How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[Prodigal_Son]

Barts,

(1) The Greeks and Romans had no notion of “homosexuality”, so how could they believe that homosexual men naturally engage in sex with other men? This sort of teaching is completely foreign to the Bible.

(2) You haven’t addressed the use of the word “arsenokoitai” adequately. This word clearly does not refer exclusively to pedophilia or slave abuse.

 

[Catholic13]

So are you saying you do not believe what the original bible (hebrew) is wrong?

I’m saying it’s pro gay revisionism. One part of the gay agenda is to re write the bible and twist it’s message.

 

[barts61]

I don’t think so.

Romans 1:18-32

I don’t see anything about “the paganistic ritual of temple prostitutes and kings who used slave boys for sexual pleasure”

The argument of homosexual sex performed in conjunction with idol worship and/or shrine prostitution is clearly one of eisegesis. So is the idea that Paul is addressing “unnatural” homosexuality vs. one that is “natural.”

No set of interpretative gymnastics or arguments of how certain words in the original languages don’t mean what they mean in our translations will ever make the text fit the lifestyle for which you want Scripture’s approval. This is true of Romans 1 and every other passage in God’s Word that mentions homosexuality.

Paul uses two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, that have been translated various ways, often reflecting contemporary understandings. Malakoi literally means “soft or woman-like” and most often referred to those who were rich, lazy decadent, self-indulgent or lacking in courage.

The KJV translates this word as effeminate, and probably refers to male prostitutes who painted their faces and wore soft clothes to attract both male and female clients. If they served male clients, they were also considered effeminate because they played the “receptive” role of women.

Arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words - arseno, meaning “male” and koitai meaning “bedder.” It is only found twice in the Bible and this is the first use of it found in literature generally. In subsequent Greek writings over the first six centuries arsenokoitai is usually found in a list of sins similar to Paul’s. In these lists it is adjacent to words with an economic connection, such as robber, swindler, thief, etc. In the Corinthians verse quoted above it is followed by “thief” and in the Timothy verse it is followed by “slave-trader.” If it is a sexual term, why is it in these lists? Could it be referring to a pimp, who profits from selling the services of male prostitutes? Or might it refer to a man who pays for the services of a prostitute? Although we cannot be absolutely sure what is meant here, these words obviously refer to a specific kind of homosexual behavior, so we cannot generalize from these verses that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words - arseno, meaning “male” and koitai meaning “bedder.” It is only found twice in the Bible and this is the first use of it found in literature generally. In subsequent Greek writings over the first six centuries arsenokoitai is usually found in a list of sins similar to Paul’s. In these lists it is adjacent to words with an economic connection, such as robber, swindler, thief, etc. In the Corinthians verse quoted above it is followed by “thief” and in the Timothy verse it is followed by “slave-trader.” If it is a sexual term, why is it in these lists? Could it be referring to a pimp, who profits from selling the services of male prostitutes? Or might it refer to a man who pays for the services of a prostitute? Although we cannot be absolutely sure what is meant here, these words obviously refer to a specific kind of homosexual behavior, so we cannot generalize from these verses that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Your interpretation doesn’t make sense.

In 1 Cor. 6, there is a list of immoral individuals: the sexually immoral, the idolaters, the adulterers, the malachoi (“soft” – probably indicating a passive male partner), the arsenokoitai (men who have sex with men), thieves, etc. The words “malachoi” and “arsenokoitai” come immediately after the word “adulterer” – so if you think proximity entails connection, we have just as much reason to think that BOTH words are words of sexual immorality.

In 1 Tim. 1, another list (picking up midway) lists murderers, the sexually immoral, the arsenokoitai, and those who make others slaves. Again, a sexual term immediately precedes “arsenokoitai”.

Moreover, the plain meaning of the word is “men who lie (=have sex) with men”.

Your arguments to the contrary are quite unimpressive, especially if the person arguing with you actually knows Greek.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t. That’s my whole point.

However, when it is necessary in civil matters to define next of kin (for inheritance or other benefits), then I think civil unions should be the criteria, whether they are gay or straight.

Then I must admit to being confused as to why you think we should have same-sex marriage on a governmental level. If you think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all why in the world would you defend the promotion of governmental same-sex marriage?

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

I think the best thing to say is that marriage means husband and wife, and 2 people of the same sex simply are not the same type of relationship.

