The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Cecilie1200]

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

Thanks for mentioning your experience.

I am good friends with quite a few Christians- actually they are amongst the friends I have known for most of my life. I have attended their weddings, visited them, cheered on their children- just like I do all of my friends.

With that said, they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some Christians act- the ones who seem to forget what Christ's two greatest commandments are.

Its the bigoted Christians that are doing their faith more harm than they realize.

And yes- I am speaking of Christians just like you.

I would bet hard money that your friends are what we call "social Christians". The ones who think the main message of Christ's ministry was "be nice to each other", and are more likely to describe themselves as "spiritual", rather than any sort of hard moral conviction.

 

[Syriusly]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

Read an interesting op-ed today that addressed this, and I thought phrased the situation very well.

Why Two The Question Gay Activists Can t Answer - Michael Brown - Page 1

If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, then why should it be limited to two people (or, for that matter, require two people)? Why can’t it be one or three or five? What makes the number “two” so special if it doesn’t refer to the union of a male and a female?

If “love is love” and “marriage equality” is the mantra, then why can’t any combination of loving adults form a “marriage”?
.

Why do you believe that 'gay activists' have any obligation to address your straw man?

Do you have an argument why you think that Polygamous marriage is wrong?

If you do- the argument is either valid- or not- regardless of whether two gay men can marry or whether a mixed race couple can marry.

If you don't have an argument- you don't have an argument- and that is your problem. Not anyone elses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.
.

Or it could be because Conservative Christians often condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals, and people tend to avoid people who do that?

On the other hand- if you live in a particularly conservative part of the United States, there is a reasonably good chance you have a gay friend that you just don't know is gay. We have a close friend who lives in the South that only a few friends know he is gay- certainly not his family or church- because he believes if they did, they would reject him- and cast him out of their lives.

Which is really sad.

Thank you for proving what I said in regards to "anything less than universal approbation is 'condemning'", and the fact that it's leftists in general and gays in particular who want to avoid any opinion or perspective other than their own.

 

[Syriusly]

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

Thanks for mentioning your experience.

I am good friends with quite a few Christians- actually they are amongst the friends I have known for most of my life. I have attended their weddings, visited them, cheered on their children- just like I do all of my friends.

With that said, they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some Christians act- the ones who seem to forget what Christ's two greatest commandments are.

Its the bigoted Christians that are doing their faith more harm than they realize.

And yes- I am speaking of Christians just like you.

I would bet hard money that your friends are what we call "social Christians". The ones who think the main message of Christ's ministry was "be nice to each other", and are more likely to describe themselves as "spiritual", rather than any sort of hard moral conviction.

I would be hard money my friends know what Christ's two greatest commandments are- and live accordingly.

And that you don't.

 

[Syriusly]

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.
.

Or it could be because Conservative Christians often condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals, and people tend to avoid people who do that?

On the other hand- if you live in a particularly conservative part of the United States, there is a reasonably good chance you have a gay friend that you just don't know is gay. We have a close friend who lives in the South that only a few friends know he is gay- certainly not his family or church- because he believes if they did, they would reject him- and cast him out of their lives.

Which is really sad.

Thank you for proving what I said in regards to "anything less than universal approbation is 'condemning'", and the fact that it's leftists in general and gays in particular who want to avoid any opinion or perspective other than their own.

Thank you for proving what I said in regards to Certain far right Christians only want to condemn homosexuals- and are still butthurt that after two hundreds years of condemnation, persecution and attacks- they have failed.

And do not live according to Christ's two greatest commandments.

 

[Syriusly]

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

Just as Loving v. Virginia was decided by 'forced compliance'.

Just Citizen's United was decided by 'forced compliance'.

Or another way to put it- The Supreme Court decides whether laws are constitutional or not- and yes compliance with their decisions is not voluntary.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

Sorry, I don't believe in pretend marriage and you're never going to convince me it's right or moral.

I don't believe you are a real Christian.

And both of us are entitled to our opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general? When a gay friend of mine got married, to the same gender, I congratulated them and wished them well. Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me. What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

There are so many directions that this issue can go. On this thread I'm not addressing what the Supreme Court did and I'm trying to keep it focused on our attitudes. Had I not had close gay friends who are getting married this month, I might not feel as I do, but having those friends has tempered my perception of this issue and allowed me another perspective. And I think that what your friend is experiencing with the person he married goes well beyond a roommate relationship. You should hang out with him more, get to know how he sees it.

I think that your experience is not uncommon. Certainly my parents point of view has come around simply because they have gotten to know more gay couples- and adore my buddy who got married last year.

Without knowing for certain- I suspect the Cheney's viewpoint would not be what it is today if their daughter had not come out. Getting to know people who happen to be gay makes it all far more 'normal'.

Thanks again for this thread.

I think the thread points out how difficult it is to have a 'moderate' discussion here, but I give you kudo's for starting it- and maintaining your even keel throughout.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

Sorry, I don't believe in pretend marriage and you're never going to convince me it's right or moral.

I don't believe you are a real Christian.

And both of us are entitled to our opinion.

Her kind of faith does more damage to Jesus than Pilate.

 

[shart_attack]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

Yeah, but well, here's another quandary for you:

The only people who like talking TO homosexuals are their fellow homosexuals.

Just sayin'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You first.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

Read an interesting op-ed today that addressed this, and I thought phrased the situation very well.

Why Two The Question Gay Activists Can t Answer - Michael Brown - Page 1

If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, then why should it be limited to two people (or, for that matter, require two people)? Why can’t it be one or three or five? What makes the number “two” so special if it doesn’t refer to the union of a male and a female?

If “love is love” and “marriage equality” is the mantra, then why can’t any combination of loving adults form a “marriage”?
.

