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

[MacQ]

Are you suggesting that two women who have a child together (with assistance, of course) are not depriving that child of a father?
.

What’s the alternative in that situation? No child at all.
I think your mindset of people depriving a child of a mother or father is flawed.
I have pointed out what actually deprives kids of a parent. It’s not two women deciding to raise a child together.

Really? Show me the contradiction.
.

Well, first you went off on that single mothers and gays being like Hitler and Stalin to refute my assertion that when circumstances are less than ideal, one alternative might be better than the other. Then in your next paragraph, you said you did indeed think that one might be better than the other. Read it for yourself.
Seems to me a contradiction.

I’m fine with that. But you seem to be suggesting that, since single motherhood is allowed, gay marriage should be allowed – even though you admit that single motherhood is a bad thing. Doesn’t that strike you as a strange argument?.

No not at all. And here’s where we differ. You’re all about what should be “allowed”
I’m more about what “is”.

Liberals are right to argue that there are some circumstances that justify not bringing children into the world. They are wrong to suggest that there are any circumstances where it is OK to kill children…

I merely pointed out that your argument about not bringing children into the world in less than ideal circumstances is the same argument that liberals use to abort them.

Your argument seems to be that if law cannot do everything to make life as good as possible for children, it should not do anything to make life as good as possible for children. Or rather, more charitably, that it should not do one particular thing – attempt to guarantee that the largest number of children have both a mom and a dad. And yet you admit that having a mom and a dad is the best thing.
.

Where we differ is that I do not accept that LAWS can guarantee a mom and dad in the home.

Even if you support gay marriage, you must feel like a lot of your fellow supporters are pretty seriously disturbed, no?
.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at there

The government certainly does have an interest in making the terms of the marriage contract fixed and semi-permanent, and in enforcing these terms. Why? Because the government ought to care about the welfare of children.
.

Yes, the government ought to act in the interest of children’s welfare.
It attempts to do so in a number of ways. Benefits, child support laws,
I just think it’s pretty limited in its ability to force people to stay together and be good parents. And not every straight couple who stays together are good parents.
But none of that is germaine to the topic.

Well, gee, if the real world involve laws that intentionally leave kids fatherless and/or motherless, I’m not interested in the real world.

Really what you’re saying is that if same sex couples are “allowed” to have families, it deprives kids of mother or a father. And as I have pointed out, the kids in question wouldn’t have had one or the other anyway.

 

[MacQ]

Taxation is one of the things you mentioned that government has a say in regarding civil unions…

Ok…

v
We are talking about what government should do, not what it may or may not be doing now. Current IRS actions (or misdeeds) have no bearing on deciding what civil union policy should be, unless you think that such policy is in reparations for past misdeeds…but I think that is a very poor basis for deciding policy for the future.
.

Well, do carry on with your ‘ideals’. Meanwhile, I think a better strategy (along with the founding fathers) is to assume the reality that corruption will be rife (because humans are involved) and to set up a system that doesn’t give them that kind of power in the first place

In that case there should be no tax benefit at all for civil unions or marriages for that matter, because such benefits would be making “winners” out of those who choose to enter a civil union and “losers” out of those who are not in such relationships. And you said government picking winners and losers was a bad thing.

Absolutely right. Government picking winners and loser…or trying to manipulate people through rewards or penalies is fraught with potential for misuse and abuse. And the current IRS scandals are an example of that.
There shouldn’t be ANY tax consequence for being married.
Here’s a newsflash for you: there’s currently actually a tax penalty, not a benefit for being married.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There shouldn’t be ANY tax consequence for being married…

OK, you are at least consistent. So let’s leave tax policy aside. Would you then go on to say there should not be any government-enforced benefits of being married? Things like not having to testify against your spouse in court, or anything else? That position would be totally consistent with believing that government should not pick winners and losers.

If you totally remove all government enforcement from the fact of civil unions then I am in total agreement with you that government should have no business saying who can or cannot enter such unions.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok…

Well, do carry on with your ‘ideals’. Meanwhile, I think a better strategy (along with the founding fathers) is to assume the reality that corruption will be rife (because humans are involved) and to set up a system that doesn’t give them that kind of power in the first place

Absolutely right. Government picking winners and loser…or trying to manipulate people through rewards or penalies is fraught with potential for misuse and abuse. And the current IRS scandals are an example of that.
There shouldn’t be ANY tax consequence for being married.
Here’s a newsflash for you: there’s currently actually a tax penalty, not a benefit for being married.

Do you mind me asking why you think the government should be involved in marriage at all?

