|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:01 pm
I used to get a Christian girls' magazine called Brio (some of you may have heard of it, others maybe not; whatever). They printed an interesting article about how a Christian can answer the many questions asked of those who don't support gay marriage. It's somewhat lengthy, but if you're willing to read through it, it's pretty interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:12 pm
Shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?
Absolutely! And people do that all the time. But we don't call it marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that aren't marriage. Friends are committed to each other. A parent is committed to a child; grandparents to their grandchildren. People are even committed to their pets. All of these are forms of love, and all of them result in commitments. But none of them is marriage.
What's wrong with letting homosexuals marry?
Up until the last few years, no human society- not one- has ever tolerated "marriage" between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. While a few countries have now begun to be more accepting of this lifestyle, that doesn't make it right to do so. And that's what's at stake here: making "marriage" between two mend or two women as normal as between one man and one woman. It's saying that neither arrangement is any better than the other. The meaning of marriage isn't something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God- and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together and assures every child has a mother and a father.
Don't homosexuals have the same legal right to marry that heterosexuals do?
All people have the same right to marry, as long as they abide by the law. You can't marry if you're already married, you can't marry a close relative, an adult can't marry a child, you can't marry your pet, and you can't marry someone of the same sex. Let's be clear: Everyone has access to marriage as long as he or she meets the requirements. This isn't about access to marriage. It's about redefining marriage to be something it's never been.
But heterosexuals can marry according to their sexual orientation. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry according to their orientation?
No U.S. court has ever recognized, nor has any scientific study ever established, that homosexuality is rooted in nature and therefore is the same as heterosexuality. Scientists understand that homosexuality is rooted in a collection of biological, pscychological and social factors. We can't treat those as the same things.
But I thought homosexuals couldn't help it. This seems intolerant.
Marriage hasn't been "imposed" upon culture by some religious institution or government power from which it needs to be "set free." It was established by God, is enforced by the nature that God bestowed upon mankind, and we tamper with it at our own peril. Here's what's intolerant. A powerful group of individuals dressed in robes- judges- are attempting to say that thousands of years of human history can be overturned by their judgments as they seek to establish same-sex "marriage." By doing so, they have influenced far too many people within our society to accept their judgments. That's a very arrogant notion that will bring great harm to our culture.
Isn't banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?
Not at all! Being black or white, Hispanic or Asian isn't like being homosexual. No U.S. court has ever established that homosexuality is unchangeable, but race, nationality and gender are. People who oppose same-sex marriage aren't bigots. They simply believe marriage is between men and women for good reasons.
But how does someone's homosexual "marriage" threaten everyone else's families?
Gay activists aren't asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalit it by saying, "Don't interfere with my family, and I won't interfere with yours." What the activists want is a new national policy saying that a mom and a dad are no better than two moms or dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down.
Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that's felxible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it's fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three or five or 17? The terms "husband" and "wife" would become words with no meaning.
Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. The unique roles of mothers and fathers would be eliminated.
Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition can't tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a "Mister Potato Head theory" of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men.
Why do you have to be so narrow in your definition of marriage?
God narrowly defines marriage and for very good reason. Research over the last 100 years consistently shows us that marriage provides a treasure chest of good things for adults, children and society.
