Gay Marriage Debate

Go down

Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Church1ll on Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:31 pm

This is a special post which shows a conversation I had with Scott (ExoticWhiteMan) over AIM about...5 minutes prior to posting this. It was so good we decided to post it, and then follow it up with our arguments in postings so each side can be viewed independently. Here ya go, in red and blue glory to make it easier to see who says what:

scotttttttie (11:36:17 AM): looks like california voters are banning gay marriage through one of their public questions
maT7 E (11:36:43 AM): florida and arizona already banned it
maT7 E (11:37:02 AM): retarded thing to vote for...its a religious thing not a political one
maT7 E (11:37:28 AM): banning gay marriage is only going to make ppl miserable...it has no effect on anyone else

scotttttttie (11:37:37 AM): the state has to authorize it, though
maT7 E (11:38:06 AM): yea i kno
maT7 E (11:38:12 AM): but if ppl r voting for it
maT7 E (11:38:19 AM): it means the states thinking about authorizing it
maT7 E (11:38:24 AM): otherwise there wouldnt be a vote

scotttttttie (11:38:30 AM): but, most people see that as the government allowing for the legal perversion of our morals
maT7 E (11:39:10 AM): its still religion interfering with politics...if it werent for holy texts stating "marriage is between a man and a woman" no one would care
maT7 E (11:39:40 AM): but because its in there ppl get all pissed off when gays want the same rights as straights

scotttttttie (11:40:09 AM): but even from a standpoint of how society works, it's a big change
maT7 E (11:40:17 AM): its still taking away rights of people
maT7 E (11:40:34 AM): on the standpoint that holy texts dont allow it

scotttttttie (11:41:35 AM): it's a perversion of what all societies have previously defined marriage to be, you know?
scotttttttie (11:41:48 AM): the whole point of marriage is for a male and female to have a family
scotttttttie (11:42:05 AM): gay marriage would be naturally useless

maT7 E (11:42:11 AM): well, technically no society ever "defined" marriage between a man and a woman, religion has tho
maT7 E (11:42:24 AM): and because societies tend to be defined by their religions its viewed that way
maT7 E (11:43:00 AM): but in reality gays can have families too...remember adopting still counts as raising a kid, especially if its an infant
maT7 E (11:43:19 AM): theres no such thing as a "normal" family because every family behaves differently

scotttttttie (11:43:22 AM): yeah, but it's no longer their kids, they're bloodline
scotttttttie (11:43:26 AM): *their

maT7 E (11:43:47 AM): well, based on what u just said then
maT7 E (11:43:52 AM): sterile ppl shouldnt be allowed to marry either

scotttttttie (11:44:06 AM): that's an interesting point
maT7 E (11:44:59 AM): its still people...itd be like telling someone with a disability or genetic defect they cant marry because theres the chance of making more people with disabilities and/or defects
scotttttttie (11:45:01 AM): but, the idea is that gay marriage is entirely unnatural
scotttttttie (11:45:40 AM): that was kinda a weak supporting argument
scotttttttie (11:45:46 AM): the one i made

maT7 E (11:45:52 AM): which one
scotttttttie (11:46:04 AM): about not being able to have their own kids
maT7 E (11:46:08 AM): o ok
maT7 E (11:46:13 AM): yea cos u can easily counter that

scotttttttie (11:46:31 AM): this issue, is hard to argue from a logical standpoint
maT7 E (11:46:34 AM): yea
scotttttttie (11:46:56 AM): but, changing the very definition of marriage?
scotttttttie (11:47:14 AM): it's something anyone with ANY religion will have a problem with
scotttttttie (11:47:29 AM): unless, they manufacture doctrine for convenience (catholics)

maT7 E (11:47:37 AM): well u do know that gays have religion too right
scotttttttie (11:47:45 AM): yes
scotttttttie (11:47:51 AM): and it goes against most religions
scotttttttie (11:48:01 AM): just like alcoholics have religion
scotttttttie (11:48:20 AM): it's like any other "sinner/wrongdoer" having religion
scotttttttie (11:48:41 AM): by religious standards, gays are doing the wrong thing by being gay
scotttttttie (11:48:53 AM): which brings up more issues
scotttttttie (11:49:06 AM): like whether or not they choose to be

