Homosexual Marriages (Again)

[Khale]

I know this topic has been done to death, but I have to ask anyway.

For all of you out there who believe that Man on Man matrimony is going to cause a downward marriage spiral whose epicenter is composed of 12 year old boys marrying sado-masochistic goose... Why on earth do you believe that?

A common, and in fact only, argument I've heard is one that states: if men are allowed to marry men what is to stop the previously mentioned boy-goose pairing; where is the line drawn?

Well, here is a hint: Consent. Yes, finding the thin pink line is that simple. If the one, or both, of the two to be wed cannot consent then the marriage can not go through. It seems to me that this simple rule would effectively halt all of the deviant atrocities that you, as good parents, are worried the 'homosexual scourge' might bring.

 

[Mike182]

I know this topic has been done to death, but I have to ask anyway.

For all of you out there who believe that Man on Man matrimony is going to cause a downward marriage spiral whose epicenter is composed of 12 year old boys marrying sado-masochistic goose... Why on earth do you believe that?

A common, and in fact only, argument I've heard is one that states: if men are allowed to marry men what is to stop the previously mentioned boy-goose pairing; where is the line drawn?

Well, here is a hint: Consent. Yes, finding the thin pink line is that simple. If the one, or both, of the two to be wed cannot consent then the marriage can not go through. It seems to me that this simple rule would effectively halt all of the deviant atrocities that you, as good parents, are worried the 'homosexual scourge' might bring.

hehehehe, you just reminded me of my church youth group leader, he asked me a similar question to this :biglaugh:

he asked me that "if we 'push' the meaning of the bible to accept homosexuality, and then some farmer wants to marry and have sex with his pig, can we not also 'push' the bible to accept this aswell"

ofcourse i told him no because the major difference between the two cases, as you have rightly pointed out, is consent

mike

 

[michel]

hehehehe, you just reminded me of my church youth group leader, he asked me a similar question to this :biglaugh:

he asked me that "if we 'push' the meaning of the bible to accept homosexuality, and then some farmer wants to marry and have sex with his pig, can we not also 'push' the bible to accept this aswell"

ofcourse i told him no because the major difference between the two cases, as you have rightly pointed out, is consent

mike

I know some consenting pigs...............:biglaugh:


oops sorry, meant 'condescending' pigs.............

 

[mr.guy]

he asked me that "if we 'push' the meaning of the bible to accept homosexuality, and then some farmer wants to marry and have sex with his pig, can we not also 'push' the bible to accept this aswell"

Maybe your teacher was unaware that the law and the bible are considered distinct as well.

 

[michel]

hehehehe, you just reminded me of my church youth group leader, he asked me a similar question to this :biglaugh:

he asked me that "if we 'push' the meaning of the bible to accept homosexuality, and then some farmer wants to marry and have sex with his pig, can we not also 'push' the bible to accept this aswell"

ofcourse i told him no because the major difference between the two cases, as you have rightly pointed out, is consent

mike

hang on, Mike, re reading your post,

and then some farmer wants to marry and have sex with his pig, can we not also 'push' the bible to accept this aswell"

Was that supposed to read :-some farmer wants to marry a pig, and have sex with his pig ? How can we be certain there is only one 'beast' involved in this, and that we aren't infact talking of a ménage à trois, ie with the farmer marrying a horse, and then having sex with the pig...................

 

[Green Gaia]

I know this topic has been done to death, but I have to ask anyway.

For all of you out there who believe that Man on Man matrimony is going to cause a downward marriage spiral whose epicenter is composed of 12 year old boys marrying sado-masochistic goose... Why on earth do you believe that?

A common, and in fact only, argument I've heard is one that states: if men are allowed to marry men what is to stop the previously mentioned boy-goose pairing; where is the line drawn?

Well, here is a hint: Consent. Yes, finding the thin pink line is that simple. If the one, or both, of the two to be wed cannot consent then the marriage can not go through. It seems to me that this simple rule would effectively halt all of the deviant atrocities that you, as good parents, are worried the 'homosexual scourge' might bring.

