Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[iamrefreshed]

there are subtle and not-so-subtle power dynamics in families, as anyone who’s spent 15 years in therapy trying to get over their mothers could attest. even siblings – ostensibly equal – having grown up with unique mixtures of rivalry, loyalty and hero-worship can find themselves locked into emotional patterns that aren’t given to healthy marriage.

for these reasons, full consent is questionable. in some cases, it’s impossible.

I believe you are confusing full consent with a questionable decision. What determines full consent?

Many first cousins do not live in the same household. Should they be allowed to marry?

I think my example is the closet possible example to compare to a same sex marriage and bans.

Why are incestuous marriges any more wrong than SSM?

 

[Polaris]

Two men kissing in a romantic embrace:

My children see this display they think it is okay, they mimic it, and voila, it has harmed they little souls (they may have other sins there, but Less sin is better than more).

QUOTE]

My kids see you kissing your husband romantically. They mimic it and there souls are now harmed.

This goes for your kids as well. They think it is normal for two people of the opposite sex to kiss. This is also a sin in all but one case.

Also do you really think thats how it works. I never met a homosexual, or read a testimoney that said “I saw two men kissing so now Im Gay.”

 

[Mirdath]

You waffled on your answer within one post. You went from a no to an incestuous marriage to a yes.

Can you explain your change of heart?

I have waffled on nothing. I said as a general rule I would oppose it – the operative word is general. Generally, consent is questionable or impossible in cases of incestuous relationships. If it can be shown that both parties have full informed consent, I withdraw my objection to it on that score.

terri_fortner:

This thread is about What the big deal is with Gay marriage. It is not about trying to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and you are right. (and that goes for both sides).

It got sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not the Church treats homosexuals as human beings.

It is natural because in nature a child COULD result from the act weather or not a child does is purely up to God.

And I’m sure if God wants a child to result from a homosexual union, he can make it happen! Just like he got a child to result from no sex at all, if you believe the gospels

Because the potential for homosexuality to harm all people is far, far greater than the potential for adultry to harm all people.

How does it harm all people?

Adultry is something that is usually kept between the parties involved, but homosexuality is something that is not kept between the people involved.

Entirely untrue. What is divorce and remarriage, if not adultery? Are you saying that whole mess is ‘usually private’?

It violates my right as a parent to raise my children to know this act is a sin, and to love the sinner but not the sin. What about my rights are my rights not as important as the rights of the other sinners out there?

I’m sorry, but other peoples’ right to free exercise comes well before your right not to be offended.

They were free to be homosexual in Europe, but they didn’t want that that, they wanted to be free to follow Christ, and ALL of his teachings including the ones that somepeople didn’t agree with. Remember at the time of Christ people thought he was a nut, and that he was a fake, and that the things he said were blasphamy. Because he spoke the truth and he told the people things they did not want to hear, like homosexuality is a sin.

Except that the country they established is one built not on Christian principles – please, folks, read the Treaty of Tripoli – and designed so that everyone, not just every Christian, is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And I do not recall Jesus having anything to say on the subject of homosexuality.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I have waffled on nothing. I said as a general rule I would oppose it – the operative word is general. Generally, consent is questionable or impossible in cases of incestuous relationships. If it can be shown that both parties have full informed consent, I withdraw my objection to it on that score.

Thanks for your answer. BTW, I’m opposed to incestuous marriages from a moral stance. I have no intention of marrying my sister

As I stated before I have been following this thread very closely and have learned a good deal. It has certainly got me thinking.

In addressing your statement that same sex marriages having no damaging effect on society I have a thought.

What would be the effect on the human race if every person followed suit an engaged in a same sex marriage? I know that this is a far out example but I believe that it does say something about why it could be used as an argument against SSM.

 

[Polaris]

What would be the effect on the human race if every person followed suit an engaged in a same sex marriage? I know that this is a far out example but I believe that it does say something about why it could be used as an argument against SSM.

What would be the effect on the human rase if evey person followed suit and became a preist, brother or Nun? I know that this is a far out example but I believe that it does say something about why it could be used as an argument against Holy Orders.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What would be the effect on the human rase if evey person followed suit and became a preist, brother or Nun? I know that this is a far out example but I believe that it does say something about why it could be used as an argument against Holy Orders.

Last I checked, the government was not controlling who became a priest, nun or brother.

The discussion here is about why the government should recognize SSM.

A poster stated that SSM should be recognized because it has no harmful effect on society. That is what I am questioning.

 

[Urf]

Yes well he pointed out that same sex marriages holds the same potential harm that becoming a priest or a nun does. Stopping procreation all together.