maT7 E (11:49:08 AM): because theres no evidence to support either argument that gays can or cant help being gay
scotttttttie (11:49:19 AM): yes, unfortunately
scotttttttie (11:49:55 AM): but, does their gayness justify a fundamental part of our society's beliefs?
scotttttttie (11:50:10 AM): after all, it's not like they're not allowed to be gay or adopt kids
scotttttttie (11:50:24 AM): or have a civil union, in some places
scotttttttie (11:50:38 AM): *justify changing, oops

maT7 E (11:50:59 AM): to me, civil union and marriage mean the same thing
maT7 E (11:51:09 AM): one has the religious background while the other has the legal background

scotttttttie (11:51:26 AM): but, marriage is the government's role to oversee and define
maT7 E (11:51:27 AM): both tho, involve the union of 2 pple
scotttttttie (11:52:08 AM): if the government changed marriage to accomodate gayness, it would no longer have any religious meaning
scotttttttie (11:52:28 AM): because it was changed and now contradicts where it came from
maT7 E (11:52:55 AM): ah, but marriage did not come from religion tho...the word did
scotttttttie (11:53:03 AM): ?
maT7 E (11:53:12 AM): people have been "married" since people first came around
maT7 E (11:53:28 AM): it was only when people began to communicate with words that they started to define what it meant

scotttttttie (11:53:30 AM): well.........
scotttttttie (11:53:37 AM): here comes another issue with the argument

maT7 E (11:53:42 AM): and then religion came and defined it was the way the norm in nature is
maT7 E (11:53:45 AM): which is male/female
maT7 E (11:53:55 AM): but not everything in nature follows the standard
maT7 E (11:53:58 AM): hence gays
maT7 E (11:54:07 AM): but because it isnt the standard, the majority
maT7 E (11:54:10 AM): its seen as a defect

scotttttttie (11:54:12 AM): from a religious standpoint, man was capable of marriage and religion from the start, because it started with creation
scotttttttie (11:54:34 AM): how you say man started affects this argument

maT7 E (11:54:51 AM): which is also debatable as not everyone agrees with how man started
scotttttttie (11:54:51 AM): because, it affects the validity of calling people's gayness natural
maT7 E (11:55:20 AM): well the reason im going with gayness being natural is because it happens in nature itself
maT7 E (11:55:23 AM): animals can also be gay
scotttttttie (11:55:34 AM): ?
maT7 E (11:55:43 AM): and unless people decide animals can in fact think and feel then it must be a natural thing
maT7 E (11:55:52 AM): animals have been proven to be gay

scotttttttie (11:55:54 AM): are you sure?
maT7 E (11:55:55 AM): yes
scotttttttie (11:56:03 AM): gay, or asexual?
maT7 E (11:56:09 AM): animals can be gay
scotttttttie (11:56:18 AM): like, if it's a male-female species, do males and females go gay?
maT7 E (11:56:26 AM): they can
scotttttttie (11:56:26 AM): sorry, i wanna be really specific
maT7 E (11:56:36 AM): male-female species can go gay, sorry
maT7 E (11:56:41 AM): or rather can be attracted to the same sex

scotttttttie (11:56:51 AM): but, how does this happen?
[color=red]scotttttttie (11:56:53 AM): by choice?

maT7 E (11:56:55 AM): it happens in nature and its been proven
scotttttttie (11:56:57 AM): or by crap genes?
maT7 E (11:57:01 AM): probably genetic
maT7 E (11:57:12 AM): unless
maT7 E (11:57:17 AM): animals have free will

scotttttttie (11:57:17 AM): because, if the genes are bad, then gayness is as natural as cancer
maT7 E (11:57:34 AM): which people have concluded animals dont have free will just because we are superior
scotttttttie (11:57:36 AM): that's another thing coming back to religious and creation beliefs
maT7 E (11:57:52 AM): well yea everything comes back to it
maT7 E (11:57:59 AM): anything u argue comes back to it
maT7 E (11:58:03 AM): theres no avoiding it
maT7 E (11:58:22 AM): because any argument involving behavior and sexuality will always boil down to "how did it begin"