You're right of course, but those against equal civil marriage will never listen to that answer. Their assertions that same-sex marriage will lead to an "anything goes" attitude in relationships is nothing more than a slippery slope argument and is a logical fallacy. Legitimization of homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else; it is an issue in and of itself. Beastality, rape, pedophilia, etc., are all violent acts committed without consent upon another being.

Also, marriage is a legal contract. To have a contract, you must have two parties who are capable of consenting to such a contract. Animals cannot consent and neither can children, legally.

Those who use this argument against same-sex marriage show how low they think of gay and lesbian people. To compare the willingness of two people to enter into a lifelong commitment of love and caring to pets or pedophilia is denying the very capability of gay people to express human emotions such as love. In essence, it is an argument which claims gays are sub-human.

 

[Fluffy]

Was that supposed to read :-some farmer wants to marry a pig, and have sex with his pig ? How can we be certain there is only one 'beast' involved in this, and that we aren't infact talking of a ménage à trois, ie with the farmer marrying a horse, and then having sex with the pig...................

Well look on the bright side, at least the farmer isn't killing thousands of little babies by masturbating and spilling his seed everywhere.

 

[pdoel]

This is a topic very near and dear to my heart. And I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why we should not allow homosexual marriage.

Sure, people through out the "then soon people will be marrying dogs!" idea. Please.

But the majority of the explanations stem from the Bible. "It's against the Bible." "God is clear on his feelings of homosexuality."

The Bible is also clear on the treatment of women. The Bible is also clear on divorce. The Bible is clear on many principles that we, as Christians, have ignored for centuries.

But, let's face it. While I do believe in the Bible, and believe it is the word of God. It's also a book that was written by man. It is a something that was written thousands of years ago. Language has changed so much. The current Bible that we follow has been rewritten and retranslated hundreds of times to fit the current language. Man has made these translations. Not God.

So why is that we still focus on this as a reason to be against something such as gay marriage? Why do we attack a country and claim it's because of how they treat their women (i.e. Iraq), when, in all reality, Iraq follows the Bible more when it comes to the treatment of women, than we do? Why do we see that as an atrocity that must be stopped, yet follow the Bible on other issues?

Why can someone have pre-marital sex, get married, get divorced, but then preach against same-sex marriage because it's a "Sin" and against God's word.

Please.

 

[retrorich]

People tend to fear what they cannot understand. As a straight man, it is difficult for me to understand how a male can be sexually attracted to another male, since I have never experienced such an attraction. But homosexuality is a fact of life--so I accept it. I have a few gay male friends, and know them to be every bit as moral as my straight friends. What they do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, the government or the churches. As long as sex is between consenting adults, it's OK with me. Same-sex marriages should most definitely be allowed. However, no church should be forced to perform them.

 

[michel]

This is a topic very near and dear to my heart. And I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why we should not allow homosexual marriage.

Sure, people through out the "then soon people will be marrying dogs!" idea. Please.

But the majority of the explanations stem from the Bible. "It's against the Bible." "God is clear on his feelings of homosexuality."

The Bible is also clear on the treatment of women. The Bible is also clear on divorce. The Bible is clear on many principles that we, as Christians, have ignored for centuries.

But, let's face it. While I do believe in the Bible, and believe it is the word of God. It's also a book that was written by man. It is a something that was written thousands of years ago. Language has changed so much. The current Bible that we follow has been rewritten and retranslated hundreds of times to fit the current language. Man has made these translations. Not God.

So why is that we still focus on this as a reason to be against something such as gay marriage? Why do we attack a country and claim it's because of how they treat their women (i.e. Iraq), when, in all reality, Iraq follows the Bible more when it comes to the treatment of women, than we do? Why do we see that as an atrocity that must be stopped, yet follow the Bible on other issues?

Why can someone have pre-marital sex, get married, get divorced, but then preach against same-sex marriage because it's a "Sin" and against God's word.

Please.

An excellent post, my friend, and fruballworthy (wish I could make it a double dose, but I can't).

Why can someone have pre-marital sex, get married, get divorced, but then preach against same-sex marriage because it's a "Sin" and against God's word.

