lemminglord

Because once you legitamize one sexual perversion, you open the door to allow any other ones that any group wishes to pursue later on. The next step is lowering the age of consent for minors, perhaps eliminating it all together. It doesn't even take much common sense to figure that out. As Christians, we are suppose to oppose the furthering of moral decay, not openly encourage it. I definitely doesn't take common sense to figure that out.. that much is certain.. it takes slippery slope sense. While I agree that as Christians we are supposed to oppose further moral decay, I submit that to continue to shun homosexuals is to promote MORE decay not less than to practice the loving embrace of equal rights under the law. People marry for many sinful reasons... People get married for money (greed). People get married for the sex (lust). People get married because they are codependent (sloth). People get married for status (pride). People get married to defeat our outdo their rivals (envy and wrath). People get married to have someone who will eat and drink and be merry with them (gluttony). It is better for society that all of these people get married, despite and even because of the sins involved. Stability is vital to society. Monagamy promotes stability. Encourage monogamy. On the subject of "other perversions" we need to evaluate the universal costs and benefits to society of each in turn. I would be happy to discuss any that appeal to you in new thread for each. While it is true that by opening up discussion on the legal definition of marriage you bring up the possibility that society may decide to further adjust marriage to suit its needs, this kind of discussion and dialog are a part of a vibrant democracy that is trying to make things better for each generation.

The same-sex marriage experiment will work for the same practical reasons why the different-sex marriage experiment has worked. Marriage is good because it creates increased stability between people. By entering into a marriage contract, responsible adults are signing up for increased rights and the responsibilities that go with those rights. Only by asking more of someone, will that someone step up. People who step up make the world a better place.

If it is our purpose to spread the good news of Jesus Christ I would recommend not using the word cult to refer to other churches. I absolutely respect that you are not using it perjoratively and I absolutely respect that political and spiritiaul correctness mustn't detract from sharing the Truth. With that said, the term is received as perjorative and does more to harden hearts than you might realize. If we come off as scoffers than even true Christians will stay out of our way as proverbs 1:1 is clear to state. Instead having a counter-cult ministry, we should have a Gospel Essentials Ministry. Just my opinion on the matter.

Ya, I'm not ranking, I'm just talking about effect. It's just practical, I think, to recognize that we can get ourselves into situations that can be more difficult from which to escape than others. Some of my sins had comparitively little practical, earthly reprecussions and others moreso. Sometimes escaping from the tempation can be more difficult depending on the nature of our choices. I don't believe that homosexuals are any further from God (you're either washed by the blood or not), but I just ache for the situations in which people might place themselves, for the difficulty it might present in escaping. I'd say the same thing for other lifestyle choices. The hard-core drug addict may be vastly closer to accepting grace than the upright, downright, forthright suit and tie, but I don't envy the struggle against temptation they've elected. It just seems tragically tough, so I feel for them. The road back home can feel like a long one sometimes, you know? From a practical stand point, a monogamous homosexual life style is far better for society than a non-monogamous one... but to your point, I can see how society providing positive healthier alternatives for practicing homosexuals to engage in would, in affect, give practicing homosexuals an extra reason not to come to Christ. From an advancement of the gospel perspective (at least the gospel perspective many Christians believe today) any time society institutionalizes the celebration of sin, it encourages sin and discourages people from actively turning away from sin. Let's look at the micro level. Person has sexual feelings for the same sex. Person comes to Christ. Person still has sexual feelings for the same sex but chooses not to engage in them because they are saved by Jesus who died for their sins and practicing Christians are supposed to turn away from sin. Person has sexual feelings for the same sex. Person finds partner. Person and partner get married as a same sex couple. Now is the person more or less likely to come to Christ? I'm guessing that the perspective that is anti-same-sex marriage is thinking that they will be LESS likely to come to Christ.. and that's a bad thing... from a Christian eternal perspective. However... it is a terrible thing from a society perspective... What are the number of practicing homosexuals who are going to turn to Christ in any case. Very few. So society can either deal with non-monogamous practicing homosexuals or with some monogamy practicing homosexuals and some non-monogamous practicing homosexuals.. society is going to do better by having more monogamous practicing homosexuals than by the miniscule number of practicing homosexuals who are going to turn to God and become celibates..

all one needs to do is go online and compare the doctrines of lds, jh, or the many other "christian" sects with that of mainline christianty. for example the LDS believe that almighty god was once just a simple flesh and blood creature, but somehow "evolved" into a diety, and that those who are faithful will become a god over there own planet. plus they deny that christ is GOD. also the JW deny that christ is god also, they believe he is merely a created angel and also they believe they are god's prophet to the earth and also preach that jesus has returned to earth and he rules and reigns through the JW organization These are differences.. How does that make these churches more of a "cult" than any other church? I guess we need a working definition of cult because just now it is just an inflmatory word.

