Trefor, not only is what you did a ploy, what you wrote is not true, particularly "Long Gone rehashed the argument regarding gays can 'enjoy' heterosexual marriage." Both def59 and I commented on the subject matter of the articles Mark posted. Johnny concurred with def59.
If you want something new on this topic, then you might consider offering your thoughts on the state's interest in domestic unions, the purpose of civil marriage, and whether or not civil marriage, as traditionally defined, furthers a legitimate state interest. If you conclude that traditional civil marriage does further a legitimate interest of the state, then you could offer your thoughts about whether or how same-sex civil marriage might further the same interest. You've been asked for your thoughts on these things at least three times, by at least two people.
I was going to answer someones question, but now I forget what their question was.....
Something about how allowing homsexuallity in our country was sendig us to hell......
Oh,
Read about Sodom and Gommorah for starters......
Read about ANY civilzation that has ALLOWED HOM'os to be the speaking party, the RULING party......the dominating "It is all about me and what I want", party and "screw everybody else that is moral", party.....
Just when we all thought this thread was dormant it gets a shot of the tired old references to Sodom and Gomorrah. This has already been refuted in other places so I don't intend to go through it all again.
It simply shows that the influence of Martindale is more deep seated than people realise.
Gotta love it when they trot that old chestnut out, huh, Tref?
It is not necessarily "Martindale's influence" which is fueling this. It is basic human nature to try to make sense of the world. A lot of people are uncomfortable with not 'knowing'.
Some find it rather difficult to accept, 'excrement' happens. There just HAS to be a 'reason'. It couldn't be that THEY made bad decisions about their work, love lives, etc. They usually try to avoid the responsibility.
And, it goes all the way back in the book they try to beat others over the head with. God asked Adam why he ate the apple. He said he did it because of Eve. When God asked Eve about it, she said, "Uh, the serpent said it was cool." (Obviously, I'm paraphrasing here, but it coulda happened :D-->) The serpent, not having anyone else to blame, takes it on the chin.
This is not to say Adam and Eve get off scot free. Adam has to work the rest of his life (gee, thanks), and Eve gets to have all that fun in childbirth.
I don't know if any of this is actually true, but it's fun to speculate. :D-->
I generally don't get into these discussions, because I find people tend to trot out variations of the "it's just so wrong because I think it's gross" genre. So excuse me for not keeping up with all the threads on this.
LongGone, what is the "state's interest in domestic unions" for heterosexuals? Would it not be to promote committed relationships regardless of religious affiliation, and stability for children? There are probably other good reasons to have civil marriage for straight couples as well. I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.
One of the arguments against homosexuality has been that gays are promiscuous and spread disease (something that the straight community is equally good at, btw). What better way can the state promote monogamy than by allowing for gay marriage?
Speaking of being ((cough)) civilized, ... so since homosexuals have been around for *at least* 6,000 years, ... when is civilization going to 'dissapear'? I mean, how long does this gawd-awful process supposed to take, hmmm?
I generally don't get into these discussions, because I find people tend to trot out variations of the "it's just so wrong because I think it's gross" genre. So excuse me for not keeping up with all the threads on this.
LongGone, what is the "state's interest in domestic unions" for heterosexuals? Would it not be to promote committed relationships regardless of religious affiliation, and stability for children? There are probably other good reasons to have civil marriage for straight couples as well. I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.
You obviously didn't keep up with this thread, shaz. If you had, you would have known that several people, including me, discussed in some detail the reasons we have civil marriage and the state's interest that justifies it. At least two of us requested, several times each, that proponents of gay marriage discuss whether, how, and to what extent gay marriage would further the same interest. Not one person has done so.
You said, “I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.” Perhaps so. I’ve repeatedly asked for proponents of gay marriage to present an intelligent argument to that effect, by specifying the reasons and showing how they apply to gay couples. Still no takers.
Just because you, a homosexual with a desire to justify your lifestyle has refuted the "tired old references to Sodom and Gomorah", doesn't necessarily mean that your refutation is correct and that we should all say; "Oh wait! Trefor has refuted that! Homosexuality really is ok!" I have looked at the "biblical studies" you and a couple of others have posted the URLs to, and I don't see it as anything but a wild stretch to change the meaning of the Word of God so that you can live peaceably with yor choice.
