Conform to Biblical Principles Regarding Marriage

[mattskramer]

Because it's vile, deviant behavior and a huge majority of the nation are opposed to it. That's good enough reason for me, AND those in the majority, and any debate against that reasoning is a futile effort.

I've already gone over these issues many tines. "Vile" is subjective. I find smoking to be vile. Let us outlaw it.

Something is "deviant" when it differs from the norm. Someone may like to wear a swimsuit in winter or a coat in summer. This activity is not the norm. Should it continue to be permitted. For a long time, slavery was the norm. Should we return to it?

The majority has been wrong before. It even used to think that people of different religious faiths should not be allowed to get married.

There is no sound and logical argument against homosexual marriage. It all comes down to an emotional reaction such as: "Ewwww. Yuck. We can't allow that".

 

[Moi]

Because it's vile, deviant behavior and a huge majority of the nation are opposed to it. That's good enough reason for me, AND those in the majority, and any debate against that reasoning is a futile effort.

I've already gone over these issues many tines. "Vile" is subjective. I find smoking to be vile. Let us outlaw it.

Something is "deviant" when it differs from the norm. Someone may like to wear a swimsuit in winter or a coat in summer.
This activity is not the norm. Should it continue to be permitted. For a long time, slavery was the norm. Should we return to it?
The majority has been wrong before. It even used to think that people of different religious faiths should not be allowed to get married.
There is no sound and logical argument against homosexual marriage.
It all comes down to an emotional reaction such as: "Ewwww. Yuck. We can't allow that".

And, luckily, there doesn't need to be. As long as it's constitutional, which it clearly is, there's no reason we can't allow it for the "ewwww yuck" factor!

Oh, and by the way, no one could possibly mistake outlawing gay marriage for outlawing gays so your analogies do NOT apply.

 

[jimnyc]

I've already gone over these issues many tines. "Vile" is subjective. I find smoking to be vile. Let us outlaw it.

Something is "deviant" when it differs from the norm. Someone may like to wear a swimsuit in winter or a coat in summer.
This activity is not the norm. Should it continue to be permitted. For a long time, slavery was the norm. Should we return to it?
The majority has been wrong before. It even used to think that people of different religious faiths should not be allowed to get married.
There is no sound and logical argument against homosexual marriage.
It all comes down to an emotional reaction such as: "Ewwww. Yuck. We can't allow that".

Yes, you have went over your OPINION many times. No one was swayed before, what makes you think that will change this time around? You have your belief and others have theirs. Your take on the issue isn't going to change my mind, but I won't speak for anyone else.

I want no part of homosexual marriage in the society I live in. If it's ultimately allowed, so be it. But until then I will speak against it and vote against it in the blink of an eye if given an opportunity. I believe my beliefs/arguments are quite sound, and don't need to convince you in any way shape or form to have my vote counted when the time comes, nor do the rest of the majority.

You call it an emotional reaction, I call it a common sense reaction. You vote whichever way you like, but you're wrong for putting down others for having different beliefs and stances.

Bottom line, your take is based on your beliefs, and others are basing on their beliefs. Trying to convince one another otherwise is a futile effort.

 

[Hobbit]

I take the Bible in context and apply it to everything I do, including how I vote. I do however, remember that the Bible cannot be forced on anyone, as it goes against the teachings of Jesus and the Constitution, so I show some discretion when the ideas of religious freedom and conforming to God's will clash. I'd oppose a law requiring everyone to attend a religious service once a week, but I'd support a law banning remarriage after divorce except in cases of sexual immorality.

 

[mattskramer]

And, luckily, there doesn't need to be. As long as it's constitutional, which it clearly is, there's no reason we can't allow it for the "ewwww yuck" factor!

Yes. I think that many people's votes are based on subjective emotion.

Oh, and by the way, no one could possibly mistake outlawing gay marriage for outlawing gays so your analogies do NOT apply.

Gay marriage is legal in some areas until it is challenged. My analogies, though not perfect, are sufficient.

 

[Hobbit]

If Jews want to follow that, that's great. But it's nothing I want codified into law....I don't want to see this codified into law either, but it is a principle that Christians should live by.