If you disagree with a religious point of view, pleaes explain your disagreement. Don't simply call them names. If you believe the LDS or JH are more of a brood of hypocritical vipers than other Christian sects, please do so with proof rather than propaganda. Who are these victims you speak on?

Since we are talking universal law here, I find viola's flawless use of logic to be applauded. I don't believe her feelings on the bible are germaine to a discussion of universal law. If it is a universal law, it is a universal law regardless of what the bible says. Where the universal law comes from is a question we could ask, but we are asking why the same-sex marriage experiement will not work, and not "why the bible says the same-sex marriage experiement will not work." There are enough biblically literate people here to share biblical perspectives. It is good to also hear cogent arguments that dont' rely on the bible. My wife and I have no kids and can't reproduce. Are we abusing "the system?" If so, would you suggest we get a divorce and simply cohabitate? I think there is great advantage to society for us to stay married. We are a closer knit team, we are in it for the long haul, we are a part of something greater than ourselves; we feel more secure in our relationship and make better decisions than if we didn't have this bond. In the states we've lived in, because we are married we are legally responsible for one another's money - all of our money is communal between us by law... it means we are forced to be accountable to at least one other person in this world. Statistically speaking, married couples feel healthier and live longer healthier lives than those who simply cohabitate. Since we are married, if one of us goes to the hospital and becomes incapacitated the spouse automatically has the a privileged right to visitation and treatment decisions. If one of us dies, the other automatically receives inheritance if there's no will (and in some states, even if there is a will, the right of the spouse to inherit can superceed the will). Pension plans, social security and medicare (three programs my spouse and I have paid our fair share to since we began working) benefits for each other. This is something everyone should do. Find someone you love and get a lawfully protected, government approved, union with them.

Viole. You complete me. You have got to get on the chat one of these days so I can give a thousand compliments.

How do you read Paul here? He claims it is better for everyone to stay a virgin and dedicate themselves to God... BUT if they are overwhelemed with the sin of lust... they should get married.. Clearly we know Paul's point of view here: loving God with all your strength IS the commandment. But if you've got lust that get's in the way of meeting that commandment.... better get married. Lust is the problem. Not the unnaturalness of the lust. It is natural for man to sin. The natural man is an enemy of God. The governmental authorities are here to provide order, and the most practical way they can do this for the lust problem is to provide incentives for any two consenting adults to enter into a monogamous relationship. While government endorsed monogamy is not a solution to the sin of lust (only Jesus Christ solves sin), it will help deal with the damage that lust can cause to society (such as the spread of STDs) which helps everyone. Every person who submits to a monogamous relationship is, all other things in the relationship being equal, better off for it.

Aside from the fact that God says it is an abomination in His word and that sentiment is reiterated by the apostle Paul, no species on earth can procreate via homosexual or lesbian behavior. Therefore is it only logical that there is a fault here because nature itself, which was created and ordained by God, says that if you deviate from my natural law you will cease to exist. I'm sorry - I really don't know what your premises or your conclusions are... Could you expand on this?

Again, slippery slope fallacy. We are talking about 1-5% of the population that are attracted sexually to their same sex. We are talking about changing our culture to give this population good reasons to choose monogamous relationships. This isn't going to kill off our generation. This will do nothing to change the number of children born.

