Gay marriage question

[codeorama]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

I guess every individual believer decides what to ignore. That still doesn't make it ok.

You said that because a few churches ok'd gay marriage and performed ceremonies for gay weddings that you could throw the whole religious argument out the window.

I said you can't for the simple fact that God's word is still God's word. Homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. I'm not picking on gays it's just God's word. If there was an issue in our country with extra marital sex or beastiality becoming legalized than I would be saying the same thing. It's wrong, it's a sin and we can and should not call something right when God says it wrong. :2cents: That is why gay marriage is a threat to the future of our nation. We can't expect to continue to live as we see fit and not expect God to judge. I believe that's true for myself as well as every individual.

"For the time has come for judgement to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" 1 Peter 4:17

God says eating shell fish is a sin... among other things.

[skinsfanjoe]

Dietary Laws only apply to the Old Covenant. They are no longer binding in the New Covenant. (Acts 10:15, Mark 7:19) Jesus declared all foods clean. That argument would not apply to Christians.

[twa]

Gay marriage does not have the approval of society as a whole. The rules we have for social order forbid suicide,set ages of consent,forbid ethusia[in most cases],beastiality,necrophilia,incest and countless other things that could be argued as acceptible if you throw out morals as society.......Since I am sure I have offended enough people with this list...I will just say until society accepts homosexuality, marriage ain't happening:2cents:

[codeorama]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

Dietary Laws only apply to the Old Covenant. They are no longer binding in the New Covenant. (Acts 10:15, Mark 7:19) Jesus declared all foods clean. That argument would not apply to Christians.

So when did Jesus himself comment on homosexuality?

I know that he did comment on adultry...

Why the uproar over one sin when another is just "overlooked", shouldn't society do something about adultry if it's going to take a stand on homosexuality?

[Zuck]

People keep talking about this and I think it's a good thing. Eventually homosexuals will be allowed to marry because the arguments against it are weak and against our constitution.

To say that it changes the idea of what a marriage is supposed to be shows an insecuratey about one's own marriage. I don't see how two men or woman getting married should threaten someone's own idea of marriage. You don't have to personally approve of their marriage and can leave it at that. To say they can't get married because the idea of it lessens your own marriage or idea of what marriage should be is un-American in nature and definately against our constitution. Really marriage is only about the people involved.

They may ammend the constitution to ban it but sooner or later even that will get changed and homosexuals will be allowed to marry.

[Zuck]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

I guess every individual believer decides what to ignore. That still doesn't make it ok.

You said that because a few churches ok'd gay marriage and performed ceremonies for gay weddings that you could throw the whole religious argument out the window.

I said you can't for the simple fact that God's word is still God's word. Homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. I'm not picking on gays it's just God's word. If there was an issue in our country with extra marital sex or beastiality becoming legalized than I would be saying the same thing. It's wrong, it's a sin and we can and should not call something right when God says it wrong. :2cents: That is why gay marriage is a threat to the future of our nation. We can't expect to continue to live as we see fit and not expect God to judge. I believe that's true for myself as well as every individual.

"For the time has come for judgement to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" 1 Peter 4:17

First of all, I don't think the bible is what the laws of this country are based on.

Secondly, I imagine God is plenty capable of judging people himself. He doesn't need us doing it for him.

[Mr. S]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

Supporting evidence for what? Mr. S took what I said to another poster out of context. Go back and look at what I said and then tell me what I'm supposed to give evidence for. I didn't say anything about him having children or marrying gays. I don't know what the heck he was talking about.:doh:

Now I told that other poster that if he planned on having children then the gay marriage debate would affect him.

Is that what you want me to give supporting evidence for?

~Confused~

sorry if my post was confusing skinsfanjoe. Only the first paragraph was meant for you, as you can see, I did put Art's name in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, and though those were partially meant for Art, anyone could have posted their thoughts/opinions on it.

Yes, I did want supporting evidence on your claim of how gay marriage would affect wanting to have children. I speculated a little in that first paragraph for you, but I just wanted to hear your reasons tis all.

[Art]

Originally posted by codeorama

To me, it makes a heck of alot more sense that most gays are born that way, I for one can't imagine making a choice to, well, you get the picture.

Secondly, there are already a few churches that have no problem marrying gays, so the religious argument is pretty much out the window.

All that's left is that people just don't want gays to be married because it bothers them personally.

Code,

Can you imagine screwing a 10-year-old girl? I hope not. But, for those who can, by your logic, they are born that way. As long as your consistent and happy with the results of your consistency.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by Zuck

First of all, I don't think the bible is what the laws of this country are based on.

