Context of "Homosexuality is an abomination"

[jdev]

Dude, re-read my posts. I'm the most pro-gay marriage straight guy around.

aside from me.

[spantol]

aside from me.

Poor choice of words, maybe? How about "I'm as pro-gay marriage as they come."

[NJPaint]

aren't we all created in "gods" image? did he have anything to do with the bible?

if above is true, in any facet. god must have had a bit of gay in him.

There are some creative ways to get around this. For example, if satan infected the gays, then God isn't imperfect, its that pesky devil. Or more logically, we were made in His image, meaning we look like him, but remember in Genesis we were given dominion over all the other animals and allowed to think.


A question that I do have though... Okay so I get it pickle and others who have pointed it out. Christians are 'supposed to' be tied to the New Testament ideals, not the old testament anymore. Okay, I get that, and that makes sense. But the WHOLE Bible was 'divinely' created... So then why is God's old word invalidated? Why don't we have to follow the old rules? Did God change his mind?

[Lohman446]

I'm going to try to pull this from the religious realm and put a new spin on things.
First - I could care less what you do behind the closed bedroom door involving consenting adults. Please note I also beleive that this opens the door for all sorts of things, prostitution for one, laws against certain sexual acts, and the military law against adultery. The state has no business in the bedroom, anyones bedroom, involving any act.

That being said - marriage is not about two consenting adults, at least not as the ground is legally set out. Marriage is supposed to be about reproduction - now I know there are infertile couples out there and couples that have no interest in children, these are as a general rule the exception.

Marriage is meant to define a couple, to stabilize a relationship, and provide certain legal advantages that make it easier to raise a child together. It is also supposed to make it hard to retreat from - in the civil courts. It is meant to hold things together in "rocky" times. I understand that we have severely harmed this view of marriage in today's society, and much to the detriment of families everywhere. We have made divorce a simple and accepted thing (no flaming, I'm divroced). We have afforded the protections of marriage to non-marriage situations - child support for instance.

Marriage should be an institution, an institution that is tailor made (at least on the face of it) for the purpose of childbearing. Adults outside of marriage do whatever they want... could care less. Want similar protections, have legal contracts made. But marriage, at least as intended is meant as something more, it is not gay rights that have degraded it, it is societies use of it. Marriage is the easy way for this civilly protected unions (those under written contracts) to get these rights without the hassle of marriage. This is wrong. This applies too many values to broadly too them. Let the contracts be made indivisually, perhaps they allow "cheating", perhaps they say sex three times a week, I don't care what they say. But do not make something that forces a broad set of values onto those who would engage in it when there is little purpose. Let marriage be what it was meant to be, and make it back to that institution.

[spantol]

I'm going to try to pull this from the religious realm and put a new spin on things.
First - I could care less what you do behind the closed bedroom door involving consenting adults. Please note I also beleive that this opens the door for all sorts of things, prostitution for one, laws against certain sexual acts, and the military law against adultery. The state has no business in the bedroom, anyones bedroom, involving any act.

Okay, I'm with you so far. :)

That being said - marriage is not about two consenting adults, at least not as the ground is legally set out. Marriage is supposed to be about reproduction - now I know there are infertile couples out there and couples that have no interest in children, these are as a general rule the exception.

And a huge, gaping exception it is. I'd be extremely interested in comparing the statistics on childless couples to those on gay couples wishing to marry. I'd be willing to bet the former outnumber the latter. Further, what of gay couples that wish to adopt? Should they be afforded the privileges of marriage?

Marriage should be an institution, an institution that is tailor made (at least on the face of it) for the purpose of childbearing. Adults outside of marriage do whatever they want... could care less. Want similar protections, have legal contracts made. But marriage, at least as intended is meant as something more, it is not gay rights that have degraded it, it is societies use of it. Marriage is the easy way for this civilly protected unions (those under written contracts) to get these rights without the hassle of marriage. This is wrong. This applies too many values to broadly too them. Let the contracts be made indivisually, perhaps they allow "cheating", perhaps they say sex three times a week, I don't care what they say. But do not make something that forces a broad set of values onto those who would engage in it when there is little purpose. Let marriage be what it was meant to be, and make it back to that institution.

A couple of things here. First, gay couples can't just write up contracts to gain the rights they're looking for. Would that it were that simple. You can't just write up a contract that will guarantee you the right to hospital visitation in the event that your partner is severely injured. You can't just will your partner your possessions--such wills have been overturned by the families of those deceased. The only way to protect these rights (and others) is to explicitly acknowledge them in legislation.

Second, what you've described are your personal beliefs on marriage. Similar beliefs may indeed have lead to the existing marriage laws, but ultimately, what of it? I'd liken it to the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The former is a piece of pure rhetoric, a point-in-time snapshot of the social, political, and philosophical justification for the latter. It's the latter, though, that was intended to be the basis of law. You're free to predicate your marriage on your own beliefs, but I don't think you have the right to insist that I do the same.

[Rooster]

"But sanctity of marriage is part of religion... So then why is that part of the laws... "

Find me in the constitution where it says "there should/will/shall/must be a seperation of church and state" and I'll send you a dollar.

Disclaimer: only one prize offered to first quote. Prize does not include shipping and handling cost of $1.37

[jdev]

Poor choice of words, maybe? How about "I'm as pro-gay marriage as they come."

pfft, same difference

[Lohman446]

And a huge, gaping exception it is. I'd be extremely interested in comparing the statistics on childless couples to those on gay couples wishing to marry. I'd be willing to bet the former outnumber the latter. Further, what of gay couples that wish to adopt? Should they be afforded the privileges of marriage?.

