defending your views

[Mr. Pedantic]

Hi Tom,

I dont think anyone is denying that there is love between two homosexual partners...its just that it is a wrong kind of love. There are essentially 3 forms of love and they are : Phileo which is brotherly and sisterly love... the kind you have for a good friend of the same sex and opposite sex , Eros love which is romantic love...the kind of love that has passion in it as in romance and often the sexual, and Agapa love which is the highest form of love because it is totally unconditional and often undeserving such as the love that God has for his created Beings.

I was just wondering...is homosexual, consensual love better, or worse, than the type of love a psychologically damaged serial killer/rapist has for his targets?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Really? As far as I can tell, there's no difference between the love my wife and I have for each other, and the love people in same-sex couples have for each other.

You have a possibility of having fruit from that sexual relationship and same-sex couples don't.

the type of love a psychologically damaged serial killer/rapist has for his targets?

That's not love. Not that I'm being pedantic

 

[David Brider]

You have a possibility of having fruit from that sexual relationship and same-sex couples don't.

Even assuming you're right, what of it? Does that make the nature of the love that exists between two people in a same-sex couple any different from that between myself and my wife?

David.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Does that make the nature of the love that exists between two people in a same-sex couple any different from that between myself and my wife?

Depends what you mean by "love" and what you consider the fruit of that love to be.

 

[David Brider]

Depends what you mean by "love" and what you consider the fruit of that love to be.

Well, the love that I have for my wife is such that I am totally, 100%, committed to her, devoted to her, would die for her, want the best for her, will do everything in my power to ensure that she is happy and safe. It's such that we've made a mutual commitment to spend the rest of our natural lives together, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, forsaking all others. And the fruit of that love is - at least for the time being - that we are spending a very happy life together as a family unit, albeit one which so far consists of just the two of us.

So yes. Do you think that is somehow different from the love that exists between two people in a same-sex couple? If so, how is it different?

 

[Gadarene]

Depends what you mean by "love" and what you consider the fruit of that love to be.

Specifying what that 'fruit' is would be a start.

People love to talk about this uber mysterious 'fruit' that is apparently off limits to gay couples but never actually say what it is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes it does - you deliberately didn't quote anythig which implied men were to submit, which it does. Also, you didn't mention how the entire human race is equally corrupted, both male and female, and that we need a saviour. It's called proof-texting.

So you ignore everything the Bible has to say about men submitting and you expect me to accept your incomplete view of Scripture? Not going to happen.

Feel free to post any bible passages that say Women are superior to Men.

And the fact they are both corrupted does not change the simple fact that women are supposed to submit and be subservient to their husbands.

Actually it does. And you didn't take me up on the offer, did you? Cause you know I'm right?

No it doesn't.... and what offer are you referring to?

It's you who says that, not me. I think men and women are co-inheritors.

I completely agree Men and Women deserve equal status. I also don't dispute that you personally feel that way as well. However, the point remains that your holy book does not follow that particular viewpoint.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You have a possibility of having fruit from that sexual relationship and same-sex couples don't.

And how does that matter to the amount of love they feel for each other?

What about a man with a vasectomy and his wife? They also have no possibility of "having fruit"... Does their love also not equal that of a fully fertile couple?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Feel free to post any bible passages that say Women are superior to Men.

"My soul doth magnify the Lord..."

What about a man with a vasectomy and his wife? They also have no possibility of "having fruit"...

Actually it has happened quite often.

 

[Dave Ellis]

"My soul doth magnify the Lord..."

And how does that apply?

Mary is stating that she glorifies God. It makes no mention about her standing versus Men.

Actually it has happened quite often.

You know what I mean.... But if you want to try to evade the point, I'll edit it to a completely infertile woman and a completely infertile man who are in love. Is their love any less than a fertile couple just because they can't have kids?

 

[Spiritlight]

Everyone with regard to their opinion is 100% correct to them. We are talking personal preference based on available knowledge or understanding.

If Spmeone has a viewpoint I accepts their right to have that opinion even if deep down I hate it. I do that because I want that given to me from others with regard to my opinion about my beliefs.

Ill discuss things civilly but am open to the notion I don't know it all and others could teach me lots.

If I come across people who can't rest until they have made everyone have the same thoughts as them I get disinterested because they will waste my time because its all one way...theirs.

It's not that I won't defend my viewpoint it's more if I care about the persons opinion who might be being controversial and 9 times out if 10 I don't care so I don't bother.

