Why gay marriage cannot be validated by the state.

[David Brider]

My prejudice and discrimination against people who lead gay lifestyles stems from their sin which IMO is an insult to God.

Ah, the myth of "the gay lifestyle".

Even pluralising doesn't make it any more true.

There is no "gay lifestyle".

Still, at least you're honest enough to admit that you discriminate and are prejudiced.

David.

 

[Ohioprof]

Jesus gives his teaching on divorce very clearly in the New Testament.

We know that govenment allows divorce for reasons that go against what Jesus himself teaches. For instance, California has marriage dissolution, etc. .

Now, as Christians do we take it upon ourselves to see divorce outside of Our Saviors teachings to be valid ?

Why, of course not.

So, why do some here promote that gay marriage be valid because of a government decree ?

We all know that the Bible and Jesus only refer to marriage specifically as being between a man and a woman and there is not single example- in the thousands of years of history the Bible covers of a homosexual marriage. In fact Corinthians 6:9 specifically states that offenders will not see the kingdom and Paul himself warns about those who are sexually immoral.

Especially in early Christianity we have seen the witness of martyrs stand up against governments- in the late 1850s more than 500,000 Christians were beheaded in Vietnam for refusing to step on the cross and deny Christ.

So why would anyone claiming to be a Christian be so willing to trample Christ's teaching by promoting the state as being above the Savior ?

​

So you want to impose your particular religious beliefs on everyone else through state law? That's creating a theocracy. It's the opposite of religious liberty. The state is secular. It must remain secular, to preserve the religious liberty of all of us. If we allow any religion to dictate state laws, then we have sacrificed the religious liberty and the liberty generally of everyone. Civil marriage is different from religious marriage. I think that churches and other houses of faith must be free to determine whom they will or will not marry. But the right to civil marriage, to marriage by the state, should not be restricted or dictated according to some people's religious beliefs. It must be open to all, regardless of what people of different faiths believe. The state grants people the right to divorce, regardless of the position of the Catholic Church on divorce. Would we really want to deny all couples the right to divorce because of the teachings and policies of some churches on this issue? I think not. Most people are not Catholic. Americans hold diverse views about same-sex marriage. A growing minority of Americans support same-sex marriage, and a majority of people in Massachusetts support same-sex marriage now that it is legal there. It would be wrong to impose the religious beliefs of some people through law on those who do not share those religious beliefs. Let's keep religious liberty secure by not imposing anyone's particular religious views on everyone else through civil law. Let's keep the state secular, for the protection of all people's religious liberty.

 

[Ohioprof]

Blacks were/are discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin. That is called racism.

My prejudice and discrimination against people who lead gaylifestyles stems from their sin which IMO is an insult to God.

Is that distinguishable enouph for you ?

Hate the sin love the sinner.

I am gay. What "lifestyle" do you imagine that I lead that is "sinful?" What do you know of my "lifestyle?" How can you judge the "lifestyles" of people you do not know, and whose "lifestyles" you know nothing about?

 

[Phinehas2]

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.
Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.
Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.
much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.
No the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

 

[Ohioprof]

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.
Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.
Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.
much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.
No the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

It is a battle over equal civil rights in the civil society.

No "religious world view" should be imposed the people through the civil government. The state must remain secular, to ensure the religious liberty of all. The state must not impose the beliefs of any religious group or sect on everyone else. That would undermine the religious liberty of the people who do not agree with the beliefs being imposed on them by the state.

In Massachusetts, a majority of the people have said in polls that they support same-sex marriage, and the state legislature has declined to pass a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have redefined marriage as between only a man and a woman. That's the will of the people in Massachusetts. It's not just gay people who support same-sex marriage. A growing minority of Americans support same-sex marriage. The figure is now over 30%, with over 40% supporting state civil unions, which are marriage by another name. The figure has been growing slowly and steadily, according to Gallup. It isn't only gay people who support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. A growing number of heterosexuals support equal marriage rights. It's a matter of fairness and equality under the law.