In a way it is a moot point, since governments are already re-defining marriage to include homosexuality. But at least this explains succinctly and logically why we Catholics don’t agree with it.

 

[MacQ]

This may be a small point, but the purpose of granting immunity from testifying over confidential information is to encourage just such communication. That is, government is influencing behavior. Without such immunity, people would be less willing to tell their psychotherapist some things that might be relevant to their treatment. Furthermore, if you are going to be fair and impartial about it, you would have to grant the same privileged communication immunity to anyone two people who claim it, whether or not they are in an government-recognized civil union. They might just be friends who talk with each other under the assumption of confidentiality. Or maybe they are just partners in crime. No way to tell before the trial. Are you willing to go that far with this immunity from being forced to testify thing?

Well, I take your points and they are good ones.
Laws against murder and theft are also meant to manipulate (curb) behavior.
I guess the difference between all of those and the wrong kind of govt manipulation is that in the one, people gain protections and no one is unfairly discriminated against.

Further, those and immunity from testifying are not attempts to pick winners and losers, which is by its very nature discriminatory, Such is the case with legislation that gives you a tax break or a federal subsidy/rebate for buying something some congressman wants you to buy (usually because they’re being lobbied or getting kickbacks from that industry).
As an example, Govt is currently manipulating energy prices in order to make solar power economically viable because it isn’t naturally so. Besides being corrupt, that results in hardworking taxpayers paying more for their gas, and on top of that, subsiding solar panels for some rich guy’s villa.

On topic, I don’t see a case for govt dictating that civil unions (which is what marriage is for state purposes) must be between opposite sexes. Do you think it curbs homosexual behavior? Do you think it provides an “incentive” for gays to become straight?
Does it protect anyone, or does it discriminate?

 

[MacQ]

Then I must admit to being confused as to why you think we should have same-sex marriage on a governmental level. If you think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all why in the world would you defend the promotion of governmental same-sex marriage?

The government has certain reasons for civil unions, which is what ALL marriages are for govt purposes. Those reasons are for legal processes mostly…next of kin, inheritance, eligibility for benefits and so forth.
So for state purposes, civil unions are pretty contractual, and for THOSE purposes, I don’t see why government should care about the gender of the partners in said union.
That’s not “promoting” same-sex marriage at all.

Marriage or matrimony on the other hand, is the purview of churches, and they should be free to confer those sacraments as they see fit without interference from Govt.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On topic, I don’t see a case for govt dictating that civil unions (which is what marriage is for state purposes) must be between opposite sexes. Do you think it curbs homosexual behavior? Do you think it provides an “incentive” for gays to become straight?
Does it protect anyone, or does it discriminate?

Assuming your world where marriage or civil unions have no government enforcement aspect to them (such as forcing wedding photographers to provide services to gay weddings and forcing adoption agencies to give equal preference to gay couples), I agree that there is no reason not to register gays as married. However I don’t think your world represents present day reality. First remove all the current government enforcement aspects from marriage and then register gays as married.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

“Marriage” is a word that originated with a meaning. Now the not-so-gay community wants to re-define the word, whose origination and definition actually speaks against their goals.

In my not so top-notch research, “maritus” seems to actually be Latin for a man who wed a “mari,” a lady. So the word itself comes from a man wedding a lady.

Interesting.

Gay couples have to “kidnap” children from true marriages, to create a false family. The kidnapped children do not have one of their natural parents. It is stealing the children’s lives, to satisfy their own. Boys may have no father to relate to, or girls may have no mother to relate to. Very sad.

Basic science shows the anatomies are made to be complementary, and so are the hearts and minds. You cannot get electricity by putting two plugs together, only plug and socket. Basic science.

The tragic danger of “gay marriages” is they make what is abnormal appear normal, and lure teens who are trying to find their place in the world, and form their identity, into lifestyles that are extremely dangerous, leading young men to die of AIDS, or young women to be deprived of a protective husband and having their own children, etc.

No gay person should be harmed by society, but neither should gay people harm their neighbors by trying to make a dangerous lifestyle appear safe.

Women have emotional cycles that men’s nature balances out, and men have a rational aloofness that women can warm up and bring heart to. God made each for the other. They have complementary bodies, emotions, natures, mental attitudes. Brain wave studies show this.

People who do not believe in God, try to manipulate the world to suit themselves.

A true Christian wants to learn what God wants, and tries to adjust his/her life to God’s design.

