Gay Rights, this will make you think.

[MKxcomm]

As someone who is still trying to figure out the extent of how I feel about homosexuality and the Bible,gay rights etc. This really, really made some things clear for me.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-r...g-beastali

[mirandaluzdivina]

Lol! Ugh, I don't know how many times I've come close to smacking someone who says "...and then we'd be able to marry our pets!" If you disagree because you think it's not biblical, or you think it's "icky," just say so.

Although, if animals could consent, my dogs would make perfect husbands.

[myotch]

The problem is not consent and self-awareness.

The problem is the definition of the word marriage - which is historically and throughout every culture ever known to mean the relationship between a man and a woman. Even in plural marriages, marriage is between one man and one woman (thought one gender, almost always male, has several "marriages").

There are only a handful of examples throughout the history of civilizations where same gender relationships were officially recognized as "marriage", and it was never long lived - either the practice died out, or the cultures did.

The question comes back to this - what is the nature of marriage, what is marriage's role in culture and society, and why, as long as there been civilization and governance, were marriages recognized, protected, and even subsidized in various ways? I posit that the benefits of marriage are there because of the reasonable expectations of natural reproduction and raising a family, not "validation" from the state, and certainly not for greedy tax benefits.

As a human, I cannot willfully decide that I am a toaster or a dog, and as long as I'm alive, I cannot rightfully declare myself dead. I cannot truthfully declare a stallion as a mare. I also cannot truthfully redefine or change the cultural implications of any of my relationships.

A man and a woman commit to each other a relationship known as marriage. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman may commit to each other, but an adequate terminology for their relationship is not "marriage", but rather some other word that hasn't quite been coined yet.

[dthatcher]

what myotch said. my three main arguments against "homosexuality is okay for Christians":

1) Sex outside of marriage has always been considered immoral by Christianity, so therefore homosex is immoral.

2) Cross-referencing Romans 1:26-27 with Jude 7 makes it as clear that homosexuality is considered sin:
Rom 1:26-27 NRSV: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for UNNATURAL, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Jude 7 NRSV: Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued UNNATURAL lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

3) 1 Cor 6:9-10 NRSV: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." Sodomites is distinguished from male prostitution in this list. The greek word is arsenokoites, which quite literally means men-bedders. The word is actually translated in the Geneva as "buggerers".

It has been my experience that the people who are most upset about the religious treatment of homosexuals know no other solution than full-fledged acceptance of their lifestyle as a legitimate Christian choice. This is a false dilemma.
Furthermore, what Christians OUGHT to believe about homosexuality has, as far as I am concerned, no applicability in the civil arena. I can on the one hand say homosexuality is un-Christian while on the other hand supporting civil rights for homosexuals.

[lucrezaborgia]

(01-04-2012 03:00 PM)myotch Wrote:  The question comes back to this - what is the nature of marriage, what is marriage's role in culture and society, and why, as long as there been civilization and governance, were marriages recognized, protected, and even subsidized in various ways? I posit that the benefits of marriage are there because of the reasonable expectations of natural reproduction and raising a family, not "validation" from the state, and certainly not for greedy tax benefits.

Are you talking marriage as recognized by the state or by the church? The two are vastly different things. Marriage recognized by the state has always been about property rights.

Quote:As a human, I cannot willfully decide that I am a toaster or a dog, and as long as I'm alive, I cannot rightfully declare myself dead. I cannot truthfully declare a stallion as a mare. I also cannot truthfully redefine or change the cultural implications of any of my relationships.

What...what? The first two sentences are lies and fraud. What does that have to do with the third? "Cultural implications" are changed all the time and throughout history. It used to be a legal and moral issue if you married outside of your race but not so much anymore. There are many other examples as well that are too numerous to include here.

Quote:A man and a woman commit to each other a relationship known as marriage. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman may commit to each other, but an adequate terminology for their relationship is not "marriage", but rather some other word that hasn't quite been coined yet.

Why not? We redefine legal issues all the time. Marriage is a legal term as well as a religious one. The "civil unions" for homosexuals that are so ballyhooed by some people are not the same as legal marriage and don't confer the same rights, especially as long as they are not recognized outside of the state they are issued in.