Bottom line: Marriage isn't simply a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship, and delivers mothers and fathers to children. Society benefits from the well-being of marriage; nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form. Good things happen when we honor what marriage is. Bad things happen when we try to change it. Ultimately and inevitably, the future and the health of humanity rest upon the health and future of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:12 am
Quote: Shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another? Absolutely! And people do that all the time. But we don't call it marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that aren't marriage. Friends are committed to each other. A parent is committed to a child; grandparents to their grandchildren. People are even committed to their pets. All of these are forms of love, and all of them result in commitments. But none of them is marriage. I don't really see how this is a valid point because gay people obviously feel towards each other a different kind of loving committment than parents to children, grandchildren to grandparents, owners to pets, etc. Quote: What's wrong with letting homosexuals marry? Up until the last few years, no human society- not one- has ever tolerated "marriage" between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. While a few countries have now begun to be more accepting of this lifestyle, that doesn't make it right to do so. And that's what's at stake here: making "marriage" between two mend or two women as normal as between one man and one woman. It's saying that neither arrangement is any better than the other. The meaning of marriage isn't something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God- and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together and assures every child has a mother and a father. People can pull history, but just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't mean it's right. Enslavement historically has been going on for a very long time and is still going on in some parts of the world, but that doesn't mean it's right. And of course no has ever 'tolerated it as a norm for a family lifestyle', because it's not normal. Gay people are in the minority. But nowadays it's normal for couples to get divorces. The majority doesn't determine right and wrong. The question is why would making marriage between two men or two women as normal as one man and one woman be wrong, so those don't strike me as particuarly high stakes. And of course a new generation isn't free to redefine marriage, because marriage hasn't changed one bit. Divorce and interracial marriage are both illegal, and women are still possesions. In fact I do believe marriage took place before the bible was written, but I can't cite a source on that so please feel free to correct me if you can cite a source. And marriage is indeed a wonderful thing, but it simply does not ensure a child has both a mother and a father. Single mothers and fathers are a clear example of this. Quote: Don't homosexuals have the same legal right to marry that heterosexuals do? All people have the same right to marry, as long as they abide by the law. You can't marry if you're already married, you can't marry a close relative, an adult can't marry a child, you can't marry your pet, and you can't marry someone of the same sex. Let's be clear: Everyone has access to marriage as long as he or she meets the requirements. This isn't about access to marriage. It's about redefining marriage to be something it's never been. It used to be those requirements involved marrying within your race, forcibly staying together 'till death do us part', and wives surrending to their husbands. Marriage has been redefined before. And there are reasons for those other restrictions. For example, an adult marrying a child is considered wrong because the child cannot provide informed consent. Neither can a pet, and pets have no legal standing and they can't sign a marriage contract. Incest causes birth defects. There is no logical reason homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Even if they are sinners, everyone's a sinner. Murderers are allowed to marry, atheists are allowed to marry. It is about access to marriage, redefining marriage is just a side effect. When women and black people wanted to vote, they had to redefine voting. But heterosexuals can marry according to their sexual orientation. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry according to their orientation? No U.S. court has ever recognized, nor has any scientific study ever established, that homosexuality is rooted in nature and therefore is the same as heterosexuality. Scientists understand that homosexuality is rooted in a collection of biological, pscychological and social factors. We can't treat those as the same things. The study found straight men’s brains were sexually stimulated by female pheromones, while gay men’s brains were triggered by male pheromones. Not surprisingly, neither group was found to be remotely stimulated by Axe body spray. -- Jon Stewart No study has ever conclusively found heterosexuality is rooted in nature. And even if it's not in your DNA, it's not a response they have control over. Therefore no matter what the cause, it has the same implications as heterosexuality. We can treat those as the same thing. Quote: But I thought homosexuals couldn't help it. This seems intolerant. Marriage hasn't been "imposed" upon culture by some religious institution or government power from which it needs to be "set free." It was established by God, is enforced by the nature that God bestowed upon mankind, and we tamper with it at our own peril. Here's what's intolerant. A powerful group of individuals dressed in robes- judges- are attempting to say that thousands of years of human history can be overturned by their judgments as they seek to establish same-sex "marriage." By doing so, they have influenced far too many people within our society to accept their judgments. That's a very arrogant notion that will bring great harm to our culture. We're not talking about marriage the religious insitution, we're talking about marriage the legal right. And, who are these judges? Do you speak of the supreme court justices? We'll if they support same sex marriage they'd be right to, regardless of God or redefining marriage, forbidding same sex marriage is unconstitutional. They surely didn't influence me, because I'm not even sure who you're talking about. I didn't even know homosexuals weren't allowed to marry when I was younger. Sure it will cause harm to our culture, but banning slavery caused harm to our culture. In fact it caused a civil war. But it was the right thing to do. Quote: But how does someone's homosexual "marriage" threaten everyone else's families? Gay activists aren't asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalit it by saying, "Don't interfere with my family, and I won't interfere with yours." What the activists want is a new national policy saying that a mom and a dad are no better than two moms or dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down. Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that's felxible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it's fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three or five or 17? The terms "husband" and "wife" would become words with no meaning. Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. The unique roles of mothers and fathers would be eliminated. Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition can't tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a "Mister Potato Head theory" of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. This is the most illogical arguement I have ever read. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. A mother and a father are no different than two mothers or two fathers. Both sets of children will turn out well-adjusted, or not-so-well-adjusted according to what kind of parents they have. The straight parents could be violent and abusive and the gay parents could be great parents. Marriage would only include polygamy if they define it that way, and I don't see why they would since it's not helping their case to add extra controversial things to argue about. The unique roles of mothers and fathers? I thought we disposed of this. Not every mother is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with fresh baked cookies, and not every father is working all day until he can come home and see his smiling wife and children. It's a stereotype, not a cultural foundation. Gender wouldn't become nothing. They're not trying to ban hormones. Women and men actually have different brains. It doesn't rest on that theory, it rests on the idea that people of the same sex can feel romantic sexual love for each other (not by choice). And they can. And they do. And they wish to get married. Quote: Why do you have to be so narrow in your definition of marriage? God narrowly defines marriage and for very good reason. Research over the last 100 years consistently shows us that marriage provides a treasure chest of good things for adults, children and society. The bible doesn't condemn polygamy. Indirectly, everyone (correct me if I'm missing someone) in the bible who was a polygamist was punished (except Lamech, go Lamech!) but the bible did not say "Those who have multiple wives will be cast down in the fires of hell lest they pray for forgiveness" or something like that. Quote: Bottom line: Marriage isn't simply a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship, and delivers mothers and fathers to children. Society benefits from the well-being of marriage; nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form. Good things happen when we honor what marriage is. Bad things happen when we try to change it. Ultimately and inevitably, the future and the health of humanity rest upon the health and future of marriage. We have changed it. And it seems good to me. May I remind you again of the bans on divorce, interracial mairrage, and the legal status of women as objects. Marriage is good, I completely agree, and that's why we should share it with gay people. To sum up my point, allow me to repost the twelve reasons why gay people should not get married. Quote: 12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married... 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life spans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:26 am
I have to say, that is a very well written article! It's one of the few well phrased arguments opposing gay marriage I've seen- thanks for posting it!
I obviously still stand... well where I've said I do. I really don't understand how two people's business effects everyone else but... personal opinions! But this article makes good points I haven't heard before... I may go back and try and argue a few things but... I'm increadibly tied up in a video game right now XD
Thanks for posting that article again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:29 pm
And I keep thinking that God wouldn't keep making gay people if He were truely against it. Anyone who says that being gay is a choice, think on that a second. Would you CHOOSE to be attracted to someone when your family and friends might reject you, knowing that you can never get married, have the same legal rights as any straight couple, and face beatings, possible even death. Gay kids (and some adults) fear for their very lives because they are attracted to the same (or both) sex. Who would CHOOSE that life? They are MADE that way. Anyway, just for an added tidbit, some articles about gay penguins. xd heart Love the PenguinsAnd more penguinsForeign penguins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:23 pm
The implication with the penguins is that ... animals do it so it must be okay? Animals also eat their own young and self-abort. I really hope the human race isn't lowering its standards to that of animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:44 pm
Captain_Theoretical And marriage is indeed a wonderful thing, but it simply does not ensure a child has both a mother and a father. Single mothers and fathers are a clear example of this. Captain_Theoretical Murderers are allowed to marry, atheists are allowed to marry. Captain_Theoretical We're not talking about marriage the religious insitution, we're talking about marriage the legal right. Captain_Theoretical A mother and a father are no different than two mothers or two fathers. Both sets of children will turn out well-adjusted, or not-so-well-adjusted according to what kind of parents they have. The straight parents could be violent and abusive and the gay parents could be great parents. Captain_Theoretical The unique roles of mothers and fathers? I thought we disposed of this. Not every mother is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with fresh baked cookies, and not every father is working all day until he can come home and see his smiling wife and children. It's a stereotype, not a cultural foundation.
I've seen that list of reasons before, and I have a problem with some of the points it makes. Alot of the things on there, like #4 our flaws in our society. Celebreties shouldn't be allowed to marry and divorce on a whim. I think there should be some law that forces people to stay married for a certain amount of time before getting divorced. It would discourage stupid flings in Hollywood and encourage alternatives to divorce (such as marriage counseling) in regular married couples. Some of the other arguments on there I've never heard before and I agree with you on that they are stupid reasons why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Let's see ... #8- I can vouch for the whole "hanging out with gay people encourages you to be gay" thing, especially in high school. Hopefully outside of high school people are more mature, but I know at the school I attended, it was totally the fad to be gay or bisexual. Everyone was gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, metrosexual, whatever at my high school. It's alot like three-year-olds; one of them does something and suddenly they all have to do it.