Okay. Great. I just wanted to see if you would codify the Bible's position on marriage into law. Since you would no do so, in invalidates the argument that we should define marriage (and apply rules and regulation to it) based on the Bible. Now that we have removed the Bible as a reason to not allow homosexual marriage, would anyone like to try to apply any other reason?

Well, let's find some objective, secular reasons to oppose it. First, the majority doesn't want it, which is typically enough in a democratic society. Second, it promotes instability, as homosexuals are more likely to cheat (even in Amsterdam, where gay marriage is legal and nobody finds anything wrong with it). Third, it's dangerous for children in these households, since studies have shown that children who do not grow up with both a strong father and mother figure in their lives suffer a variety of emotional problems later on, dependant on their gender and which parent they did have.

 

[Moi]

Gay marriage is legal in some areas until it is challenged. My analogies, though not perfect, are sufficient.[B/]

Noooooo...if you outlaw smoking, in its entirety because you don't like smoking is one thing. But smoking is currently outlawed in public places such as theatres, restaurants, athletic stadium. It's still allowed in the privacy of one's home.

Outlawing gay marriage is NOT the same as outlawing homosexual behavior. They are still allowed to engage in homosexual behavior in the privacy of their home.

So, you see, there is a difference between allowing a behavior in private and sanctioning such behavior in the public venues.

 

[mattskramer]

Outlawing gay marriage is NOT the same as outlawing homosexual behavior. They are still allowed to engage in homosexual behavior in the privacy of their home.

So, you see, there is a difference between allowing a behavior in private and sanctioning such behavior in the public venues.

I suppose that you are not allowed to have a carton of cigarettes in your shirt pocket or mention that you smoke. Likewise, if gay marriage is allowed, perhaps we should not allow the gay couple to carry their marriage license or mention that they got married. The issues are very parallel for debate. By the way, the government still subsidizes tobacco farmers even though the smoking of cigarettes is outlawed in some buildings. Also, as I said, smoking is allowed outside for the public to see and you indirectly support it with your tax money.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, let's find some objective, secular reasons to oppose it.

Wow! Are you new here? I've soundly refuted every argument against it that I can imagine (though some people simply say that my rebuttals are silly).

First, the majority doesn't want it, which is typically enough in a democratic society.

Yes. The majority has been wrong before.

Second, it promotes instability, as homosexuals are more likely to cheat (even in Amsterdam, where gay marriage is legal and nobody finds anything wrong with it).

It assumes facts not in evidence. Where are your statistics and references? Without such, it may be reasoned that homosexual marriage encourages stability via commitment. Are marred heterosexuals more stable and less likely to cheat than are unmarried heterosexuals who have merely said that they will remain faithful? Unless and until I see some research, statistics, and references, I disagree with your second argument.

Third, it's dangerous for children in these households, since studies have shown that children who do not grow up with both a strong father and mother figure in their lives suffer a variety of emotional problems later on, dependant on their gender and which parent they did have.

Give me some hard statistics and references. Do you mean that parents in dysfunctional, violent, and abusive marriages should never get divorced. What if the child had 2 parents (who happened to be of the same sex) - Is simply having 2 parents better than having 1? Could it be that the children of single parent households suffer because of the relative poverty associated with single parent households and/or the pains of divorce that result in a single-parent household.

As for the little research done on children of homosexual parents, could the difficulty that the children might have faced be due to societal discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry more so than any deficiency the homosexual parents might have? "Half-breeds" (Children born to parents of different races) faced many difficulties long ago before societal attitudes changed. Given the chance, and given time, children from homosexual families may thrive just as well as children from heterosexual families once the prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry is reduced.

I know that my reply briefly covers many variables and possibilities. Your third argument, in and of itself, does not account for such variables. It leaves many questions and possibilities uncontrolled and unaccounted for. In your next comment concerning your third argument, please be specific, thorough, and give references.

 

[Hobbit]

Outlawing gay marriage is NOT the same as outlawing homosexual behavior. They are still allowed to engage in homosexual behavior in the privacy of their home.

So, you see, there is a difference between allowing a behavior in private and sanctioning such behavior in the public venues.

