Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BigWill, Jan 12, 2010.
By homosexuality, do you mean the preference or the activity? If you mean the preference, then I honestly have no idea. If you mean the act, then yes, it is a choice.
Coel - do you have any other reason for why you believe marriage needs to be limited other than that homosexual acts are against your personal religion?
Please let me state that I know you aren't going to agree with what I write, but I want to explain something about Christianity. Christians don't believe Christianity is a 'personal religious belief.' Christianity is the worship of the God who made all things. Christians don't believe Jesus is the Saviour just for those who believe in Him, but rather He is the Saviour of the world. There is only One True Living God, and He is the one that Christians worship. He holds all things and all people in His hands whether they believe in Him or not.
As such, to varying degrees, Christians work to bring our world in line with God's Kingdom. We indeed pray on a regular basis that not our will be done, but 'Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'
That means that the mercy, truth, love, and morality of heaven would be manifested on earth in us and in our communities. It is the 'job' of Christians to work to change the world.
This is why when you and I talk about this, I attempt to approach it from a view of what God has revealed. It is why divorce and unfaithfulness in marriage as God defines it disturbs me and concerns me more than gay marriage. Heterosexual divorce and heterosexual sexual sin is more common than gay sexual sin. It doesn't mean one is sin and one isn't, it is just a matter of which seems to be more urgent. To me it would be strengthening existing marriages and ensuring couples getting married have good premarital counseling.
Shall drinkers not be allowed to marry?
This could drive a husband to drink.
There is one problem with what your grandmother said. It is not in the Bible. In fact, one need look to further than the geneology of Jesus to see that his 'line' wasn't 'pure.' Jesus has foreigners in his own geneology. So as much as your grandmother may have believed that, and I imagine she was even taught that at her church, or at least it was the prevailing thought there, it wasn't really Biblical.
Jesus is also clear that the proper place for sexual relations is between one man and one woman in a marriage.
Also, for those who believe that gay marriage should exist and be legal, I would say that is because of their foundational beliefs as individuals as well. Many believe that two people who love each other ought to be able to enter into a civilly recognised union called marriage, regardless of gender. (I am attempting to accurately portray those who are for gay marriage.) They do so because they hold a foundamental belief that there is nothing sinful about such a relationaship and that our government ought to acknowledge their relationships as a public good. As many here know, I would put forth that this is a religiously held belief. Those who hold this view either believe there is no god, or believe that Jesus and the Bible are wrong on this matter. (I would never go so far as to say these people are NOT Christian. I know there are those who not only claim to be Christians, but are Christians who advocate for gay marriage.) They then, have a religious motivation for their advocacy.
There are those who so worship liberty, that they see this gay marriage as holding with their basic beliefs in liberty. (Honestly, I can't see why any libetarian would NOT be for gay marriage).
We all live and act out of beliefs and values that we hold foundational. We also, clearly disagree on what truth is, and how we know what is true. Which is the foundational question/crisis/problem in our post modern world. It all goes back to a crisis in epistemology.
Coel - before I get back to answering some of your other points, you do realize the Court has defined the right to marry as a "fundamental right", correct? according to all your posts on here, that would take it out of the hands of public will.
also, are you aware of the Court's levels of scrutiny - rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny? which of them, if any, apply in this case?
24 is on.
I'll get back to you tomorrow.
So, "scoreboard" argument?
I must agree, the courts have not yet established a body of findings that would practically confirm the matter protected by the constitution.
So we are arguing now religious views, what the court says, and what it ought to say.
It seems clear the court is able to, has the power and authority to, recognize and protect gay marriage at some point. Many believe strongly, on either side, whether they should do so. Yet this will of the people is not the proper basis for their ongoing determinations.
Perhaps this is really a future forecasting argument. The courts will recognize the right in the future. And our grandchildren will hold us to be intolerant bigots. Future scoreboard, I suppose.
Im one conservative that could care less if gays are allowed to marry in the eyes of the state. I dont see how that diminishes holy matrimony one iota.
BTW- I'n my circle of friends and acquaintances, I know more liberals against gay marriage than conservatives. I think that might be because most people I know that are considered "conservative" are actually libertarian.
I guess Jesus is just a bigot then. He was as clear as can be about how marriage is defined. This is not some subtle take a passage out of context Biblical issue. For those Christians who like to say, 'that is just the Old Testament' or 'That is just Paul being Paul.' That argument doesn't even make sense in this instance.
Also, if standing with the clear teaching of Jesus means I am a bigot. Proud bigot here.
No one is asking you to believe differently THEU, but can't you accept the fact that not everyone believes as you do? Should there not be more than your religious belief for a law to remain law?
I have tried to state as much as you just said here. I have openly said that there are fine lines to draw between what is civil law and what is religious belief. I do NOT believe that every law should necessarily reflect Christian religious belief.
I guess my last response is a pretty emotional one to be called a 'bigot' for following what Jesus clearly says. I have stated on here before that I would rather the state just offer civil unions and NO marriages, and leave marriage to religous institutions/religions.
I have already stated while I believe there is equal protection under the law. I don't believe current marriage law is prejudiced, and based on that Prop 8 can stand as passed.
I just don't see a need for there to be a religious belief either for against this law. The law is legal per the Constitution as I read it.
Also, we legislate morality. The question is upon what grounds? I would very broadly say whatever the majority agrees upon that doesn't persecute the minority. That is poor wording I realise, but as long as the rights of the minority are protected then the will of the majority rules in a republic.
That doesn't make the law 'right' or the majority correct. It is just the way the law works.
For instance. Abortion is legal. The majority of Americans, and American politicians are pro choice, and thus have never been able to get the votes to ban abortion.
Was abortion 'wrong' pre Roe v. Wade, and then 'right' afterwards? No. You can't really say either. Abortion was illegal, then legal, based on judicial rulings and the will of the majority. Personally, if you want to talk about the minority not being protected, abortion is it... 1 out of 1 murdered when abortion is 'successful.' Nice. (of course I am coming from ONE persepective, but hopefully, I have outlined how the morality of the issue is independant from the legality of it)