 

[David Brider]

Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.

In what way is allowing gay couples to enter into civil partnerships (which is not the same thing as marriage... ) "enforcing the gay and lesbian worldview upon society"? If people were being forced to enter into civil partnerships, or if heterosexual marriages were being banned, then you might have a point, but all that's happening is that gay couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships. And yes, I see your point about "overriding the religious worldview", but the reality is, it's a minority viewpoint that sees the idea of gay marriage as a bad thing, and with all due respect, for their view to be allowed to hold legal sway over the vast majority of people would be to introduce a theocracy, and I don't know about you, but I'd be uncomfortable with that even if it was a broadly Christian theocracy. As things stand, much of the law on the statute books of the UK is based on Christian ethics and principles.

...same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that can be done without assuming marriage.

Same-sex unions are no more "just for sexual gratification" than opposite-sex unions are.

David.

 

[BAFRIEND]

In what way is allowing gay couples to enter into civil partnerships (which is not the same thing as marriage... ) "enforcing the gay and lesbian worldview upon society"? If people were being forced to enter into civil partnerships, or if heterosexual marriages were being banned, then you might have a point, but all that's happening is that gay couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships. And yes, I see your point about "overriding the religious worldview", but the reality is, it's a minority viewpoint that sees the idea of gay marriage as a bad thing, and with all due respect, for their view to be allowed to hold legal sway over the vast majority of people would be to introduce a theocracy, and I don't know about you, but I'd be uncomfortable with that even if it was a broadly Christian theocracy. As things stand, much of the law on the statute books of the UK is based on Christian ethics and principles.



Same-sex unions are no more "just for sexual gratification" than opposite-sex unions are.

David.

It is not your law; it is God's Law:

Do 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 … (1Cor 6:9)

I choose God. It matters nothing what misconceptions of others here are. I have taken oathes to obey God and reject satan.

 

[Ohioprof]

It is not your law; it is God's Law:



I choose God. It matters nothing what misconceptions of others here are. I have taken oathes to obey God and reject satan.

Civil marriage, which is marriage recognized by the state, is human law.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

It is a battle over equal civil rights in the civil society.

How can it be when there are two opposing views? My previous post disproves this as possible.

No "religious world view" should be imposed the people through the civil government.

Equally one can say no sexual view should be imposed on people. The state must not impose sexual views on people at the expense of religious ones.

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.
Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.
Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.
much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.

My argument is that presented with the evidence, the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David,

In what way is allowing gay couples to enter into civil partnerships (which is not the same thing as marriage

That is a reasonable argument, I fully recognise that as saying one group should be allowed to do what it pleases and the other what it pleases. However this isnt happening in the UK as Christians are being forced to not only recognise the union, but for example in the case of adoption agencies place children with same sex couples or be shut down. So they are closing themselves down. In this way Christian charities can no longer operate. And this really is the problem just as gay and lesbians now refer to same-sex unions as marriage and not civil partnerships it can be seen gay and lesbian activists are not to be trusted on agreements. So yes you have a reasonable point but no it has been shown that gay and lesbian groups wont accept this.

enforcing the gay and lesbian worldview upon society"? If people were being forced to enter into civil partnerships, or if heterosexual marriages were being banned, then you might have a point, but all that's happening is that gay couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships.

here is you affirming the truth in my previous point. Marriage is man and woman not heterosexual. The sexual desires of the man and the woman can be either. it’s a man and a woman that makes a marriage. Secondly why should the gay and lesbian worldview be accepted at all, why should the religious worldview be accepted at all?

but the reality is, it's a minority viewpoint that sees the idea of gay marriage as a bad thing

Not worldwide it isn’t and Ohioprof’s previous post suggest it isnt.

but I'd be uncomfortable with that even if it was a broadly Christian theocracy

Why is that? Because you don’t really hold Christian views about things? One has to adopt some values, not everyone will necessarily be pleased.