However you have to take note of the fact that homosexuality (same sex attractions, whatever you feel better calling it) is not something people choose. Therefore there is no real possibility that everyone born in a generation will end up gay. Furthermore, even if that were to happen, procreation is available through other means (regardless whether it is church approved, it exists)

 

[terri_fortner]

I have waffled on nothing. I said as a general rule I would oppose it – the operative word is general. Generally, consent is questionable or impossible in cases of incestuous relationships. If it can be shown that both parties have full informed consent, I withdraw my objection to it on that score.

It got sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not the Church treats homosexuals as human beings.

And I’m sure if God wants a child to result from a homosexual union, he can make it happen! Just like he got a child to result from no sex at all, if you believe the gospels

How does it harm all people?

Entirely untrue. What is divorce and remarriage, if not adultery? Are you saying that whole mess is ‘usually private’?

I’m sorry, but other peoples’ right to free exercise comes well before your right not to be offended.

Except that the country they established is one built not on Christian principles – please, folks, read the Treaty of Tripoli – and designed so that everyone, not just every Christian, is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And I do not recall Jesus having anything to say on the subject of homosexuality.

A. What about the baggage that an abused woman carries around, should she not be allowed to marry because she will concent to a man simpley because he pressured her. As long as she is marrying another woman then you won’t doubt her ability to concent.

B. You are right and I am trying to point out that it needs to stay on topic, and if you want to continue to keep it off topic, then maybe you should start a thread on this particular topic.

C. You conveinantly left out the part about God not doing this because God aint in the business of adding miraculour conception to a sinful union.

D. Because it is saying that something that is wrong isn’t wrong, and that is going to cause many to be led astray, and that is harmful to their eternal souls. We live forever, not just the time we have on earth, that time is just a short period, and the next Era is going to be the lasting one, where would oyu like ot spend it?

E. I conceed that adultry does harm others, and so does divorce and remarriage, but as Jesus said divorce is necisarry because humans are just that, human. Jesus said it was okay under certain circumstances.

F. it isn’t about my right to be unoffended. It is about my right to teach my children that something is wrong, and that it is a sin.

IF you believe Jesus when he passes his power to the church, and that the apostles were the given The authority to help people be more like christ, then I say to you… “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulters nor male prostetutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor 6:9-10

All these other things are not being pushed upon myself and others in society as being completely natural and moral things, except homosexuality, and if they were then I would be standing up for my right to say stealing is wrong, and adultry is wrong, and lying is wrong; but I am not being told by others that I am wrong for thinking these things, only I am wrong for believeing homosexuality is wrong.

That is where the issue arrises, while there is no black and white, there is still a white and an infinate number of grays.

 

[emily47017]

Last I checked, the government was not controlling who became a priest, nun or brother.

last i checked, the government was not controlling who entered into a same-sex relationship.

 

[Bennie_P]

Sodom’s sin was not homosexuality but inhospitality, as shown in Ezekiel 16:49: And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.
.

You would like to dimiss or reduce the sins of Sodom just to inhospitality so easly? :dts: Is this 'Gay Rights" exegesis?

****A commentary of ****

Eze 16:49 -
pride— inherited by Moab, her offspring (Isa 16:6; Jer. 48:26), and by Ammon (Jer 49:4). God, the heart-searcher, here specifies as Sodom’s sin,** not merely her notorious lusts, but the secret spring of them**, “pride” flowing from “fullness of bread,” caused by the fertility of the soil (Gen 13:10), and producing “idleness.” abundance of idleness — literally, “the secure carelessness of ease” or idleness. neither did she strengthen … the poor — Pride is always cruel; it arrogates to itself all things, and despises brethren, for whose needs it therefore has no feeling; as Moab had not for the outcast Jews (Isa 16:3, Isa 16:4; Jer 48:27; Luk 16:19-21; Jam 5:1-5).
**

You have taken one verse totally out of context. You need to go back and re-read Chapter 16 and go through the list of sins and shortcomings Israel is being accused of and add that list upon the shoulders of Sodom also - though there is judgment here there is also a promise of restoration, if Israel repents turns back to God.**

 

[goofyjim]

The way I see it, it still was not for the sin of homosexual love. It was for the sin of attempted rape whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. And this then leads to Ezekiel 16 referring to inhospitality. Further, when Jesus was addressing the issue of Capernaum he said it will go easier for Sodom on the day of judgement. Well, gee, if Jesus was hinting that what the city of Sodom did might be forgiven, I’m sure homosexual acts between committed partners can be forgiven on judgement day as well.

I just grow weary of this whole attitude over homosexuality like, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” It isn’t. Future generations will come and go and still have to deal with this.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.