Poll: Opposition to gay marriage declining

[bammertheblue]

But, but, but......if we let the eeeeeevil gays marry, next people will want to marry their pets and their cars and their relatives!

Seriously, this argument just makes you look silly.

 

[bammertheblue]

Double post, sorry.

 

[sister_maynard]

I agree. When you're trying to argue something, stick to the merits and problems with the problem itself, not with fringe issues that activists for the original problem might not even want to consider supporting. Linking two issues like this isn't really going to convince people. Stay with the points of one issue without dragging in others that make the first issue seem outlandish.

 

[Polycarp1]

George, I will have to give you credit. You did do your research on this one -- where I trusted to memory that it was a denial of cert. Summary dismissals are not, of course, a decision after argument but rather a statement, constituting binding precedent as you say within that narrow confine, that the specific grounds on which the appeal from the high state court is founded, do not constitute a valid federal question. In other words, someone filing a federal case on the specific basis that a law essentially identical to Minnesota's violates the Equal Protection Clause will find that case dismissed on the basis of the Baker precedent. A different law (say one of the ones that refuses to give legal recognition to private contractual arrangements to replace the 1,400 rights created in marriage) or an argument on different grounds than equal protection is not so restricted. It is a precedent, as you say, but it's a very narrow one.

The Minnesota law did not, in the view of the 1972 court, violate the equal protection clause, the grounds on which it was appealed to SCOTUS. That's the sole binding precedent set.

While we're both perfectly well aware that Lawrence v. Texas explicitly held itself aloof from deciding any question of marriage, I'd point out to you that it (and Romer v. Evans) represents a change in the Court's views of how the equal protection and due process clauses apply to issues regarding homosexual persons.

I'd offer to you the strong likelihood that SCOTUS will be effectively forced to hear the child visitation case that's been in the news recently, where two women underwent a Vermont civil union, one had a child and then left the civil union and Vermont with the child, and is now in Virginia. The other woman has a visitation order that has been upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court; the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld the Virginia law that says Virginia is entitled to ignore the decision of the Vermont court on the basis that Vermont civil unions are not recognized in Virginia, based on the DOMA exception to FF&C. In other words, the high courts of two states are at odds on whether Ms. X has the right to visitation of baby Y, who was born to her partner Ms Z in a civil union in one state not recognized in the other.

And as you're aware, the arguments there go far beyond the bounds of a visitation order: is DOMA a valid exercise of Congressional power, or is it a violation of FF&C? Can Virginia ignore a valid order from a Vermont court under conditions that, save for the same-sex civil union aspect, for over 200 years have invoked FF&C?

This has the potential to blow precedents on either side of the argument clean out of the water -- as well as absolutely defining a new rule regarding interstate relations -- whichever way it's decided. And it will be very interesting to watch.

 

[Ginny]

But, but, but......if we let the eeeeeevil gays marry, next people will want to marry their pets and their cars and their relatives!

I can tell you we have already had the thread where a lady married a dolphin. As far as the relative issue...ummm- that's now new. The polygamy one will be at a forum near you in the near future.

Seriously, this argument just makes you look silly.

Well, welcome to Christian Forums where you will often find a bunch of those "silly" Christians will not agree with many a things that you might approve of.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well, this is a unique case. The point is that your friend has legal remedies (have the man get a divorce and then they can get married), he is just choosing not to exercise them. This is a personal problem, not a legal one.



*ahem* You mean "Amen brother"



Yeah, this is definately stupid on the gay activists part. I think that this is probably a small radical minority within the gay community who is doing these publicity stunts. This does nothing to promote their cause. How embarassing for them.

While I agree with you on the first point, it is a personal problem and not a legal one, I disagree on the last point. I don't see where the protests are "stupid", it seems about the same as conservative Christians protesting abortion clinics. In both cases people are simply exercising their rights to protest the policies of an organization.

 

[Ave Maria]

Eventually gay marriage will be everywhere in this great nation and we will be one step closer to God's return.

 

[Ginny]

.... we will be one step closer to God's return.

Here, here..

 

[Gramaic]

Eventually gay marriage will be everywhere in this great nation and we will be one step closer to God's return.

Yes, this truly is one of the signs of the end.

 

[Petunia]

*ahem* You mean "Amen brother"

I thought I saw a female icon on your post. I guess that was my own icon I was looking at!
My apologies.

 

[Gramaic]

None of which forbid same sex marriage.

Wrong. They do forbid homosexuality, and forbid same sex marriage at the same time.

 

[george78]

George, I will have to give you credit. You did do your research on this one -- where I trusted to memory that it was a denial of cert.

Thanks, I just wanted to point out I'm not as senile as many think, not yet anyway.

 

[blueapplepaste]

While I agree with you on the first point, it is a personal problem and not a legal one, I disagree on the last point. I don't see where the protests are "stupid", it seems about the same as conservative Christians protesting abortion clinics. In both cases people are simply exercising their rights to protest the policies of an organization.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to protest Christian Universities, by all means, protest all they want, it's their rights and their choice. I am saying that I don't think it does anything to further their cause by doing so; I would also say that Christian people protesting abortion clinics doesn't really further their cause either.

