Menewsha Avatar Community - gay marrige? yae or nae

I apologize for the length. Really. But dude. It's better than double.. er triple posting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorihiko (Post 1764303213)

As there are greater minds than mine who have spoken on the subject, I happily defer to their better judgment:

"Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (A[9]), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us."

"Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse (relationship) which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust.""

"Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order."

"The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous."

... which being said, it becomes rather silly to ask "should people who do these things be allowed to marry?"

Marriage was instituted by God, essentially, with Adam and Eve, and is therefore governed according to His laws. If, by His law, a sin against nature is so offensive, and the sin of sodomy second in heinousness only to unnatural relations with animals (going so far as to disregard even species), then there can be no question as to whether or not there can ever be a marriage between two persons of the same sex in His eyes, or that He would ever bless, whether or not the two people have all the gooey feelings in the world for one another.

On the site of Sodom and Gomorrah, nothing can even grow to this day next to that sludge. Even fish who swim into it die. Nothing can live in it. That's what God thought about it, whether or not we agree with Him. (And only in modern times, when homosexuality is so rampant, do people now pretend that the only sin of Sodom was "inhospitality"... They were breaking down a man's door trying to "be familiar" with an (apparently male) angel of God who was in the man's house. The Bible was pretty explicit on what the problem was.

And if you argue that the problem is not religious, or that it has nothing to do with religion, you may as well argue (and could do so easily) that there is no morality, no law, no virtue, save man's lowest animal passions, and that the one and only sin or insanity of man, is to pretend morality if morality is only a figment of our imaginations, and immorality is without consequence. Either all questions of "right" and "good" are intrinsically religious (in that they concern what God thinks about them), or they are the ultimate insanity, and they are lunatic fools who argue about them. And it's pretty strange to say that every other creature in the universe naturally does whatever it ought to do, except man, who alone somehow nature made uniformly delusional (with this intrinsic sense of "morality" and the insatiable desire to worship something).

I think common sense points one in the right direction. If man lived as though there were no God... REALLY lived as though there weren't, disregarding all notions of morality which would be folly without consequence... we would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago. We were preserved until now because most men believe in and abide by a morality that has a foundation outside of themselves, their opinions or their personal preferences. We are predisposed to be repulsed by certain things, and the idea of objective morality is the only sane model of morality that can hold up under intellectual scrutiny. But if it's objective, it exists independently of us... that is, it is of God, and He then (not us) will be the one to decide right from wrong, according to what He made, what He intended, and the laws He set for us to abide by.

It's harsh, but... it's harsh for anyone to face that they're doing something that is messed up, especially when they've made their whole lives about doing it, or they've done it so long they've made themselves slaves of the vice. The thief doesn't want to stop stealing. The liar doesn't want to stop lying. The murderer, perhaps because of his anger, has a hard time not killing. But fortunately, mankind has the remarkable ability of altering his behavior, and abstaining not only from wrong things, but even from good things if perhaps there is a right reason or benefit for doing so. It's not that those people are automatically "damned". They've got the ability to stop their sins like anybody else, even if like an alcoholic (as it is with all long-lived vices), they may not get there all at once. And God certainly would rather they not be damned. He proved that on the cross.

But finally, speaking about marriage, Christ Himself said:

"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder..."

So what starts as letting other people do the talking for you, becomes let the Bible do the talking for you. And then you say that taking religion out of the question means that there are no morals anywhere?!? I'm more than confused at this point, because in America, the separation of church and state is a big deal. And it's actually a big deal in many counrties. Very few countries have laws that prevent folks from practicing whicever religion they wish, and I can name most of them right here and now. (About 75% of all Arab countries have limits to religious freedom, mostly being that everyone must believe in God, whether they are Muslim, Catholic(Not Protestant!), or Jewish. There are a few that so expressly forbid religious freedom that even tourists may not bring copies of any relgious texts, save the Qu'ran.)

So, if you want to bring the Bible into the discussion, we will.

Quote:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce

But wait, there's more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorihiko (Post 1764304081)

I'm sure many child sex offenders could say the same thing wholeheartedly... and have, incidentally. I remember hearing about a movement a while back where a bunch of people "attracted" to kids were trying to get something going in favor of getting pedophilia recognized as being "all right" because they wanted to feel that their perversion was normal, and didn't want to feel guilty about it or different from anyone else. Needless to say, since the majority of people alive on the Earth either have kids, or have had them, the idea didn't really catch on. The only difference here, is that you're talking about consenting adults, so it's much easier to push the "if it's what I want to do, then it's fine" line.

But like I said before. EVERYONE wishes they could say that they are not doing anything wrong. Everyone, without exception, wants a clean (or at least silent) conscience. NOBODY wants to hear that there is anything wrong with anything they do or think. Unfortunately for just about everyone but the saints in heaven, we've all got things in our lives we're guilty of, and which are wrong, whether or not everyone knows we do them, and whether or not everyone else is doing them, or thinks it's all right to do them. If tomorrow it becomes legal to have your grandparents killed because you don't want them here anymore, it won't make it RIGHT to do so, any more than it is right to shoot them today. (Having "Dr." before your name doesn't justify murder, in other words.) If morality is personal, then we've done every inmate in every prison in the world a horrible injustice by locking them up for obeying THEIR personal morality. If it's all in our heads, then the real criminals would be us out here, rather than those in there, for defying nature and reality and forbidding them to obey what they think is all right or good. (Yes, that IS stupid... rather like most other things that aren't true.)

The question isn't one of feelings, or even of "personal religion". The question is, "Is there a God, and if there is, what does HE say?" This is why the idea of all religions being equal is ridiculous. OBVIOUSLY we can all invent our own idea of God and just say whatever we want. But if God is a reality, then His law is fixed and definite, and has nothing at all to do with what we like or prefer, just like mathematics has nothing at all to do with how much we like 2 and 2 being 4 rather than 6 or 8 if we like it better that way. It's one thing to dismiss "religions" as mere personal beliefs. But that ignores the possibility (probability and indeed truth, rather) of God being a reality, and His having a real and definite law and will that isn't just fabricated by song-singing do-gooders. And as I said, reality has got nothing to do with what we feel, want, like, etc.

As for those malicious and cold hearted heteros condemning gays to a life without their lovers... it's a lot tougher to live (by choice or not) without a lover PERIOD.

When you know what it is to walk through life knowing that there isn't going to be "someone else" (officially OR unofficially)... then you know what pain is. But then you also know what human nobility is, and you understand better than anyone what makes us different from the animals, and that there is, after all, more to this life than sex. But in terms of the pain part... Not getting your bedroom activities officially recognized by society is a far, far cry from that. Animals mate like crazy. Only a human being has both the ability to abstain, and the ability to benefit from it by a strengthening of the will and a sharper focus for some higher work in life. And only a human being can realize whether he or she is altogether unfit for the responsibilities that in justice become the demands of the married person, and can decide to abstain on those rational grounds.

If I were a kleptomaniac, I should think that getting married would almost certainly mean raising little kleptos, in which case, if it were that much of a problem, I should think I'd be doing myself, my would-be children, and the world a favor by abstaining, however hard it might be. If I were bloodthirsty, chances are I would raise barbarians. If I'm emotionally deceased, there's hardly a chance that the kids would be either sane or functional. So, too, if my life is about violating the natural order, I should think abstaining to be proper, right and heroic, and much to be admired, rather than to bring up children who think men were made for men, and women for women, and that heterosexuality is the perversion. After all, whatever one SAYS to the kids doesn't mean a thing. Once they hit their teens and the brains begin to work for themselves, it's all about what they've SEEN, and what you've done, and what you ARE. What you SAY means as much to them as what Rush Limbaugh says means to the democratic party. They may even go so far as to listen very politely... but then they go out and do exactly the opposite, because it's all they know, because it's all you've shown them.

When we make life all about doing what we feel like doing, we set ourselves and others up for misery and perversion (whether moral or otherwise). But if our first thought is what really is right, and what, according to justice and consideration for our fellow man, our future offspring, and our society, we should do... we can rise to heights only mankind is capable of in terms of virtue and heroism, fulfill justice (man's and God's), and save ourselves and everyone else a lot of pain and suffering either here or hereafter. Are we animals or men?

Here you have again confused me, and probably countless others. You are comparing child molesters to homosexuals. That's a ridiculous statement. Child molesters say that they love children, because of their innocence, or their undeveloped bodies. They cannot fathom having an equal relationship, because they want to be in control. Because the "perverts" who do actually fall in love with children, and are not in lust with them, wait for the child to grow up. Research boylove and Mambla, and they'll give you plenty of examples of cross-generational relationships where the older party had the respect necessary to wait until the younger one was able to make a clear and informed choice.

Also, their is no argument for the fact that being a kleptomaniac means you will raise kleptomaniacs, just as being gay means you will raise gay children. If that was true, no gays would exist, because straight people would only raise straight children.

And human beings are not the only beings on Earth with the inherit ability to abstain. Or to develop homosexual relationships. Or to have sex solely for pleasure. Gorillas have been known to abstain, especially while raising young. They have one offspring at a time. Dolphins have gay relationships, and so far, are the only species besides humans to mate solely for pleasure. Is there space in Heaven for gorillas? Or in Hell for dolphins?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorihiko (Post 1764305297)

No there isn't. If morality doesn't rest on God, it rests on whatever you or I feel it is. In which case it's everything and nothing at all. In which case there is basically no such thing. The only way there can be any real morality is if it does NOT depend on you or I. Since I highly doubt the rabbits and squirrels will be giving us any divine mandates anytime soon, God does seem to be the most probable source for a morality defined as anything other than "because I feel like it".

BUT ... they WILL believe homosexuality is normal/all right. Which is a problem if, according to the real law of a real God, it is NOT all right (see my FIRST post which lays out the technical reasons). I can raise kids to believe that lions are cuddly kittens that won't hurt a fly. But if reality disagrees with me, then I would be delusional and my children would be kitty food. "REALITY" is the key word here. Not training, not opinions, not what we like or don't. And according to "personal morality" it's all right to literally anything, as long as you feel like doing it, which is by far much more messed up than saying it's immoral to violate natural (not to mention divine) law.

Well, I'm not sure particularly why we should all have to abide by the laws of physics if we don't like them. Unfortunately, if something is real, it doesn't seem much to care one way or the other whether we take a fancy to it or not. Otherwise lunatics would have a wonderful advantage over the rest of us. Just think of all the Napoleon's and Hitlers in insane asylums out there who could be ruling the world right now, if only their personal version of reality were made fact just by their wholeheartedly believing in it, or not liking the reality which is contrary to their beliefs.

Wrong, actually. Nature makes it's laws known quite by common sense. Now everyone (above a certain age) knows that certain acts are, naturally speaking, for the procreation of our species. Therefore, since the purpose of those parts, and all that they entail, are shown by nature to be used for that, then to use them for anything else but what they naturally are intended for is to use them for a purpose that is not natural. If you COULD take God out of the equation, then it would not send a man to hell to die with that sin on his soul. However if you could do that, it would not send a man to hell to kill, rob, hurt, etc, people as much as he wanted to either.

However the problem is that if God exists, then we cannot take him out of the equation whether or not we like Him, His laws, or hell's yawning pits. And if that God is the author of nature, then a violation of the law of nature is a sin against it's author as well. (And as a writer hates the fanfiction that $asterdizes his art and everything in it, I can well understand His anger to some human extent.) The issue people overlook again and again is the question of the reality about God's existence and all it implies. If He's there, we can like it or not, but His law will stand. If not, we're all hypocrites and idiots for pretending any morality whatever, or even entertaining any discussion of them, and fools for not behaving like animals and barbarians... on the law of "I want".

If God had not given us a free will, but forced us all to be good and go right along to heaven, our existence would be as meaningless and empty as any homage we paid Him... forced, and without substance. If God gave us no free will, but had some men be good and others be evil, that is to accuse God... Who is perfect... of the imperfection of injustice... that is, to condemn the innocent. But in giving man a free will, God never gave man the RIGHT to do wrong. Only the ABILITY. And the two things are worlds apart. If I have the RIGHT to do wrong, then no one could justly punish me for doing it, since I have the permission. If I have the ability, I may do good or I may do evil, but if I do good I am deserving of a reward, and if evil, I am deserving of a punishment. But the fact that I can choose does not dismiss the responsibility of my actions. If I'm ABLE to kill doesn't mean it's all right for me to kill.

God gave us a free will so that we would have the ability to CHOOSE to love and serve Him, and so gain the reward of eternal bliss. But in order to give us that choice, there had to be a different option than that. Something for us to choose between. We are ABLE to choose evil, but since all evil is to wrong God ultimately, and ourselves, the laws of nature, and/or other human beings secondarily, it becomes a matter of justice... wrongs must be punished, and justice fulfilled. God made us able to sin, yes, but also able to NOT sin, and in fact, not only told us not to, but has given us every help and ability to avoid doing so. The cards, shall we say, are stacked in our favor. So if then we go ahead and do evil, just because we're able and want to, we are every bit culpable for it, and justice demands retribution for the wrong done against God, ourselves, our neighbor, etc... according to the degree of offense. Hell, of course, is an infinite punishment for offending to the very end an all perfect and infinitely good God Who did nothing but wish us to choose rightly. That He didn't revoke our ability to choose otherwise is not an evil, but rather His standing by the good gift He gave us that permitted us to choose the good. Those who cry "foul" are just trying to pass the blame from themselves to God for their own misdeeds.

If they really are "immoral heathens" no one who either really knows God, or seriously loves Him, could possibly "be at peace" about it. To love someone truly and sincerely is to love what they love. To love what God loves is to love every human soul, and to wish that every one of them (as God loves them all), to get themselves to heaven. Anyone who claims to love God and is at peace with the thought of their neighbor going to hell, or suffering in ANY way, is a liar. God doesn't rejoice in the infinite foolishness of a human being who decides to hate Him and love sin rather than Him or even their own selves (how can you claim to love yourself and not care about your eternal fate?). He is perfect love. But ALSO perfect justice... which is something this "anything goes" society has a hard time understanding. God loves, but God will not be mocked. He's not the "pushover" dad who, when junior gives him the puppydog eyes, will let junior make a fool out of him and get away with murder.

If there was no justice with God, where would there be any justice? If an offense against a mere human being, or even an animal (in the case of abuse or cruelty for the sake of cruelty) is punishable according to justice, how much moreso an offense against God Himself?

God also says "Thou shall not judge, lest ye be judged." Just saying. You, preaching to everyone, and trying to force everyone to see things exactly your way... It's frankly getting a little old. I will not speak for everyone, but I will say I am probably not the only one getting a little tired of every debate becoming about theology.

I, for one, would not have a problem if you came in and said, "Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage, because it's against my religion."

But you have these long, drawn out posts, and relate everything to how morally superior you are, because the only logic is God's logic, and so on, and so forth, ad nauseum. No one wants to stifle your freedom of speech. But I know that I, at least, would like to be able to engage in a discussion and look at the legal/political ramifications, or how a decision like this could effect other current monumental decisions. I don't want to skip over four or five pages of text, because it's gone off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorihiko (Post 1764305385)

If tomorrow a court of law signs into law that henceforth gravity is illegal and therefore no longer in effect... will stuff start floating? The makers of human laws can declare anything LEGAL. But that doesn't alter reality or truth. If the courts would declare gravity illegal, and no longer effective, you can bet that common sense would tell most people not to exercise their new-found freedom from gravity by jumping off of tall buildings.

Likewise, if morality stands upon the law of God (because it cannot stand upon the brain or heart of man), then the courts can declare tomorrow that mass murder is legal and good, and if God says otherwise, it will still not be moral, but a crime and a sin in the divine court ... and there are no lawyers there who aren't among the accused.

If the US has decided not to regard or abide by the law of God, that still doesn't nullify or alter the reality about that law. The US can declare itself the devoted follower of the other guy if the majority of the people like the idea. But the moral reality... that which stands upon the law of God... won't change regardless of the policy of the US to disregard it, or of the courts to legalize what God has called illegal.

Why would God bother about a human document? Probably because He suffered and died to redeem our rotten souls, and would like very much if only we would decide to benefit from that sacrifice by following His law. Any human action which breaks that law and endangers souls is obviously, then, a matter of interest, considering all He's done to make a different eternal outcome possible for each of us. But more than that, the law of man and the authority of those who govern men, are empty except for the authority given to our rulers by God to uphold His law and save the greatest number of souls possible by making good laws and not immoral ones. If a country decides it's policy is going to be to disregard God's law and send souls to hell by making legal that which God has shown by nature to be illegal... it is not only dangerous for souls, and a matter of concern to God, but nothing less than a direct slap in God's face on the part of the lawmakers and the country's leaders who allowed or caused that immoral law to be made law. Just picture hiring a guy to watch your sheep, and then returning to find he'd taken a liking to the wolves, and had been feeding them lamb chops out of your flock. That's the leaders of countries making immoral laws. And just what will the owner of the sheep do to the guy who has been feeding the wolves his beloved little fuzzballs? The whole situation takes on a darn-near epic proportion when you replace flock with us, the bellies of wolves with eternal fire, and the owner of the sheep with a God of infinite power and perfect justice. Just picture the hired man in the belly of the wolf with the sheep.

People may find it funny to think that a great and infinite God could be so interested or mindful of our affairs, but... as the Bible says, "the very hairs of your head are all numbered" by Him, and that not so much as a single sparrow falls to the ground without God's consent. If God has counted our hairs and consents to the doings of individual birds, how much more important is a law that says a grave sin is all right?

Now that you seem to have tried to bring in something resembling a look at the law, I will gladly tell you what I think of gay marriage.

I'm all for it. You think that me being gay is going to effect how much I love my soon-to-be stepchildren? You think it will effect my ability to tell them right from wrong, and to be there for them, during the hardest parts of their lives?

Do you believe that because a person is homosexual, they shouldn't be allowed to have the one person they love more than anything by their side as they lie on their deathbed? Because right now, in most of the US, that's what it means to be married. If my girlfriend and I got married, and my governer hadn't signed those laws, her mother could ban me from saying good-bye to her in the hospital room. Her father, whom she sees once a year, at around Christmas time, would have more of a say over her "final wishes" than I would, no matter how long we were together.

The legal ramifications of marriage equality mean that I, and those like me, would get what heterosexuals have had for... ever. Respect.

I don't care if you don't like me, or what I stand for. I don't like have a religion I don't believe in crammed down my throat, when all I want to do is relax and have a discussion.

Isn't that what the US is all about though?

So smoke on your pipe and put that in.

Sorry again! TL;DR?: I took every post of hers Yori's and spoke out against it. Best part: Gorillas should go to heaven, because they have the ability to abstain, and dolphins should go to hell for being gay.

Okay, http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp has a list of reasons that make it clearer...ish for me. Observe:

Quote:

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

I don't understand how it will make these children be bounced around in some crazy family structure. Plenty of children from hetero marriages already go through that. When I get married and have kids (hopefully the natural way), they'll have (unless her parents are divorce/remarried/deceased) four grandparents, an aunt, an uncle, cousins, the whole shebang. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation? Oh, you mean like right now, with all the corrupt politicians and crapped up economy? And how will it be devastating to children? They'll learn tolerance and that love is not a religious privilege.

Quote:

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

This is another thing that gets to me. Polygamy, in my opinion, is fine and dandy. If three or more parties are okay with a situation like that, then be my guest. But when people say it could lead to bestiality and such, my brain goes to mush. Yes, a man can TOTALLY marry his dog now, because the dog TOTALLY knows what's going on and he can TOTALLY sign a marriage license:sarcasm:. And another thing, what IS the definition of marriage and where is is written? And if someone says it's in the Bible, blood shall fly!

Quote:

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

If gay marriage is legalized, how will that make divorce easier? Or be demoted to the same level of a driver's license? Marriage is marriage, and divorce is divorce.

Quote:

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Boo hoo? Does baby need a God damn tissue? Or maybe he just needs his ignorant diaper changed. Perversion is an opinion. BDSM, in my opinion, is absolutely disgusting, but you don't see me parading around trying to stop this "abomination." In my experience in public school, I have never once been taught that hetero marriage is the way to go. No one ever taught me about the facts about marriage, be it interracial or whatnot. And, if you don't want your little elementary kids reading homo marriage material, don't give them the damn book! Textbooks out there already talk about religions different from yours with the same respect, and no one takes offense to THAT?

Quote:

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

It drives me crazy when people say this. Single parents already adopt, and sometimes the children are converted to the new parent's religion. You hear this argument all the time. "Children need a mother AND a father to be raised properly." So, is that why there is no such thing a single parenthood:sarcasm:? All this argument is say to me is that the courts will no longer be biased.

Quote:

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

That's like saying they need to be rid of bias against another religion or race. Why is sensitivity-training in quotation marks, anyway?

Quote:

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

The same thing was said in the 60s. Besides, this makes it sound like anyone with a social security number is immediately eligible for anything the government has to offer. This is crazy talk.

Quote:

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

You're comparing love between two functioning human beings to pornography? Nice. Real Nice:sarcasm:. By the way, you forget to mention Great Britain. It's legal there, too. Dude, our Constitution was based on that of European countries. Shall we get Sam Becket to leap to 1776 to stop those founding fathers and their crazy tomfoolery? NO! They risked their lives so we wouldn't have to, and you're being ungrateful.

Quote:

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE!!!!! Why does no one understand this?

Quote:

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

'Blah, blah, blah, I's a ignint douche.' That's all I'm getting from this. What do you want me to say? 'Sorry my very existence is immoral and will bring the destruction carefully planned by Satan himself to our poor, innocent children?' HA! Marriage was NOT designed by God. It was also Allah, Brahma, and any other god you can think of (though Allah is actually God...)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I can fully understand from this is that you are holding marriage as a privilege and not a human right.