Why do you believe that 'gay activists' have any obligation to address your straw man?

Do you have an argument why you think that Polygamous marriage is wrong?

If you do- the argument is either valid- or not- regardless of whether two gay men can marry or whether a mixed race couple can marry.

If you don't have an argument- you don't have an argument- and that is your problem. Not anyone elses.

1) Not my question, Chuckles. I didn't write the op-ed.

2) Judging by your posting style, you're probably not aware of this, but the concept of "discussion" necessitates that one actually listen to and then address the points made by the other person, rather than simply shouting squawking points at them while sticking one's fingers in one's ears.

3) Look up the phrase "straw man". It doesn't mean what you appear to think it does. In this case, homosexual activists and blithering leftists of all stripes have been assuring us for some years now, every single time they start prattling about "my right to marry the person I love" that no, No, NO! It's just us gays here. It's not going to lead to legalization of polygamy or anything else. No, REALLY! It won't! So that would make "Why WOULDN'T it include polygamy" a valid debate question, rather than a "straw man".

4) I never said I thought it was wrong. I don't happen to think it would benefit society to legally recognize and sanction it, any more than I think it benefits society to legally recognize and sanction homosexual relationships, but I don't personally have an issue with people being polygamous. However, other people DO have a problem with it, and many people professing to have a problem with it are those self-same homosexual activists. Which, again, leads us back to the fact that it is then relevant for us to ask, "WHY wouldn't your mantra include polygamy?"

5) I have lots of arguments. You would know that if you took your fingers out of your ears once in a while.

 

[SwimExpert]

If “love is love” and “marriage equality” is the mantra, then why can’t any combination of loving adults form a “marriage”?

Your author is committing equivocation fallacy. God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind. But Stevie Wonder is neither a marriage, nor God.

My best friend got married three weeks ago. I've known her for pushing 20 years. I love her with all my heart, and she loves me. But there is a reason she married another man. It's a different kind of love.

Nobody who has advocated for same sex marriage has ever once suggested that marriage should be open to every and any kind of love. Quite to the contrary, the justification has always relied upon the fact that the kind of love shared between yourself and your husband is what justifies marriage, and that that love alone justifies it, not the disparity of your genders.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

Yeah, but well, here's another quandary for you:

The only people who like talking TO homosexuals are their fellow homosexuals.

Just sayin'.

Some of them can be a bit unpleasant and strident.

There's a convenience store two blocks from my house that my family has been frequenting a couple of times a day for over a decade. Six months ago, they hired a gay cashier. How do I know he was gay, you ask? Because he was in-your-face at everyone about it, 24/7. Outside of our interactions at his place of work, we had a mutual friend who runs karaoke at a local bar, and we saw each other there on weekends a lot.

The convenience store finally had to fire him, and the manager confided to me that it was because he was so confrontational about his sexuality that long-time regulars were starting to complain and business was falling off noticeably on his shift. That must have been a very ticklish conversation, firing him without getting slapped with a lawsuit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If “love is love” and “marriage equality” is the mantra, then why can’t any combination of loving adults form a “marriage”?

Your author is committing equivocation fallacy. God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind. But Stevie Wonder is neither a marriage, nor God.

My best friend got married three weeks ago. I've known her for pushing 20 years. I love her with all my heart, and she loves me. But there is a reason she married another man. It's a different kind of love.

Nobody who has advocated for same sex marriage has ever once suggested that marriage should be open to every and any kind of love. Quite to the contrary, the justification has always relied upon the fact that the kind of love shared between yourself and your husband is what justifies marriage, and that that love alone justifies it, not the disparity of your genders.

What a fascinating equivocation of your own.

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

Where did you ever come by the amusing notion that polygamists don't feel the same way for their multiple partners that you do for your spouse (assuming you're married), or your friend has for her new husband? Were you imagining that group marriage as all just being REALLY good friends and roommates?

So now that we've nailed down the facts that a) homosexual activists have been telling us that "it's all about love", and b) we are definitely talking about the exact same sort of love, perhaps you could address the point?

 

[SwimExpert]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

 

[Pop23]

[

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

Which is why the manner in which same sex marriage came about, by judicial fiat, is a mistake. In no way am I defending the Supreme Court's decision because, as you point out, now the states are disempowered to put any restrictions on marriage, no matter how ridiculous people make marriage. Polygamy? Marrying one's son to avoid an inheritance tax? Marrying a pet, a car, or even a battery operated vibrator? And this is just the beginning.

The decision should have been made by the states, but on a personal level, I'm asking what moral right that happily married heterosexual couples have to say, "Bliss for me, but not for thee." As you see from the OP, I'm approaching this from a very personal perspective that involves close friends of my family. I cannot justify denying them the happiness I've found in being married to my wife in the eyes of society.

I understand, you fall into the assumption crowd as do most others.

Assumption #1. Marriage is about love. The license does not require nor insure love

Assumption #2. Marriage has anything to do with sex. The license does not require nor insure satisfactory sex.

The argument has been made that you can't be fulfilled without the license.

Absurd,

The governments role was and should have remained simply as a device to keep bloodlines separated.

Now, I cant find a single reasonable legal reason to deny polygamists and most incestuous marriage the "dignity" and benefits of marriage

They are simply another form of alternative lifestyle, as is homosexuality.

So in reality it's not LBGTQ. ITS LGBTQPI.

 

[Pop23]

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.

Enjoy your brave new world.

 

[FA_Q2]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

 

[Pop23]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

The attainment of a marriage license does not require Love, makes no requirement of sex nor devotion, nor bonding. Those are all assumptions.

All of the above can be had with or without a license.

They are traditional to, but not requirements of.

The license was only a way to insure the integrity of bloodlines.

That my friend has flown the coop.