Just how exactly is legalised same-sex union going to be detrimental to your marriage

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

I am sorry if I am not supposed to post this here – but I am hoping this thread will rise into maturity, and have personal examples, rather than espousals of why same-sex marriage is wrong. I don't want a debate, just some personal reasons why.

How do you feel the legalisation of same-sex marriage (if it happens) could affect your own marriage? How exactly, if you believe this, will it be detrimental to your own understanding of marriage, and your marriage in particular?

It's just something I don't really understand for myself. I realise of course that homosexual activity is a sin, but how on earth is the legalising of marriage between a same-sex couple going to be detrimental to MY marriage?

I'd like to keep this to your personal reasons why it would affect YOUR marriage/life, and not debate whether the government should or should not do it.

<Begin edit by ChristianCenturion>
I would prefer not to debate the rights/wrongs of this, rather than just how it will affect them personally.
<End edit by ChristianCenturion>

Sasch

*MOD HAT - C.C. 16Jun06*

 

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I think the short answer is, it ain't goin to bother MY marriage at all. Because the gov't er whatever endorses the sin isn't goint to change the rightness of my marriage any at all.

What *could* happen? No tellin, could be tax issues arise, even though in the US it's a penalty to be married least it used to be, donno if it still is er if it finally got repealed.

Will it cheapen the idea of marriage? I think so, I think it'll cheapen what my marriage represents but only to the rest of the world, won't affect me like I says. I know my marriage is right an holy an thats enuff.

 

[Robinsegg]

Iheard that in countries where this legalization has taken place, people just don't get married any more. The reason for this is that the word "marriage" really doesn't have much of a meaning anymore. Let's say you have a dog. I call your dog a dog, but I call an elephant, a cat, a giraffe and a squirrel dogs, too. So, what do I mean when I say "dog"?

When you take away the "specialness" of a word and start applying it to other things in the same category, the original word loses meaning.

Will this effect my personal marriage? No. But it will effect marriage in the future.

Rachel

 

[romans324]

I belive the biggest and most serious threat is the children. How do you really answer a 6 yr old who sees 2 men or 2 women kissing?

 

[Robinsegg]

I belive the biggest and most serious threat is the children. How do you really answer a 6 yr old who sees 2 men or 2 women kissing?

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with legalizing their marriage?
Rachel

 

[snoochface]

It won't change the quality or holiness of my marriage one bit. It shouldn't have that affect for any Christian marriage.

It may change how non-Christians view marriage in general, or my marriage specifically, but there are a lot of views that non-Christians hold that may cause them to view me in a different light than my own. This would just be one more thing.

I don't think Christians *in general* - as a body, I mean - should be involved in political issues. If we want to change the world and government decisions, then we need to affect government officials. We need to elect Christians into government, and we need to impact and influence non-Christian government leaders to become Christians. Then God will work on their hearts.

But we know that God puts all governments into place, and we know that the world will continue to become more and more corrupt until the final days. The Bible tells us these things. We can, and should, influence people and spread the gospel and try to get as many people to join the body of Christ as possible.

I just don't feel that it is our mission to go out and try to change laws that affect non-Christians. It isn't going to make them become believers, it's just going to make them turn away from us and our beliefs even more.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I am sorry if I am not supposed to post this here &#8211; but I am hoping this thread will rise into maturity, and have personal examples, rather than espousals of why same-sex marriage is wrong. I don't want a debate, just some personal reasons why.

How do you feel the legalisation of same-sex marriage (if it happens) could affect your own marriage? How exactly, if you believe this, will it be detrimental to your own understanding of marriage, and your marriage in particular?

It's just something I don't really understand for myself. I realise of course that homosexual activity is a sin, but how on earth is the legalising of marriage between a same-sex couple going to be detrimental to MY marriage?

I'd like to keep this to your personal reasons why it would affect YOUR marriage/life, and not debate whether the government should or should not do it.

I am going to lock this thread if it turns out people feel the need to debate the rights/wrongs of this, rather than just how it will affect them personally. Just so you're forewarned!

Sasch

Same sex marriage is like a guy who gets an operation to be a woman. He might look like a woman but he never will really be a woman because he was born a man with a capital Y chromosome. He can never bring forth life like a real woman can. If the definition of marriage, which is eons old, is changed to allow for same sex marriage then the definition of marriage will lose much of its signifigance the same way a real woman compared to a fake woman does. The abomination becomes accepted as the norm.

 

[snoochface]

The definition of faith has already lost much of its significance. Faith used to mean faith in the one true living God of the Bible. Now, with so many different religions that are based on the earth, nature, water, the sun, light, darkness, evil/satanism, false prophets, historical leaders, etc. - faith can mean just about anything.

