Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:

[gromit]

Lol. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. We don't base laws on the psychological effect they will have on the criminal. I could make the same argument against theft laws. We shouldn't have theft laws because somebody who is has not eaten for two days may steal something and then kill themselves because they feel guilty.

Your arguing backwards from effect to principle your also using inductive reasoning. This is a very poor way to set up a society. You can end up with whatever general principles suit your fancy this way.

The better way is to start with a set of principles... say Love the Lord with all your heart and do unto others... than deduct from those general principles the first four commandments of the decalogue from the former and the last 6 commandments from the latter. Then you can continue down from there. That is a stable standard of law.

Even if you disagree with the Bible at least the reasoning is more sound.

Civil laws are based on morality to a certain extent, but perhaps to a greater extent they are intended to preserve order in a society.

 

[KDude]

Lol. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. We don't base laws on the psychological effect they will have on the criminal.

"lol"? you're the one that's calling adulterers "criminals"... as if it were already so.

 

[Katsuni]

Lol. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. We don't base laws on the psychological effect they will have on the criminal. I could make the same argument against theft laws. We shouldn't have theft laws because somebody who is has not eaten for two days may steal something and then kill themselves because they feel guilty.

Your arguing backwards from effect to principle your also using inductive reasoning. This is a very poor way to set up a society. You can end up with whatever general principles suit your fancy this way.

The better way is to start with a set of principles... say Love the Lord with all your heart and do unto others... than deduct from those general principles the first four commandments of the decalogue from the former and the last 6 commandments from the latter. Then you can continue down from there. That is a stable standard of law.

Even if you disagree with the Bible at least the reasoning is more sound.

I agree with the point being silly, but I also totally disagree with the set of principles being used of "love the lord" being a good starting point... it assumes basing a law on religion which's been shown pretty consistently in the past to be a fairly bad idea as there's pretty much nil for any truth or justice in it.

Especially when a few of the commandments are kinda... iffy at best. Things like "honour yeur father and mother" really don't work in abusive situations. If yeu read through the bible fully, yeu actually see examples of where murdering yeur children or pimping them off, or selling them as slaves is perfectly acceptable, and they still have to honour yeu or the punishment is death.

Furthermore, silly things like "thou shalt not covet" is just foolish at best. Yeu can covet all yeu want; yeu just can't ACT upon it. If we went by the 10 commandments as law, we'd have thought police beating people senseless or killing them just on the off chance they MAY have been thinking something they shouldn't've been.



If yeu want a good place to start, those aren't really it. Yeu'd probably be better off with something like "Do not impose yeur beliefs upon others" as the starting point, from which all other crimes can be derived from, from theft to murder, each applies. Victimless crimes, however, do not get covered by such, as they're stupid in the first place and shouldn't've existed to start with.

 

[Beorn]

"lol"? you're the one that's calling adulterers "criminals"... as if it were already so.

It was your hypothetical.

Your cheap shots are actually kind of entertaining. I really don't mind them.

I agree with the point being silly, but I also totally disagree with the set of principles being used of "love the lord" being a good starting point... it assumes basing a law on religion which's been shown pretty consistently in the past to be a fairly bad idea as there's pretty much nil for any truth or justice in it.

Its a good starting point for determining what is God's Law. Now what laws are within the jurisdiction of the state to enforce is another matter altogether.

Especially when a few of the commandments are kinda... iffy at best. Things like "honour yeur father and mother" really don't work in abusive situations. If yeu read through the bible fully, yeu actually see examples of where murdering yeur children or pimping them off, or selling them as slaves is perfectly acceptable, and they still have to honour yeu or the punishment is death.

I am fully aware of all the "awful" things in the bible. None of it bothers me no matter how you characterize it.

If yeu want a good place to start, those aren't really it. Yeu'd probably be better off with something like "Do not impose yeur beliefs upon others" as the starting point, from which all other crimes can be derived from, from theft to murder, each applies. Victimless crimes, however, do not get covered by such, as they're stupid in the first place and shouldn't've existed to start with.