scotttttttie (11:58:23 AM): so, through disagreements on how man started and how nature works in these ways, what we believe affects whether or not gays can marry, i guess
maT7 E (11:58:32 AM): exactly
scotttttttie (11:58:40 AM): ah
maT7 E (11:59:07 AM): which is why it should not be voted upon because you cant seriously tell somebody they cant be married because they dont share your beliefs
scotttttttie (11:59:10 AM): this makes this less of an argument, and of an attempt to put your view into law
maT7 E (11:59:29 AM): its still an argument because u have ur opinion of it
scotttttttie (11:59:34 AM): because the two views have so many fundamentally differences in how they're justified
maT7 E (11:59:41 AM): right
maT7 E (11:59:49 AM): in other words this argument cant be won by either sides
maT7 E (11:59:51 AM): side*

scotttttttie (11:59:53 AM): well, yeah, it's still an argument
scotttttttie (11:59:54 AM): yup
scotttttttie (12:00:06 PM): without winning over the person in their beliefs as well

maT7 E (12:00:12 PM): exactly
scotttttttie (12:00:18 PM): which makes it a much bigger, though, polarized argument
scotttttttie (12:00:20 PM): unfortunately

maT7 E (12:00:24 PM): right
scotttttttie (12:00:34 PM): *tougher


And it ended there with us decided to post it on here and follow up with our arguments presented in our own boxes, devoid of each others arguments to interrupt points and allow you all the chance to pick a side and make your own arguments. Right. Let the first debate begin.
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  PokerFace on Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:21 pm

Well I was actually just talking about this today in one of my religion courses, and I thought I would share a little bit of what I took away from the class.

About the whole "natural" vs. "unnatural" thing. It was brought up in class that it was an idea of the Church that homosexuality was "unnatural," specifically referring to the fact that it did not occur in nature. I think that's what Scott was thinking about when he had mentioned it. Matt is also correct, however, in saying that homosexuality DOES occur in nature, so the Church had to scrap the whole "unnatural" thing or rather...reassess it. There is a lot of video footage out there showing animals of both genders engaging in homosexual activities, rendering it as something "natural" by the definition that it occurs in nature. So in my opinion, going about discussing homosexuality in that manner is a little bit outdated.

I've been wavering on my opinion on this topic for a while now, but I really think that I have established what I believe. It is my opinion that because homosexuals wouldn't really be doing anything detrimental to society (aside from offending homophobes, who I think just need to acknowledge that homosexuality legitimately exists in the world), that gay marriage should be legalized. I feel like it would be denying the happiness of a group of people that are just, for lack of a better term at the moment, different.

I'm sure I have either mentioned it before or it is common knowledge among the current members of the forum that I am a practicing Catholic. I guess you can say that I have departed from the intentional message of the Church, or its current stance that homosexuality is "ok" as long as those individuals do not act upon it. For me, when it all comes down to it, people just need to be happy (You know what I mean by this. I'm not endorsing that murderers and the like go kill people and stuff!), and if being happy involves getting married, go for it.

PokerFace
Admin

Posts : 22
Join date : 2008-11-03
Age : 29
Location : Philadelphia, PA

View user profile http://ssaddiction.proboards101.com/index.cgi

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:25 pm

Ok, here's my attempt at a view on this tough subject. The whole unnatural thing and non-reproductive thing can be thrown out the window. If you didn't notice Matt's and Megan's points above, it does occur in nature, and being able to reproduce doesn't work as a condition for marriage (sterile people, disabled, etc). Now, onto the real debate.

Homosexuality is nothing new, and the Bible even mentions it as a sin (more on that later). Not that I've heard of (I might need correction on this), but I think it's only recently that societies have considered allowing gay marriage. It's definitely a change for the country we live in to allow it, so first, I think the relevance of marriage to government is important in this. Marriage is a big deal in many religions, but that doesn't mean that the government has no place to define it. Marriages are an important part of our society and define the ways our families work and the way people interact. This country was founded by religious people, who left defining marriage to the states. Although marriage is a moral issue, it has legal implications (taxes) and, I think, is worth allowing the government to mandate because it's such a big part of many people's lives and traditions. This might restrict some belief systems, but if enough people want the law to change, they will get change.

