The essence of Jesus' teachings is perfect love. Why do people marry? Usually it's because they love one another. Stopping someone from furthering love (by marrying) doesn't make sense and is against Christ's teachings.

Basically, those who are against gay marriage do so not because it's "bad" per se, but because it's different. It's different to what they're used to. That's basically it. They don't want to admit this though, because it's a very shallow excuse, making an act illegal because it's different (but not necessarily bad) from what they're used to.

As for the other "stuff": widespread divorce, promiscuity, rape, etc., they're happening right now in societies where gay marriage is illegal, so obviously, there's no correlation between those negative stuff and gay marriage.

 

[Clem is Me]

Wouldn't liberty be not being married at all?

You funny joe.

 

[Sola Gratia]

You haven’t cited ANY reason at all.



Exactly how will Clem’s marriage be harmed?

Exactly how will ANYONE’S marriage be harmed?



No answers….just babble about how you just KNOW that this will be the result.


And you have yet to site any reason beyond your personal prejudice that my marriage is somehow inferior to your marriage or any other opposite sex marriage.


The constitution of the United Sates says that we have the right (otherwise why would there be a push to amend the constitution to prohibit this right)

I do not think the Christians founders ever expected the nation they were founding to NEED a definaton of marriage, to them it was self evident .Just as they did not address porn or abortion or polygamy . To them moral truths were plainly seen

This week the Supreme Court upheld the legal recognition of same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The Christian coalition was trying to claim in its appeal to the Supreme Court that they were being personally hurt by the legal recognition of same sex marriage but just like you they could not actually provide any support for that claim.

No , they refused to hear the case. That is not the same as upholding it .
To the court the question is not gay marriage, but states rights .

If this issue keeps coming before them from different states , at some point they will address it .

Do not think for one minute it was about "gay marriage'

The notion that legal recognition of same sex marriage leads to tooth decay and lawn mower abuse is a joke.

There is alaways a moral slippery slope, to deny this is not to see around you.

If Gay civil unions are approved they will extend to other relationships, not to extend them will be seen as bias .

The protection of a woman and her children that is afforded by marriage will be lost . People may choose not to marry so that benifits and protection would be extened to the family .A man may leave a legal wife and never seek a divorce, just keep setting up new LEGAL relationships.
We will fall in to the "cultural wife" area where polygamy will be a legal civil union allowing a man to claim many wives on his taxes and company health insurance .

We have wondered how the governemt will deal with a man that wants a civil union with his dog ? Who is the government to make such moral distinctions ?

If the benefit of marriage is extended , with it will come all the rights associated with marriage , like adoption .
I do not think most Americans are comfortable with children being raised in a preverted home, when a hetrosexual home is available and both are considered equal .

Yes, civil rights for everyone are at stake. If we allow those how choose to hate to legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians it will lead invariably to removal of civil rights from religious and racial minorities.

PLEEEEZZZZZZEEEEE

There is no "discrimination in this. Any Gay man or woman has the same option to marry someone of the opposite sex that a hetrosexual has.

There are no rigths being removed . What is being requested is an ADDITION to rights .

In Holland doctors are deciding who should live and who should die. What does that do with gay marriage? Well, the same mindset that says we human beings can "reason" our way to morality re marriage also says we can "reason" our way to morality re who lives and who dies. [/qupte]
What does it have to do with legal recognition of same sex marriage….nothing.


True. This is just one of many battles that has been fought for equality and justice for all people


You haven’t shown how legal recognition of same sex marriage threatens or harms Clems’s marriage and/or family at all. If you were a person of honor you would admit that

I think he has . The decline of morality seeps though a culture effecting everything it touches . The example of the killing of imperfect babies is a good example.

This is a natural extention of abortion , if life has no value at the beginning, then why would it have any in the end? Then if it has none at the end why not the middle? When is life precious to them? It appears never .

 

[Clem is Me]

I do not think the Christians founders ever expected the nation they were founding to NEED a definaton of marriage, to them it was self evident .Just as they did not address porn or abortion or polygamy . To them moral truths were plainly seen No , they refused to hear the case. That is not the same as upholding it .
To the court the question is not gay marriage, but states rights .

If this issue keeps coming before them from different states , at some point they will address it .

Do not think for one minute it was about "gay marriage'


There is alaways a moral slippery slope, to deny this is not to see around you.

If Gay civil unions are approved they will extend to other relationships, not to extend them will be seen as bias .

The protection of a woman and her children that is afforded by marriage will be lost . People may choose not to marry so that benifits and protection would be extened to the family .A man may leave a legal wife and never seek a divorce, just keep setting up new LEGAL relationships.
We will fall in to the "cultural wife" area where polygamy will be a legal civil union allowing a man to claim many wives on his taxes and company health insurance .

We have wondered how the governemt will deal with a man that wants a civil union with his dog ? Who is the government to make such moral distinctions ?

If the benefit of marriage is extended , with it will come all the rights associated with marriage , like adoption .
I do not think most Americans are comfortable with children being raised in a preverted home, when a hetrosexual home is available and both are considered equal .


PLEEEEZZZZZZEEEEE

There is no "discrimination in this. Any Gay man or woman has the same option to marry someone of the opposite sex that a hetrosexual has.

There are no rigths being removed . What is being requested is an ADDITION to rights .

I think he has . The decline of morality seeps though a culture effecting everything it touches . The example of the killing of imperfect babies is a good example.

This is a natural extention of abortion , if life has no value at the beginning, then why would it have any in the end? Then if it has none at the end why not the middle? When is life precious to them? It appears never .

Did you read the OP?

 

[Sola Gratia]

The essence of Jesus' teachings is perfect love. Why do people marry? Usually it's because they love one another. Stopping someone from furthering love (by marrying) doesn't make sense and is against Christ's teachings.

I am nuts about my cats and dog.. I love them very much , is it UNCHRISTIAN for me to be denied the opportunity to marry them and claim them as dependants on my taxes?

Basically, those who are against gay marriage do so not because it's "bad" per se, but because it's different. It's different to what they're used to. That's basically it. They don't want to admit this though, because it's a very shallow excuse, making an act illegal because it's different (but not necessarily bad) from what they're used to.

It is bad , that is my reason. I do not think that it is good to "get used" to bamboo under the fingernails . There are some things i have no desire to get used to and gay marriage is one of them

As for the other "stuff": widespread divorce, promiscuity, rape, etc., they're happening right now in societies where gay marriage is illegal, so obviously, there's no correlation between those negative stuff and gay marriage.

Murders and armed robbery are also happening all around us... that does not mean we should legalize burglery

 

[levi501]

$100 is still safe.

Gay marriage is as cut and dry as the Civil Rights movement in the 60s because discrimination based on sexual orientation is as arbitrary as skin color.

Theres no proven harm to society to justify the social and economic discrimination of gay marriage.

 

[levi501]

I am nuts about my cats and dog.. I love them very much , is it UNCHRISTIAN for me to be denied the opportunity to marry them and claim them as dependants on my taxes?

cats and dogs don't have civil rights and futhermore they aren't of the mental capacity to legally consent to getting married.

Murders and armed robbery are also happening all around us... that does not mean we should legalize burglery

these people hurt society you have reason to discriminate against them...
show how this is case with gay marriage.