 

[Tomk80]

You have a possibility of having fruit from that sexual relationship and same-sex couples don't.

Which has to do with sex and procreation (lust), not with love. I am always given to understand by Christians that there is a difference between the two.

 

[Gadarene]

Which has to do with sex and procreation (lust), not with love. I am always given to understand by Christians that there is a difference between the two.

To go back to the eros/philos/agape trifecta that was brought up earlier, I once read a work by Selwyn Hughes that said that a married relationship was a mix of all three.

Works for non-marrieds too, of course, but it does seem a little silly to assert that NO GAYS ARE 100% EROS AND NOTHING ELSE when it's blatantly incorrect.

 

[contango]

Do you ever find that if you try to defend your views against liberals they jump on you, complaining that you are intolerant, while they themselves are totally intolerant of your views?

Someone asked my opinion on gay marriage and I said that I didn't agree with it, as it lessens the seriousness of marriage and isn't good for society. Of course everyone jumped down my throat and had a huge go at me and ridiculed me, calling me intolerant, juvenile and an idiot.

Does anyone else feel wary of sharing their unfashionable views?

My views are unfashionable most of the time. I remember listening to a discussion about gay marriage a few months back and found myself in the curious position of disagreeing with just about every viewpoint presented there.

I disagreed with the speaker (who was opposed to gay marriage) because I don't see why any secular couple shouldn't enter into a secular contract to acquire secular benefits. I also disagreed with the more liberal attendees because I don't see why any venue should be required to host any wedding that conflicted with their principles.

You are right that a lot of people expect their own views to be imposed on everyone else, and tolerance only goes one way. That said it can be quite funny when people who know I'm a Christian assume I have particular viewpoints only for them to realise that I don't expect anyone who isn't also a Christian to live by them.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I disagreed with the speaker (who was opposed to gay marriage) because I don't see why any secular couple shouldn't enter into a secular contract to acquire secular benefits.

I think I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing!

Whether civil partnerships overall is a good thing or not is an argument I'll leave to one side for the minute but one argument for it really stinks. Why should you have to get married/CP'ed to get legal rights or certain benefits from the state?

 

[contango]

I think I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing!

Whether civil partnerships overall is a good thing or not is an argument I'll leave to one side for the minute but one argument for it really stinks. Why should you have to get married/CP'ed to get legal rights or certain benefits from the state?

Depending on the rights it makes sense to have some kind of formal contract, even if only to determine who wishes to be considered "paired" (or whatever else it might be called) to whom.

From the perspective of the secular benefits of marriage (next of kin rights, tax-free transfers, the right to refuse to incriminate each other in court etc) it seems to me that any group of two or more people should be allowed to enter into such a contract regardless of their gender and regardless of whether their relationship was sexual or not. If any of them wanted to exit the arrangement it would need the equivalent of a divorce where assets were divided in a way that was equitable.

It feeds into a related discussion about things like taxation and the role of the state in general but that's a serious derail of this thread.

 

[Gadarene]

Depending on the rights it makes sense to have some kind of formal contract, even if only to determine who wishes to be considered "paired" (or whatever else it might be called) to whom.

From the perspective of the secular benefits of marriage (next of kin rights, tax-free transfers, the right to refuse to incriminate each other in court etc) it seems to me that any group of two or more people should be allowed to enter into such a contract regardless of their gender and regardless of whether their relationship was sexual or not. If any of them wanted to exit the arrangement it would need the equivalent of a divorce where assets were divided in a way that was equitable.

It feeds into a related discussion about things like taxation and the role of the state in general but that's a serious derail of this thread.

Which is fine in itself, but that's rarely what the debate involves.

It's not "I'm against gay marriage, and in fact all marriage inasmuch as the state is involved", it's "I want marriage for my group, and everyone else can shove it".

Not that you brought it up, but it is somewhat of a red herring - and I wonder how many people who oppose gay marriage only started caring about the role of the state in marriage when it turned out they weren't likely to be able to keep it restricted to members of their in-group.

 

[contango]

Which is fine in itself, but that's rarely what the debate involves.

It's not "I'm against gay marriage, and in fact all marriage inasmuch as the state is involved", it's "I want marriage for my group, and everyone else can shove it".

Not that you brought it up, but it is somewhat of a red herring - and I wonder how many people who oppose gay marriage only started caring about the role of the state in marriage when it turned out they weren't likely to be able to keep it restricted to members of their in-group.