I suppose that you are not allowed to have a carton of cigarettes in your shirt pocket or mention that you smoke. Likewise, if gay marriage is allowed, perhaps we should not allow the gay couple to carry their marriage license or mention that they got married. The issues are very parallel for debate. By the way, the government still subsidizes tobacco farmers even though the smoking of cigarettes is outlawed in some buildings. Also, as I said, smoking is allowed outside for the public to see and you indirectly support it with your tax money.

Bad, deviant, socially detrimental behavior cannot be justified by pointing to other bad behaviors. The only reason tobacco is legal is because it has the power of momentum. It was popular long before it was found to be harmful. Outlawing tobacco would leave thousands of addicts shells of their former selves and would devastate the economy overnight, which is the only reason its legal. Gay marriage is something we have to ability to stop now, before the its harmful effects set in and it becomes impossible to ban, and so we should, rather than simply 'let it slide' because something else bad has happened. Slavery took a war to eliminate in the south, since it had set into the economy so much, but torture has never been legal in the U.S., and so always shall. Now take your self-righteous, holier-than-thou, demeaning, ultra-lib agenda and go spout it off at somebody who cares. Oh, and while you're at it, look at the second line of my sig.

:bat:

 

[popefumanchu]

The most basic non-religious argument against homo marriage is a basic change of definition. Marriage is and always has been, in our society, defined as one man and one woman vowing to be joined as one entity. Changing the definition makes the definition meaningless. If we decide to make the definition of "dog" include cats or zebras then the word "dog" becomes meaningless. Hence, "marriage" between two men or two women makes the definition flexible and, therefore, meaningless.
The main problem is the courts. Instead of common sense and the word of the law, judges study theory and precedent. They now feel that they can create law by edict. If gay marriage is permitted, poligamy, incestuous, and interspecies marriages must logically be permitted. If the definition is changed, where does it stop?

 

[mattskramer]

Bad, deviant, socially detrimental behavior cannot be justified by pointing to other bad behaviors.

First of all, let us clarify the issue - is it homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage. I am not justifying bad, deviant socially detrimental behavior. First of all it has not been established that homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage is bad. Secondly, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. People should also be forced to accept the consequences for their behavior. A married homosexual couple three miles down the street is no more bad for you than is a smoker a three miles down the street.

The only reason tobacco is legal is because it has the power of momentum.

There is power of momentum with regard to homosexual marriage, though it may not be as big and as popular as tobacco.

It was popular long before it was found to be harmful.

So. It is harmful and it is still popular.

Outlawing tobacco would leave thousands of addicts shells of their former selves and would devastate the economy overnight, which is the only reason its legal.

No - on three counts:

First: There is such a thing as individual responsibility. People who are not allowed to smoke with go through an uncomfortable withdrawal but the withdrawal pains will go away. If sodomy is outlawed nation-wide, those addicted to sodomy will go through withdrawal. If homosexuals receive the "Marriage Protection" laws. They will also go through a type of withdraw.

Second - Okay. Now you are arguing that economic benefits outweigh health concerns. Let us them legalize and tax prostitution and gambling on a nationwide scale. That should really boost the economy.

Third - There are other reasons for why tobacco is legal. There are two phrases you should know: "Special Interest Groups" and "Political Action Committee". One way or another, politicians are bribed. Organizations and groups try to get politicians to vote "Yes" for things that they want a "Yes" vote. These attempts often involve the giving of gifts, money, or other favors. With regard to gay marriage, the special interest group is groups of gay couples who want the benefits of gay marriage and/or recognition of their unions as a marriages. Concerning tobacco, the special interest group is tobacco growers.

Gay marriage is something we have to ability to stop now, before the its harmful effects set in and it becomes impossible to ban, and so we should, rather than simply 'let it slide' because something else bad has happened.

You assume that gay marriage will have harmful effects and that it will become impossible to ban. I disagree with your assumption. Gay marriage, in and of itself, will not harm anyone. Tobacco is something we have the ability to stop.

 

[mattskramer]

The most basic non-religious argument against homo marriage is a basic change of definition. Marriage is and always has been, in our society, defined as one man and one woman vowing to be joined as one entity. Changing the definition makes the definition meaningless.

Blacks were defined as being less than human. Marriage used to be defined as being even more restrictive - if not according to Daniel Webster than in the minds of most people. It used to be understood that marriage was just for people of the same race and of the same religious persuasion. It was also defined strictly by purpose. Marriage was only for the raising of children. Reasoning and understandings grow and improve. Along with it, definitions change.

 

[popefumanchu]

Blacks were defined as being less than human. Marriage used to be defined as being even more restrictive - if not according to Daniel Webster than in the minds of most people. It used to be understood that marriage was just for people of the same race and of the same religious persuasion. It was also defined strictly by purpose. Marriage was only for the raising of children. Reasoning and understandings grow and improve. Along with it, definitions change.

Different races are still humans and have genders. Homosexuality is a abnormal mental state and behavior. Most of this need for homosexuals to marry is to normalize thier behavior. Belief that differences in pigmentation make one inferior is irrational. Belief that abnormal behavior should not be normalized is just truth. Psychosis, pedophilia, mania, and depression are other examples of disfunction and are accepted as something that one should address and control.
Homosexuality is a disfunction and can be controlled. It doesn't make one wrong unless on acts upon it. Normalizing it can only lead to the detriment of society. Would you like your children to be taught about all of the "options" there are out there for them?

 

[5stringJeff]

Matt, first, comparing homosexuality to race is ridiculous. Race is a genetically determined trait, and unless you are Michael Jackson, you have no way of changing it. Homosexuality is a behavior that people choose to participate in. There are thousands of examples of people who choose to begin participating in homosexual activity each year - and thousands to choose to cease such behavior.
Second, though you claim to have rebutted all arguments against homosexual "marriage," you have not addressed the point I brought up here about the family being the foundational unit of any society.
Third, I will find the links to the studies about homosexual parents. Give me a few though because I'm at work.
Fourth, you stated that because I don't want to codify a certain Biblical principle into law, that we should invalidate all Biblical principles as irrelevant. I disagree. As I said before, I think the principle of no-fault divorce is responsible for many of the failed marriages we see today; many people rush out to get married because they know that they can get a divorce with ease. I think the principle that divorce should be rare is a good one for society to follow, even though I disagree that the Biblical precept be codified. This may come as a surprise to you, but Christians do not want to create a theocracy in America. Very few people would actually recommend that the New Testament be written into our laws.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I have a little bit more time today than I did yesterday to be on the net. I took the time to write what the website propositioned as amendments based off of the bible considering there seems to problems with my links.


Amendment XXVIII
No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.

Amendment XXIX
No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).

Amendment XXX
No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law-see amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15).

Amendment XXXI
No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27).

Amendment XXXII
No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

Amendment XXXIII
No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28).

Amendment XXXIV
No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother’s widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Amendment XXXV
No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Eshesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossionas 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).

Amendment XXXVII
No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman’s menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman’s period of uncleanness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6).

Amendment XXXVIII
No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14).

Amendment XXXIX
No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Amendment XXXX
No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).

 

[5stringJeff]

Starla i responded, amendment by amendment, in post #15 of this thread. Bottom of page 1 if your options are on thread default.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

This was just for everyone else, I saw yours. I guess the link wasn't working right so people coudln't see what I was talking about. This is just to make it easier to see what I was referring to and stuff.

 

[Hobbit]

I have a little bit more time today than I did yesterday to be on the net. I took the time to write what the website propositioned as amendments based off of the bible considering there seems to problems with my links.


Amendment XXVIII
No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.

Amendment XXIX
No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).

Amendment XXX
No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law-see amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15).

Amendment XXXI
No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27).

Amendment XXXII
No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

Amendment XXXIII
No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28).

Amendment XXXIV
No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother’s widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Amendment XXXV
No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Eshesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossionas 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).

Amendment XXXVII
No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman’s menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman’s period of uncleanness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6).

Amendment XXXVIII
No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14).

Amendment XXXIX
No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Amendment XXXX
No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).

Whoever came up with that is a zealot and a nut. The verses they give don't justify the laws, especially when you consider most of those are OT Mosaic law. Also, I don't think things like these should be amendments. The only reason we're considering amendments is because judges are defying the law and legislating from the bench. We need to impeach the judges and make things like these laws.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

But these articles are in the bible and are to be followed to the best of someone's capabilities if they are of Christian/Catholic faith correct? I'm trying to understand, not incite a debate.