Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[Guest]

I did not read this whole thread, just the page that is the last page as I write this, forgive me if what i say has been covered.

It is moslty the comments of lemminglord that I am resonding to. The idea that somehow, marriage might tend to legitimize or serve to offer a solution to lust for homosexual individuals is flawed if for no other reason the homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are of an entirely different nature. Paul refers to the homosexual union as un-natural, getting married does not fix that. Nothing in marriage makes unnatural acts into natural acts, whether between opposite gender couples or same sex couples.

A marriage to children, or to animals wherein acts of lust are fullfilled, is still just not in character with God's purposes for marriage, same sex couples would have the same issue. Young teenagers, and those even younger, are quite capable of lust as well, and Paul is not supporting the idea that they should married to avoid 'burning'. They are still expected to abstain until it is proper to be married. The same is true for homosexuals - they are to abstain because it is never proper, never endorsed by God and is in fact forbidden by Him and destestable to Him.

It is not an unclear or vague teaching in the Bible, and there is really nothing to be argued about as far as the Bible is concerned. The choices are simple, obey, or disobey, those choices are available in many areas besides this one. We can make choices, and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of the choices, but please, let's not go down the dishonest road of pretending that there is some way that the Bible ever legitimizes any form of, well, perversion.

[lemminglord]

What on earth? Are you suggesting sex within marriage is sinful?

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.

I did not read this whole thread, just the page that is the last page as I write this, forgive me if what i say has been covered.

It is moslty the comments of lemminglord that I am resonding to. The idea that somehow, marriage might tend to legitimize or serve to offer a solution to lust for homosexual individuals is flawed if for no other reason the homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are of an entirely different nature. Paul refers to the homosexual union as un-natural, getting married does not fix that. Nothing in marriage makes unnatural acts into natural acts, whether between opposite gender couples or same sex couples.

A marriage to children, or to animals wherein acts of lust are fullfilled, is still just not in character with God's purposes for marriage, same sex couples would have the same issue. Young teenagers, and those even younger, are quite capable of lust as well, and Paul is not supporting the idea that they should married to avoid 'burning'. They are still expected to abstain until it is proper to be married. The same is true for homosexuals - they are to abstain because it is never proper, never endorsed by God and is in fact forbidden by Him and destestable to Him.

It is not an unclear or vague teaching in the Bible, and there is really nothing to be argued about as far as the Bible is concerned. The choices are simple, obey, or disobey, those choices are available in many areas besides this one. We can make choices, and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of the choices, but please, let's not go down the dishonest road of pretending that there is some way that the Bible ever legitimizes any form of, well, perversion.

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.

Edited October 31, 2011 by lemminglord

[Arthur Durnan]

Dear Lemminglord (rodent, mouse-like creature + "lord"?) Wherever You Are - You have constantly been answered with scriptural declaration which you evidently reject. Jesus & His disciples speak clearly in His settled Word of truth, You ride again and keep falling off! HALP!

Yup, methinks your response staggers along on crutches & the kind of whistling one hears, late at night, around the walls of graveyards. Spending too much time with any horse-&-buggy doctor with sassafras solutions adds up to dull theater, therefore as they state on "Dragons' Den," I'm ou!. Have a tremendous day all day today! Meet me at McDonald's for breakfast & it's on me.

[~candice~]

What on earth? Are you suggesting sex within marriage is sinful?

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.

I did not read this whole thread, just the page that is the last page as I write this, forgive me if what i say has been covered.

It is moslty the comments of lemminglord that I am resonding to. The idea that somehow, marriage might tend to legitimize or serve to offer a solution to lust for homosexual individuals is flawed if for no other reason the homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are of an entirely different nature. Paul refers to the homosexual union as un-natural, getting married does not fix that. Nothing in marriage makes unnatural acts into natural acts, whether between opposite gender couples or same sex couples.

A marriage to children, or to animals wherein acts of lust are fullfilled, is still just not in character with God's purposes for marriage, same sex couples would have the same issue. Young teenagers, and those even younger, are quite capable of lust as well, and Paul is not supporting the idea that they should married to avoid 'burning'. They are still expected to abstain until it is proper to be married. The same is true for homosexuals - they are to abstain because it is never proper, never endorsed by God and is in fact forbidden by Him and destestable to Him.

It is not an unclear or vague teaching in the Bible, and there is really nothing to be argued about as far as the Bible is concerned. The choices are simple, obey, or disobey, those choices are available in many areas besides this one. We can make choices, and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of the choices, but please, let's not go down the dishonest road of pretending that there is some way that the Bible ever legitimizes any form of, well, perversion.

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.

I think you have missed the point. If they (heterosexual couples) are married, then their sexual desires for one another are no longer sin. If a gay couple marries, they are still in sin.

[~candice~]

When has this experiment EVER worked? In which society were there homosexual marriages... and we see that society flourishing and continuing on for a longer period of time?

[UndecidedFrog]

When has this experiment EVER worked? In which society were there homosexual marriages... and we see that society flourishing and continuing on for a longer period of time?

It depends on what you determine as "a long period of time" and "flourishing society".

If you define "flourishing society" to be a society devoid of things you find repugnant (including homosexual marriage), you can easily answer your own question.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[enoob57]

When has this experiment EVER worked? In which society were there homosexual marriages... and we see that society flourishing and continuing on for a longer period of time?

It depends on what you determine as "a long period of time" and "flourishing society".

If you define "flourishing society" to be a society devoid of things you find repugnant (including homosexual marriage), you can easily answer your own question.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

May I Candice.... I address all things by eternity! As does my Father in Heaven By The Witness of His Son... Love, Steven

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

One more time, God never made two men to procreate. Homosexuality amounts to generational death. Incapable of reproduction, how else can it replenish its numbers save via recruitment or seduction as avenues of increase?

Again, slippery slope fallacy.

There's a difference between a slippery slope and a slippery slope fallacy.

A slippery slope fallacy is an unwarrented transition from one thing to the next, like suggesting if you start drinking coke softdrink then you'll start sniffing coke the drug.

It is not a fallacy, however, if a regression can be established or may potentially be established.

For example, 50 years ago people would have been concerned that if sodomy was no longer illegal it would lead to homosexual marriage, and by your line of reasoning that would be dismissed as a slippery slope fallacy, even though it was the logical and nearly predicatible outcome of creating a slippery slope of pulling the plug on a social convention and expecting the pressure would then build behind the next one in line.

But again, my friend you're failing to differentiate what Paul was talking about.

It is not the sin of lust of a husband and wife to have sex. Sex is not the sin of lust. Homosexual sex is, as we see from Romans, whereas He created men and women to be together: "Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matt 19: 4-6).

Therefore you're not applying a Biblical princible, but are defying one. It's not simply an unwarrented extrapolation, but a condemned one. You could just as readily say that if we can't stop molesting children we just need to marry them, or if you can't stop murdering people you need to label their actions capital offense crimes and call yourself the State. You can't change the facts by juggling them.

If you think there are social benefits then might I suggest that such are the grounds upon which to make your, because it's simply not sound to suggest the Bible supports your reasoning here.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

When has this experiment EVER worked? In which society were there homosexual marriages... and we see that society flourishing and continuing on for a longer period of time?

Scandinavia?

This isn't an historical example, but an example in progress. It's historically only very recent. Give it time.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Have you seen a society, where children use iPads, flourishing and continuing on for longer period of time?

They used to in Atlantis. It turned out badly.