Honestly, that's one thing I really struggle to understand.

The Bible talks of marriage between one man and one woman, for life. Jesus had a few choice words to say about divorce and remarriage.

Within the church if marriages break down we tend to wring our hands and figure that it's not ideal but it happens. If the people involve want to go on and remarry we wring our hands and figure it's not ideal but these things happen. If celebrities get married to promote their latest movie we shrug and say it's not right but there's nothing we can do about it, and when people get into the kind of serial monogamy and change spouses more often than their furniture, well, that's just part of living in a fallen world. But as soon as two committed people who have been together for years want to register their relationship but both are the same sex you'd think all hell had broken loose.

Without derailing the thread into our relative stances on whether homosexuality is compatible with Christianity, it is safe to say that either God will bless a gay marriage or he won't. If God will bless a gay relationship it's hard to see him looking down from heaven and figuring that this gay couple are loving, committed, monogamous etc but because we wouldn't let them call it a "marriage" he won't bless them after all. If God won't bless a gay relationship it's hard to see him looking down from heaven and figuring that because we gave it a different name he'd better get busy with the blessings. Or, put another way, the actual relationship doesn't change whatever name we happen to give it.

At the same time if a venue is opposed to homosexual relationships, for whatever reason, they must also have the freedom to decline to host a ceremony for a gay couple. Liberty has to go both ways.

 

[Gadarene]

Honestly, that's one thing I really struggle to understand.

The Bible talks of marriage between one man and one woman, for life. Jesus had a few choice words to say about divorce and remarriage.

Within the church if marriages break down we tend to wring our hands and figure that it's not ideal but it happens. If the people involve want to go on and remarry we wring our hands and figure it's not ideal but these things happen. If celebrities get married to promote their latest movie we shrug and say it's not right but there's nothing we can do about it, and when people get into the kind of serial monogamy and change spouses more often than their furniture, well, that's just part of living in a fallen world. But as soon as two committed people who have been together for years want to register their relationship but both are the same sex you'd think all hell had broken loose.

Adapting to social change while denying furiously that you adapt to society over time will do that

Without derailing the thread into our relative stances on whether homosexuality is compatible with Christianity, it is safe to say that either God will bless a gay marriage or he won't. If God will bless a gay relationship it's hard to see him looking down from heaven and figuring that this gay couple are loving, committed, monogamous etc but because we wouldn't let them call it a "marriage" he won't bless them after all. If God won't bless a gay relationship it's hard to see him looking down from heaven and figuring that because we gave it a different name he'd better get busy with the blessings. Or, put another way, the actual relationship doesn't change whatever name we happen to give it.

I'd have thought that trying to encourage long-term stable and monogamous relationships would be generally more important than orientation enforcement.

It's all the more galling to me that many Christians will actively conspire to create an atmosphere where gay people cannot form long-term relationships, then condemn "the gay lifestyle" for not producing gay couples in long-term relationships.

At the same time if a venue is opposed to homosexual relationships, for whatever reason, they must also have the freedom to decline to host a ceremony for a gay couple. Liberty has to go both ways.

Decline to host, fine.

Decline to act as registrar (on behalf of the state) - not fine, if they're going to discriminate on the grounds of orientation, as they're acting on behalf of the state, and orientation is a protected class.

I think the separation of signing the registry from the wedding ceremony is probably the best solution here (and I mean separate as in physically separate - different buildings/institutions. If churches want to retain the right to discriminate, then they should forego the opportunity to act on the behalf of the state as registrar - if that's how state-backed marriage is going to be carried out).

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Read back what you wrote and tell me with a straight you really do not see how offensive it is. You are basically denying what these people feel for each other and describing it as if it is some sort of illness. And you want to be treated with respect for that kind of view?

Hello Tom. I re-read what i posted . Perhaps its only 'offensive' because a certain part of the Populace wishes to do whatever they want and expect the remaining People to embrace it and call it permissible and moral ? Could this be a possibility ? Because our Creator made peoples sexuality to be practiced toward the opposite sex in the context of a marital commitment, the standard for what is TRULY correct or not is in light of the Creators character, nature, and loving/protective moral mandates....and not based on what mere Man fancies because he/she has an affinity toward the deviant from Gods norm.

Because this is the Creators view, I would hope and expect this view would be treated with respect in light of where it comes from. Regards.