A little more on the government: America is a democracy, and while it our political process is flawed by parties and politicians we often don't like, the voters are capable of changing the law if they have the will. As recently happened in California, a simple majority of people wanting the law to change can bring it about. In all fairness, if a majority of the people in this country do not want this law to change, then it shouldn't. The whole point of democracy is for our laws to reflect the will of the people, and if most of the people want something controversial, the system should let them have it. This argument over gay marriage is largely grounded in what people believe society should allow and accept. If most of the people believe something, I don't think something contrary to that belief should be forced upon them (this might not be an always-true statement, since the drug issue et al might not work with it, but I think it works here).

So, one argument is that should this issue be resolved by logic or by the people? Logic is hard to apply here because marriage is a moral institution, so I think by the people could work, but that's something that might need more consideration. Now, onto what about the law and marriage is changing. I'm gonna whip out some arguments that could be taken offensive and degrading, but worth mentioning and considering since many people use them. One famous argument, is that marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman. Because that is so widely accepted by many religious institutions, many people see redefining this as a slap in the face to their deity, who declared marriage to be a sacred thing. Again, this is a belief, and if most people feel this way, they should not have something else forced upon them.

This brings up other arguments, like the fact that gay marriage isn't going to affect a straight couple (big argument for gay marriage). This, again, contradicts people's beliefs. The thing is, people believe that their deity has influence over what happens to people and countries based on whether what they do is right or wrong. From a Christian (et al) standpoint, allowing gay marriage would cause God to be angry with America and cease to bless it, or even want to deliver it to its enemies (yeah, old Bible phrase). So, from a religious standpoint, what gay people do DOES affect everyone, because God wouldn't have favor with America. Unless people make an exception to this in their belief system, this is not going to be a resolved argument. It may make sense, but religious implications make it less simple.

Allowing an exception to your beliefs is even more complicated, because people don't make up their beliefs; the get them from religious texts, and a common view is that not believing all of it makes you a non-legit believer (i.e, believing only what is convenient and doesn't challenge you morally). So, the it-doesn't-affect-you won't convince religious people, because they believe it does. This would also bring up arguments on whether or not these beliefs are worth holding as truth, and that argument will never be settled, because man will always have imperfect, incomplete knowledge and can never prove these texts wrong (saying there isn't proof of their statements doesn't necessarily make them false).

I feel like this argument is a big thing to cover well, so I apologize if my ideas aren't organized well. The "let them marry because they should have the same rights, won't hurt anybody, and will be happy" is, I think, the big statement that will make you for gay marriage if you agree with it, or against it if you don't. From the standpoint of the constitution, the pursuit of happiness and the fact that you can't prove that God will harm America can justify it in view of this country's laws. If religion did not influence us, it would make sense to allow it. The obvious logical argument against it is that, the definition would change from our traditional definition, and would change what we as a society believe is normal (which is easy logic to refute). Other than the belief that God would lose favor with America and is to be of important consideration, that marriage is sacred between man and woman, and homosexuality is a choice and is a sin, there is no obvious reason not to allow it (add to these if I missed something). The whole warrant behind barring gay marriage is what you believe is right and what God would want us to do as people. Face it, a lot of Christians and others are in this country, and would be afraid for our future if this was allowed. Not believing that God is a factor in our marriage laws logically allows the marriage definition to be changed to what we want, because it then becomes an institution of man, not God. I think, a change to such an important and huge institution should be up to the beliefs of the majority. After all, nothing is barring homosexuality in this country, and marriage isn't so much a freedom as much as it is a statement of what our society believes, or doesn't believe, in.

Some of that may have been incomplete, and I probably erred in some arguments. I would definitely appreciate if anyone would like to build on or correct what I said :-). The whole point here is to realize what this change would mean to us and our country.
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Gustavus_Adolfus on Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:48 am

i think it would be easier as my reply to just state that I believe that gay marriage can and should be a legal right. I think by banning gays the right to marry, it IS mixing religion and state.

just keeping it nice and short.
avatar
Gustavus_Adolfus
Admin

Posts : 78
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : South Jersey Shore

View user profile

Back to top Go down

My Turn

Post  Church1ll on Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:59 am

Alright I noticed that you guys have already posted stuff, with Scott already posting his argument. Now it's my turn. I haven't really read any of the posts, but rather skimmed them so if I repeat something or say "I'm not sure about this" and it has already been said, then yea just note I'm a bit late to the party in getting my response up. Right. Enough of the introduction, let's get down to the good stuff.

