A Christian Defends Gay Marriage

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by gbear

After reading through a lot of drivel, I can't help but think about the liberal values thread. I want to add one more because I think the minister who wrote the article said it best.

I think belief in the following should be added to the liberal values:

"The health of a republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by custom and conviction to ignore."

Liberal Values thread? Is that on this board somewhere, and I missed it?

Also, as an aside, some view it as a governmental responsibility, in addition to the more obvious ones like defense and such, to defend the minority from the majority. To make sure that the minority (using the term very generally here) does not get discriminated against by the majority, because left to their own devices, it may be the case that the majority would often end up discriminating the minority (it might not "often" occur everywhere, but it may "often" occur at enough places to be a concern, if you understand my meaning).

Some people, however, really do not believe that I think... at least, not in those very general terms. If you add that very general concept to the conviction that the government needs a pretty good reason to involve itself into personal/private/religious matters...

[Phat Hog]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

But- it seems that if you argue "Homosexuality is a choice. Show me the homosexuality gene, otherwise it's a choice." You must also believe "Heterosexuality is a choice. Show me the heterosexuality gene, otherwise it's a choice."

Just clarifying.

Great observation SkinsNumberOne. I would indeed say that not just homo or hetro, but sexuality itself is a choice – I don’t think I need to delve much further into my reasoning for this unless you need further clarification.

Now, if you want to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality in the light of genetic influence, there is no doubt that humans are hardwired genetically to be heterosexual – because we are man and woman. I’m sure we all learned about body parts and there purpose in sexual function in elementary school, so I wont bother to explain that further unless it is deemed necessary.

Then the question should be, “well what about hermaphrodites?” – a just question. As an explanation, it is indeed an anomaly that some are born hermaphrodites, though that makes them no less human that any of the rest of us. But the black hole lies in the reasoning that we can use the existence of hermaphrodites as reasoning that two men or two women decide to sleep together. That does not logically follow.

I know that’s a long explanation to your question, but aren’t you impressed that I was able to fit the word hermaphrodites 4 times in this single post?

[NavyDave]

Mad Mike short skirts arent universally looked down upon though it does contribute to thinking the wearer of being a slut.

Playboy was banned in some states for a while and no one didnt lose any sleep over it since it was lame anyway.

It is irrelevant to Bring up the deviancies in one area to justify another wrong is wrong period.

I'm glad that frisco is breaking the law early so we can finally show the nation who the liberal democrats are for a change since there will be a fast track to an amendment and they have to vote yea or nay infront of CSPAN

[codeorama]

The problem is Navy, you are making choices as to what you think is moral and what is immoral and expecting everyone else to agree with you and therefore, that should be the law.

We can exclude the bible argument because as we all know, people pick and choose what they want from the bible and ignore the rest.

Bottom line is that gays are people and deserved to be treated as such. Just try to remember, "let he who has no sin cast the first stone".