Secondly, I imagine God is plenty capable of judging people himself. He doesn't need us doing it for him.

I didn't say they were. (The Laws)

God is indeed THE judge.

[Art]

Originally posted by Liberty

First of all I have never said gays are born gay, mainly because I have no idea one way or another, not that it would matter much one way or another.

Well society is made of individuals, and I still don't know why you think what gay people do will affect you as an individual, you will still keep your morals and you can still do the same things with the same people.

Again, Liberty, I've never said what gay people do impacts me as an individual. I have said repeatedly and would appreciate your tacit recognition of the statement that the impact on me as an individual is the repeated attempt to normalize various deviant behaviors to the degree that NO degree of compromise is allowed. Such is the case with gay marriage.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by codeorama

So when did Jesus himself comment on homosexuality?

I know that he did comment on adultry...

Why the uproar over one sin when another is just "overlooked", shouldn't society do something about adultry if it's going to take a stand on homosexuality?

Actually the Bible( The Word) itself does condemn the practice of homosexuality numerous times. Jesus being the Word (John 1:1-3) ie. God. Condemns homosexuality through his inspired Word through the Prophets and Apostles many times in Scripture.

As for the uproar about homosexuality, if you actually read my posts in this thread I said that if this were a debate about adultry or besteality being legalized then I would being saying the same exact thing.

[ArmchairRedskin]

What does sexual deviancy have to do with anything? A grown adult with an underaged child is illegal because sex is only legal between consenting adults. That would also exclude any bestiality from legality, would it not?

Nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex.

[Art]

Originally posted by ArmchairRedskin

What does sexual deviancy have to do with anything? A grown adult with an underaged child is illegal because sex is only legal between consenting adults. That would also exclude any bestiality from legality, would it not?

Nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex.

AR,

Why is it only legal to to have sex between consenting adults? Because THAT is important to society. We have made the process by which YOU have recognized the critical importance of protecting our children. But, this is an arbitrary protection, and it's a protection fairly unique to this country.

Our society deems normalcy with regard to sexual experiences as those between consenting adults, or, in some cases, those between younger people close enough in age that neither party is doing anything illegal.

In ANY case, we have defined the age of consent based on our belief as a society as to what age a person is capable of consent. In Canada they view that age 14. Once you tear down barriers as to what is deviant and what is not, you then tear the next one down.

You seem fixated on legal consent. That's great. But, that's simply what we use to define societal norms from deviant behavior. We have these rules in place with regard to gay marriage as well. You just want to adopt this deviancy over others. In 50 years, another will fall. And we are all poorer for it.

[twa]

Originally posted by ArmchairRedskin

What does sexual deviancy have to do with anything? A grown adult with an underaged child is illegal because sex is only legal between consenting adults. That would also exclude any bestiality from legality, would it not?

Nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex.

Sex with a underage child is only ilegal because society[at least in this country] does not approve.If you wish to have gay marriage you must first change peoples opinions.I believe the results from the last elections prove society does not approve:2cents:

[ArmchairRedskin]

Originally posted by Art

AR,

Why is it only legal to to have sex between consenting adults? Because THAT is important to society. We have made the process by which YOU have recognized the critical importance of protecting our children. But, this is an arbitrary protection, and it's a protection fairly unique to this country.

Our society deems normalcy with regard to sexual experiences as those between consenting adults, or, in some cases, those between younger people close enough in age that neither party is doing anything illegal.

In ANY case, we have defined the age of consent based on our belief as a society as to what age a person is capable of consent. In Canada they view that age 14. Once you tear down barriers as to what is deviant and what is not, you then tear the next one down.

You seem fixated on legal consent. That's great. But, that's simply what we use to define societal norms from deviant behavior. We have these rules in place with regard to gay marriage as well. You just want to adopt this deviancy over others. In 50 years, another will fall. And we are all poorer for it.

I sincerely doubt anybody will ever let people marry animals. I also doubt that the age of consent will fall. It's not an arbitrary limit. It's an age based on the development of the mind and body. Most of the significant development is done by that time. I'm not fixated on legal consent, but our laws are what defines our behavior as a society are they not?

What happens in 50 years still has to be within the bounds of our law. Homosexuality is not outside those bounds. Marriage shouldn't be either.

[Zuck]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

I didn't say they were. (The Laws)

God is indeed THE judge.

Than why would you feel it neccessary to serve as god's judge?

If homosexuality is such a sin than god will take care of it when people die.