Allow me to get this out of the way. I support gay marriage. Plain and simple. Now here's my explanation as to why.

The original, basic definition of marriage is that marriage is the social union between two people. Notice how this definition makes no reference to religion or legality, no reference to gender, sexuality, nothing. The only thing that is mentioned that everyone will agree upon is that it is a social union, as in the ring signifies the union to the public, and it is between two people. Because of this, the peoples of ancient civilizations (Roman and Greek civilizations come to mind first for me) viewed marriage simply as a social aspect, a sort of milestone in one's life. There was no sexual discrimination nor was there anything wrong about seeing another human being regardless of gender in the nude. Homosexuality was actually fairly common in these civilizations because walking around with a woman was considered demeaning especially for those with money and power. Read a book on ancient Roman and/or Greek culture to learn that little tidbit. Bisexuality, now that I think of it, was probably more common than homosexuality in these cultures. Religion was also not confined to heterosexuality as Roman/Greek gods were often shown as bisexual in these cultures. However, these religions of old cannot be compared with the religions that have survived and thrived in our society today. Many people today (as we are doing now) argue over whether or not marriage applies only towards male-female relationships or if it applies to any relationship regardless of genders. Enter modern religions.

Note: I use the term "modern" here not to represent a chunk of time but to represent the most common religions in our society today.

Religion took a surprisingly scientific approach toward determining its rules regarding marriage. By observing the majority of animals mating and the majority of people forming relationships, religion decided that marriage is not just a union between two people but a union between a male and a female. Also, people were smart enough to realize that only a male-female union would result in offspring. Due to the incredible influence religion has over people, no one truly argued it simply because the majority is not homosexual.

There is one serious flaw I pointed out in my argument with Scott and that refers to producing offspring. If religion wishes to state that a true family can only be had between a man and a woman because only they can produce offspring, then that must mean the only reason homosexuals cannot marry is because they cannot reproduce. While this is true, the same can also be said for straight couples that are sterile. Does this mean sterile people should also be barred from marriage? What about the disabled, should they also not be able to marry because their offspring will likely inherit disabilities? Simply saying marriage should be between a man and a woman because they can continue a bloodline is not a good argument. In terms of a "normal" family, yes it would appear to be strange to an adopted child that all his/her friends' parents are one male, one female, but really who are we to say what is normal. Children that are adopted at a very young age by a gay couple are much more likely to grow up acknowledging that anyone can and should be allowed the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation, and likely grow up to be much more accepting of everything.

One thing I especially do not agree with is that homosexuality is a choice. Many people claim that human beings are the only creatures on this earth with "free will," which really goes back to religion but beating a dead horse only makes the corpse twitch which only gives the illusion of resurrection...sorry went a little too far with that one. If human beings are in fact the only creatures of this earth with free will then homosexuality must in fact be a natural occurrence as animals can and do behave in a homosexual manner (meaning same-gender mating). If all creatures of this earth have free will, then perhaps homosexuality is a choice. This far into the paragraph I am realizing that my statements about some ancient Greeks and Romans being homosexual due to social status contradicts my statements about homosexuality being a choice. But remember not all of these people behaved in a homosexual manner, which means there were still those that were simply not attracted to the same sex. Some would also say that the environment that a child grows up in will affect his/her sexual orientation, but with new reports of children coming out as early as the third grade I can hardly believe environment plays a part in this, but that's just my opinion.

Lastly I would like to mention the law our country has stating the separation of church and state. Because gay marriage is seen as more of a defiance toward religion and not toward a free society, this issue should never, under any circumstances, be placed on a ballot or be the discussion of politicians. Yes, we all love to hear politicians agree with our beliefs. However, because of the separation of church and state there should never be any law regarding moral beliefs that do not harm anybody. If gay marriage offends you then leave the area that has the gay couple or just ignore them. If you are straight, what do you have to lose from gay marriage existing? Nothing. So why exactly is gay marriage a "serious" topic in politics? Because an excerpt in religious texts claims marriage is between a man and a woman, which in turn caused people to believe that homosexuality was evil and immoral. These people then went to the public and tried to push their views on the entirety of society, which then causes politicians to intervene and try to pass laws which effectively destroy any hope of two human beings that love each other from ever being married in the eyes of society.

