Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[nebula]

Well, I hope silence on the animal issue means that the animal argument fails?

Maybe the silence is because it does not fail

So, you will argue that because animals do it, it's of God for us to do it?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Romans 14:10

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear nebula,

Thank you for your OP and question.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

I guess I fall in that category of people who don't believe as you do. Therefore I am responding to your question.

I support the right for homosexual couples to marry. To me, marriage is a state-licensed legal contract between 2 people that has far-reaching consequences such as:

1) legal status for income tax filing purposes, and their associated benefits and liabilities

2) legal status for inheritance through probate

3) legal status for emloyer covered health insurance benefits

4) legal status for asset owning in partnership

5) legal status for adoption of children

But as you mention, this is what it means to you.

Laws where never passed based on what something meant to you in the past, so you have to give a solid basis for why we would revisit the definition of an institution that has always been the case regardless of cultural context and in redefining it, why would we then agree to the limitations you presribe and not open it up to the input of moroms or other polygamists, or non-western cultures that encourage child-brides (check out the latest edition of National Geographic).

Democracy saw its origins in Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was practiced freely and was at times even exhalted above hetrosexuality. Yet, at no point in the Greece Empire, the Roman to follow, or any other sucessive western or non-western empirce, regardless of its stance on homosexuality, was the institution of marriage ever defined as being between same sex couples.

Many of the 5 things you list there are covered under common-law benefits in places where the homosexual community insists on redefining marriage to be between same sex couples, so its not about benefits, but about the marriage ceremony itself.

I also find that denying people the above rights just because they are homosexual as a form of sexual discrimination akin to what minority races suffered in the recent past. I find that sort of thing distasteful.

I know many of you will disagree with my opinion on this matter. And it is OK to disagree.

Regards,

UF

I agree that it's OK to disagree, but this is not an issue of rights. Anyone has the right to marry, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or culture.

What we're talking about is not a matter of rights, but of definition, and the definiton of marriage, even in homosexual friendly cultures, has always been between a man and a woman.

This is a matter of defining the terms of an institution, not of rights.

To suggest it's a matter of rights certainly begs the question of why polygamy is illegal. What about the rights of conscenting adults?

Why child brides are illegal in the west? What if a child wants to marry? What about their rights?

These things are a matter of choices and definitions, and are in no way restrictive of an individuals right to marry, or opt out as they prefer but simply of how marriage is defined.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, but why put such laws, limited in time and space, in a Holy Book? That could confuse people, and not everyone is an expert in hermeneutics. Take slavery for instance, how many time, in the past, has slavery been justified because it is accepted in the Bible (incl. NT)? Maybe it is just my twisted sense of atheistic morality, but I would have preferred a much stronger condemnation against owning and beating other human beings, rather than worrying too much about sex before marriage.

viole, slavery was abolished because of Christian religious conviction. You've heard the song Amazing Grace? If you're not familiar with the background of the song, I'd highly recommend looking into it and the inspiration it was to Wilberforce in his own Christian faith in fighting the slave trade.

Atheism didn't abolish slavery, Christianity did.

Besides, the OT slavery is not an institution like was seen in the Southern United States or in Medieval Europe. If someone did not own land in the ancient Middle East what were they supposed to do? Slavery then was actually much more akin to employment now, and look at the Biblical customs that enabled slaves to work towards land ownership and such.

The polarized view that the Bible condones slavery simply because there were people who had “slaves’ is totally misleading.

I'd also like to point out that you mentioned yourself that many homosexuals have heterosexual encounters, and you use this in an attempt to support your instance of affirming the consequent in suggesting that homosexuality is a natural biological response.

What you've done, however, is demonstrated the extent to which this is simply a sexual choice. A friend of mine is openly an active participant in the homosexual community. He told me that most of his friends will opt for heterosexual encounters on occasion.

If homosexuals willingly opt to have heterosexual encounters based on nothing more than urges + opportunities to do so, then it's clear that teh behaviour is controlled by nothing more than choice. If it's a choice, then there's no reason whatsoever to suggest that someone can't disagree with that choice, or that it's a bad choice.

If it's a bad choice of a sexual nature, then it can certainly qualify as a perversion, which I believe it does.

In trying to dig yourself out of the biological pit in suggesting that the 'gay gene' is passed on, you've demonstrated that it's just a choice (not a gene) and choices can be wrong or perverted.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, but why put such laws, limited in time and space, in a Holy Book? That could confuse people, and not everyone is an expert in hermeneutics.

You are trying to manufacture a problesm that does not exist. Up to this point, most people have been able to make the important distinction between what belonged to ancient Israel and what is more universal in scope. So, it has not been the problem you have tried to make it out to be.