Government reflects the will of the people. We seem to have an organized minority with an agenda to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture from within. It is a cosmic battle, that only prayer and God can win.

It is not loving, to let people form relationships that can lead to their death, physical and spiritual.

I had a friend who died of AIDS. I do not appreciate those who were predators on him and pulled him into this tragic lifestyle. Many men have been subjected to this. It is a great tragedy. To profess it is an okay lifestyle, equal to marriage, is a mockery of marriage and an insult to human intelligence.

You can tell a lie enough times that some will believe it, but it is still a lie. Satan the father of lies is also a murderer, and he is murdering our young men in false marriages.

Your Christian friend needs to think about what he is “allowing.” He is allowing young boys, trying to find their way to manhood, becoming victims to sexual predators who can potentially lead them into great anguish and a painful death.

No Christian wants this for another human being.

It is not love to say, yeah, sure, drive over that cliff. Go with my love.

No, Love tries to protect and guide souls to the Truth, to Life, to God.

Your Christian friend misunderstands Love, and misunderstands how dangerous the gay lifestyle is. Extremely dangerous. Physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Thank you for your clear and concise thoughts. Welcome to CAF. Your words are spoken in love and truth. God bless you.

 

[camillebru]

My name is Camille bruno Valdez my partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in February 2014 or March 2014,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr Dahiru, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Paul uses two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, that have been translated various ways, often reflecting contemporary understandings. Malakoi literally means “soft or woman-like” and most often referred to those who were rich, lazy decadent, self-indulgent or lacking in courage.

The KJV translates this word as effeminate, and probably refers to male prostitutes who painted their faces and wore soft clothes to attract both male and female clients. If they served male clients, they were also considered effeminate because they played the “receptive” role of women.

Arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words - arseno, meaning “male” and koitai meaning “bedder.” It is only found twice in the Bible and this is the first use of it found in literature generally. In subsequent Greek writings over the first six centuries arsenokoitai is usually found in a list of sins similar to Paul’s. In these lists it is adjacent to words with an economic connection, such as robber, swindler, thief, etc. In the Corinthians verse quoted above it is followed by “thief” and in the Timothy verse it is followed by “slave-trader.” If it is a sexual term, why is it in these lists? Could it be referring to a pimp, who profits from selling the services of male prostitutes? Or might it refer to a man who pays for the services of a prostitute? Although we cannot be absolutely sure what is meant here, these words obviously refer to a specific kind of homosexual behavior, so we cannot generalize from these verses that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So what!

You have explained the various translations before…

Explain Paul’s very clear condemnation of homosexuality :

“…for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…”

Not “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”

Simply “Men with Men”.

I find that VERY clear.

How can anyone possibly conclude that this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The traditional interpretation: Women having sex with women and men having sex with men is called shameful lust and will be punished.

No doubt there are heterosexual people today who engage in gay sex simply because they are lusting for a new kind of pleasure, to whom this text may apply. But most gay, lesbian and bisexual people who have grown up as Christians have struggled for long years against their same-sex attractions and have tried their best to love and serve God. Paul’s description simply does not apply to them.

Why not? Simply because “they tried their best”? I think not. Paul’s description applies DIRECTLY to them.

Since they are Christians they accept God and his word. And and when they engage in “gay sex” they are just as guilty as a heterosexual who engages in dangerous gay sex

 

[thewanderer]

The government has certain reasons for civil unions, which is what ALL marriages are for govt purposes. Those reasons are for legal processes mostly…next of kin, inheritance, eligibility for benefits and so forth.
So for state purposes, civil unions are pretty contractual, and for THOSE purposes, I don’t see why government should care about the gender of the partners in said union.
That’s not “promoting” same-sex marriage at all.

Marriage or matrimony on the other hand, is the purview of churches, and they should be free to confer those sacraments as they see fit without interference from Govt.

Now you have me really confused. earlier you said the government does not have any legitimate reason for being involved in marriage, now you claim they do. I agree with you that the purposes you mentioned are legitimate. My question for you now is do you agree that there should be no restrictions on who is allowed to enter into such a legal contract other than that they make a legal commitment to share their lives together? And so, will you admit that people wishing to expand marriage to same-sex marriages but still restrict it to those who are both distant enough relations and who have a romantic relationship are being discriminatory in doing so?