Is one of the points I often think of; the hypocricy of man, who, as you say, mat well enjoy pre-marital sex, marry in a Church, and swear on the bible that the marriage will last until death do us part, divorce, find someone else, and then have a civil union is beyond me. The fact that that said person may well be one of the ones who decry same sex marriage is attrocioulsy twisted.

Don't misunderstand me; I can understand that someone makes a mistake in marriage, and both parties agree that to carry on together would be absurd - anyone can make a mistake. But I hope that if that situation was to apply to me, that I would be strong enough to consider myself married in the eyes of God until the death of one of us; there are no guarantees. No one can know how he will react until he is put in that particular scenario.

But well done, for pointing out the true hypocricy of some Christians, who, most likely think of themselves as good and true Christians.

I looked for the biblical reference to this subject I wanted to quote, and this was the first I came across in a Google search:-

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/familyconnections/030702white.html

(which sould delight Katzpur, Jonny et al.)
In 3 Nephi 13:3-5 we read,

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye--and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

“Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

 

[tcravs]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

 

[Sunstone]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

Welcome to the Forum!

Out of curiosity, which church are you refering to?

 

[James the Persian]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

I agree. However, I have no problem with the sort of civil unions which have recently become legal in Britain. I would never personally consider them marriages (and I only call heterosexual civil unions marriages in order to avoid offending people and because it is linguistic convention) because for me marriage is a sacrament performed before God. I am totally opposed to homosexual marriages if marriage is defined as I would personally prefer it to be but fine with it if marriage is used with the looser meaning (as it usually is) of some legally approved partnership. The inability on the part of some Christians to distinguish between the sacrament and the legal document is, in my opinion, quite sad and I'm not surprised that some people get up in arms about such Christians' attitudes.

James

 

[Sunstone]

To play the devil's advocate here: If homosexual marriage is legalized, what would prevent the same grounds on which it is legalized from being used to justify legalizing incestous marriages? How about polygamous marriages?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree. However, I have no problem with the sort of civil unions which have recently become legal in Britain.

Interesting. Is gay sex adultery?

 

[James the Persian]

Interesting. Is gay sex adultery?

Of course. I would certainly expect that any homosexual Orthodox Christians who entered into such a union would be denied the sacraments. However, my point wasn't that such a union was OK for Orthodox Christians but that I have no problem with the state allowing such legal partnerships. I would expect all Orthodox Christians to abide by the teachings of the Church and this means no homosexual sex and no sex outside of a marriage performed by the Church. I don't feel, however, that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on those who do not share my religion. I wouldn't have thought that that was particularly difficult idea to understand.

James

 

[JerryL]

To play the devil's advocate here: If homosexual marriage is legalized, what would prevent the same grounds on which it is legalized from being used to justify legalizing incestous marriages?

I'd imagine the same groudns that are used now... concerns on public health.

Recall that the rule against incest is not religious in origin.

How about polygamous marriages?

What's so bad about that? The Jews and Muslims have both practiced it (the latter still do). It's been in use through most of the world for melennia. Who came up with monogomy anyway?

 

[JerryL]

Interesting. Is gay sex adultery?

From an emotional standpoint? Most partners woudl say "yes". From a religious standpoint? Depends on the religion I suppose.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not interested in whether polygamous marriage is good or bad, but in whether the same arguments used to justify homosexual marriage also justify polygamous marriage.

 

[pdoel]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

This is true. But it is also the Church's teaching that marriage (between a man and a woman) is till death, they do part. It is also the Church's teachings that pre-marital sex is a sin. It is also the Bible's teachings that women should not speak in Church, and should always be subserviant to their husband. It is also the Bible's teaching that if a husband dies, his brother should marry the widow.

Why is it ok to ignore so many of the Church's and God's teachings, but then hold steadfast to others? Why is it ok for Christians to partake in pre-marital sex, get divorced, etc. etc. etc., but then deny rights to others based on their "teachings"?

If you are going to use the Church or the Bible as your basis for laws in this country. Then shouldn't we abide by ALL the laws of God?