Paul is not using the logic that you say he is using. I don't know where you are getting that, but that is false. Paul never condones sin in any form, so he wouldn't be using this logic you keep talking about. Inner Court or Outer Court, Christian-based morals never dictate or even hint that you choose a "least amount of sin to damage the least amount of people" kind of moral plateau. The ultimate goal is always no willful sin at all. Period. Homosexuality causes all kinds of damage to society. It causes a total breakdown of the family unit. Monogamy is almost nonexistant in homosexual relationships. It is the exception, not the rule. The amount of promiscuity in homosexual relationships is built in, because no matter what they may say themselves, they know the behavior is wrong. Homosexuality results in all kinds of disease and sickness, and in males, no end of physical damage in a great many cases. That is a no-brainer when you are practicing something the human body was not designed for and when you have a revolving door of partners. Homosexuals do not need the same security that heterosexuals need. Homosexuality is not beneficial to society in any way. The behavior causes nothing but negatives. Do you advocate the same rights for rapists and pedophiles? Because if you are going to be an advocate for homosexual rights, then travel down the path of least moral resistance and have the courage to defend every other sexual perversion as well, including rape, pedophelia, and beastiality. You've clearly stated that you don't care how aberant a lifestyle is, so you are not going to care about rape or child molesting either. Homosexuals would not face any of the concerns you mentioned if they would stop making bad choices. Their problems are not societies fault, it is their fault for making really bad choices. Paul is condoning sin when he tells people to get married if they can't curb their sin of lust. He is telling them: "if you can't help but commit the sin of lust and dedicate yourself to your union with God only, then get married so the sin is confined." The amount of promiscuity of any group can only be curbed by realstic and advantageous alternatives. For heterosexuals, society uses "marriage." For homoosexuals, society should use "marriage." Actually... our government should use "civil unions" to describe any monogamous relationships with the rights and responsibilities currently afforded marriage. I believe the term "marriage" refers to a church-condoned monogamous relationship, usually between a man and a woman. It is not the government's place to control church-based relationships. The government should turn all marriages into "civil unions," and let religious organizations keep the word "marriage" to define whatever they say marriage is.

God never meant for us to sin at all, yet we still need laws to bring order to the sin nature of our society. The way society deals with heterosexual lust's negative side is: encouraging monogamy. The way society deals with homosexual lust's negative consequence? Put our fingers in our ears and sing la la la, they're an aberation... la la la. We need to start treating homosexuals like any other kind of sexual human being and give them opportunities to become part of a secure relationship with the rights and responsibilities accorded to different-sex married coupled. Do you really think everyone is going to turn gay and marry someone of the same sex if same sex marriage becomes the norm? That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

I accept that Paul wouldn't condone homoesxuality. However, as this is the "universal moral law" section of the outer court of the forums, I am using the logic Paul uses to show a more universal law that his logic clearly points to: if you are going to sin, do so that it does the least damage to least people. From a utiliitarian and yes secular point of view, homosexualality causes no more or less damage than heterosexuality. To curb the spread of disease, it is in society's best interests to provide for state supported monogamy. Moreover, to assure health benefits for the most people, all human beings should have the power of the state behind them making monogamous connections to life partners if not for any other reason but to share the burden of health care costs. I don't care how aberant a life style is - I care about what benefit it is to our society. Homosexuals face the same concerns as heterosexuals and bisexuals with regards to needing secure companionship. We are improving our society by letting the strength and security of the state support mongamous relationships for any adults, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Homosexuals marrying does not minimize the damage caused by the sin. It is, in fact, another sin stacked up on top of the original one. Paul reinforces the OT statements, and states even more clearly that homosexuality is wrong, that it is a sin. There is nothing one can do to make that sin acceptable or lessen the severity of it. Marriage does not alleviate the sin because the only marriage God recognizes is one between a man and a woman. A marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman does nothing to lessen the sin because God does not see that marriage. It is not recognized by God and does not exist as a covenant spiritually. Nothing can make homosexual sin acceptable in any way, shape or form. Paul does this. Yes. There is a practical side of Paul's advice that is still very important to society... regardless of the sinful nature... there is damage caused to society by non-monagmous sexual relationships.. the spread of disease being the most impactful in the short term; while having a partner who is partially responsible for actions may be even more important in the long term.. When a human being has a tie to the community (such as marriage) they live longer, driver safer, and live cheaper. Clearly monogamy is preferable to society. I also need to disagree about the idea that to allow same sex marriage would somehow encourage sinful activity. A homosexual interested in same sex marriage is going to have sex whether the government gives him the option to do so in a civilly protected monagamous relationship or not. The amonut of sin is the same; but the damage to society from lust-related consequences is mitigated.