Okay then, I'll take a stab at it, using my two examples cited above.
1.) Maybe if the state made marriage available to same sex couples, it would send a message to the gay community that a stable relationship is to be desired over a transient one, as married people have certain rights and privileges under tax and other laws that non-married couples do not have (I speak as a non-married person in a long-standing heterosexual relationship). It might help stem the tide of extremism and promiscuity among some (frustration breeds contempt), and statistics of the number of married gay couples could certainly paint a more accurate picture of what is going on in the gay community.
2.) Children (yes, there are plenty of children in same sex families, through insemination and adoption) would become part of the mainstream more easily, as both parents would be able to participate fully in decisions affecting the child, and would be legal parents of the child even in the event of a divorce (unless parental rights were given up). The child would be able to enjoy the same satisfaction in belonging that the children of heterosexual couples enjoy.
And I thought of one more benefit...
3.) Cultural and recreational institutions that are non-profit would be encouraged (by threat of losing funding dollars from government sources) to extend to gay married couples the same privileges granted straight couples -- family discounts, for example.
If you are going to argue that many of these privileges can be arrived at by other means, then I might suggest then that civil marriage be abolished for everyone, and all couples use all those "other means" to secure their privileges. Because, after all, if we are to allow the government to get into the institution of marriage, then define that institution in religious terms, then aren't we establishing a religion?
I am not an activist for gay rights by any means, and I may have absolutely mis-defined what the gay marriage agenda is about, but just thinking it through by myself, I can see no non-religious reason that gay marriage would ruin anything for anyone else.
3.) Cultural and recreational institutions that are non-profit would be encouraged (by threat of losing funding dollars from government sources) to extend to gay married couples the same privileges granted straight couples -- family discounts, for example.
Shaz -- with all due respect -- this "BENEFIT" that is "ENCOURAGED" by a "THREAT" is nothing short of coercion.
If you are going to argue that many of these privileges can be arrived at by other means, then I might suggest then that civil marriage be abolished for everyone, and all couples use all those "other means" to secure their privileges.
That has come up, and is worth considering. Note the questions at the end of this post, quoted from a previous post.
quote:Because, after all, if we are to allow the government to get into the institution of marriage, then define that institution in religious terms, then aren't we establishing a religion?
The law doesn't define marriage in religious terms. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.
I really don't want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. Here's just a tiny sampling of quotes from three of my many posts. I was trying to provoke thought and reasoned discussion, things that are sorely lacking in public debate of most topics.
quote:Can anyone straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, and offer a reasonable argument to support your position?”
Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences.
***
I am willing to redress any grievances that homosexuals or any other people may have, whether concerning equal protection/rights or something else. All I ask is that they give good reason to do so, and consider all aspects of any manner of redress they propose.
***
Should anyone wish to respond to my invitation, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding whether and why marriage should even exist as a civil institution. Since implicit questions seem to confuse some folks, I'll pose these explicitly.
Why does marriage exist as a civil institution?
What interest of the state (if any) justifies the existence of civil marriage?
Do current marriage laws help to further that interest?
If so, could changes to those laws help to better further that interest?
You're right, it's coercion. Something that the government does all the time with organizations to which they grant money. "Play by our rules or we won't fund you." So if the Pleasantville Little Theater wants to give a membership discount to married straight couples but not gay marrieds, then the Midwest Arts Council might decide not to fund their projects. So as I said, it would be in Pleasantville Theater's best interest to allow gay marrieds the same benefits, or deny them to all marrieds, equally.
Dear LongGone,
Yes, civil marriage is not a religious institution, at least not yet! I would put to you that, when it comes to defining why marriage should be denied to same sex couples, that most people begin to trot out definitions of marriage that are religious, as in...
Q: Why can't gays get married?
A: Because marriage is for a man and a woman.
Q: Who says so?
A: God, the Bible, my pastor, Adam and Eve, etc.
***
A: We can't let gay marriage into the laws of the land
Q: Why not?