I wouldn't put it past someone in this country to attempt to marry their dog. Someone sold their soul on Ebay once- he went to jail of course.
And I do think civil unions would be a better idea- it would essentially be the same thing as marriage, but with a different name it would make people feel better. I'm all for gay marriage for legal reasons, but when it comes to issues of faith I find myself backing away from the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:41 pm
Quote: No, it doesn't ensure it 100%, but right now, that's the best thing we have. Well, allowing gays to marry and adopt would give more children homes. Quote: Yes, but it's not disputed whether or not letting athiests and murderers get married is a sin. It has never been disputed whether letting gay people get married was a sin or not. Either being gay is a choice, or it's the sex (or fantasizing, etc.) but it has never been that gay people getting married is a sin. Let's face it, gay people are going to be attracted to members of the same sex, fantasize, and have sex with members of the same sex. Letting them get married or not has no bearing on that. Quote: Which is where the big misunderstanding comes in. Most people when they think marriage think religion. Christians and others against gay marriage probably would not be bothered so much by the notion if it had a different name, but still implied that the couple had all the rights that married couples do. It's ridiculous, but it's true. When I think marriage I think church wedding with a priest and usually there's a bride and groom, not two brides or two grooms. But call it "making a committment official along with legal rights" for a gay couple and it's completely different (it's really not). Maybe not all churches will marry them, and very likely they won't. But having a civil union that comes with all of the benefits (insurance, being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, and many more) is better than nothing at all. Quote: Here you're right and you're wrong. They are different. When it comes to raising children, the best situation is to have a mother and father. A man can't fully teach a girl how to be a woman, and a woman can't fully teach a boy how to be a man. They need that same-sex guidance. It can work for a little while, but a man can't fully understand the stress and anxiety of a girl's first period, and a woman can't fully understand the pressures that come from a man trying to be the impressive male figure that society tells him to be. As for single parenting- I wish it would be outlawed. I think it's stupid and terrible and I hate parents that are selfish enough to have sex before marriage and then get pregnant, cuz then they end up getting married cuz they feel it's their duty as parents, but then they realize they hate each other and that leads to divorce and now you have a single parent. Granted, there are some single parents out there who do just great, and that's fine, but most people I know who were raised by one parent wish they'd had both. The best situation is to have a mother and a father, of course. But many times one or both parents is working. And they turn out fine. Perhaps having gay parents is not 'ideal' but it is very hard to reach the perfect ideal, and we do allow single parents to raise children and working houseolds as well. And look, you shouldn't hate single parents because it's a tough job. Maybe they were irresponsible, but now they're taking on more responsibility than they can handle, should handle. You may say you wish it could be outlawed, but would you take a woman's child away from her? Would you rather children be with single parents or with foster parents? Sure, a man isn't the ideal person to teach a girl how to be a woman, but the girl is going to become a woman whether he teaches her well or not. Any good parent, male or female, can help a child grow. I haven't heard of someone who ended up screwed up because they had gay parents, but I have heard of some that ended up screwed up because they were in the adoption system or foster care. And anyhow, gay men have more estrogen than straight men. So, maybe that would help. Quote: The unique roles of mothers and fathers has nothing to do with their career or lack thereof. It has to do with the whole thing about being nurtured by the mother and pushed to your fullest potential by the father. If you read "Wild at Heart" and "Captivating" it makes more sense. It has nothing to do with stereotypes or cultural foundations and everything to do with the way God wired men and women differently to fulfill different roles as parents. I plainly disagree. I believe that even though men and women are wired differently, it is possible for them to fufill either role. Quote: I've seen that list of reasons before, and I have a problem with some of the points it makes. Alot of the things on there, like #4 our flaws in our society. Celebreties shouldn't be allowed to marry and divorce on a whim. I think there should be some law that forces people to stay married for a certain amount of time before getting divorced. It would discourage stupid flings in Hollywood and encourage alternatives to divorce (such as marriage counseling) in regular married couples. Some of the other arguments on there I've never heard before and I agree with you on that they are stupid reasons why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Let's see ... #8- I can vouch for the whole "hanging out with gay people encourages you to be gay" thing, especially in high school. Hopefully outside of high school people are more mature, but I know at