Does that cheapen what faith means to us as Christians? I don't think it does. Does it mean that as a body we should go out and try to eliminate these other religions because they are cheapening the way the world views our faith? If so, why aren't we?

Just a comparative example to think about...

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Autumnleaf,

I wasn't asking how changing it would affect the definition of marriage - I was asking how it would affect your life and your marriage individually.

(Sorry to pick on you, but if I don't jump on deviations as quick as possible, this thread is going to derail faster than I can 'seperation of state'! )...

Sasch

 

[Robinsegg]

Does that cheapen what faith means to us as Christians? I don't think it does. Does it mean that as a body we should go out and try to eliminate these other religions because they are cheapening the way the world views our faith? If so, why aren't we?

Just a comparative example to think about...

It doesn't cheapen what it means to us, but it does keep us from using that word as much to define ourselves. You see, I don't call myself a "person of faith" as much as someone years ago might have, because it no longer has the same connotation. It no longer automatically means "Christian", so I don't use that. It's lost its' meaning.

The same thing happens with marriage. When "marriage" can mean anything, people stop looking at it as something to be done with meaing.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

Autumnleaf,

I wasn't asking how changing it would affect the definition of marriage - I was asking how it would affect your life and your marriage individually.
Sasch

Sorry, I'm the one that brought it up. But changing the definition of marriage could effect the way others see my marriage relationship. It would effect how I describe myself, and how I act around others, because I would change those to give them the best idea of who I am and the type of relationships I have.

Rachel

 

[Momma2H]

Well, technically it wouldn't change anything in my marriage, but I don't see the relevance of this question. Why would it change anything in our marriages, especially if we're not in support of it. It would probably make us mad, but that wouldn't affect our marriage. I think it would affect those who are not married more than those of us who are.

 

[Stringaling]

I don't think that it will affect us individually right now at this point, but it will for future generations. As mentioned previously, in countries where it is legal (switzerland for example) the marriage rates have dropped and cohabitation has risen. Marriage has lost its value and is meaning. Divorce rates are higher, which translated into damage to children no matter what way you look at it. Sexual immorality is more rampant in those countries than in countries that do not allow marriages based on immoral behavior (what a rhetorical way to put it!)
Since the beginning of God's creation this type of union has been condemned as sin. Why should we stand back and alow it to happen, especially when we can look to other countries for examples of the longer term effects?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Autumnleaf,

I wasn't asking how changing it would affect the definition of marriage - I was asking how it would affect your life and your marriage individually.

(Sorry to pick on you, but if I don't jump on deviations as quick as possible, this thread is going to derail faster than I can 'seperation of state'! )...

Sasch

"If the definition of marriage, which is eons old, is changed to allow for same sex marriage then the definition of marriage will lose much of its signifigance the same way a real woman compared to a fake woman does. The abomination becomes accepted as the norm."

I identify myself as a married man which means something special to me and my family as a Christian man. If people willfully engaging in sin are allowed to be married I would no longer want to identify myself by that label.

 

[YellowSapphire]

Can I say that I'm on the fence about this issue?

On one hand, the Bible says that homosexual relationships are against His design. On the other hand, the Bible says women are unclean for a certain number of days each month, that women should cover their heads in church. How do I know what's a product of the times (Tim LaHaye from The Act of Marriage says the unclean rule was do to poor sanitization of the times and not applicable today) and what's not? Seems like the Bible focuses on man-man relationships and sodomy can be dangerous without sanitization-- could it be the same thing? How do I know what I'm miss interpreting (I've heard that the covering thing actually meant that women should have their hair covering their scalp)?

A lot of the same arguements used against homosexual marriage were used against interracial marriage. The Bible played a big role in those prohibitions, too. Yet, only 40 years later, I dare you to find a Christian who wouldn't argue that the thumpers of the 60s interpreted it wrong.

Then there's the seperation of church and state. Does the Bible even play a role in this? I don't want this to be a country for just Christians.

Should this issue be left up to the states, since they issue the licenses? A lot of the proponents of the ban are strong state's rights supporters.

Do we need it ammended to the constitution? The constitution is about expanding rights, not taking them away. And let's not forget, whenever the consititution has been used to restrict rights-- it has not gone well. Prohibition, anyone? Blacks are 3/5th of a person?

And here's the REAL issue for me: why don't we ban homosexuality. Honestly? If that's the danger, the moral decay, then let's deal with the problem. Seems like banning gay marriage is almost going half-way. Energizes voters and gives everyone the chance to emphasize the sin of homosexuality, without doing a thing to stop it. Whether or not gays can marry has no affect on whether people will chose a gay lifestyle.