A: Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, look at the book of Romans, look at Corinthians...
LongGone, you have asked for some statements about what gay marriage is good for...
quote:Can anyone straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, and offer a reasonable argument to support your position?
Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences.
I think I made a couple of such statements above. (Forgive me, I am on meds for Lyme, and maybe my mind is more out there than I think.) I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy. I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child. I said that if there are arguments against gay marriage, then those arguments will probably pertain to civil marriage between straight couples as well. If you are looking for more than what I posted to consider having a "reasoned discussion" with, then perhaps you should simply state your own views, and let the discussion begin.
If you are looking for more than what I posted to consider having a "reasoned discussion" with, then perhaps you should simply state your own views, and let the discussion begin.
First of all, I am not currently looking for anything regarding this topic. The referenced discussion was over a month ago and the participants have happily allowed this thread to lie dormant for almost a month. Secondly, before suggesting that I state my own views, perhaps you should extend the courtesy of reading the discussion that occurred. I stated my views, in quite a lot of detail, on several subjects related to the topic.
Again, I don’t want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. If you wish to engage me in a discussion at this late date, then read the entire thread first. Otherwise, let's just let it die.
"I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy."
For years, I've been told that it's none of my business what goes on in people's bedrooms (I agree), and that only the judgmental and unenlightened impose their moral values on another. If you're suggesting that the State take an interest in the sexual practices of the gay community, why? Isn't "encouraging monogamy" just another form of bigotry and elitism?
"I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child."
In the sixties and seventies we were told that children of divorce are as happy and well-adjusted as children in "traditional" homes, and that if a marriage is intolerable, for whatever reason, for either partner, it is better for the child to live with one happy parent than two miserable parents. The thinking was that a happy parent makes a happy home, and that children suffer when their parents are unhappy. Now there's an entire body of research that indicates that children of divorce aren't quite as unscathed by the experience as the proponents of "easy" divorce first had us believe.
Similarly, adoption laws have been relaxed over the years to accommodate those who feel they have a "right" to know their ancestry. Even children raised in very loving adoptive homes often go in search of their biological parents. The effects of adoption and divorce on a child's well-being have proved to be much more complex than previously thought.
If a child raised in a gay home is not faring well, can you point me to the research that indicates it is because of "stigma," or the lack of parental rights of one of the partners, rather, than, say, an innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender? There's a strong same-sex identification between fathers (or father figures) and sons, between mothers (or mother figures) and daughters. Are you saying that it is insignificant to the well-being and emotional development of a child for a daughter to have two fathers, or a son two mothers?
Each person born into this world has a parent of each gender. Adoption doesn’t change that. Marriage laws, as they are written today, favor a household that consists of biological children living with their biological parents. While there are many other arrangements that can be made to raise children, and where children will thrive, I don't think there's enough research to indicate that those other arrangements are somehow superior and should be preferred over this traditional arrangement. In fact, it seems that children feel the loss of their biological parent, even when love is present in the home. Any child who is put up for adoption, who has a sperm donor as a father, or a surrogate as a mother, has been abandoned by that biological parent. Maybe the parent has the best of intentions, and every good reason in the world to do it, but the fact remains that they relinquished their parenthood, and that child will have to come to terms with that at some point in his life. Why is this an arrangement that should be preferred?
This thread brings to mind what a pastor at a church I used to attend in Massachusetts said about the Bible and homosexuality: If it is such a horrible thing in God's eyes, why didn't Jesus ever mention it? He emphasized that Jesus got as riled up about money changers in the temple as some of today's Christians get about homosexuality. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor..." Was there some translation according to abusage that said "except if he is homosexual"?
When I see a nice looking male, I feel certain "stirrings" that I don't consciously choose. It is pretty much instinctive and doesn't pass through a part of my brain that says..."Hmmm, should I get excited about this or not". If gay men feel this same "stirring" at the sight of a good looking man, I have nothing but compassion for the ones that feel compelled to try to ignore such strong feelings because they have to mold such a core part of their being to fit what some religious types believe.
Makes me think of a refrigerator magnet I got a good laugh out of last weekend:
Christians aren't perfect.