the school I attended, it was totally the fad to be gay or bisexual. Everyone was gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, metrosexual, whatever at my high school. It's alot like three-year-olds; one of them does something and suddenly they all have to do it. The point of #4 was to show that there are things desecrating marriage far more than same-sex marriage and no one seems to pay attention to them. And I agree with you on that aspect. And, people say they're gay because it's trendy and defiant or whatever, but hanging around gay people doesn't actually make you gay. And metrosexual isn't a sexual orientation, and pansexual is a little different too. A metrosexual is a straight man that acts effeminate. Pansexual pretty much means you're open to anything, but it can mean more than that. Quote: I wouldn't put it past someone in this country to attempt to marry their dog. Someone sold their soul on Ebay once- he went to jail of course. They banned people marrying objects and animals, because then people would just marry a chair to get marriage benefits. Quote: And I do think civil unions would be a better idea- it would essentially be the same thing as marriage, but with a different name it would make people feel better. I'm all for gay marriage for legal reasons, but when it comes to issues of faith I find myself backing away from the idea. As much as I hate 'separate but equal' because we all know where that gets us, it truly is better than nothing. As for religion, I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state. You may not agree, but I think it's great. Quote: The implication with the penguins is that ... animals do it so it must be okay? Animals also eat their own young and self-abort. I really hope the human race isn't lowering its standards to that of animals. The arguement with gay animals, because many animals more than penguins have presented homosexual behavior, is more directed at people who think it is a choice. Although I must say, I believe animals to be sinless (except for dolphins, maybe sweatdrop ) so, if you agree it's a little bit an arguement against homosexual sex as a sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:40 am
I've had this debate before on another forum, and I don't really want to get into it again. It is good to see some fresh thoughts on the subject, though.
Just to voice my opinion, I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. I believe that individual states have the right to allow their population to decide whether they agree with that definition. I believe that judges should not be allowed to overturn such laws, especially on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Homosexuality is as much a choice as alcoholism. There are some, keyword some, physical factors that give a person an afinity for the action, but overall it comes down to making the choice whether or not to act upon them. Mankind is sinful, that is our nature. It doesn't suprise me that in some cases it is physically manifested within our brain chemistry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:55 am
Wow, Torrent, I like how you put that. Very well phrased.
@Captain: I agree that animals are sinless, seeing as they have no mortal soul in risk of damnation. God created Man and Woman in His image, not cats, dogs, parrots, fish, ox, crickets, spiders, snakes, etc. Man and Woman have souls, because we were created by God to be like God and to be with God. Animals were created for Man and Woman to conquer and use for our benefit (food, clothing, companionship (different than Woman's companionship to Man)). Animals run on instict; humans don't.
And about the hardwiring differences between men and women and their specific roles- I'm serious. Read Wild at Heart and Captivating and it'll make alot of sense. God created them separately and differently so that they could fill separate and different roles. I live with just my dad and not once has he been able to fill the role of mother for me, no matter how tender and gentle he is. And for a while I lived with just my mom and she was never able to act as father in my dad's stead, no matter how "strong" she tried to be. They are separate things, only able to be filled by the persons created to fill them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:59 pm
Quote: I've had this debate before on another forum, and I don't really want to get into it again. It is good to see some fresh thoughts on the subject, though. Just to voice my opinion, I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. I believe that individual states have the right to allow their population to decide whether they agree with that definition. I believe that judges should not be allowed to overturn such laws, especially on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Homosexuality is as much a choice as alcoholism. There are some, keyword some, physical factors that give a person an afinity for the action, but overall it comes down to making the choice whether or not to act upon them. Mankind is sinful, that is our nature. It doesn't suprise me that in some cases it is physically manifested within our brain chemistry. The serious medical definition of alcoholism is drinking despite harm it causes to your body. Maybe not those exact words but if you have a liver condition and you have one drink, you're an alcoholic. Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism, there are biological factors that make it hard for them to stop drinking once they've begun. All kids have pressure to have sex, except perhaps if they're Amish living in the middle of nowhere, like people with a predisposition to alcoholism have pressure to drink. But people with predisopositions to alcoholism have no biological urge to drink alcohol. A gay person, like a straight person, is going to have sexual urges their entire life unless they chemically castrate themselves. It's one of the strongest pulls humans have, eat, drink, sleep, use the bathroom, have sex. It's hardwired in us to want to procreate, with gay people their biological signals are confused. But, we don't need more humans on the earth. If they want to fall in love and have sex and not make more children, then good luck to them. And it is unconstitutional. If all people are created equal, then everyone should be allowed the right to marry the person they love. And, in America we have the God-given right to pursue happiness, and we do not live in a theocracy. Gay people's happiness is not interfering with anyone else's happiness and therefore it is unconstitutional to deny them their right. Quote: @Captain: I agree that animals are sinless, seeing as they have no mortal soul in risk of damnation. God created Man and Woman in His image, not cats, dogs, parrots, fish, ox, crickets, spiders, snakes, etc. Man and Woman have souls, because we were created by God to be like God and to be with God. Animals were created for Man and Woman to conquer and use for our benefit (food, clothing, companionship (different than Woman's companionship to Man)). Animals run on instict; humans don't. We have instinct just like animals, because we are animals. We can just overrule it with our higher thinking, but that doesn't mean we don't have instinctual urges. I have a fundamental issue with that, because I don't really believe humans are all that better than animals. This sort of comes down to evolution vs. creationism, and we already disagree on that. I think God loves me as much as he loves a spider, or an ant. But he cannot have a close relationship with an ant. Quote: And about the hardwiring differences between men and women and their specific roles- I'm serious. Read Wild at Heart and Captivating and it'll make alot of sense. God created them separately and differently so that they could fill separate and different roles. I live with just my dad and not once has he been able to fill the role of mother for me, no matter how tender and gentle he is. And for a while I lived with just my mom and she was never able to act as father in my dad's stead, no matter how "strong" she tried to be. They are separate things, only able to be filled by the persons created to fill them. My father is more tender with me than my mother is, and my mother certainly pushes me harder than my father. Not everyone is the same way, I understand what you're trying to say but I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:18 pm
Captain_Theoretical The serious medical definition of alcoholism is drinking despite harm it causes to your body. No, it's not. Quote: But people with predisopositions to alcoholism have no biological urge to drink alcohol. Actually, there have been studies done that show that alcoholism can affect one's children, making them biologically prediposed to abuse alcohol. Quote: A gay person, like a straight person, is going to have sexual urges their entire life unless they chemically castrate themselves. It's one of the strongest pulls humans have, eat, drink, sleep, use the bathroom, have sex. Not even chemical castration will fix the problem, but that aside the point. Quote: And it is unconstitutional. If all people are created equal, then everyone should be allowed the right to marry the person they love. And, in America we have the God-given right to pursue happiness, and we do not live in a theocracy. Gay people's happiness is not interfering with anyone else's happiness and therefore it is unconstitutional to deny them their right. She's right on this one. Constitutionally, to deny gays their marriage rights is illegal. Quote: I have a fundamental issue with that, because I don't really believe humans are all that better than animals. This sort of comes down to evolution vs. creationism, and we already disagree on that. It has nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism. Humans are capable of logical thought processes, ego, and superego. Animals are not. Therefore, we are (morally) superior. Besides, we are the dominant species on the planet, thus making us (according to natural selection) the greatest species on the planet. Quote: I think God loves me as much as he loves a spider, or an ant. But he cannot have a close relationship with an ant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:44 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly The implication with the penguins is that ... animals do it so it must be okay? Animals also eat their own young and self-abort. I really hope the human race isn't lowering its standards to that of animals. I hope that wasn't what you thought I meant when I posted that. I just thought it was interesting to show that gay animals DO exist. Not everyone knows that. Besides, they're so cute together. xd Anyhow, I read this thread (that I now can't find) awhile back that had GREAT ideas. Marriage is really a religious binding. For a contemporary marriage, all you and your partner have to do is walk down to the courthouse, pay them and sign some papers, and you're married. I agree with the author of the thread that said... scrap the marriage. Do the legal thing. Call it a domestic partnership or something. Then, if you so desire, you can find your religious affiliate to perform a ceremony (aka wedding) to