Take slavery for instance, how many time, in the past, has slavery been justified because it is accepted in the Bible (incl. NT)? Maybe it is just my twisted sense of atheistic morality, but I would have preferred a much stronger condemnation against owning and beating other human beings, rather than worrying too much about sex before marriage.

In the Bible, slavery was often an occupation or a means of paying a debt. In those instances, it was voluntary, as was the indentured servant.

Even in the event of slaves taken in war, the Bible regulates humane treatment. Because the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, they are reminded that they are not to treat their slaves in cruel manner. Besides, all slaves were set free every 50 years.

Slavery was part of the unversal economy of that time period.

[nebula]

D-9, what do you tell a people who believe nations are destroyed on account of homosexuality?

[SavedByGrace1980]

I have somewhat of a different take on this subject:

Our definition of marriage here in the US in 2011 encompasses two basic ideas - one is religious and one is secular. Now I'm not enough of a historian or cultural expert to debate the history of marriage, I am only basing my comments on what I observe here and now.

So when we say a couple is "married" there is not enough information in the use of that term alone to tell us whether they were married by a clergy or by a secular magistrate. I believe this is where some of the controversy comes from. Let me illustrate in this way:

Let's throw out the secular definition of marriage for the moment and focus on the religious. In addition, lets compare it to another religious rite - baptism.

Do we have secular officials performing baptisms? Not that I am aware of. While different religious denominations may look upon baptism in slightly different ways, baptism has no SECULAR, LEGAL meaning. Secular officials, since they do not perform baptism nor does the State sanction it, have no say in it.

Well, like baptism, marriage is a religious rite. But, unlike baptism, it is a LEGAL right, too. That is where the problem comes in.

Personally (and I see no conflict with my Christian beliefs in this) I believe homosexuals should have the right to enter into state-sanctioned, legal "contracts" that give them legal standing that is on par with marriage. I just have a problem with that being called "marriage". (I'd have no problem with it being called a "civil union", but apparently many homosexuals want to use the term "marriage.")

Do I have a right to tell homosexuals they cannot use that term? No, I suppose I can't.

So - whatever "ownership" we as Christians had over the term marriage was in effect ceded when marriage also became a legal term.

That's the way I see it.

Blessings!

-Ed

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I have somewhat of a different take on this subject:

Our definition of marriage here in the US in 2011 encompasses two basic ideas - one is religious and one is secular. Now I'm not enough of a historian or cultural expert to debate the history of marriage, I am only basing my comments on what I observe here and now.

So when we say a couple is "married" there is not enough information in the use of that term alone to tell us whether they were married by a clergy or by a secular magistrate. I believe this is where some of the controversy comes from. Let me illustrate in this way:

Let's throw out the secular definition of marriage for the moment and focus on the religious. In addition, lets compare it to another religious rite - baptism.

Do we have secular officials performing baptisms? Not that I am aware of. While different religious denominations may look upon baptism in slightly different ways, baptism has no SECULAR, LEGAL meaning. Secular officials, since they do not perform baptism nor does the State sanction it, have no say in it.

Well, like baptism, marriage is a religious rite. But, unlike baptism, it is a LEGAL right, too. That is where the problem comes in.

Personally (and I see no conflict with my Christian beliefs in this) I believe homosexuals should have the right to enter into state-sanctioned, legal "contracts" that give them legal standing that is on par with marriage. I just have a problem with that being called "marriage". (I'd have no problem with it being called a "civil union", but apparently many homosexuals want to use the term "marriage.")

Do I have a right to tell homosexuals they cannot use that term? No, I suppose I can't.

So - whatever "ownership" we as Christians had over the term marriage was in effect ceded when marriage also became a legal term.

That's the way I see it.

Blessings!

-Ed

This is very well put, and very much the way I used to think but I now believe that it begs the question of why is it a legal, secular right.

Since marriage is the religious ceremony of union in the eyes of God (or gods, depending on the culture) that was adopted as a civil institution as culture became increasingly secular, we're still left with the question of what good the institution serves as a secular 'right'. If the point is to be joined before God, then why have it a secular ceremony at all? Why should the rest of people in society be responsible for the benefits of two people who choose to get married? Why the special privileges for that choice?

The answer is simply because that is what is necessary to propagate a complete, natural family. As per the article already submitted the risks to children are greatly reduced if a family stays together and the biological mother and father raise the children. Handing out the incentives to remain married to common law relationships was a terrible, crippling loss to the health of the nuclear family (again already seen in the article), and widening the definition of marriage to include those who cannot even produce such families is only allowing the momentum to continue in the wrong direction.