 

[barts61]

By reading the many, many differently translated Bibles that are available, they all pretty much are against same sex relationships/marriage. The thing we forget that all these different interpretations lose the correct original hebrew text. The hebrew text refers to promiscuity, rape, incest, prositutes in the temple. etc., it says nothing about same sex committed, monogamous relationships. See this link for further reading…religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

 

[Prodigal_Son]

By reading the many, many differently translated Bibles that are available, they all pretty much are against same sex relationships/marriage. The thing we forget that all these different interpretations lose the correct original hebrew text. The hebrew text refers to promiscuity, rape, incest, prositutes in the temple. etc., it says nothing about same sex committed, monogamous relationships. See this link for further reading…religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

The New Testament speaks against ansenokoitai – men who “lie down with” men. That has nothing to do with promiscuity, rape, incest, or prostitution.

 

[barts61]

The New Testament speaks against ansenokoitai – men who “lie down with” men. That has nothing to do with promiscuity, rape, incest, or prostitution.

Theologian Mel White agrees that the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for “homosexual” in 1Corinthians6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior. He argues that Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.

He explains, “Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of ‘the effeminate call boys.’ We might call them ‘dirty old men.’ Others translate the word as ‘sodomites,’ but never explain what that means.”

According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this “mysterious” Greek word into English as the word “homosexuals,” even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who “placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.”

White blames this bad translation for the inability of many NT scholars today to make the proper, culturally relevant application of this passage in 1Corinthians. He adds, “In the past, people used Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it happening again? Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?"

So what is the proper contextual meaning of this mysterious Greek word? The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”

In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: “Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So…this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.”

 

[MacQ]

OK, you are at least consistent. So let’s leave tax policy aside. Would you then go on to say there should not be any government-enforced benefits of being married?Things like not having to testify against your spouse in court, or anything else? That position would be totally consistent with believing that government should not pick winners and losers …

In general, I think laws should apply to everyone equally, whether married or not, whether gay or straight, whether atheist of deist, black brown or white, male or female. Special interest legislation is fraught with potential for corruption, IMHO.
Rights conferred by government to anyone ought to be for everyone.

The key is government trying to dictate behavior.

Not having to testify against a spouse in court is not an example of government conferring “benefits” for being married or picking winners and losers. The spirit of that law is about privileged communication, and it applies to doctors and patients, psychotherapists, priests as well.
It’s about not forcing someone to violate a confidential communication. It’s probably also about giving defendants the best shot at a defense.

An example of government conferred benefits might be social security that spouses can claim (through being widowed or divorced or abandoned). This was put in place at a time when women mostly didn’t work outside the home (and therefore hadn’t paid in) and were little prepared to support a family or earn an income.
I consider that a social safety net, not government picking winners and losers or trying to manipulate behavior.

If you totally remove all government enforcement from the fact of civil unions then I am in total agreement with you that government should have no business saying who can or cannot enter such unions.

 

[MacQ]

Theologian Mel White agrees that the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for “homosexual” in 1Corinthians6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior. He argues that Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.

He explains, “Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of ‘the effeminate call boys.’ We might call them ‘dirty old men.’ Others translate the word as ‘sodomites,’ but never explain what that means.”

According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this “mysterious” Greek word into English as the word “homosexuals,” even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who “placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.”

White blames this bad translation for the inability of many NT scholars today to make the proper, culturally relevant application of this passage in 1Corinthians. He adds, “In the past, people used Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it happening again? Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?"

So what is the proper contextual meaning of this mysterious Greek word? The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”

In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: “Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So…this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.”

Very interesting…thanks for the post.

 

[MacQ]

Do you mind me asking why you think the government should be involved in marriage at all?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Theologian Mel White agrees that the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for “homosexual” in 1Corinthians6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior. He argues that Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.

He explains, “Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of ‘the effeminate call boys.’ We might call them ‘dirty old men.’ Others translate the word as ‘sodomites,’ but never explain what that means.”

According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this “mysterious” Greek word into English as the word “homosexuals,” even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who “placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.”

White blames this bad translation for the inability of many NT scholars today to make the proper, culturally relevant application of this passage in 1Corinthians. He adds, “In the past, people used Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it happening again? Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?"

So what is the proper contextual meaning of this mysterious Greek word? The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”

In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: “Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So…this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.”

FYI, I speak ancient Greek. “Arsenokoitai” means “lying down with males”. There is ABSOLUTLEY no suggestion in the Greek that it refers to pedophilia, although pedophilia would be one particular circumstance where males lie with males.