I think people have to be pretty insecure if they feel two men or two woman getting married lessens their own marriage.

[Art]

Originally posted by ArmchairRedskin

I sincerely doubt anybody will ever let people marry animals. I also doubt that the age of consent will fall. It's not an arbitrary limit. It's an age based on the development of the mind and body. Most of the significant development is done by that time. I'm not fixated on legal consent, but our laws are what defines our behavior as a society are they not?

What happens in 50 years still has to be within the bounds of our law. Homosexuality is not outside those bounds. Marriage shouldn't be either.

AR,

In 1954, I promise you there were people who said the exact same thing YOU'RE saying now, but saying it about gay marriage. Where you say you sincerely doubt anybody will ever let people marry animals and you also doubt the age of consent will fall, I promise you people 50 years ago couldn't contemplate ever allowing gays to get married.

Such is the terrible breaking down of societal norms that you aren't recognizing. Homosexuality IS (largely at least) outside the bounds of our laws. We just don't prosecute those violations where we still do other violations we value more greatly.

Franky, I think you're a fool if you don't think the age of consent will fall, but it's a foolishness based on your position that the age of consent is not an arbitrary limit. Of COURSE IT IS AR else it would be the same age everywhere in the world. If the age of consent had to do with development of hte mind and body our northern neighbor would not have 14 as the age of consent.

The age of consent is the age WE as a society deem a child is ready for the consequences of that specific decision. That you strongly appreciate the importance of the age of consent is great. That you value that norm is wonderful. That you don't see how hypocritical you are regarding other norms is where you have lost your direction.

[Art]

Originally posted by Zuck

Than why would you feel it neccessary to serve as god's judge?

If homosexuality is such a sin than god will take care of it when people die.

I think people have to be pretty insecure if they feel two men or two woman getting married lessens their own marriage.

I'm not at all insecure, yet, I recognize how you devalue marriage by allowing same sex marriages. I think you'd have to be an utter moron NOT to see this. I'm not saying you are that moron, Zuck, but it is somewhat important to you that you recognize marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman. Making it something else diminishes the concept.

There is nothing you can say that alters the fact that expanding the meaning of marriage lessens the meaning of marriage. You may feel it's a good diminishment. That's fine. But, the reason the gay lobby is targeting gay marriage -- which the country is wildly against -- instead of gay unions is because THEY know how important it is to attain THAT ideal. Therefore, even the people YOU support know how important it is. I think you should as well.

[Art]

Originally posted by KINGBRICE_28

Art do you agree with the following:

"Everyone in the world has a predisposition to millions of things, including homosexuality. It is up to the individuals enviroment to actualize these attributes. If mal adaptive predispositions are not actualized then the person will effectively adapt to societies norms."

KB,

That sounds almost like something I might have said. I don't think people have a predisposition toward homosexuality anymore than I have a predisposition toward liking petite brunette women. That said, I do think individuals decide whether to adapt to the norms or to break with them and if they do not break them they will adapt.

[jflagg215]

I have to agree with the incredibly eloquent Art. If you let one deviance become accepted then eventually another will be. I know the question is how would it affect your marriage. Well I'm only 21, and not married. I do want to have children. What happens if gay marriage is accepted and then 5-10 years from now we have the same arguement coming from underage children and their "partners." This is a domino affect that will affect me down the road as I could see it happening. I think that is one of the main points that Art is trying to put across that some arent picking up. The issue is not just about gay marriage but the effect gay marriage will have on other groups of individuals that are deemed unacceptable. There is never a bending of the rules, they always break. If you let one person get away with something then you have to let the others.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Originally posted by Art

AR,

In 1954, I promise you there were people who said the exact same thing YOU'RE saying now, but saying it about gay marriage. Where you say you sincerely doubt anybody will ever let people marry animals and you also doubt the age of consent will fall, I promise you people 50 years ago couldn't contemplate ever allowing gays to get married.

Such is the terrible breaking down of societal norms that you aren't recognizing. Homosexuality IS (largely at least) outside the bounds of our laws. We just don't prosecute those violations where we still do other violations we value more greatly.

Franky, I think you're a fool if you don't think the age of consent will fall, but it's a foolishness based on your position that the age of consent is not an arbitrary limit. Of COURSE IT IS AR else it would be the same age everywhere in the world. If the age of consent had to do with development of hte mind and body our northern neighbor would not have 14 as the age of consent.

The age of consent is the age WE as a society deem a child is ready for the consequences of that specific decision. That you strongly appreciate the importance of the age of consent is great. That you value that norm is wonderful. That you don't see how hypocritical you are regarding other norms is where you have lost your direction.