 

[MacQ]

Assuming your world where marriage or civil unions have no government enforcement aspect to them (such as forcing wedding photographers to provide services to gay weddings and forcing adoption agencies to give equal preference to gay couples), I agree that there is no reason not to register gays as married. However I don’t think your world represents present day reality. First remove all the current government enforcement aspects from marriage and then register gays as married.

Well,I agree with that.
In the US, it should not be necessary to write a law to protect religious conscience of citizens, even if they have a business.
One would have hoped that the first amendment to the Constitution would do that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well,I agree with that.
In the US, it should not be necessary to write a law to protect religious conscience of citizens, even if they have a business.
One would have hoped that the first amendment to the Constitution would do that.

Nope, it doesn’t. An obscure case about peyote came before the Supreme Court in the 1990s, and the Court ruled – with Scalia, I believe, ironically writing the opinion – that the state could override the consciences of citizens with respect to religious practices that were deemed merely attempts to avoid a federal law. Without too much stretching, this ruling could be used to force churches to officiate gay weddings.

That won’t happen in the next few years, but it might someday.

 

[MacQ]

Now you have me really confused. earlier you said the government does not have any legitimate reason for being involved in marriage, now you claim they do. I agree with you that the purposes you mentioned are legitimate. My question for you now is do you agree that there should be no restrictions on who is allowed to enter into such a legal contract other than that they make a legal commitment to share their lives together? And so, will you admit that people wishing to expand marriage to same-sex marriages but still restrict it to those who are both distant enough relations and who have a romantic relationship are being discriminatory in doing so?

I don’t know why you are confused.
I have said repeatedly that there are government interests in civil unions…which is what all marriages are with regard to the state…for the purposes I’ve listed several times…legitimate legal issues.
Those are the ONLY purposes for which government should have an interest in defined unions, and those legitimate purposes have nothing to do with the gender of the couple. And therefore, the state should NOT be able to dictate who enters into such unions.
Clear enough for you?
Just to be complete about it, I have also said that govt may not dictate how church confers its sacrament–so a church can’t be forced to marry a gay couple…

As for proving a romantic relationship, I have no idea what you’re referring to.
I was not aware the government EVER required couples to ‘prove’ they are romantically attached to get a marriage license. Where did you get that? Kinda boggles the mind about what kind of “proof” you’d submit.


As for whether they are ‘distantly related’ or not, states used to deny marriage to first cousins to try to reduce birth defects in offspring. I don’t know if that is still the case. Not sure how that would apply to gay couples anyway. They used to require a blood test for syphilis too, but I don’t know if that’s still the case. That was to protect the partners I suppose, in an era where it was presupposed the bride came virginal to the marriage bed. I think both of those are debatable public health issues and neither seems very pertinent to the topic.

 

[MacQ]

Nope, it doesn’t. An obscure case about peyote came before the Supreme Court in the 1990s, and the Court ruled – with Scalia, I believe, ironically writing the opinion – that the state could override the consciences of citizens with respect to religious practices that were deemed merely attempts to avoid a federal law. Without too much stretching, this ruling could be used to force churches to officiate gay weddings.

That won’t happen in the next few years, but it might someday.

You example doesn’t really apply. I don’t think anyone would challenge the catholic church by saying they made up their marriage sacraments to avoid a law., which is pretty clearly what happened in the peyote case.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As for whether they are ‘distantly related’ or not, states used to deny marriage to first cousins to try to reduce birth defects in offspring. I don’t know if that is still the case. Not sure how that would apply to gay couples anyway. They used to require a blood test for syphilis too, but I don’t know if that’s still the case. That was to protect the partners I suppose, in an era where it was presupposed the bride came virginal to the marriage bed. I think both of those are debatable public health issues and neither seems very pertinent to the topic.

The relevance to the topic is that on one hand you vigorously denounce government limiting civil unions based on the sex of the partners, but on the other hand you are only so-so about government limiting civil unions based on being too closely related.

What if a mother and a son want to be in a civil union?

What about a mother and a daughter wanting to be in a civil union?

It seems odd to deny the mother-and-son combo and allow the mother-and-daughter combo.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You example doesn’t really apply. I don’t think anyone would challenge the catholic church by saying they made up their marriage sacraments to avoid a law., which is pretty clearly what happened in the peyote case.

So if a new religion started up, and decided not to officiate gay marriages, they wouldn’t be exempt from such laws? Any way you slice it, the Scalia opinion was a bad one, in my book. It gives the government a reason to inhibit the practice of religion that has nothing to do with interpersonal harm.