Now, I agree, it doesn’t mean “homosexual”, and NOWHERE does the Bible condemn being gay. Rather, the practice condemned is roughly described by the CDC label “men who have sex with men” (MSM). There is no wiggle room, in the Greek, here.

Sorry.

 

[barts61]

FYI, I speak ancient Greek. “Arsenokoitai” means “lying down with males”. There is ABSOLUTLEY no suggestion in the Greek that it refers to pedophilia, although pedophilia would be one particular circumstance where males lie with males.

Now, I agree, it doesn’t mean “homosexual”, and NOWHERE does the Bible condemn being gay. Rather, the practice condemned is roughly described by the CDC label “men who have sex with men” (MSM). There is no wiggle room, in the Greek, here.

Sorry.

I’m not wiggling anything here. What you need to understand is the context in which Paul was writing about. He was referring to the paganistic ritual of temple prostitutes and to the kings that used slave boys for sexual pleasure -nothing in reference to committed, monogemous, consenting adults.

 

[Marie5890]

Governments have to find a way of protecting the civil rights of gay partnerships some how.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not having to testify against a spouse in court is not an example of government conferring “benefits” for being married or picking winners and losers. The spirit of that law is about privileged communication, and it applies to doctors and patients, psychotherapists, priests as well.
It’s about not forcing someone to violate a confidential communication. It’s probably also about giving defendants the best shot at a defense.:

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?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not wiggling anything here. What you need to understand is the context in which Paul was writing about. He was referring to the paganistic ritual of temple prostitutes and to the kings that used slave boys for sexual pleasure -nothing in reference to committed, monogemous, consenting adults.

I don’t think so.

Romans 1:18-32

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; 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 and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not wiggling anything here. What you need to understand is the context in which Paul was writing about. He was referring to the paganistic ritual of temple prostitutes and to the kings that used slave boys for sexual pleasure -nothing in reference to committed, monogemous, consenting adults.

This is just false. Long-term sexual relationships between men were common in the Roman Empire. When Paul used the term “those who lie with males”, these relationships would have been the first thing people thought about.

 

[Abu]

barts61 #165
By reading the many, many differently translated Bibles that are available, they all pretty much are against same sex relationships/marriage. The thing we forget that all these different interpretations lose the correct original hebrew text. The hebrew text refers to promiscuity, rape, incest, prositutes in the temple. etc., it says nothing about same sex committed, monogamous relationships.

Such a twisted idea is totally false.

The evil of homosexual sin, like any other sin, is identified by Christ Himself.
No wonder there is so much misinformation and confusion – so little is known by those who mislead others.
Check the references to CCC #2357: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the grave depravity of sodomy – the acts are “intrinsically disordered”. St Paul is equally blunt.

“And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament (Gen 19) but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven.

God was very clear: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .” (Jude 7).

 

[Catholic13]

barts61 #165
By reading the many, many differently translated Bibles that are available, they all pretty much are against same sex relationships/marriage. The thing we forget that all these different interpretations lose the correct original hebrew text. The hebrew text refers to promiscuity, rape, incest, prositutes in the temple. etc., it says nothing about same sex committed, monogamous relationships.

I see this being repeated incessantly by the left. It’s nothing more than gay revisionism.

 

[barts61]

Romans 1:25-27 “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

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

The point Paul is making in Romans 1-2 is that all people, whether pagan or Christian, Jew or Gentile, have sinned and stand in need of God’s grace. His condemnation here is directed at pagan idolaters, people who have refused to acknowledge and glorify God and have turned to worshipping images of the things God has made. They have given up their natural desire for the opposite sex and turned to an unbridled search for lustful, sexual pleasure. Their lives are full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God (see verses 1-31).

Jews, on the other hand, had been given God’s law but were guilty of breaking it and, even worse, of judging the pagans. Paul uses the example of sexual perversion, knowing his readers will immediately identify it as an act of pagan idol worship. He speaks of women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones and men abandoning natural relations with women in an obvious reference to heterosexual behavior, since what is natural for heterosexuals is not natural for homosexuals.

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.

Romans 1:18-32

U
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.

 

[barts61]

barts61 #165
By reading the many, many differently translated Bibles that are available, they all pretty much are against same sex relationships/marriage. The thing we forget that all these different interpretations lose the correct original hebrew text. The hebrew text refers to promiscuity, rape, incest, prositutes in the temple. etc., it says nothing about same sex committed, monogamous relationships.

I see this being repeated incessantly by the left. It’s nothing more than gay revisionism.

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