So tell me, why should gay marriage be banned?

Edit: I'll probably come back and rephrase some of my arguments...should probably stop writing these lengthy ones at 2am...
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Turn

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:27 pm

Your argument on the free will of animals and the natural occurence of homosexuality brought up a contradiction in the anti-gay marriage argument. This essentially means homosexuality occurs in nature, and animals don't have free will, so it must not be by free will that humans are homosexual. This statement, although having solid logic, isn't perfect and can be rendered possibly false by those who want it to be untrue, making the argument more complicated. (Prepare for more complicated, complex arguments ahead, and I may have missed something).

For example, if we assume animals have no free will and are still homosexual (possibly catching the right with their logic), the right will argue that this does not necessarily mean that humans are naturally homosexual, because humans and animals can't be PROVEN to be comparable in the causes of their sexual behavior. This supporting argument, too, can be argued against, and the fact that the original argument of free will brings up comparison of humans to animals and can also bring up how man is created (evolved from animals or created above animals?), the whole argument around whether or not homosexuality is a choice (and consequently a sin) plays a huge role in justifying gayness as normal. But for those reasons, and because the supporting arguments involve bringing in belief systems and scientific uncertainty, we can never logically conclude the argument knowing what we know now. This is because we take certain things to be true, but we are not certain that they are true, and this make our arguments fallable and attackable. People can't prove each other wrong this way, because they're supporting arguments are not complete and perfect and certain, so they will argue and polarize the arguement endlessly.

Ok, a lot of that was complicated, and maybe some of it unnecessary. But, I think that trying to convince others of the whether or not homosexuality is a choice can be an impossible task. If people believe it to be wrong, then they can be kept from being swayed because the science behind this stuff is incomplete. If someone doesn't want to believe it, they can say that the science isn't proven and complete. Justifying that gayness is natural and not by choice would deal a huge blow to the right's argument, but because the science isn't solid, neither is the argument.

As a side note, with the environment thing you brought up, the environment does have a pretty early effect. In some study a while back, scientists used intelligence tests on children as they grew up, every few months I think, to see if race and nationality affects intelligence. The kids were all equal by race until age four, so the scientists posited that after age four, environment could help or harm how well you learn and your behavior. Of course, this study is also imperfect and inconclusive, because we can never be certain. It does imply, though, that it is still possible that young homosexuality was learned and chosen, not a natural thing.

This part of the argument is currently impossible to settle, because neither side is thorough or solid in their supporting arguments and the science behind them. Aside from whether or not it is natural/chosen for humans to be gay, the other big issue is religion and government. This is another can of worms to open, and I have to get back to work, so I'll post on this later :-).
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Church1ll on Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:53 pm

Since this argument started mostly due to the ban in California, I thought I'd look up an article about the gay rights activists' reaction to the ban. It was as I expected, although something in the article I did not expect. Read it and see if you can find it as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/10/gay.marriage.protests.ap/index.html

Now, I expected the activists to be outraged. Everyone does because their opinion was turned down. I'll go into what surprised me, but first I'd like to tell a little story about something that happened at my church (yes, I go once a year so I don't feel like a bastard).

Last year (according to my grandmother who is very religious and is involved with the church), a family moved into Egg Harbor City and they were very religious, following the word of the bible and disregarding all other laws that disagreed with their faith. They joined my church, the United Church of Christ (a Protestant church) and discovered several gays also attended. The family, or rather the heads of the family, tried to get them banned from the church. Now the gays did nothing wrong here. They did not flaunt their homosexuality in the church. But everyone that went to the church knew everyone else thus word got out. Many other churchgoers were confused by the family's actions while others praised them, and even the priest (and I would like to say he has got to be the reincarnation of John Lennon) wasn't entirely sure of what to do. Eventually several families left the church because they were sick of the fighting over a handful of people's sexuality. Finally, the churchgoers decided the family that started the whole mess would not be welcome in the church unless they ignored the fact that there were gays in the church. That family moved out of the city shortly after.

The reason I brought up that story is because there are some parallels to religious acceptance to gays in the article as well. There is even a pastor embarrassed by the lack of religious support for gay marriage. Also, the article shows evidence that churches in California will bless civil unions as if they were marriages.