True.. but you also have to go down the road that I had hinted at that there may be something better for couples who want a step less than marriage. The power of marriage has eroded away from what it was in the early 1900s. That errossion has not helped society at all at least in my opinion. I'm not going to hunt statistics on why I think that society is worse off, in general, than it was in the 1900s but I think that a lot of people are going to agree with me. As for the adoption issue... you have come up with a good point on it. I will have to consider how that affects my position. My initial reaction is that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt, but it does not hold water because I cannot back it with anything but... welll I can't back it with well thought out reasons. Let me just give you this, for now and acknowledge it as an issue with my stance.

A couple of things here. First, gay couples can't just write up contracts to gain the rights they're looking for. Would that it were that simple. You can't just write up a contract that will guarantee you the right to hospital visitation in the event that your partner is severely injured. You can't just will your partner your possessions--such wills have been overturned by the families of those deceased. The only way to protect these rights (and others) is to explicitly acknowledge them in legislation..

Ok.. I am going to give you the can't write up strong enouh contracts, I don't know and lets assume it. Why can't we make it that simple? I think that a step less than marriage should be available, but not a simple step. The problem with marriage, and civil union in my mind are they are to general. John Bobbit argued that he had the right in marriage to rape his wife. The contracts should be written up from a case to case basis, to allow for whatever lifestyle the two people care to have and will contract too. Marriage today, well the definition is now poor, teh exact legal rights, and expectations are blurred. I beleive marriage needs to be made stronger, for the benefit of the family. Please understand, I am for very little protection outside of contract obligations for adults - but marriage (traditional) outlines certain lifestyle restraints that I beleive help children. Couples without children, need not commit to those same lifestyles - unless they are going to spell them out under contract. I also beleive the marriage obligations need to be spelled out a lot better in the laws.

Second, what you've described are your personal beliefs on marriage. Similar beliefs may indeed have lead to the existing marriage laws, but ultimately, what of it? I'd liken it to the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The former is a piece of pure rhetoric, a point-in-time snapshot of the social, political, and philosophical justification for the latter. It's the latter, though, that was intended to be the basis of law. You're free to predicate your marriage on your own beliefs, but I don't think you have the right to insist that I do the same.

What I am saying though, is that marriage is overused in America. We have erroded the meaning to mean, well nothing. I'm fine with however you live your life, I really dont care. I think the term marriage, and its protections, have been thrown out to too many relationships. Divorces have happened, divorce law has changed the meaning of marriage, its becoming about two adults and a hedonistic society... I think it has hurt things. Please not that I have specifically states that MOST young couples (gay, straight, whatever) should not be entered into marriage.

[ScatterPlot]

All you guys are saying that you don't care what other people do, blah blah blah... Shouldn't we care? I mean I don't wish hell on anyone. That's right, ANYONE (except maybe Judas, but that's another talk). Don't care how bad you treat me or anyone else, like Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam or Bin Laden. I dunno about you guys, but I do care. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"- can you love someone you wish to go to Hell?

[spantol]

This presupposes that gay people are going to hell. You may believe that, but others do not. Care all you want, but kindly stop short of enacting legislation preventing an activity that harms no one. Consensual gay sex isn't hurting anybody. Well, unless they're into that, but you get where I'm going with this.

I've never understood why some folks feel that their religious beliefs should be forced on others. If you don't like sodomy, don't engage in it. It's that freakin' simple.

All you guys are saying that you don't care what other people do, blah blah blah... Shouldn't we care? I mean I don't wish hell on anyone. That's right, ANYONE (except maybe Judas, but that's another talk). Don't care how bad you treat me or anyone else, like Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam or Bin Laden. I dunno about you guys, but I do care. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"- can you love someone you wish to go to Hell?

[ScatterPlot]

If you really believe in your religion, you will try to convert others. If I do believe in that, then I will care what others do. And no, I will not just "agree to disagree". Homosexuality is wrong, whether you think so or not. It's not your opinion that determines what is right or wrong.

[spantol]

True.. but you also have to go down the road that I had hinted at that there may be something better for couples who want a step less than marriage.

Okay, I think I get where you're coming from on this now. So you're suggesting something like civil unions for couples to get the reciprocal property rights and whatnot, and another step above that, affording even more privileges, for those that want to have kids? That's definitely an interesting idea; if those additional privileges would be extended to adoptive parents, I'd have a hard time arguing with it.

[-Carnifex-]

"But sanctity of marriage is part of religion... So then why is that part of the laws... "

Find me in the constitution where it says "there should/will/shall/must be a seperation of church and state" and I'll send you a dollar.

Disclaimer: only one prize offered to first quote. Prize does not include shipping and handling cost of $1.37

Haha, k, I will.

[ScatterPlot]

I know this is gonna open a whole new can of worms, but sex before marriage is wrong too. Even if it is heterosexual.

[spantol]

If you really believe in your religion, you will try to convert others. If I do believe in that, then I will care what others do. And no, I will not just "agree to disagree". Homosexuality is wrong, whether you think so or not. It's not your opinion that determines what is right or wrong.

So religion is somewhat viral, then?

I never claimed to be the authority on what's right and wrong. I merely claim that there is no rational basis for thinking homosexuality is wrong. If you disagree, please provide said rational argument.