Here is an example of a couple who supposedly did everything right but because they weren't legally married it was all for naught: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

[myotch]

(01-04-2012 03:21 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  Are you talking marriage as recognized by the state or by the church? The two are vastly different things. Marriage recognized by the state has always been about property rights.

Neither, actually. Please notice I did not use religion in my argument because it simply does not apply. Marriage, in and of itself, is more about relationship and covenant than it is a legal or religious concern. Both church and state recognize marriage, both in some way officiate over the joining together. And there are legal and religious implications to marriage. But before civilization, before modern religions, there was marriage.

Quote:What...what? The first two sentences are lies and fraud. What does that have to do with the third? "Cultural implications" are changed all the time and throughout history. It used to be a legal and moral issue if you married outside of your race but not so much anymore. There are many other examples as well that are too numerous to include here.

You can declare yourself to be a dog or a toaster? Let me be a little more clear: Me declaring myself a dog or a toaster does not change the fact that I am neither a dog or a toaster. My successful efforts to get the government to declare me a dog or a toaster does not change the fact that I am no dog or toaster. A same sex union is not a marriage, in the historical/cultural/societal/intentional meaning of the word. Having the government declare same sex unions as marriage does not make it so.

Quote:Why not? We redefine legal issues all the time. Marriage is a legal term as well as a religious one. The "civil unions" for homosexuals that are so ballyhooed by some people are not the same as legal marriage and don't confer the same rights, especially as long as they are not recognized outside of the state they are issued in.

Until the Orwellian political-correctness age (and I hate using the word "Orwellian", because this is more of a Huxley-an issue in regards to the trivializing nature, IMO - and Huxley made the better prediction) modern society was not in the habit of redefining terms in efforts to be more "inclusive". Words mean things - words are discriminatory by nature (rather than discriminating).

I'm not unsympathetic to gay rights, or civil rights in general. I just think in this one area, the gay rights agenda has it wrong.

Quote:Here is an example of a couple who supposedly did everything right but because they weren't legally married it was all for naught: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

Very sad - it's an article I've read before (and often comes up in these types of discussions). However, I'm not convinced that state-recognized marriage is the only answer, here.

The article seems to show that the hospital broke existing laws, laws there for her and her partner's protection. I would posit that there's no need for new laws, but rather a need to enforce existing ones. Doesn't that make sense?

BTW - the story is heartbreaking, but I always feel a little leery of the article when Ms. Langbehn says she was told that Miami is an anti-gay city. Should I chalk this up to the New York TImes, Ms. Langbehn grief, or should I spread the word that Miami is anti-gay?

[Monipenny]

(01-04-2012 02:27 PM)MKxcomm Wrote:  As someone who is still trying to figure out the extent of how I feel about homosexuality and the Bible,gay rights etc. This really, really made some things clear for me.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-r...g-beastali

It's good. Really, what does the church have to do with two consenting adults who choose to marry besides the ability to officiate them? A judge of a court of law does that too. This is just an example of how the church tries to influence or control certain aspects of our government, remember seperation of church and State! Church should stay out of our government too.

[Tchaiko]

It is my personal opinion that the word "marriage" should not be used. I think the government should grant everyone equal marrying rights, but call them all civil unions. That way, the conservative Christians can still call their unions marriages without having to call gay unions marriages. It would let them keep their religious term but allow all Americans the same rights. I think this is a case in which the government is using the church's words, and so the church feels obligated to make sure that those words aren't taken any other way than it takes them.

America has always been about doing things for its people that no country had ever done before. But now, it seems that the people are using the excuse "but it's never been done before" to keep some citizens from getting the same rights as everyone else.

[lucrezaborgia]

(01-04-2012 06:36 PM)Tchaiko Wrote:  I think this is a case in which the government is using the church's words, and so the church feels obligated to make sure that those words aren't taken any other way than it takes them.

...but then that cheapens marriage and takes god out of it! At least, that would be the church's counter-argument.

[Donb123]

(01-04-2012 04:32 PM)Monipenny Wrote:  This is just an example of how the church tries to influence or control certain aspects of our government, remember seperation of church and State! Church should stay out of our government too.

Which church? No it doesn't. If by church you mean "some Christians" then you'd be correct.

Oh and while I like my church and state separate there's no need to remember it because there's nothing in our law that makes such a statement.