That is a self limiting law. If that was the law then you could have no government. You could only have anarchy, because the state wouldn't be able to impose its views on anyone. It couldn't impose its belief that murder is wrong on people who commit murder because murderers think murder is ok.

Gromit: Good thoughts. I'll have to get back to you I haven't slept for 36 hours.

 

[KDude]

it's cool if you don't mind. but they are not cheap shots. you mischaracterize me. "the devil is in the details", that's all i'm trying to say. i think you paint with too broad a stroke. i've seen good and bad things play out from ideals like yours.. nothing's ever simple.

 

[Beorn]

it's cool if you don't mind. but they are not cheap shots. you mischaracterize me. "the devil is in the details", that's all i'm trying to say. i think you paint with too broad a stroke. i've seen good and bad things play out from ideals like yours.. nothing's ever simple.

I'm an absolutist. I think God's law applies all the time in all places.

But, Ill admit when imperfect people try to apply and execute God's law things definitely may go wrong.

 

[Ming]

My arguments for homosexuality as a whole

I guess it's finally time for a homosexual teenager to make a voice.

I believe that the younger generations are so much more free about things. Through the expanding science, technology, information, knowledge, internet, media... We are learning so much faster and BROADER as teenagers than what people had access to before. There are so many great resources left for us to study. It's sometimes very hard to even imagine the vast world that teenagers are involved in at a click of a button... I have so many friends who search up on things which have no relation to them (eg, homosexuality), that I'm touched and amazed.

Most of the adults (eg, the X generations/Baby boomers - That's how you call it in Australia) are still so stubborn and fixed in the world they have lived in as a child. Which I can't really disagree, because I would probably base my own experiences and view future generations with this standard of living that is being committed now. How many of you people have actually searched up on homosexuality? Before spouting your words, have you searched up what really happens to homosexuals world wide? Have you searched up the reasons why homosexuals seem to 'flaunt it'? Have you searched up what homosexuality IS? If you have then continue reading, if not, go and search it up for some basic knowledge. You can't argue without knowing the other side. A debate needs rebuttals, not just your own words. Nobody will recognize your views as real unless you KNOW what the other side is going on about.

Anyways back to what I was saying. I don't know much about life, so it may seem I'm lacking a lot of wisdom that many older people have. I have a lot to say so bear with me.

FIRSTLY, I WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN RELIGION. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO READ THIS, BECAUSE THEN THE REASON THAT 'THE BIBLE SAYS SO' ISN'T VALID. READ IT IF YOU WANT

I understand the idea of religion and God. But do most of the people know that the first line of the old testament, Genesis, is not 'the God created the heavens and the Earth'; it actually is the 'the GODS created heavens and the Earth'. There is not just one God, but many. So firstly, to believe in a religion, you must first commit to the point that there are many Gods. NOT JUST YOURS.

Anyways to continue on.

There are 12 mentions in the bible all together, and they are as follows:

2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8)
1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)

None of them refers to acts that are 'moral'. They are all about rape and cults, and the immoral side of life. None of them actually relates to love, nor the good things. None of them relates to the people who are homosexual and DO NOT commit immoral acts. There are NO condemnations towards homosexual love between two people. There are however towards rape and cults. Notice the difference?

Jesus NEVER mentioned homosexuality. (We're in the new testament now).
There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against.

The context of the bible is made at the time of the community it was in. Stop living in the past, and live in the present.

Oh yea, just before going on, I'd like to make a point that the paragraph above was for people who BELIEVE the bible. I myself don't, and there are of course a lot of reasons against the bible. I will now go on about the issue of marriage, sex, and adoption.

Homosexual marriage should be allowed worldwide, not just in specific nations/countries/states. I would believe so, because -

1) Does not affect YOU. If you're not gay, no one will care. If you're gay, you wouldn't want people to destroy and anchor you either.

2) If you read the section about the bible, then the 'cause the bible says so' is invalid.

3) Just because you think it's disgusting, doesn't mean other people aren't hurt by that. Or that people will agree with you. You're not the king of the world. Get real. We live in the 21st century now.

4) There are so many homosexual marriages that have been successful. And have they done anything wrong? WHAT HAS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE DONE THAT IS WRONG TO YOU?