They just want everyone else to be...
I think I am much better off considering what parts of my own life are less than a reflection of Christ. I think it is more likely that God would ask me if I did my best to love my neighbor and focused my life on growing in that area than how many times I quoted Bible verses about the alleged condemnation of homosexuality to gay people.
quote: I think I am much better off considering what parts of my own life are less than a reflection of Christ
Yet -- even tho I took it out of the context of what you were speaking of, I think this is the best statement I have read here at GSC concerning our walk, and how we should view others, society,etc., since focus on ourselves should come first.
If we do not reflect Christ, what are we offering the world? -->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Trefor Heywood
Yes Jonny I did
:D-->
We are fortunate at my place of work in that we actually have a room for smokers.
Unless the new company takes it off us!
Thanks for the support!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
So you see Trefor, I do support you!......As a smoker...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor, not only is what you did a ploy, what you wrote is not true, particularly "Long Gone rehashed the argument regarding gays can 'enjoy' heterosexual marriage." Both def59 and I commented on the subject matter of the articles Mark posted. Johnny concurred with def59.
If you want something new on this topic, then you might consider offering your thoughts on the state's interest in domestic unions, the purpose of civil marriage, and whether or not civil marriage, as traditionally defined, furthers a legitimate state interest. If you conclude that traditional civil marriage does further a legitimate interest of the state, then you could offer your thoughts about whether or how same-sex civil marriage might further the same interest. You've been asked for your thoughts on these things at least three times, by at least two people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Tref,
You are right, we have more important matters to discuss.
The war on terror is a good one.
Homosexuals have waited this long to marry they can wait another decade/century/millennium right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valerie52
OyVey this thread hads gotten so looooong.
I was going to answer someones question, but now I forget what their question was.....
Something about how allowing homsexuallity in our country was sendig us to hell......
Oh,
Read about Sodom and Gommorah for starters......
Read about ANY civilzation that has ALLOWED HOM'os to be the speaking party, the RULING party......the dominating "It is all about me and what I want", party and "screw everybody else that is moral", party.....
I will not be part of that party....
The civilzation dissapears.
It is wrong...... wrong.......
I have homo aquantances,
but that is all they are,
aquantances......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Valerie -- you party pooper!
:(--> 
:(--> 
:(-->
GOOD FOR YOU !!
:D--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Yeeah! What Valerie said!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Just when we all thought this thread was dormant it gets a shot of the tired old references to Sodom and Gomorrah. This has already been refuted in other places so I don't intend to go through it all again.
It simply shows that the influence of Martindale is more deep seated than people realise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
Gotta love it when they trot that old chestnut out, huh, Tref?
It is not necessarily "Martindale's influence" which is fueling this. It is basic human nature to try to make sense of the world. A lot of people are uncomfortable with not 'knowing'.
Some find it rather difficult to accept, 'excrement' happens. There just HAS to be a 'reason'. It couldn't be that THEY made bad decisions about their work, love lives, etc. They usually try to avoid the responsibility.
And, it goes all the way back in the book they try to beat others over the head with. God asked Adam why he ate the apple. He said he did it because of Eve. When God asked Eve about it, she said, "Uh, the serpent said it was cool." (Obviously, I'm paraphrasing here, but it coulda happened
:D-->) The serpent, not having anyone else to blame, takes it on the chin.
This is not to say Adam and Eve get off scot free. Adam has to work the rest of his life (gee, thanks), and Eve gets to have all that fun in childbirth.
I don't know if any of this is actually true, but it's fun to speculate.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Hi, all,
I generally don't get into these discussions, because I find people tend to trot out variations of the "it's just so wrong because I think it's gross" genre. So excuse me for not keeping up with all the threads on this.
LongGone, what is the "state's interest in domestic unions" for heterosexuals? Would it not be to promote committed relationships regardless of religious affiliation, and stability for children? There are probably other good reasons to have civil marriage for straight couples as well. I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.
One of the arguments against homosexuality has been that gays are promiscuous and spread disease (something that the straight community is equally good at, btw). What better way can the state promote monogamy than by allowing for gay marriage?