 

[outlaw]

Wrong. They do forbid homosexuality, and forbid same sex marriage at the same time.

“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.” ~Lynn Lavner

since the bible contains 362 admonishments to heterosexuals by your logic opposite sex marriage should be forbidden.

The fact remains that nowhere is same sex marriage explicitly forbidden

 

[Ginny]

"Explicitly" being the key word, right? As in.....word for word "thou shalt not be homosexual"?

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

mmmm.....that sums that one up.

 

[SimplyMe]

"Explicitly" being the key word, right? As in.....word for word "thou shalt not be homosexual"?

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

mmmm.....that sums that one up.

I disagree that the scripture you quoted is a blanket condemnation of all homosexuals. The Bible also appears to say that we shouldn't be heterosexual offenders either. Beyond that, it is debated what the Greek word being translated means, rather than debate that here, I will give you this link and suggest that if you wish to talk about it that you start a thread on one of the forums that allow debate of this topic.

 

[Ginny]

Simplyme- Posts were requesting scripture earlier, I gave it, sorry you don't like it.

If you don't like how this thread is going, you address everyone next time about starting a new thread...and not just those whose beliefs step on the toes of your own.

As far as what something "appears" to be, that verse contains no "appearing" to be one way or the other....unless you don't agree with it, and then there is always some other verse one can twist to make themselves feel better about how they would rather believe or what suits their lifestyle better.

 

[Polycarp1]

"Explicitly" being the key word, right? As in.....word for word "thou shalt not be homosexual"?

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

mmmm.....that sums that one up.

Hmnmm... very true. Provided that the choice of "homosexual offenders" to translate the Greek word here is accurate, and that "homosexual" and "homosexual offender" are equated. You'll find that discussed at amazing length in the Ethics and Morality forums in both CO and For All sections.

To give you a fast summary, Paul uses two words in that verse: arsenokaites and malakoi. The first is his own coinage, a word which had never appeared in Greek before Paul, despite Greek culture finding it common to speak of guys having sex with other guys. The second literally means "soft" and was commonly used to mean "without moral stamina or self discipline, morally soft." Arsenokaites seems to be constructed from roots meaning "man" and "bed, to lie, to sleep with" in conscious imitation of the literal phrasing of Leviticus 18:22, which speaks of "lyings with a man."

I say this here because (1) it's factual, not grounds for debate on morality, and (2) it should help both sides in the usual arguments grasp what the other side is saying, to wit: " Conservatives: Paul is bringing forward under the New Covenant the Old Testament condemnation of gay sex." "Liberals: Yeah, but we don't even know for sure what he was talking about." Both are true, in a way, but not the whole truth.

And in any case the moral foundation for law needs to be the ethics that Jesus taught, not a cherry-picking of selected Bible verses used as ground for carnal, "old-man" condemnations of the different, the peculisar, and the stranger. Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are valid grounds for law because it takes extreme twisting to come up with a scenario wherea person killing someone or stealing from someone constitutes him loving that someone as himself or doing unto that someone as he himself would want to be done unto.

 

[Ginny]

And in any case the moral foundation for law needs to be the ethics that Jesus taught, not a cherry-picking of selected Bible verses used as ground for carnal, "old-man" condemnations of the different, the peculisar, and the stranger.

I totally agree....but homosexuality being the subject at hand....

Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are valid grounds for law because it takes extreme twisting to come up with a scenario wherea person killing someone or stealing from someone constitutes him loving that someone as himself or doing unto that someone as he himself would want to be done unto.

I agree.... I believe the scripturealso is in relation to when a sin becomes a lifestyle (persay). Of course people have committed adultery, fornication, etc...But you can tell a lie, or be a "liar"...you can commit adultery or be an "adulterer"... you can steal or be a "thief". It is when there is no turning away from sins and no conviction of sins that these sins becomes a lifestyle of sin. I believe God forgives all sins..no matter how small- no matter how heinous. When there is no turning away from sins and one is consciously doing as one pleases with no conviction ...that is another story- hence that scripture.

 

[SimplyMe]

Simplyme- Posts were requesting scripture earlier, I gave it, sorry you don't like it.

I'm sorry, "homosexual offender" does not equal "homosexuality", just as in the same verse "adulterers" does not equal "heterosexuality". That was my point, I was just pointing out the scripture does not claim what you are wanting it to. And that's even before the idea of translation is brought up.

If you don't like how this thread is going, you address everyone next time about starting a new thread...and not just those whose beliefs step on the toes of your own.

I happened to reply to your post, not anyone elses. Is there are reason you think we should debate in the News forum when it is against the rules?

As far as what something "appears" to be, that verse contains no "appearing" to be one way or the other....unless you don't agree with it, and then there is always some other verse one can twist to make themselves feel better about how they would rather believe or what suits their lifestyle better.

Again, I was pointing out your scripture does not say what you were trying to make it say, just as "Christian offender" is not the same as "Christian".