Oops, this is kind of a monologue. Sasch, I'm sorry if I got off topic, but this issue is very confusing for me.

 

[ImaginaryVoyager]

It will cause no damage at all to anyone.

 

[andiesmama]

I'm agreeing with the others in that it won't change the way I see my marriage one iota....HOWEVER, I believe it will cheapen the definition of "marriage" and will affect our children & the way they marriage.

 

[Addicted2~Jesus]

Can I say that I'm on the fence about this issue?

On one hand, the Bible says that homosexual relationships are against His design. On the other hand, the Bible says women are unclean for a certain number of days each month, that women should cover their heads in church. How do I know what's a product of the times (Tim LaHaye from The Act of Marriage says the unclean rule was do to poor sanitization of the times and not applicable today) and what's not? Seems like the Bible focuses on man-man relationships and sodomy can be dangerous without sanitization-- could it be the same thing? How do I know what I'm miss interpreting (I've heard that the covering thing actually meant that women should have their hair covering their scalp)?

A lot of the same arguements used against homosexual marriage were used against interracial marriage. The Bible played a big role in those prohibitions, too. Yet, only 40 years later, I dare you to find a Christian who wouldn't argue that the thumpers of the 60s interpreted it wrong.

Then there's the seperation of church and state. Does the Bible even play a role in this? I don't want this to be a country for just Christians.

Should this issue be left up to the states, since they issue the licenses? A lot of the proponents of the ban are strong state's rights supporters.

Do we need it ammended to the constitution? The constitution is about expanding rights, not taking them away. And let's not forget, whenever the consititution has been used to restrict rights-- it has not gone well. Prohibition, anyone? Blacks are 3/5th of a person?

And here's the REAL issue for me: why don't we ban homosexuality. Honestly? If that's the danger, the moral decay, then let's deal with the problem. Seems like banning gay marriage is almost going half-way. Energizes voters and gives everyone the chance to emphasize the sin of homosexuality, without doing a thing to stop it. Whether or not gays can marry has no affect on whether people will chose a gay lifestyle.

Oops, this is kind of a monologue. Sasch, I'm sorry if I got off topic, but this issue is very confusing for me.

I find a lot of this way out there, apples an oranges type thin. I agree though, that homosexual activity should be banned, an in some states/counties it is but not enforced.

It's not a matter of cleaness, God said it was sin plain an simple. The womans uncleaness wasn't bout sanitation either, it had to do wit the Isralites encampment an the temple etc, the same way why the men of the camp had to stay out after battles because of the blood they drew.

I don't care what you call it, how clean you make it, er sanitized the parts of the body used, its still accordin to the bible not to be done. I agree it'll cheapen the meanin of the word married, an I agree I don't think I want to be aligned wit a word that could mean when I say to someone I'm married that it could mean I was married to a guy!

I disagree wit lettin states make the call, you see tremendous amounts of trouble in the transportation industry wit various state laws, er abortions etc. The state should not be able to trump the federal gov't I think. An I do think it should be cross the board, no same sex unions in this country period, you want that, go to another country where they've already tanked it.

 

[YellowSapphire]

I find a lot of this way out there, apples an oranges type thin. I agree though, that homosexual activity should be banned, an in some states/counties it is but not enforced.

It's not a matter of cleaness, God said it was sin plain an simple. The womans uncleaness wasn't bout sanitation either, it had to do wit the Isralites encampment an the temple etc, the same way why the men of the camp had to stay out after battles because of the blood they drew.

I don't care what you call it, how clean you make it, er sanitized the parts of the body used, its still accordin to the bible not to be done. I agree it'll cheapen the meanin of the word married, an I agree I don't think I want to be aligned wit a word that could mean when I say to someone I'm married that it could mean I was married to a guy!

I disagree wit lettin states make the call, you see tremendous amounts of trouble in the transportation industry wit various state laws, er abortions etc. The state should not be able to trump the federal gov't I think. An I do think it should be cross the board, no same sex unions in this country period, you want that, go to another country where they've already tanked it.

So why am I no longer unclean and don't have to cover my hair, but homosexuality is still forbidden?

 

[Robinsegg]

Should this issue be left up to the states, since they issue the licenses? A lot of the proponents of the ban are strong state's rights supporters.

Actually, that's been tried. But then the federal judges come in and thwart the will of the people. If an ammendment's made by those who represent (or are supposed to) the people, it's much harder (though not impossible) for a judge to go against.

So, the problem with leaving it to the states (something I'd otherwise support) is that the federal government (in the position of judges) is getting involved anyway.

Rachel