The Ten Commandments and homosexuality

[CockySOB]

You must be new. I’ve gone over this many times. I think that if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage, it should equally recognize homosexual marriage. At the very least, I support “Civil Unions”. I’ve gone over the arguments that people post opposing such a thing. All things considered, I think that the good of civil unions would outweigh the bad, if only by a tiny bit.

You failed to answer the question. Do you think the Federal government should have authority over the individual states with regards to the issuance of marriage licenses? (If you've already covered this, please post a URL/link and I'll read your posts.)

I understand if you are scared to answer the question I posed to you, after all, it is a Catch-22 for you. Either you put yourself in the camp who want to move marriage licenses from the state authority to the federal, or you back down and accept the status quo (being the states themselves have the authority to issues marriage licenses).

For the record Matt, I favor leaving the decision to the individual states to determine how they wish to issue marriage licenses. For me, the matter is a states' rights issue. I don't even care if a state like Mass. wants to call it "marriage" or "civil union" because that's up to the elected representatives of that state. Likewise, if a state passes a ban on homosexual civil union/marriage, they have that right. Doing so also restricts the full faith & credit clause of the US Constitution within the jurisdiction of that state. But action at the Federal level, whether to ban homosexual civil unions/marriages, or to try to force states to allow it against the wishes of the idividual state's wishes is un-Constitutional.

 

[Rico]

I don't think it's right for homosexuals to expect Christians to modify their religion to accomodate them. If you were unfortunate enough to be born homosexual, find another religion or practice none at all, because you're unworthy to worship Christ if you choose to follow your God-given orientation and live a homosexual lifestyle.

BINGO!!!!

 

[Joz]

I don't think it's right for homosexuals to expect Christians to modify their religion to accomodate them.

You are correct. Any church or religion that does not practice, or changes their doctrine from what the Bible instructs is an apostasy or apostasizes itself or whatever form of the word that does here.

If you were unfortunate enough to be born homosexual, find another religion or practice none at all, because you're unworthy to worship Christ if you choose to follow your God-given orientation and live a homosexual lifestyle.

With this kind of thinking we are all doomed. We are not suppose to wait until we think we are 'good enough' to come to Christ, 'cause that will never be. Romans 3: 23, All have sinned...... 1st John 1:8, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.......
God calls us to repentance, we cannot do this on our own. But it is our choice whether we will heed it or not.
Repentance is a deep sorrow for sin & the turning away from it, evidence of a changed life. There are many that are sorry for sin because of the consequences, not because of the sin itself.

 

[mattskramer]

You failed to answer the question. Do you think the Federal government should have authority over the individual states with regards to the issuance of marriage licenses? (If you've already covered this, please post a URL/link and I'll read your posts.)

I understand if you are scared to answer the question I posed to you, after all, it is a Catch-22 for you. Either you put yourself in the camp who want to move marriage licenses from the state authority to the federal, or you back down and accept the status quo (being the states themselves have the authority to issues marriage licenses).

For the record Matt, I favor leaving the decision to the individual states to determine how they wish to issue marriage licenses. For me, the matter is a states' rights issue. I don't even care if a state like Mass. wants to call it "marriage" or "civil union" because that's up to the elected representatives of that state. Likewise, if a state passes a ban on homosexual civil union/marriage, they have that right. Doing so also restricts the full faith & credit clause of the US Constitution within the jurisdiction of that state. But action at the Federal level, whether to ban homosexual civil unions/marriages, or to try to force states to allow it against the wishes of the idividual state's wishes is un-Constitutional.

Please don’t assume. I am not scared. I’ve even admitted to changing my mind and I’ve even been wrong - on rare occasions – and even admitted it. I’m human and far from perfect – tough I like to think of myself as being pretty darn good. Anyway, I honestly have not given much thought to what area (federal or state) should handle this. Right off hand, I’d prefer to leave it up to the states. I’m sorry about the delay in answering your question.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
There was also a story of two male penguins at a zoo in New York City that became nest mates, adopted an egg and raised the hatchling. They naturally gravitated toward each other. No one at the zoo told them to, and believe it or not, none of the other penguins told them not too.

acludem

If I was taken from my native Antarctica and stuck behind a cage in the middle of NYC, I might exhibit some strange behavior too.

:teeth:

 

[mattskramer]

Heheheeeeeeee You're killing me. Not only did I grow up close to nature I continue that relationship. Hiking, fishing, camping, all have exposed me to millions of opportunites to witness "gay" animal behavior. Yet somehow I missed it. But my personal experience is "irrelevant". What, in actuality, is irrelevant is the attempt to characterize homosexuality as normal or natural. It is what it is, an aberation of natural law.