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Speaking of being ((cough)) civilized, ... so since homosexuals have been around for *at least* 6,000 years, ... when is civilization going to 'dissapear'? I mean, how long does this gawd-awful process supposed to take, hmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You said, “I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.” Perhaps so. I’ve repeatedly asked for proponents of gay marriage to present an intelligent argument to that effect, by specifying the reasons and showing how they apply to gay couples. Still no takers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Tref-
Just because you, a homosexual with a desire to justify your lifestyle has refuted the "tired old references to Sodom and Gomorah", doesn't necessarily mean that your refutation is correct and that we should all say; "Oh wait! Trefor has refuted that! Homosexuality really is ok!" I have looked at the "biblical studies" you and a couple of others have posted the URLs to, and I don't see it as anything but a wild stretch to change the meaning of the Word of God so that you can live peaceably with yor choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear LongGone,
Okay then, I'll take a stab at it, using my two examples cited above.
1.) Maybe if the state made marriage available to same sex couples, it would send a message to the gay community that a stable relationship is to be desired over a transient one, as married people have certain rights and privileges under tax and other laws that non-married couples do not have (I speak as a non-married person in a long-standing heterosexual relationship). It might help stem the tide of extremism and promiscuity among some (frustration breeds contempt), and statistics of the number of married gay couples could certainly paint a more accurate picture of what is going on in the gay community.
2.) Children (yes, there are plenty of children in same sex families, through insemination and adoption) would become part of the mainstream more easily, as both parents would be able to participate fully in decisions affecting the child, and would be legal parents of the child even in the event of a divorce (unless parental rights were given up). The child would be able to enjoy the same satisfaction in belonging that the children of heterosexual couples enjoy.
And I thought of one more benefit...
3.) Cultural and recreational institutions that are non-profit would be encouraged (by threat of losing funding dollars from government sources) to extend to gay married couples the same privileges granted straight couples -- family discounts, for example.
If you are going to argue that many of these privileges can be arrived at by other means, then I might suggest then that civil marriage be abolished for everyone, and all couples use all those "other means" to secure their privileges. Because, after all, if we are to allow the government to get into the institution of marriage, then define that institution in religious terms, then aren't we establishing a religion?
I am not an activist for gay rights by any means, and I may have absolutely mis-defined what the gay marriage agenda is about, but just thinking it through by myself, I can see no non-religious reason that gay marriage would ruin anything for anyone else.
IMHO,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Shaz -- with all due respect -- this "BENEFIT" that is "ENCOURAGED" by a "THREAT" is nothing short of coercion.
Let's call a spade a spade, Ok?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Shazdancer,
That has come up, and is worth considering. Note the questions at the end of this post, quoted from a previous post. The law doesn't define marriage in religious terms. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.I really don't want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. Here's just a tiny sampling of quotes from three of my many posts. I was trying to provoke thought and reasoned discussion, things that are sorely lacking in public debate of most topics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear dmiller,
You're right, it's coercion. Something that the government does all the time with organizations to which they grant money. "Play by our rules or we won't fund you." So if the Pleasantville Little Theater wants to give a membership discount to married straight couples but not gay marrieds, then the Midwest Arts Council might decide not to fund their projects. So as I said, it would be in Pleasantville Theater's best interest to allow gay marrieds the same benefits, or deny them to all marrieds, equally.
Dear LongGone,
Yes, civil marriage is not a religious institution, at least not yet! I would put to you that, when it comes to defining why marriage should be denied to same sex couples, that most people begin to trot out definitions of marriage that are religious, as in...
Q: Why can't gays get married?
A: Because marriage is for a man and a woman.
Q: Who says so?
A: God, the Bible, my pastor, Adam and Eve, etc.
***
A: We can't let gay marriage into the laws of the land
Q: Why not?
A: Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, look at the book of Romans, look at Corinthians...
LongGone, you have asked for some statements about what gay marriage is good for...