The real question is why is society responsible for providing privileges for anything other than the first-time married couple that has a good shot a staying together and raising a family. It is the committed, investment in future generations of citizens that

[SavedByGrace1980]

I have somewhat of a different take on this subject:

Our definition of marriage here in the US in 2011 encompasses two basic ideas - one is religious and one is secular. Now I'm not enough of a historian or cultural expert to debate the history of marriage, I am only basing my comments on what I observe here and now.

So when we say a couple is "married" there is not enough information in the use of that term alone to tell us whether they were married by a clergy or by a secular magistrate. I believe this is where some of the controversy comes from. Let me illustrate in this way:

Let's throw out the secular definition of marriage for the moment and focus on the religious. In addition, lets compare it to another religious rite - baptism.

Do we have secular officials performing baptisms? Not that I am aware of. While different religious denominations may look upon baptism in slightly different ways, baptism has no SECULAR, LEGAL meaning. Secular officials, since they do not perform baptism nor does the State sanction it, have no say in it.

Well, like baptism, marriage is a religious rite. But, unlike baptism, it is a LEGAL right, too. That is where the problem comes in.

Personally (and I see no conflict with my Christian beliefs in this) I believe homosexuals should have the right to enter into state-sanctioned, legal "contracts" that give them legal standing that is on par with marriage. I just have a problem with that being called "marriage". (I'd have no problem with it being called a "civil union", but apparently many homosexuals want to use the term "marriage.")

Do I have a right to tell homosexuals they cannot use that term? No, I suppose I can't.

So - whatever "ownership" we as Christians had over the term marriage was in effect ceded when marriage also became a legal term.

That's the way I see it.

Blessings!

-Ed

This is very well put, and very much the way I used to think but I now believe that it begs the question of why is it a legal, secular right.

Since marriage is the religious ceremony of union in the eyes of God (or gods, depending on the culture) that was adopted as a civil institution as culture became increasingly secular, we're still left with the question of what good the institution serves as a secular 'right'. If the point is to be joined before God, then why have it a secular ceremony at all? Why should the rest of people in society be responsible for the benefits of two people who choose to get married? Why the special privileges for that choice?

The answer is simply because that is what is necessary to propagate a complete, natural family. As per the article already submitted the risks to children are greatly reduced if a family stays together and the biological mother and father raise the children. Handing out the incentives to remain married to common law relationships was a terrible, crippling loss to the health of the nuclear family (again already seen in the article), and widening the definition of marriage to include those who cannot even produce such families is only allowing the momentum to continue in the wrong direction.

The real question is why is society responsible for providing privileges for anything other than the first-time married couple that has a good shot a staying together and raising a family. It is the committed, investment in future generations of citizens that

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

That is an excellent article - thanks for posting the link.

Maybe some Christians (I'll include myself in this) have given up trying to convince a secular society that there are secular arguments against homosexual marriage. I'll go even further and say that some of us weren't even aware of these secular arguments against it.

I live in a state that will likely legalize homosexual marriage in the near future. It is already being portrayed in some quarters as a "done deal" and perhaps it is.

But I, as a lowly citizen of that state, now have some ammo in my effort to at least slow the freight train down. I will use some of the points in that article when I contact my representatives.

Blessings!

-Ed

God bless you too!

I think it's very important that we contend on this issue, if for no other reason than our rights will be taken away if we don't.

I was reading an article about a man who's employment was terminated due to personal opinions he expressed in social media against same-sex marriage. He said nothing hostile or demeaning and again was expressing his own opinions on his own time. The reactions that people were posting to the issue were shocking. Many people think it's outright bigoted to simply hold the opinion that same sex marriage should not be legalized, and many people strongly supported firing people for disagreeing with a particular view.

When I posted the response that if the law will protect your right to hold opinions on one side of an issue without persecution, it must protect the other way otherwise it's just as tyrannical and intolerant, many people vehemently opposed this sentiment. One person even mentioned that bigots (those who disagree with extending the traditional definition of marriage to include same sex relationships) need to be vilified and persecuted in the name of tolerance (of all things).

Intolerance in the name of tolerance seems perfectly complimentary and consistent to some, it would seem, and unfortunately those some seem to have loud and powerful voices which are stamping out human liberties of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, in the very name of the human liberties they are attempting to destroy.

My main fear is not that they will succeed not in expanding the definition of marriage, but that if we don't voice our disagreements, that they will succeed in removing our right to disagree, because while I believe that people should be ruled much by their own conscience, it seems that less liberty is afforded by those who pay it the most lip service these days.