I have not done any research on “gay animals” but I find the issue irrelevant. We are Homo sapiens and nature is what it is. Nature does not determine right and wrong (good or bad. Cancer seems to be a natural phenomenon of aging. If you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will get cancer. Yet, I doubt that anyone will say that cancer is a good thing. Radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and drugs seem to be very unnatural things, but they seem to be good for cancer patients. For more information on the “Natural Law” fallacy see the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

I think that the above is a great quote.



http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Naturalistic_Fallacy

By the way, I have 2 questions for you: if I were stricken with cancer, would you advise me to do nothing but “let nature take its course”? Also, is it really natural to smoke cigarettes?

I don’t know if there are any naturally gay animals (besides humans) but here are some sites for you to review. Still, I think that the argument that there are supposedly no other gay animals is irrelevant. Anyway, if you care to consider information that may be contrary to your view of the animal world, check out:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/081505ramSwan.htm

 

[Bullypulpit]

Read my post to Matt. And if you would, please answer the question I put to Matt at the end of my post. What exactly do you think should be done (or not) regarding homosexual unions/marriages? Federal action? State action? something else altogether? Nothing at all?

From a legal standpoint, the states interetst in marriage is in the contractual side...The transfer of property, joint ownership, powers of attorney, financial and medical decisions one partner can make for the other. Doesn't matter if it involves traditional or same-gender couples. There's no reason for the states to prevent the marriage of same gender couples. There has been no demonstrable harm shown to either society at large or the individuals involved in permitting same-gender couples to marry. It only becomes an issue when various religious institutions seek to impose their views on the institution of marriage and given them the weight of law that problems arise.

A Constitutional amendment to ban same-gender couples from marrying would not only write discrimination into the Constitution, but it would also would give religious doctrine the weight of law. Not something I, and many others, would want to see.

 

[CockySOB]

Please don’t assume. I am not scared. I’ve even admitted to changing my mind and I’ve even been wrong - on rare occasions – and even admitted it. I’m human and far from perfect – tough I like to think of myself as being pretty darn good. Anyway, I honestly have not given much thought to what area (federal or state) should handle this. Right off hand, I’d prefer to leave it up to the states. I’m sorry about the delay in answering your question.

I understand, and I was trying not to assume, hence my use of "if" in my statement to you.

Thanks for the response as well. After all, no amount of talk will ever amount to anything unless we discuss jurisdictional authority and enforcement. As I've found over the years, discussing potential methods of implementation generally helps refine the topic into a more actionable process. That's why I try to bring the implmentation into discussions of "homosexual civil union/marriage" - to consider not simply an ends, but the means to achieve the ends, both in terms of shrotest timeframe AND in longevity of the solution.

I look forward to any additional thoughts on the subject.

 

[dilloduck]

From a legal standpoint, the states interetst in marriage is in the contractual side...The transfer of property, joint ownership, powers of attorney, financial and medical decisions one partner can make for the other. Doesn't matter if it involves traditional or same-gender couples. There's no reason for the states to prevent the marriage of same gender couples. There has been no demonstrable harm shown to either society at large or the individuals involved in permitting same-gender couples to marry. It only becomes an issue when various religious institutions seek to impose their views on the institution of marriage and given them the weight of law that problems arise.

A Constitutional amendment to ban same-gender couples from marrying would not only write discrimination into the Constitution, but it would also would give religious doctrine the weight of law. Not something I, and many others, would want to see.

I agree--an amendment to the constitution regarding gays would give them acknowlegement that I might find offensive.

 

[CockySOB]

From a legal standpoint, the states interetst in marriage is in the contractual side...The transfer of property, joint ownership, powers of attorney, financial and medical decisions one partner can make for the other. Doesn't matter if it involves traditional or same-gender couples. There's no reason for the states to prevent the marriage of same gender couples. There has been no demonstrable harm shown to either society at large or the individuals involved in permitting same-gender couples to marry. It only becomes an issue when various religious institutions seek to impose their views on the institution of marriage and given them the weight of law that problems arise.

A Constitutional amendment to ban same-gender couples from marrying would not only write discrimination into the Constitution, but it would also would give religious doctrine the weight of law. Not something I, and many others, would want to see.

First, thanks for the considered response.

Consider the difference in other state-based licenses such as concealed carry and even drivers licenses. There are different requirements on a state-by-state basis including some states which forbid certain groups of individuals from attaining a legal license in that particular state. So the precedent of state-based sovereignty over a majority of licensing issues has already been set. Since there is no law against homosexuals living together and conducting their daily business as they see fit, there is no state-action against homosexual unions, right? In fact, all of the legals of a marriage license can be constituted in other legal documents, so while there may be an expedited form for heterosexual marriage, homosexuals are in no way prohibited in law or code from living the lifestyle of their choice. Except of course, that society at-large may not approve, which is of course, society's right.

 

[Dr Grump]

Is the word "marriage" tied to religion in any way?