I think I made a couple of such statements above. (Forgive me, I am on meds for Lyme, and maybe my mind is more out there than I think.) I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy. I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child. I said that if there are arguments against gay marriage, then those arguments will probably pertain to civil marriage between straight couples as well. If you are looking for more than what I posted to consider having a "reasoned discussion" with, then perhaps you should simply state your own views, and let the discussion begin.Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Again, I don’t want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. If you wish to engage me in a discussion at this late date, then read the entire thread first. Otherwise, let's just let it die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
"I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy."
For years, I've been told that it's none of my business what goes on in people's bedrooms (I agree), and that only the judgmental and unenlightened impose their moral values on another. If you're suggesting that the State take an interest in the sexual practices of the gay community, why? Isn't "encouraging monogamy" just another form of bigotry and elitism?
"I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child."
In the sixties and seventies we were told that children of divorce are as happy and well-adjusted as children in "traditional" homes, and that if a marriage is intolerable, for whatever reason, for either partner, it is better for the child to live with one happy parent than two miserable parents. The thinking was that a happy parent makes a happy home, and that children suffer when their parents are unhappy. Now there's an entire body of research that indicates that children of divorce aren't quite as unscathed by the experience as the proponents of "easy" divorce first had us believe.
Similarly, adoption laws have been relaxed over the years to accommodate those who feel they have a "right" to know their ancestry. Even children raised in very loving adoptive homes often go in search of their biological parents. The effects of adoption and divorce on a child's well-being have proved to be much more complex than previously thought.
If a child raised in a gay home is not faring well, can you point me to the research that indicates it is because of "stigma," or the lack of parental rights of one of the partners, rather, than, say, an innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender? There's a strong same-sex identification between fathers (or father figures) and sons, between mothers (or mother figures) and daughters. Are you saying that it is insignificant to the well-being and emotional development of a child for a daughter to have two fathers, or a son two mothers?
Each person born into this world has a parent of each gender. Adoption doesn’t change that. Marriage laws, as they are written today, favor a household that consists of biological children living with their biological parents. While there are many other arrangements that can be made to raise children, and where children will thrive, I don't think there's enough research to indicate that those other arrangements are somehow superior and should be preferred over this traditional arrangement. In fact, it seems that children feel the loss of their biological parent, even when love is present in the home. Any child who is put up for adoption, who has a sperm donor as a father, or a surrogate as a mother, has been abandoned by that biological parent. Maybe the parent has the best of intentions, and every good reason in the world to do it, but the fact remains that they relinquished their parenthood, and that child will have to come to terms with that at some point in his life. Why is this an arrangement that should be preferred?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Here's another angle on the homosexual marriage question, addressing the "fairness" argument.
Orson Scott Card, On Fairness and Families
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mary Cate
This thread brings to mind what a pastor at a church I used to attend in Massachusetts said about the Bible and homosexuality: If it is such a horrible thing in God's eyes, why didn't Jesus ever mention it? He emphasized that Jesus got as riled up about money changers in the temple as some of today's Christians get about homosexuality. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor..." Was there some translation according to abusage that said "except if he is homosexual"?
When I see a nice looking male, I feel certain "stirrings" that I don't consciously choose. It is pretty much instinctive and doesn't pass through a part of my brain that says..."Hmmm, should I get excited about this or not". If gay men feel this same "stirring" at the sight of a good looking man, I have nothing but compassion for the ones that feel compelled to try to ignore such strong feelings because they have to mold such a core part of their being to fit what some religious types believe.
Makes me think of a refrigerator magnet I got a good laugh out of last weekend:
Christians aren't perfect.
They just want everyone else to be...
I think I am much better off considering what parts of my own life are less than a reflection of Christ. I think it is more likely that God would ask me if I did my best to love my neighbor and focused my life on growing in that area than how many times I quoted Bible verses about the alleged condemnation of homosexuality to gay people.
Peace and love to everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mary Cate
Oh.. and for the record....
The pastor that made that statement: He was straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mary Cate -- Never heard that term before!! Good one!
:)--> 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
and you also said (taken out of context here)
Yet -- even tho I took it out of the context of what you were speaking of, I think this is the best statement I have read here at GSC concerning our walk, and how we should view others, society,etc., since focus on ourselves should come first.
If we do not reflect Christ, what are we offering the world?
-->
Certainly not the Gospel of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.