How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

Sera,


I didn't bring religion into this discussion; I've only replied to others who've tried to draft Jesus into the "gay rights" movement.

 

ya...thread's getting pretty damn long. I wasn't directing my statement directly at you, though. Just a general statement about the whole issue.

 

Huck,

quick questions: you say that there isn't any proof that homosexuality is inborn right. is there any proof that heterosexuality is inborn. I mean wouldn't the laws suggest at some point if you can't prove one how can you prove the other. I suppose your arguement would be that two men can't procreate right? I'm not trying to argue at this point, I'm honestly trying to figure out what you mean. Second question, how the hell do you prove the "rightness" of anything. That is completely subjective. What if you are a Zen Buddhist and you don't believe in the terms "right" and "wrong". There is no such thing as "rightness" of something, unless of course you bring one's personal beliefs into it, which this still has nothing to do with. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by rightness.

 

You've argued that gay "marriage" should be legally recognized because some people are allegedly born with homosexual desires. I've argued that the origins of homosexual desires are irrelevant to the public policy debate over the legal definition of marriage, and I've offered plenty of support for my belief that revising it to include same-sex "partners" would not have a positive impact on society.

 

I think oppression and lack of civil liberties (in this case, not allowing same sex partners the same rights as married couples) has a much more negative effect on society than same sex partnerships.

 

So are you saying that you can't prove that we are born straight or gay? Because that would in fact prove my point, that regardless of who you are when you are born, being black, white, green with pink dots, or gay, you have the same rights in America as everyone else. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. This isn't about the legal definition of marriage, which I believe I addressed in my first response to this thread because marriage has to do with the church, not to do with rights and taxes. And you provided information that it has proven to have a negative impact on other societies, not ours. Not to mention other influences in those societies. I don't see how it will harm our society, in THIS country. It doesn't really matter though, because like I've already posted, evenutally it will happen. Just like giving equal rights to non land owners, women and non whites. And just like now in history we wonder what the hell were our forefathers thinking, not allowing these people rights. My children will be sitting there shaking thier head wondering the same about you, just like I am. Its all good though Huck, I'm sick of this thread.

 

Ok this is a long thread. I only read 10% of the the posts. Me being a christian i do not believe the religious right should impose there doctrine on the people as a whole. We are people of many believes. I believe that if a gay couple wants to get married they should have the legal right. If you want to condemn gay marriage keep it in the church, but it has no place in goverment policies in this day and age.

 

I just learned that this summer the state of Virginia has PASSED a law banning any contract between two people that specifies things such as next of kin! Now not only can we not get married, or "civil union'd," We get ABSOLUTELY no protection under the law.

...and our state motto,Virginia Is For Lovers!

 

My stepfather has extreme-right views on gay marriage..ie it will cause a breakdown in society, destroy the "sanctity of marriage." He's been married four times. I think that is a wonderful example of how to UPHOLD the sanctity of marriage...who agrees?

 

sugmag. people like that are walking hippocrites, yet LOVE to condemn others.

I never said it was "condoned" I said there is NOTHING in the RED WORDS (the actual words of Our Lord) that condemns homosexuality. The red words are what I try to believe. Not all the crap which came later and warped what the Man had to say.

 

First, why should you believe the "red words" if you reject the divine inspiration of Scripture? Second, what makes you so sure the rest of the New Testament came later? Many of Paul's letters were likely written before John or the Acts of the Apostles. Luke (whose Gospel includes many "red words") clearly affirms the apostolic authority of Paul. There is no hint of any dissention in the early Church on the issue of homosexuality. What evidence do you have that Jesus differed with all of his disciples on the this point? Keep in mind that he was a 1st century Jew, and he often condemned sexual immorality, which would have been universally understood by his audience to include homosexuality.

 

There are no SPECIFICS in the red words. I beleive what I choose to believe, just like ALL "caferteria christains" who pick around in Leviticus and Deuterotomy do.

If it was a big deal (homosexuality) to the Man, he would have said something about it, and it would NOT have been left out. I don't care what "other jews" or "th early Christians" were saying at the time (BTW, "early Christians had no problem with abortion before the 16th or 18th week or so, and Jesus said nothing about that, either.) They OKed money changing in the Temple and Not working on the Sabbath. The Man didn't. If HE had had problems with gays, it would have been said and recorded. Deal with it.

 

Divorce harms the sanctity of marriage more than homo/bi-sexual marriage does.

 

The New Testament specifically teaches that the ceremonial laws of Moses have been superceded, but it clearly affirms the moral code. Homosexuality was not a ceremonial taboo that required ritual cleansing; it was punishable by death.

First, you're wrong about abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/earlychurchfathers/fatherscover.html

Second, as I said before, Jesus often condemned sexual immorality in general terms. He didn't specifically mention homosexuality, incest, or bestiality, but the word he used ("porneia") was universally understood at the time to include all of these practices. Given that he made a point of challenging erroneous religious teachings by his contemporaries, why would he not have corrected them on this crucial point? Whenever he spoke of marriage, he consistently invoked the male-female union of Gen. 1 & 2 as the basis for his teaching.

 

I don't think "marriage" in general needs to be strengthened.
traditional marriage is not important at all. If that's what you're into, then that's cool, but it's not universally important.

 

The truth lies, not in the teachings of a book, be it the Bible, the Koran, or what-have-you, but in what you are told from within.

 

It looks like Measure 36 has passed in Oregon, despite massive out-of-state spending by gay "right" groups.

 

Same sex couples should get every benefit a hetero couple get, and it should be protected by law. Any less is discrimination based on opinions that it is sinful, which it is not, and I believe it is a form of punishment to not include them. Mind your own business, and honestly, it does not do f all to harm marriage. It wont harm mine.... how could it?

 

You're one to talk about "hippocrites".

 

How? I'm not sure that there will be any benefit to society as a whole if same-sex marriage is legalized. Furthermore, I don't consider non-recognition of a lifestyle choice to be "oppressive". This notion, unfortunately, is one that is often distorted by proponents of certain issues in order to push their agenda. Sorry, but homosexuals not being legally permitted to marry is not the same as enslaving a whole race of people.