 

[dilloduck]

Is the word "marriage" tied to religion in any way?

Interesting---you've been all for gays getting hitched and you don't even know ? Pretty classic!

 

[CockySOB]

Is the word "marriage" tied to religion in any way?

I would think so. Marriage itself would be tied to the religious as part of the social commitment between two people, most commonly man and woman. Marriages are then classified as legitimate or illegitimate depending on their sanction by jurisdictional legal authorities. Hence the progression to what we now observe being the "marriage license" which is a certified affirmation of the legally-binding civil union of two individuals, again, most often in terms of man and woman.

 

[no1tovote4]

Is the word "marriage" tied to religion in any way?

I believe it is. Hence I believe that the government should stay out of it. All Unions other than religious in nature would be Civil Unions... If people wanted to be "married" officially then going off to their religious house of choice and getting all hitched up would be an option to all.

This would allow homosexuals to marry as there are churches that perform such services....

 

[jillian]

I believe it is. Hence I believe that the government should stay out of it. All Unions other than religious in nature would be Civil Unions... If people wanted to be "married" officially then going off to their religious house of choice and getting all hitched up would be an option to all.

This would allow homosexuals to marry as there are churches that perform such services....

Actually, the power to marry derives from the State. That's why wedding services include the words "by the powers vested in me by the State of....".

That said, I doubt most people really care whether it's called a civil union or a marriage if everyone has the same legal rights as a result of the ceremony. So I don't think your solution is a bad one.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually, the power to marry derives from the State. That's why wedding services include the words "by the powers vested in me by the State of....".

Rubbish, the state took over the licensing long after the churches had been marrying people without their little tax added licence... You've pretty much conveniently forgotten about Common Law.

That said, I doubt most people really care whether it's called a civil union or a marriage if everyone has the same legal rights as a result of the ceremony. So I don't think your solution is a bad one.

Actually, many do care. Hence the call for Civil Unions over simply allowing them to marry. I think your logic is poor...

 

[Joz]

A person must be licensed by the state in order to solemnize marriages. The license must also must be through a legally acknowledged church, so just anyone cannot get licensed. Marriage laws vary from state to state, so if you're contemplating marriage, you need to check with your local county seat for requirements.
I have this link on my site,

http://usmarriagelaws.com/

Some states no longer recognize common law marriages. And some allow "divorce", such as property division, after 1 year of living together. There are some clergy that do same-sex unions (I am not one of them) but they are not recognized unless the State has deemed so.

Marriage is mentioned throughout the Bible from God creating Eve and joining her to Adam, to instructions to the Israelites, the love story between Isaac & Rebecca, the love letters of Solomon & his beloved, the wedding in Cana and in Hebrews 13:4 where it exhorts us to honor our marriage & vows.

 

[Bullypulpit]

First, thanks for the considered response.

Consider the difference in other state-based licenses such as concealed carry and even drivers licenses. There are different requirements on a state-by-state basis including some states which forbid certain groups of individuals from attaining a legal license in that particular state. So the precedent of state-based sovereignty over a majority of licensing issues has already been set. Since there is no law against homosexuals living together and conducting their daily business as they see fit, there is no state-action against homosexual unions, right? In fact, all of the legals of a marriage license can be constituted in other legal documents, so while there may be an expedited form for heterosexual marriage, homosexuals are in no way prohibited in law or code from living the lifestyle of their choice. Except of course, that society at-large may not approve, which is of course, society's right.

With regards to other legal documents establishing the same legal relationship as marriage, that is a canard. There can be estrangement between gay individuals and their families, but in times of crisis, such as serious illness or injury, state laws often force healthcare providers to go to these estranged family members to make any decisions regarding the care of the individual. Their partner is effectively cut out of the loop with the families forbidding visitation by the partner.

With the death of a partner in a same-gender couple, even the most carefully crafted wills and durable powers-of-attorney have failed to stand against the challeneges by families wishing to challenge the will or custody arrangements. The property the couple had been buying for years may even be siezed by families of the deceased partner and sold at a loss, leaving the surviving partner responsible for the remaining mortgage obligations.

Should a member of a same-gender couple be arrested and put on trial, their partner can be forced to testify against them, unlike married couples. If that partner is then jailed or imprisoned, visitation can be denied by members of the offenders family.

None of these issues have anything to do with religious objections to same-gender marriages. They are civil-rights issues, not ecclesiastical issues, and in these matters, civil law trumps religious doctrine.

 

[Joz]

.......None of these issues have anything to do with religious objections to same-gender marriages. They are civil-rights issues, not ecclesiastical issues, and in these matters, civil law trumps religious doctrine.

Apparently not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Apparently not.

Indeed. In order to pander to the religious zealots that many politicians consider crucial for their election prospects, they allow religious doctrine to trump civil law.