5) Because there are so many people protesting; so many homosexuals fighting for equality. If you support equality, then you should support this. This kind of discrimination should be abolished.

Onto sex now! (For a teenager that's a must, haha!); Sorry it's a bit crude, but I like straight-forwardness.

Sex really isn't such a big issue. If you're Christian, and you believe it is immoral, refer to the section above again.

The argument of 'males/females were made for each other, not two of the same gender' is invalid. And why? Here are some MORE reasons.

1) Puh-leaze, if males and females were made for each other, then why are there gays and lesbians. This one's probably the most obvious.

2) How many people have you known that are actually with the opposite sex because their bodies were 'made for each other'. You base it on the mind, or looks, or something unique. You don't just base it on the penis or the vagina. Seriously peoples..

3) Then why are men attracted to lesbian porn, and maybe women are attracted to gay porn. You guys should be 'disgusted' because they're not 'made for each other'. Get real.

4) Your penis wants to get hard when it is stimulated. If you didn't know who was wanking you, I'm pretty sure you'd have an orgasm. Same with women and their vaginas. So your sexual organs were not made for each other. Just to be touched. It's got nothing to do with the opposite sex.

5)Why do you perform oral sex then. Aren't they not 'meant for each other'. Why perform a boob job, or something like that?

6) The sex works, so why worry? I mean c'mon, it's all a penis and a hole. Except for lesbians, they have it tough... But so does impotent people?

Sorry for all that rudeness. If I don't make it real and right, men won't get it. Anyways onto children now, and its own issues.

There are no differences between a child and having a maternal influences and a paternal influence than having 2 paternal/maternal influences. Firstly, before you even begin reading, go to your child and ask this question.

'If I were of the opposite sex, will you still see me as a 'parent?'. Will you still love me as I am?'

Ask that. Then you might just realize.

If that doesn't work, then here are some reasons why homosexual adoption and/or homosexuals raising children should be allowed.

1) It's the environment that condemns the child. If NO ONE labels homosexuality as an 'abomination', will it really affect whether you need to have one mom and one dad?

What I'm trying to say is that if no one abused you, no one had a negative influence and though it was alright, would you need to just only have 'one mom and one dad'. Are they really needed? Why aren't single parented children any different? They didn't have 'one mom and one dad'. Why are orphans any different? They still seem cool.

And people refer gays as 'pedophiles'. They're not. The ratio of heterosexual people to homosexual people who are 'pedophiles' are 250:1. It's ironic how heterosexual like to push their problems onto homosexuals, just like everything else.

2) Adopted children need care. There are so many children worldwide that need love and nurture. If I was a child, and I didn't have the necessities that life needs to happen, I would run to the first person who would accept me. Screw it whether they're black, white, homosexual, straight, short, tall.

Why should we abandon the rights to nurture a child? Why should we abandon the rights for a man/woman and hold a person in their arms? I can't even SEE why they are still like this. It's plain disgusting to me.

 

[foolish heart]

this is not complicated from a strictly functional standpoint. the anus doesn't lubricate itself, and we ought to be a lot smarter than sexually confused animals like Ming's avatar

 

[ayoitsStepho]

I disagree with homosexuality, but you know what? Ultimately I just don't give a rip anymore. If you all want to marry, go for it. I'll even buy you a gift. That decision is on you and not me, so why should I care?

We're all human and we all make our own decisions.

If anyone wants to get into "religious" matters, let me just tell you that I choose to follow Jesus and love everyone no matter who they are or what they do. I don't have to agree with you, but I can still love you and just accept the decisions your making because ultimately it's your own choice, not mine.

So if they want to marry, they have my blessings.

Personally, I don't understand why some people get their panties in a knot over the homosexual issues anyway. Why is it that people want to scream and act like homosexuality is the worst sin ever. Good grief, who doesn't sin? I'm not saying it's right but why has this been made into such a huge deal? I don't see people holding rallies for children that don't honor their parents, or for those who break the Sabbath and ect.
Heck, even "Christians"* who say all these hateful things towards these people are sinning themselves! Since when do we decide what sins are worse than others? A sin is a sin. We all do it, so even if you consider homosexuality a sin, I believe we're still called to love them and not hate them.

*I wrote Christian in parenthesis because quite a few people out there claim to be one, but really aren't.

Anyway, I suppose that's what I have to say on the matter as a Christian myself.

I'm secretly afraid to write my opinions on these matters, strictly because I don't want to offend or hurt anyone.

 

[Eruca]

Ming's massive posts

tl:dr

 

[Ming]

tl:dr

Sorry, didn't mean to make it long, but it's just that I TRIED to address all the points..

 

[Ming]

this is not complicated from a strictly functional standpoint. the anus doesn't lubricate itself, and we ought to be a lot smarter than sexually confused animals like Ming's avatar

You have to admit it, they're kinda hot. Who doesn't love lion porn?

The anus doesn't lubricate itself..that's true. But do vaginas?

But the prostrate is in the anus, so I don't know..

 

[CrystalViolet]

Ming,
I think homsexuals tend have it slightly easier in Australia...maybe. They still aren't recognised by the government though, I guess.

I don't even notice same sex couples any more. They are just people. I feel weird saying I have lots of them as friends and aquientances...because they aren't really that different, and it's like wearing a badge to say I'm torelant and PC. My best friend's gay. He's my friend first and foremost. Him being gay is way down the list there.
I don't know why it's such a big issue. Just give them the right to legalise thier unions. I, then might be able to marry a girl for citizenship instead. (which is probably not far from the thoughts of government adminstrators....really) and let's get down to it there nothing frackin' natural about the human race any more, so stop using that as an excuse to stone wall.

 

[Ming]

Ming,
I think homsexuals tend have it slightly easier in Australia...maybe. They still aren't recognised by the government though, I guess.

I don't even notice same sex couples any more. They are just people. I feel weird saying I have lots of them as friends and aquientances...because they aren't really that different, and it's like wearing a badge to say I'm torelant and PC. My best friend's gay. He's my friend first and foremost. Him being gay is way down the list there.
I don't know why it's such a big issue. Just give them the right to legalise thier unions. I, then might be able to marry a girl for citizenship instead. (which is probably not far from the thoughts of government adminstrators....really) and let's get down to it there nothing frackin' natural about the human race any more, so stop using that as an excuse to stone wall.

Being a homosexual is hard. I don't mind being a homosexual, but I do mind what the people around me treat me because I am one. I don't even know what the hell is going to happen in my life; I'm an only child. It'll be a devastation to my parents when I tell them. It'll be one for myself as well. I don't even know if I can handle complicated business like this.

 

[foolish heart]

The anus doesn't lubricate itself..that's true. But do vaginas?

Yes.

 

[Beorn]

Ming, I'm going to respond to your huge post not because I hate you or any homosexual nor to convince you that I'm right... besides my arguments are based on the bible and you're not a christian. I'm responding because there seems to be this misconception that people who are against homosexual behavior are backwards uninformed idiots. Grant it, there are a lot of backwards idiots who are hateful and afraid of homosexuals... but that doesn't mean that their presuppositions are wrong. In the same way... just because there are idiots who thought that Obama would pay for their mortgage and gas doesn't make any of Obama's social reforms necessarily wrong... they're wrong for other reasons.

now the line by line.

I guess it's finally time for a homosexual teenager to make a voice.

I believe that the younger generations are so much more free about things. Through the expanding science, technology, information, knowledge, internet, media... We are learning so much faster and BROADER as teenagers than what people had access to before. There are so many great resources left for us to study. It's sometimes very hard to even imagine the vast world that teenagers are involved in at a click of a button... I have so many friends who search up on things which have no relation to them (eg, homosexuality), that I'm touched and amazed.

Most of the adults (eg, the X generations/Baby boomers - That's how you call it in Australia) are still so stubborn and fixed in the world they have lived in as a child. Which I can't really disagree, because I would probably base my own experiences and view future generations with this standard of living that is being committed now. How many of you people have actually searched up on homosexuality? Before spouting your words, have you searched up what really happens to homosexuals world wide? Have you searched up the reasons why homosexuals seem to 'flaunt it'? Have you searched up what homosexuality IS? If you have then continue reading, if not, go and search it up for some basic knowledge. You can't argue without knowing the other side. A debate needs rebuttals, not just your own words. Nobody will recognize your views as real unless you KNOW what the other side is going on about.

Anyways back to what I was saying. I don't know much about life, so it may seem I'm lacking a lot of wisdom that many older people have. I have a lot to say so bear with me.

You are presuming that knowledge equals wisdom. This has proven to be false. There are plenty of well-informed geniuses who make unwise idiotic decisions. A wise person may well be informed, but an informed person is not necessarily wise. Hitler was a genius, but I don't think he was very wise.

As far as my own knowledge... I'm well aware of the treatment of homosexuals in the developing world and have some understanding of queer theory.

Are you really informed of the other side's views... from their own perspective? You can start here.

FIRSTLY, I WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN RELIGION. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO READ THIS, BECAUSE THEN THE REASON THAT 'THE BIBLE SAYS SO' ISN'T VALID. READ IT IF YOU WANT

I understand the idea of religion and God. But do most of the people know that the first line of the old testament, Genesis, is not 'the God created the heavens and the Earth'; it actually is the 'the GODS created heavens and the Earth'. There is not just one God, but many. So firstly, to believe in a religion, you must first commit to the point that there are many Gods. NOT JUST YOURS.

I believe you are referring to:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

This verse actually confirms the orthodox Christian belief of the trinity... There is one god in three persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If he is three persons it only makes since that at times he would refer to himself in the plural.

To say this means I need to believe in Vishnu or Zeus is absurd.

Anyways to continue on.

There are 12 mentions in the bible all together, and they are as follows:

2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8)
1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)

You place importance on being informed. Did you actually read those verses within their context or did you just grab them from a website?

You left out the most important passage on human relationships.

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was staken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Shall is an imperative term and used here it clearly establishes what God views as normative human behavior.

I won't deal with the first four groups of passages, but will deal with the last group. Because despite what your website told you those verses are very specific and the onus is on you to show me how they are not specific.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of he blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

None of them refers to acts that are 'moral'. They are all about rape and cults, and the immoral side of life. None of them actually relates to love, nor the good things. None of them relates to the people who are homosexual and DO NOT commit immoral acts.

See above and... you can have same-sex attraction and not commit immoral homosexual acts.

There are NO condemnations towards homosexual love between two people.

That's because the bible presupposes that people who sin against each other are not loving each other.

Jesus NEVER mentioned homosexuality. (We're in the new testament now).

He also never directly mentioned pedophilia, spousal abuse, child abuse, and number of other immoral acts. Simply because he does not speak directly to an issue does not mean he supports it.

There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against.

See above comment on Adam and Eve. Marriage is between Man and woman that was the norm set by God.

This line I believe is the most important.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

I'm not judging you or condemning you. I'm merely proclaiming the truth of God's word. The word of God offers you and everyone else in the world forgiveness of sins if they repent and follow Jesus. I'm proclaiming the good news that people do not have to be enslaved to sin.

1) Does not affect YOU. If you're not gay, no one will care. If you're gay, you wouldn't want people to destroy and anchor you either.

See my previous post on the the effect of homosexuality on society. Also, human trafficking doesn't effect me and yet I speak out against it... should I stop speaking out against it because doesn't effect me?

2) If you read the section about the bible, then the 'cause the bible says so' is invalid.

Answered above. I believe God is sovereign over the whole earth and his moral law applies everywhere.

3) Just because you think it's disgusting, doesn't mean other people aren't hurt by that. Or that people will agree with you. You're not the king of the world. Get real. We live in the 21st century now.

Disgust has nothing to do with the issue.

4) There are so many homosexual marriages that have been successful. And have they done anything wrong? WHAT HAS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE DONE THAT IS WRONG TO YOU?

See previous post AND what do you mean by successful? Btw my understanding is that most homosexual marriages are not intended to be monogamous. The very basis of a healthy marriage is monogamy.

5) Because there are so many people protesting; so many homosexuals fighting for equality. If you support equality, then you should support this. This kind of discrimination should be abolished.

I don't think in most circumstances people should discriminate against people with same-sex attraction. I see no problems with discriminating in certain circumstances against people based on their behavior. For instance I would support a B&B owner who turns away both an unmarried heterosexual couple and a gay couple based on his morals against sex outside of marriage... in both instances he is discriminating on the basis of behavior.

Onto sex now! (For a teenager that's a must, haha!); Sorry it's a bit crude, but I like straight-forwardness.

Sex really isn't such a big issue. If you're Christian, and you believe it is immoral, refer to the section above again.

Sex is a big deal. Its really awesome and really great within the confines of marriage in which is meant to be pataken

The argument of 'males/females were made for each other, not two of the same gender' is invalid. And why? Here are some MORE reasons.

1) Puh-leaze, if males and females were made for each other, then why are there gays and lesbians. This one's probably the most obvious.

Because this is fallen world and we twist what God intended.

2) How many people have you known that are actually with the opposite sex because their bodies were 'made for each other'. You base it on the mind, or looks, or something unique. You don't just base it on the penis or the vagina. Seriously peoples..

3) Then why are men attracted to lesbian porn, and maybe women are attracted to gay porn. You guys should be 'disgusted' because they're not 'made for each other'. Get real.

4) Your penis wants to get hard when it is stimulated. If you didn't know who was wanking you, I'm pretty sure you'd have an orgasm. Same with women and their vaginas. So your sexual organs were not made for each other. Just to be touched. It's got nothing to do with the opposite sex.

I don't see a point in responding to these.

5)Why do you perform oral sex then. Aren't they not 'meant for each other'. Why perform a boob job, or something like that?

Foreplay and whatnot within the confines of marriage are fine... you don't have to read very far in Song of Solomon to figure that out.

6) The sex works, so why worry? I mean c'mon, it's all a penis and a hole. Except for lesbians, they have it tough... But so does impotent people?

Sorry for all that rudeness. If I don't make it real and right, men won't get it. Anyways onto children now, and it's own issues.

I place a very high value on sex. I believe sex in marriage is the highest level of intimacy humans can achieve. Thus it is capable of giving us a glimpse at the joy of intimacy with God. Jesus continually refers to himself as the bridegroom and the church as his bride.

There are no differences between a child and having a maternal influences and a paternal influence than having 2 paternal/maternal influences. Firstly, before you even begin reading, go to your child and ask this question.

'If I were of the opposite sex, will you still see me as a 'parent?'. Will you still love me as I am?'

Ask that. Then you might just realize.

The above is absolutely irrelevant.

Children need a feminine and a masculine influence in there lives. They need a parent of the same sex to learn about how they should behave. They need a parent of the opposite sex to learn how to treat the other sex and what to seek out in the opposite sex.

The problems that arise when this does not occur is most obvious in the case of fatherless boys.

If that doesn't work, then here are some reasons why homosexual adoption and/or homosexuals raising children should be allowed.

1) It's the environment that condemns the child. If NO ONE labels homosexuality as an 'abomination', will it really affect whether you need to have one mom and one dad?

What I'm trying to say is that if no one abused you, no one had a negative influence and though it was alright, would you need to just only have 'one mom and one dad'. Are they really needed? Why aren't single parented children any different? They didn't have 'one mom and one dad'. Why are orphans any different? They still seem cool.

2) Adopted children need care. There are so many children worldwide that need love and nurture. If I was a child, and I didn't have the necessities that life needs to happen, I would run to the first person who would accept me. Screw it whether they're black, white, homosexual, straight, short, tall.

Again, see my previous post. I don't believe homosexuality is a status like race and sex. Also, as I stated before most homosexual relationships and marriages are 'open.' Does that really create a stable environment for a child?

Why should we abandon the rights to nurture a child? Why should we abandon the rights for a man/woman and hold a person in their arms? I can't even SEE why they are still like this. It's plain disgusting to me.

What are these rights you speak of? Where do they come from?


OK, that being said.

Ming, God bless you. You seem like a very intelligent and outspoken young fellow. Being open about your beliefs is a good thing. I wish you nothing but the best in life.

PS
Despite my beliefs, I hope if I have a son he will feel comfortable talking about sexuality with me. I hope also by God's grace that I can show him unconditional love no matter what life decisions he makes.

 

[matmos]

I don't think in most circumstances people should discriminate against people with same-sex attraction. I see no problems with discriminating in certain circumstances against people based on their behavior. For instance I would support a B&B owner who turns away both an unmarried heterosexual couple and a gay couple based on his morals against sex outside of marriage... in both instances he is discriminating on the basis of behavior.

You may be refering to this story.

The owner concerned is quoted by the BBC as saying, "I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house." She makes a strange distinction: that a hotel takes money from people, pays taxes and is subject to the law of the land, yet a B&B (which takes money from people, pays taxes) should in some way be exempt because of the scale of the operation.

This inconsistency in itself would be less noticable if Mrs Wilkinson had, as you say, included unmarried couples in her no-no list. But of course her "beliefs" don't extend that far - although she has stated she would "consider" the idea of banning cohabiting couples also. Clearly her Christian beliefs are ameniable to a certain tweaking, that fully justifies her own biases - and conveniently gets her off the hook on "religious grounds".

As Mrs Wilkinson's beliefs are irrelevant in law, the question of her sincerity is largely irrelevant. The question is: is she allowed to run a business and make arbitary exclusions that clearly breach the law?

And that's at the core of the matter: should there be opt-out clauses in the law based on religious convictions? If the answer is yes, then we might as well give the keys of the country to the Mullahs. Unless of course their religious convictions don't count for much.

 

[wildcat]

At that point, it's an issue between christian homosexuals and the denominations, NOT homosexuals in general and the legal system.

Let them fight it out inside the church, if need be, where a discussion like that belongs. It should not be spilling out to interfere with what unions are legally regarded as valid in situations that are decidedly not moralistic at all (such as tax purposes or hospital visits or property ownership).



While I respect how you state things (you're very civil and decent about it, thank you), and while I totally get where you're coming from (for a portion of my life, I would have made the same argument.... and did) and can respect what you are saying, I just no longer believe the church has any right to be legislating morality of this level. It runs as anathema to the practices of Jesus, he did not respond to sin in society in this manner whatsoever.

I view this as an outcropping of a moralistic subculture that feels ultimately that it is responsible for controlling other people's behavior in order to "save/protect the world for God" ... as if God is not capable of defending Himself by reaching people in personal and internal ways directly, changing hearts rather than imposing regulations.

i also feel that you are taking advantage of a culture that in general has tried to respect your freedoms as a citizen, rather than decide that your "faith" is harmful to your marriages, children, and interaction with other people (since it can drive a host of various abuses as it has been practiced, and some people would see it as a patriarchal mess, creating misogyny, teaching false science, dumbing down kids, etc), and thus seek to pass legislation against your faith so that it no longer harms others in this society.

Spin it around, and see how if others followed your reasoning, you might find your own rights and personal beliefs and way of life threatened. You are taking advantage of a free culture to try to limit the ability of others to act freely. Does that put anything in perspective? Do you believe that is consistent or moral? Your personal values, as objective as you believe they are, are often no more objective than other people's personal values, and they are extending you more space to live as you wish, while you are not responding equitably.

If the United States were a theocracy, maybe I would side more in your favor.

A very good post! Thank you, Jennifer.

 

[Randomnity]

Btw my understanding is that most homosexual marriages are not intended to be monogamous.
.... Also, as I stated before most homosexual relationships and marriages are 'open.'

Where did you get this idea? I'm aware that some Christian propaganda says things along these lines, but my understanding is that it's incorrect. Some of them, sure - just like some heterosexual marriages. "Most", absolutely not.

Please at least source these controversial ideas if you're going to state them as fact and then use them to "support" your argument.

 

[ceecee]

Btw my understanding is that most homosexual marriages are not intended to be monogamous. The very basis of a healthy marriage is monogamy.

Your understanding is wrong, I assure you.