My direction is fine. You're fear mongering. What other countries deem a consentual age is irrelevant. I mean consentual sex isn't even universal from state to state. A lot of states have it at 16. Some at 17. It's actually only 18 in few states. The median age of consent worldwide is 16.

Homosexual sex is NOT ILLEGAL. In fact the law against it has either been invalidated or repealed in every state that doesn't outright say it's legal. Therefor, my interpretation of the matter is spot on and you, my friend, are fear mongering.

[Art]

AC,

So, in your previous post you mentioned the age of consent is not an arbitrary number and I tell you it is and in this post you explain that, it is, indeed, an arbitrary number by explaining that it varies from state to state.

Exactly my point. I don't know that you understand you are making my point, and therefore, you may well be spot on since the closer you come to repeating what I'm telling you the closer you are to being spot on correct.

The fact that you stated regarding laws against homosexual behavior being invalidated or repealed everywhere is not at all true. However, the statement is meaningful to a degree. In your previous post you mention homosexual behavior is not illegal. In this post you mention the illegality of it is invalidated or repealed. So, you appreciate that what once may have been deemed illegal may soon change.

Here's how it MAY change with regard to the age of consent. A 12-year-old girl convinces ONE judge she is smart enough to know what she wants and she wanted the adult male she's with in all ways. She loves him and what they do in the privacy of the bedroom is not the business of the state.

You may call this fear mongering. I'd simply call it the exact path the gay lobby has taken to get where they are today and when they accomplish tearing down of societal norms in this regard, they will turn their attention elsewhere. Only someone very blind to reality would suggest it ends here.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Originally posted by Art

AC,

So, in your previous post you mentioned the age of consent is not an arbitrary number and I tell you it is and in this post you explain that, it is, indeed, an arbitrary number by explaining that it varies from state to state.

Exactly my point. I don't know that you understand you are making my point, and therefore, you may well be spot on since the closer you come to repeating what I'm telling you the closer you are to being spot on correct.

The fact that you stated regarding laws against homosexual behavior being invalidated or repealed everywhere is not at all true. However, the statement is meaningful to a degree. In your previous post you mention homosexual behavior is not illegal. In this post you mention the illegality of it is invalidated or repealed. So, you appreciate that what once may have been deemed illegal may soon change.

Here's how it MAY change with regard to the age of consent. A 12-year-old girl convinces ONE judge she is smart enough to know what she wants and she wanted the adult male she's with in all ways. She loves him and what they do in the privacy of the bedroom is not the business of the state.

You may call this fear mongering. I'd simply call it the exact path the gay lobby has taken to get where they are today and when they accomplish tearing down of societal norms in this regard, they will turn their attention elsewhere. Only someone very blind to reality would suggest it ends here.

Age of consent is not even the issue here. Even if I'm wrong in it being an arbitrary number, it's the legality of homosexuality that is the real issue. It isn't illegal. You can't spin that. It is not illegal in any one of our states. Not one of them. So if homosexual sex isn't illegal, how can you possibly justify gay marriage which actually celebrates love and loyalty to another person as being illegal?

By our laws right now in the US, having sex with a minor is illegal. Having sex with an animal is illegal. Two men having constentual sex is not illegal. That's cut and dry. That's the issue. You're fear mongering by saying that one thing will inevitably lead to another. You only have your own personal beliefs to base that on, so it's pure conjecture and irrelevant as far as the argument goes.

Either way, my opinion won't be swayed, and even in the face of clear cut evidence I see neither will yours. That's fine. We'll just agree to disagree. I'm not here to force my view on anyone. I just wanted to say my piece.

[Prosperity]

"Again, Liberty, I've never said what gay people do impacts me as an individual"

Ok that is all I wanted to hear, now stop using your outdated morals to oppress others that are not hurting you.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Huly

You need to decide on your own feelings. I for one am against it. I am a christian and a republican and yes I voted for Bush as he supports my values. Bash me if you want but if you do not stand up for your own beliefs who else will. To me marriage is a sanction between two people in the eyes of God. Gays getting married does not hurt me as a person but I feel it lessens the meaning of marriage and in turn disrespects my marriage. People always say seperate Church and State, well to me Marriage is the Church and State should be seperated.

You shouldn't be bashed for simply posting your beliefs. If I understand you correctly, then you wouldn't be opposed to taking marriage out of the legal vernacular (replacing it with "civil union" or some other generic term) and having marriage be a religious institution only. Art, if memory serves from other threads, is against this solution.