Same-sex unions are no more "just for sexual gratification" than opposite-sex unions are.

Yes they are, the reason was in my statement, opposite sex unions can conceive and produce offspring, same-sex ones cant so yes as I said same sex unions are just for sexual gratification, opposite sex ones aren’t.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Civil marriage, which is marriage recognized by the state, is human law.

So ethnic cleansing, which is murder recognized by a state, is human law too ?

Think that one through a little more, ha ha !

 

[Catholicon]

Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

 

[David Brider]

Marriage is man and woman not heterosexual.

Um, a man and a woman being attracted to each other is precisely what heterosexuality is. So marriage between a man and a woman is part of heterosexuality.

Why is that? Because you don’t really hold Christian views about things?

No; because I don't think that anyone's values should be imposed on other people who don't share those values.

Yes they are, the reason was in my statement, opposite sex unions can conceive and produce offspring, same-sex ones cant so yes as I said same sex unions are just for sexual gratification, opposite sex ones aren’t.

Your argument only really makes sense if you assume that the only reason for any marriage or union, gay or straight, is to engage in sexual acts. Which obviously isn't the case.

David.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.

When such opposing viewpoints come into contest the state must decide based on the greater good for the greatest number while at the same time respecting the guaranteed liberties and legal protections of the opposing viewpoint.

Here the case is simple. On the one hand you have a minority asking for equal rights and legal protection under the law. On the other a group demanding the special right to discriminate and force their prejudices onto the society as a whole. no contest, freedom always wins out over oppression. The rights of a small handful of Christian to hate homosexuals is not impinged upon in any way. They are free to continue to hate others to their hearts content. The right to be a bigot however ends with it conflict with the freedom and equality of others.

Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.

As noted your right to hate others is not affected at all.

Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.

Well what is to be expected when a group claiming to be Christian and claiming to support love and compassion and justice is endorsing discrimination and prejudice.

much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.

Considering the Christian rights long history of false witness about homosexuals I don’t think you have anything to complain about

No the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

And the infertile and the elderly should also be discriminated against because they cannot biologically reproduce

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dear Ohioprof,
How can it be when there are two opposing views? My previous post disproves this as possible.

Equally one can say no sexual view should be imposed on people. The state must not impose sexual views on people at the expense of religious ones.

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.
Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.
Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.
much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.

My argument is that presented with the evidence, the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

Can you please explain why your right to hate is more important than equality for gays and lesbians?

 

[Catholicon]

Can you please explain why your right to hate is more important than equality for gays and lesbians?

That's what I'd like to know, too...

 

[BigBadWlf]

So ethnic cleansing, which is murder recognized by a state, is human law too ?

And more often than not done in God’s name

 

[Apollo Celestio]

And more often than not done in God’s name

You're comparing that to this?

 

[Ohioprof]

So ethnic cleansing, which is murder recognized by a state, is human law too ?

Think that one through a little more, ha ha !

This does not make sense. Ethnic cleansing as genocide is against international law and against national laws around the world. It is certainly against the law in the United States.

What does ethnic cleansing have to do with what I wrote?

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
How can it be when there are two opposing views? My previous post disproves this as possible.

Equally one can say no sexual view should be imposed on people. The state must not impose sexual views on people at the expense of religious ones.

The problem is that the state consists of groups of people who hold opposing views. In this case the religious worldview holds that marriage is to be man and woman and the gay and lesbain worldview holds that marriage can be same-sex unions.
Which way is the state to go? Sady in the UK the government has enforced the gay and lesbain wordlview upon society thus overiding the religious worldview.
Sadly also the religious group is bigger than the gay and lesbain group. Its also leading to a total confusion in morals and ethics and even general liguistic confusion.
much of the gay and lesbian argument is however dishonest and misleading as it tries to represent all homosexuals whereas this isnt a 'battle' over people as some homosexuals are Christians.