Now, if even some religious leaders (I'm being very broad with that term) are alright with gays getting married, why can't everyone?
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:49 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html

I though it was a weird parallel that your article mentioned the church bringing this up. Although, it's not really fair as an argument, since it only happened one time, an isolated incident. As for the church issue you brought up, think of it this way. Under Biblical Christianity, being gay is a sin. So is being an alcoholic. So is lying, and stealing, and all the stuff that people mess up on. Sinners are the whole point of the church. Turning them away is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches, and turns the church into a useless building. Turning away gays is like turning away someone who curses for stubbing their toe or something. Anyone who wants to kick someone out of the church should be kicked out themselves. I could go on with the sinner thing, but the general idea is, no one gets turned away (unless they're screaming or being uncivil or something crazy). Just the fact that the pastor wasn't sure of what to do sounds disturbing from a religious standpoint.

The biggest thing to work out in this issue, is how religion plays a role in the legislation of marriage. If you strictly follow the Bible, it's not allowed, so Christians who endorse it are straying from the Bible quite a lot. The Bible is really clear in how it defines marriage, so redefining it is definitely a departure from what the Bible teaches. Granted, most people have no problem with this, and inevitably, people will allow equality, freedom, and separation of church and state to override the traditions in the Bible. However, many Christians, pastors, etc do not want to see Biblical principles expelled from our government for the sake of equality, because they believe Biblical principles are infallible. True Christians follow the whole Bible, and don't ignore parts of it that don't fit our modern society. From a non-religious standpoint, the Bible is only an obstacle to true freedom and equality, and breaking it into what's convenient and inconvenient to believe is inevitable as people drift away from religion.

A lot of this post is about religion, and it may be the cause of lots of problems and not be valid to you guys, but to many people, it is hugely valid. Their viewpoint is important to this, because they also have a vote, like in California. No logic concerning separation of church and state is going to convince a Bible-believing Christian that the Bible has no place in our laws, because to them, the Bible is perfect as a standard of living. From the view of the Bible, people who drift from what it teaches (all of it, including parts they don't like) put their stand with God in jeopardy. This sounds foolish to you guys, but there are a lot of people out there who hold this view, and won't be swayed by other arguments that contradict the Bible. Gay marriage will almost certainly be law eventually, but people and politicians must start drifting from the Bible first. That's already happening a lot, obviously, so it's only a matter of time.
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Church1ll on Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:03 am

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653?gt1=43002

I took the above article with a truckload of salt, particularly because of how many people interpret the Bible as stating marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the key word in that statement is interpret. Stick with me on this.

After reading the article I asked a couple friends for their Bibles (me, reading a Bible? The sky must be falling and the seas filling with blood), followed by a quick search on the internet for the stories that had anything to do with marriage. What I found actually surprised me. Not one story in the Bible that mentions marriage explicitly states or even implies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Also, I noticed that like the article says some of the Biblical characters, as in the main characters of the stories that were considered holy or whatever, are polygamists, adulterers, and/or practicing pre-marital sex, all things many religious people consider against the Bible.

Now I'm going to go back to a previous argument. Laws are essentially made to appease the majority. The majority does not practice gay marriage, and as such see it as different. Many people (as mentioned in my Sheeple post) do not take kindly to uniqueness, difference, change. As such, they condemn it and find some way to make their claims valid. Enter religion, where everything is up to interpretation. Now, remember how I said major Biblical characters were polygamists and whatnot? Those stories are not told word-for-word but rather how they've been interpreted. Same is true for marriage.

It really all comes down to what the majority wants and sees as "normal."
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:36 am

I also don't know of any Bible verses that explicitly ban gay marriage. However, there are many verses stating that homosexuality is a sin and defining what marriage is. For example:

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:4-6 (NIV, Jesus' words here)
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I only gave two examples, but finding good examples online is kind of time consuming, and I've only used New Testament verses, since the Old Testament is largely ignored because it condones slavery and stoning and there is now a new covenant etc. In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. It never accepts it as the norm and especially never states that men and men or women and women can be married. Its only examples of marriage are heterosexual. Explicitly prohibiting gay marriage would be like stating a man and an animal or a man and a rock can't be married: it's redundant because it's common sense to everyone reading it when it was written. If marriage goes beyond heterosexality, it no longer has any Biblical basis. The Bible might not ban it, but the fact that it does not include it in the definition of marriage means that, well, it isn't included.