have a MARRIAGE. That way, those who prefer the same sex can have their legal rights protected, but without the trial of trying to find a priest/rabbi/other holy person to pronounce them life partners. But really, when you think about it, people have gotten married for less than love. Some get married so they can pool their combined income into requirements so they can get an apartment. They get married JUST for the protection that comes with it. They get married so on their W-2 forms they can check the "married" box and get more money per check. That's more sinful to me than allowing gay marriage. And then, something my friend wrote: Quote: So then guys, if all over the Bible it's highlighted "love comes from God" (and especially in John 4) then how on earth can a homosexual couple love so strongly and yet not be under God's approval? I refuse to believe that the love of my life -- a feeling that matches both the description in 1 Corinthians AND what you've posted here -- is wrong. The bond we have is true, and lasting. Even my pastor told me that what we have together is very rare. I can't tell you how many times I've prayed that if we weren't meant to be together that I wanted God to dim my feelings and we would just drift apart. Instead, we were thrown into situations that only pulled us together, strengthened what we have. Our friendship is solid, and I have to say that I've never loved like this before, and probably never will again. And in case you haven't already figured out, we're both devoted Christians. So even if we ARE wrong, the other paths in our lives are straight. God still loves us. But this FEELS right. This IS love. It meets every Biblical criteria I could find. You think what you want. But you know what else? When it comes time for us to stand before the pearly gates, it'll be our business, not anyone else's. I live a life as judgement-free as humanly possible. It's the place of the Father to see who's following His intents. And I've always been told at church that right and wrong were embedded in your heart by the Holy Spirit, and to follow the path set by God was just to listen. Well, my heart tells me to love, and love hard, despite the fact my mate is of the same sex. So yes there's passages that sound anti-gay. Well, times have changed a little in the past 2000 years. The Bible is timeless, but it does not reveal all. God didn't intend for it to. So I'll live my life the way I believe. You live yours. But don't judge me for loving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:57 pm
I have to honestly say that my previous convictions on homosexuality have wavered quite alot since the discussion that's been brought into the guild. On one hand I'm wondering if I should thank God for opening my eyes to another angle of His awesomeness. On the other hand I wonder if it's just Satan using Bible verses against me to get me to accept others' sinful lifestyles (the way he used the Bible against Jesus in the desert).
So I guess I'm kinda on the fence with this. I'll pretty much argue both sides.
Is that wrong?? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:21 am
Well obviously I didn't use the exact phrasing but that is what I meant. To drink so that it causes harm. Quote: Actually, there have been studies done that show that alcoholism can affect one's children, making them biologically prediposed to abuse alcohol. Maybe, but the urge to drink is certainly not as strong as the urge to have sex. Quote: It has nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism. Humans are capable of logical thought processes, ego, and superego. Animals are not. Therefore, we are (morally) superior. Besides, we are the dominant species on the planet, thus making us (according to natural selection) the greatest species on the planet. Morally superior, perhaps. But not as powerful as we make ourselves out to be. Dominant species, also. We have higher thinking, and therefore we can overrule our animal instincts. But on a fundamental level humans are just the same as animals. God values us more because he can have a close relationship with us, unlike the bird. But God's love is infinite and I don't believe He plays favorites. Quote: But really, when you think about it, people have gotten married for less than love. Some get married so they can pool their combined income into requirements so they can get an apartment. They get married JUST for the protection that comes with it. They get married so on their W-2 forms they can check the "married" box and get more money per check. That's more sinful to me than allowing gay marriage. Surely heterosexual couples do it too. The benefits are tremendous. And there's certainly nothing sinful about allowing gay marriage. It's up to God to judge. Quote: I have to honestly say that my previous convictions on homosexuality have wavered quite alot since the discussion that's been brought into the guild. On one hand I'm wondering if I should thank God for opening my eyes to another angle of His awesomeness. On the other hand I wonder if it's just Satan using Bible verses against me to get me to accept others' sinful lifestyles (the way he used the Bible against Jesus in the desert). So I guess I'm kinda on the fence with this. I'll pretty much argue both sides. Is that wrong?? Of course it isn't wrong, I have the same feelings sometimes. I ask God to help me find the right path, and I search within myself and think about what I truly believe and I end up where I am. It's all I can do, if I'm completely wrong then I've still done the best I can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