My argument is that presented with the evidence, the state should not recognise same-sex unions, they are evidently not natural, by God's creation or by nature clearly a man and a woman can conceive and are supposed to raise the children they produce, same-sex unions are just for sexual gratification, that cna be done without assuming marriage.

People have the right to hold opposing views. Holding one's own beliefs, whatever they are, is a very important right, protected by the first amendment to the constitution in the United States.

That does not mean that because someone holds a moral belief, that this belief can be imposed on everyone through the law. If the law violates a constitutionally protected right, then the Supreme Court is likely to strike the law down as unconstitutional.

To illustrate this principle, let's look at the state laws that used to bar inter-racial marriage. The history of those laws, and the Supreme Court ruling on them, demonstrates what I mean. Americans overwhelmingly opposed inter-racial marriage for most of American history. From the 17th century until 1967, they passed and enforced state laws banning so-called "miscegenation," which included both inter-racial sex and inter-racial marriage. The arguments that people made against inter-racial marriage were moral arguments, and people regularly pointed to the Bible to support their opposition to, and laws against, inter-racial marriage.

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's law banning inter-racial sex and inter-racial marriage. The Court held that the state law was unconstitutional, effectively sweeping away all of the anti-miscegenation laws in other states as well.

Why did the Supreme Court rule that Virginia could not impose such a law on married couples? Because, said the Court, marriage is a fundamental right, and it is protected from state abrogation by the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Therefore, while people have the right personally to oppose inter-racial marriage for whatever reasons they choose, they do not have the right to deny other people the right to marry someone of a different race through state law.

People have the right to believe what they want. People can and many do still oppose inter-racial marriage. People also have the right to try to enact their beliefs into law. But when the laws they enact deny other people rights protected by the U.S. constitution, then the laws they pass are contrary to the constitution and should, and usually will, be struck down by the Supreme Court. I use the example of inter-racial marriage because it so clearly illustrates the constitutional principle at issue.

Here's another example, one that actually is about the rights of gay people. For most of American history, states enacted laws, based on popular beliefs about morality, that barred so-called "sodomy." Different states defined sodomy differently, but many specifically criminalized sexual acts between people of the same sex. Texas was a state with a law that criminalized sexual relations between people of the same sex. In 2003, a same-sex couple from Texas brought a lawsuit to the Supreme Court in which they argued that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional. The police had entered the home of the couple and had arrested them for having sexual relations with each other. They were charged with violating the Texas law banning sodomy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas law banning sodomy violated the right of privacy protected by the U.S. constitution, and therefore, the Texas law banning sodomy was struck down. The couple won their case.

Texas had passed the sodomy law because a majority of the state legislature believed that same-sex sexual relations are immoral. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not do that: the state could not criminalize private consensual sexual relations between two adults. That violated their right to privacy. This Supreme Court ruling effectively nullifies laws banning sodomy in every state. People in Texas and in other states have every right to believe that same-sex sexual relations are immoral. They do not have the right to pass laws denying other people the right to have sexual relations, as such relations are constitutionally protected under the right to privacy.

The issue here is protecting the rights of everyone. People have every right to believe that certain practices, whatever they are, are immoral. People have the right to work for the passage of laws to ban practices that they regard as immoral. But people do not have the right, in passing such laws, to deny other people constitutionally protected rights. People also do not have the right to enact laws that specifically advance religious beliefs that have no secular purpose. Such laws violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Supreme Court uses a test to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause; it's called the Lemon test, because it was developed in the ruling on the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Supreme Court requires, for a law to be constitutional, that it neither advance nor inhibit religion and that the law have a primarily secular purpose.

These questions of what is constitutional and what is not get pretty complicated. But the Supreme Court tries, in exercising judicial review over state and federal laws, to find a balance between the rights of individuals protected under the constitution and the powers of the states or the federal government to pass laws protecting all the people.