That's a pretty nitpicky point, but the point is that Christians consider gayness a sin before God. Plain and simple. If you want to find it in the Bible with me, I'm sure we can find it. If gayness is a sin, then gay marriage is out of the question, just like marrying an animal, since the Bible prohibits bestiality. Like I've said previously, gayness does not mean you're doomed to hell: you can confess and repent and turn from your sin, according to the Bible, and believe the gospel,and be saved from hell, just like a liar or a scam artist or a murderer or an adulterer or any other sinner. There are technicalities to argue and sort out, though, such as the Bible's view on polygamy, whether to literally interpret verses, the fact that not all New Testament verses are taken literally, etc.

If you want to justify gay marriage from a Biblical view, the only way is to interpret it more loosely: "Homosexuality is a sin in all these verses, but we ignore other inconvenient verses, so let's accept it." (http://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.html) "The Bible isn't supposed to be read literally, and many traditions aren't set in stone, so we can change some of the more archaic ones." Just a few arguments, but the fact that the Bible is interpreted in different ways by different people means that the literal meaning of verses that condemn gayness and state marriage is between man and woman will eventually join the list of verses that people see as irrelevant and merely tradition (see above link). I got some work to do, so feel free to build on the debate :-)
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Church1ll on Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:02 pm

Ah, did not read those verses. I should probably have thoroughly read through the entirety of the Bible to find everything.
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Gustavus_Adolfus on Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:26 pm

I'm actually surprised that the word homosexual was used that long ago.
avatar
Gustavus_Adolfus
Admin

Posts : 78
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : South Jersey Shore

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:35 pm

http://www.biblegateway.com/

I found those verses pretty quickly by searching "homosexuality" and "male", then I paged through the results til I reached the New Testament books. Also, the verses are in the NIV version, so you probably wouldn't find homosexuality in the King James version and other older versions.
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Gustavus_Adolfus on Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:40 am

i figured....but the same guidelines i assume, like an older word for "gay"
avatar
Gustavus_Adolfus
Admin

Posts : 78
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : South Jersey Shore

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Church1ll on Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:40 am

I thought I'd come back to this mostly because of a rather interesting conversation I heard between my father and grandmother. It doesn't really have to do with gay marriage, but gays in general. Now, before I go into this, I didn't exactly reread any of the posts so I may just be repeating things I've said or things anyone else has already said. Also, to get this out of the way, my grandmother is ridiculously religious while my father is more like myself but not to the point of having atheistic/agnostic views.

So, the discussion came about when a news story popped up describing a gay man being killed presumably because he was gay. My father stated that he was disgusted by the fact that people get killed over their sexuality, and proceeded to state that this wouldn't happen if people didn't distort religion. My grandmother overheard this and quickly stated that the world would be far worse if religion didn't exist (which isn't what my father had said, but whatever) and then went on to explain that the Bible does state that marriage is between man and woman and all that (again, not what my father had said). My father then responded (and essentially ignored the gay marriage statement) by simply stating a simple truth: no one knows if you are born gay or if you choose to be gay. From there he questioned why religion considers it a sin if no one can truthfully figure that out. He also went on to clarify his distortion comment, mentioning examples such as jihadists, the Crusades, and the Holocaust as ways religion had been distorted over the years. My grandmother simply agreed (though obviously reluctantly) that religion has been a major source of far too many world problems (referring to more than just the examples my father gave), and that people who take religion far too literally or create interpretations that aren't there cause more problems than should exist. She then reiterated her Bible statement about marriage between man and woman, but then added in (I'll never forget this) "...but Jesus loved everyone, regardless of their race, sexuality, whether or not he/she was a sinner, or even their religion, so I don't understand how anyone can call themselves a Catholic or a Christian if he or she feels that gays are not allowed to worship in a church or be a part of a sacred ceremony even if the Bible states otherwise because Jesus himself viewed everyone as equal. In fact we lost half our congregation because our church allows gays to attend services and these people simply would not have it."

Now, obviously that little bit she added in didn't really have to do with marriage (she never did mention "marriage" in there), but I found it interesting nonetheless to post it anyway. And sorry if I went in circles.
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gay Marriage Debate

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum