Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[Valoran]

Homosexuality is more than the act of sex itself, it's a sexual orientation. It is this sexual orientation that isn't voluntary. Again, your attacks on homosexuality is based purely on religious grounds, and you've apparently made it clear that you'll brook no discussion regarding your opinions. That's all well and good if you're a Christian, but why would you expect the rest of the public at large to accept such a heavy-handed argument?

Once again, you are mis-characterizing what I've said, for like the third or fourth time now, and it is never going to work for you. I know that liberal tolerance only works one way and that anything a liberal can't defend gets labeled hate or discrimination or irrational. Try another tack because that one will not work. I have stated that homosexuality is wrong. That does not constitute an attack.

When you claim that homosexuals "really have no wish to marry beyond obtaining a financial benefit from such a union", "do not have respect for the institution of marriage", and that "their wish to have the right to marry is merely an effort to degrade morals further and make marriage itself meaningless", you are going beyond stating that homosexuality is wrong. You are attacking homosexuals outright with generalizations and presuppositions about their motives. You are trying to demonize them with exaggerated claims that, to be honest, are not grounded in any sort of reality, whether secular or biblical.

Again, I fully respect your right to speak your mind and advocate the Christian viewpoint, even more so given how this is a Christian forum. But it's really regrettable that, having said what you said (anyone can refer to post #518, which I copied and pasted from), you're now trying to run away from your own words and cower from taking responsibility for them.

[Guest]

When you claim that homosexuals "really have no wish to marry beyond obtaining a financial benefit from such a union", "do not have respect for the institution of marriage", and that "their wish to have the right to marry is merely an effort to degrade morals further and make marriage itself meaningless", you are going beyond stating that homosexuality is wrong. You are attacking homosexuals outright with generalizations and presuppositions about their motives. You are trying to demonize them with exaggerated claims that, to be honest, are not grounded in any sort of reality, whether secular or biblical.....

Dear One, Biblically

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

Sinners Were Not Create By God

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

So Be Wiser Than Your Hedonistic Government And Don't Slander Your Maker

Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:16-17

____________

_________

______

___

Turn From Your Conceit

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

To The Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[OneLight]

There is all forms of sexual perversion in the world, some that make me sick to consider anyone would do them, but they are done. Is it the consensus of those who believe homosexuals are born this way, that those who desire a dead person or an animal are also the same and are just as sane? If not, what gives you the right to draw a line?

I never looked into necrophilia or bestiality, but I think it is the scientific consensus that it is not a choice in the sense that these people truly do have great urges to do these things - a lot of mental stuff is that way, same with pedophiles, and yes heterosexuals too. I don't think that translates into same levels of sanity though, if you can call it that. Each one is different, just because those people are trapped in that mentality (whether it is their choice or not) doesn't mean that you can't distinguish between them or draw some objective line.

When you make a distinction between desires in order to draw your lines, what values do you draw from?

[PGA]

Hi Stargaze,

Please give me the verse. In this way we know we are talking about the same verse. Then I will answer your question.

Thank you!

Peter

Exodus 21:20-21

New International Version (NIV)

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Keep in mind this issue is secondary, what I am really challenging you on is whether it's moral to own another human being as property.

Hi Stargazer,

Again it depends on the understanding of the word property as it relates in context to OT biblical times and whether you see this as a good thing in biblical times or not. It also depends on the concept of slavery conveyed in the OT regarding slaves and in what context, the harsh treatment of people that God condemns or the nurturing and provision for those who are poor or indebted and not able to look after themselves or their families.

What was God's motive for allowing slavery and what kind of slavery did He condone. As I mentioned before, during our work day we become the 'property' of our employer in the sense that He owns what we do. Like you said, we are able to quit our jobs, just as the Hebrew slave was allowed to leave the slave owner after six years of service.

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

Another thing that you should consider is that God's law was always after love, justice and mercy.

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18)

Jesus' very command to 'love your neighbour as yourself' comes from the OT. God is concerned how each of us relates to others, so I see these slaves in Exodus 20:20-21 as having done something wrong or the owner as having broken God's command. Even in the care of a person's own son the Proverb goes, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." Proverbs 13:24 or 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15, 17; Hebrews 12:7.

There is constantly the reminder not to treat manservant's and maidservants harshly, but flogging was considered a normal practice up until very recently.

When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. (Deut 25.1-3)

· ”I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. (2 Sam 7.14)

· “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me" (Is 10.5f)

[Valoran]

Hi Stargazer,

Again it depends on the understanding of the word property as it relates in context to OT biblical times and whether you see this as a good thing in biblical times or not. It also depends on the concept of slavery conveyed in the OT regarding slaves and in what context, the harsh treatment of people that God condemns or the nurturing and provision for those who are poor or indebted and not able to look after themselves or their families.

What was God's motive for allowing slavery and what kind of slavery did He condone. As I mentioned before, during our work day we become the 'property' of our employer in the sense that He owns what we do. Like you said, we are able to quit our jobs, just as the Hebrew slave was allowed to leave the slave owner after six years of service.

PGA, whatever justifications you may make for slavery in the Bible, it's a fact that slavery is an unacceptable practice in modern civilized societies, regardless of the circumstances. Unless Christians are going to advocate slavery in whatever form, we have a Biblically-sanctioned practice which is is no longer tolerated today.

It is clear then that at least a part of what the Bible considers acceptable or otherwise is subject to times and circumstances. Christians actually appear to be fine with this, given how they accept the abolishment of slavery, allowing women to preach and lead in churches, and a large part of the Deuteronomic laws falling out of practice (among numerous other issues) without too much of a fuss. I suspect that this homophobia is a temporary fad as well, and Christians five or ten decades from now will look back on us the same way we now look upon those who defended slavery during the last century.

[PGA]

Hi Valoran,

Thanks for the response!

Again it depends on the understanding of the word property as it relates in context to OT biblical times and whether you see this as a good thing in biblical times or not. It also depends on the concept of slavery conveyed in the OT regarding slaves and in what context, the harsh treatment of people that God condemns or the nurturing and provision for those who are poor or indebted and not able to look after themselves or their families.

What was God's motive for allowing slavery and what kind of slavery did He condone. As I mentioned before, during our work day we become the 'property' of our employer in the sense that He owns what we do. Like you said, we are able to quit our jobs, just as the Hebrew slave was allowed to leave the slave owner after six years of service. -Me

PGA, whatever justifications you may make for slavery in the Bible, it's a fact that slavery is an unacceptable practice in modern civilized societies, regardless of the circumstances. Unless Christians are going to advocate slavery in whatever form, we have a Biblically-sanctioned practice which is is no longer tolerated today. -Valoran

The point was the kind of slavery the Egyptians practised and that is similar to slavery in the America of yesteryear. This was and is something that the Bible never condoned but always condemned. I pointed out to Stargazer some similarities to the type of slavery that God allowed and the reason it was put in place was to benefit the less fortunate Hebrews, plus the fact that God, even in the OT commanded love for their neighbours, the very thing that Jesus said the law hinges on, other than to put God first and foremost.

It is clear then that at least a part of what the Bible considers acceptable or otherwise is subject to times and circumstances. Christians actually appear to be fine with this, given how they accept the abolishment of slavery, allowing women to preach and lead in churches, and a large part of the Deuteronomic laws falling out of practice (among numerous other issues) without too much of a fuss. I suspect that this homophobia is a temporary fad as well, and Christians five or ten decades from now will look back on us the same way we now look upon those who defended slavery during the last century.

-Valoran

No, not in regards to the kind of slavery practised in Egypt, the harsh and cruel treatment of others; that is something that God has always been against. As for some of what was happening in the churches during the first century regarding preaching, that was addressing specific circumstances, but other admonitions, such as modesty is always applicable. The 613 Mosaic laws addressed certain issues that applied to the specific people, but some are also applicable to us, for we learn by them. Some of the judicial laws have been adopted by many countries of the world. The drawing of blood was a practice that continued into the late 1800's, to my knowledge, but way back when God had told His people that the life was in the blood. The same goes for the laws of cleanliness such as in regards to leprosy and contagious diseases with regards to isolation, or destroying mold and mildew by burning it. Yes today we have more advanced methods of preventing mold but the principles are still the same; it is still unhealthy to be around. That fact has not changed. These are things that God instructed way before it had been confirmed by modern science and practises. As for same-sex marriage, the practise was condemned both in the OT and NT. It goes against the standard that God made in regards to marriage. As such it will always be wrong, no matter what any particular society thinks about it. The point is how does a relative subjective society establish the measure when the measure keeps changing? Who is right? Which society? Why is our current attitude towards same-sex marriage right today when 30 years ago it was considered wrong? I contend that it is because a minority pushed their preference until it swayed the majority. Does preference make something right? Or is there an objective standard that we can compare right to? Light exposes what is in the darkness. God's light gives the standard of righteousness.

When you read the Bible the context is important in whom is being addressed as well as how the ideas, practices and morals are revealed and expanded on in the NT, the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is addressing not only to the Jews, but all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Peter

[Valoran]

Hi Valoran,

Thanks for the response!

Again it depends on the understanding of the word property as it relates in context to OT biblical times and whether you see this as a good thing in biblical times or not. It also depends on the concept of slavery conveyed in the OT regarding slaves and in what context, the harsh treatment of people that God condemns or the nurturing and provision for those who are poor or indebted and not able to look after themselves or their families.

What was God's motive for allowing slavery and what kind of slavery did He condone. As I mentioned before, during our work day we become the 'property' of our employer in the sense that He owns what we do. Like you said, we are able to quit our jobs, just as the Hebrew slave was allowed to leave the slave owner after six years of service. -Me

PGA, whatever justifications you may make for slavery in the Bible, it's a fact that slavery is an unacceptable practice in modern civilized societies, regardless of the circumstances. Unless Christians are going to advocate slavery in whatever form, we have a Biblically-sanctioned practice which is is no longer tolerated today. -Valoran

The point was the kind of slavery the Egyptians practised and that is similar to slavery in the America of yesteryear. This was and is something that the Bible never condoned but always condemned. I pointed out to Stargazer some similarities to the type of slavery that God allowed and the reason it was put in place was to benefit the less fortunate Hebrews, plus the fact that God, even in the OT commanded love for their neighbours, the very thing that Jesus said the law hinges on, other than to put God first and foremost.

It is clear then that at least a part of what the Bible considers acceptable or otherwise is subject to times and circumstances. Christians actually appear to be fine with this, given how they accept the abolishment of slavery, allowing women to preach and lead in churches, and a large part of the Deuteronomic laws falling out of practice (among numerous other issues) without too much of a fuss. I suspect that this homophobia is a temporary fad as well, and Christians five or ten decades from now will look back on us the same way we now look upon those who defended slavery during the last century.

-Valoran

No, not in regards to the kind of slavery practised in Egypt, the harsh and cruel treatment of others; that is something that God has always been against. As for some of what was happening in the churches during the first century regarding preaching, that was addressing specific circumstances, but other admonitions, such as modesty is always applicable. The 613 Mosaic laws addressed certain issues that applied to the specific people, but some are also applicable to us, for we learn by them. Some of the judicial laws have been adopted by many countries of the world. The drawing of blood was a practice that continued into the late 1800's, to my knowledge, but way back when God had told His people that the life was in the blood. The same goes for the laws of cleanliness such as in regards to leprosy and contagious diseases with regards to isolation, or destroying mold and mildew by burning it. Yes today we have more advanced methods of preventing mold but the principles are still the same; it is still unhealthy to be around. That fact has not changed. These are things that God instructed way before it had been confirmed by modern science and practises. As for same-sex marriage, the practise was condemned both in the OT and NT. It goes against the standard that God made in regards to marriage. As such it will always be wrong, no matter what any particular society thinks about it. The point is how does a relative subjective society establish the measure when the measure keeps changing? Who is right? Which society? Why is our current attitude towards same-sex marriage right today when 30 years ago it was considered wrong? I contend that it is because a minority pushed their preference until it swayed the majority. Does preference make something right? Or is there an objective standard that we can compare right to? Light exposes what is in the darkness. God's light gives the standard of righteousness.

When you read the Bible the context is important in whom is being addressed as well as how the ideas, practices and morals are revealed and expanded on in the NT, the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is addressing not only to the Jews, but all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Peter

I understand what you're trying to say, PGA. However, I'm not trying to pin down Christianity as supporters of inhumane slavery; rest assured that that isn't my intention. My argument was that, for better or for worse, there were some types of slavery that were deemed to be accepted as a practice in ages past, while in modern societies today all forms of slavery are not tolerated, and that the situation today does not reflect what is acceptable and what is not as outlined in the Bible. Ergo, we can see a shift over time, a shift that Christians seem content to accept.

With regards to your argument that same-sex marriage was condemned in both the OT and the NT, a similar argument applies to slavery where nothing was said in either the OT or the NT that slavery as an institution was not acceptable and needed to be abolished. In particular, Jesus had nothing to say about the status quo. The problem with trying to explain away these discrepancies by sticking to the context that Jesus tells us to love, is that when you have direct evidence that the context is wrong or does not apply, the evidence is dismissed for the sake of sticking to the pre-conceived context. Is slavery acceptable as long as you love your slaves? Jesus seemed to think so.

As for your minority-majority argument, a simple example will demonstrate why I do not agree with it. Assume that only 10% of a nation is wealthy, and the rest poor. The majority demands that the minority give away their hard-earned wealth gained through honest work. Is it wrong for the rich to refuse because they are in the minority?

[PGA]

Hi again Valoran,

I understand what you're trying to say, PGA. However, I'm not trying to pin down Christianity as supporters of inhumane slavery; rest assured that that isn't my intention. My argument was that, for better or for worse, there were some types of slavery that were deemed to be accepted as a practice in ages past, while in modern societies today all forms of slavery are not tolerated, and that the situation today does not reflect what is acceptable and what is not as outlined in the Bible. Ergo, we can see a shift over time, a shift that Christians seem content to accept. -Valoran

First off, I would and have argued that if we properly understand God we do not support nor have we ever supported inhumane slavery. The concepts of slavery or servant-hood supported by the Bible is similar to what we witness as the employer/employee relationship today. These people in OT times were indebted or poverty stricken and in order to pay the debt or live a better lifestyle they became indentured servants. We do the same thing today in our work relationships. We agree to perform what the employer demands of us in return to meet our own needs and obligations.

With regards to your argument that same-sex marriage was condemned in both the OT and the NT, a similar argument applies to slavery where nothing was said in either the OT or the NT that slavery as an institution was not acceptable and needed to be abolished. In particular, Jesus had nothing to say about the status quo. The problem with trying to explain away these discrepancies by sticking to the context that Jesus tells us to love, is that when you have direct evidence that the context is wrong or does not apply, the evidence is dismissed for the sake of sticking to the pre-conceived context. Is slavery acceptable as long as you love your slaves? Jesus seemed to think so. -Valoran

Actually there was lots said in both testaments about slavery and also the kind of cruel, malicious slavery that God opposed. God's primary concern was to love Him and love our neighbours in both testaments. Jesus summed up all the laws in those two statements. The Golden Rule is just one prime example. Over and over again Jesus not only demonstrated the love for others but also told those He addressed to love others as you love yourself, a lesson that applies across the centuries.The apostle Paul among others makes reference to the fact that in Christ we are all brothers and sisters in one big family, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, rich or poor, free or slave, man or woman, but that we are all one in Christ. This is the kind of verse that has inspired many to push for the abolition of the harsh kind of servant-hood practised both in Egypt and in many parts of the world up until recently, and that still goes on in the black-market, this buying and selling of people, usually for sexual perversions and the like.

As for your minority-majority argument, a simple example will demonstrate why I do not agree with it. Assume that only 10% of a nation is wealthy, and the rest poor. The majority demands that the minority give away their hard-earned wealth gained through honest work. Is it wrong for the rich to refuse because they are in the minority? -Valoran

You may not agree with it but can you demonstrate why something should be as you believe it to be? Why is your view the 'best?' You see best implies that there is a standard by which we can know and measure good by. What shifting standard will you propose to me? In order to have an objective standard/measure/reference/final resting point you have to know what best is. Can you point me to such a standard? If you can't then all you have to work with is someones preference, someones likes, someones feelings. In such a case some like to murder their enemies and those they see as inferior (such as Hitler) and some like to offer them hospitality as Jesus gave example of with the Good Samaritan. What is your preference?

Your world-view is inconsistent, because on the one hand you argue against something and then on the other you prove why it should be so. It is so wishy-washy because it depends on nothing more than what those in power push to be the rules. They can change with the change of government or ruler. Your whole argument falls to those who are in power unless you can provide an objective standard as to why something should or must be. Maybe you can address some of these inconsistencies I have pointed out as to why they 'should' be rather than just why they are?

The example you give above seems like what the Obama administration is attempting to do to some extent. It wants to increase the taxes of the wealthy to offset the conditions of the poor. The question is can such wealthy people really live these extravagant lifestyles without regards to the poor and without even a shade of guilt? It appears so. Who switched the price tags so that sports stars get exorbitant amounts of money while those who teach your children sometimes barely make ends meet?

Back to you.

Peter

Edited December 14, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

PS. Valoran, I see you have taken up the moral law argument on the other forum. If you want to answer my questions and then switch over their then that will be fine with me.

[OneLight]

There is all forms of sexual perversion in the world, some that make me sick to consider anyone would do them, but they are done. Is it the consensus of those who believe homosexuals are born this way, that those who desire a dead person or an animal are also the same and are just as sane? If not, what gives you the right to draw a line?

I never looked into necrophilia or bestiality, but I think it is the scientific consensus that it is not a choice in the sense that these people truly do have great urges to do these things - a lot of mental stuff is that way, same with pedophiles, and yes heterosexuals too. I don't think that translates into same levels of sanity though, if you can call it that. Each one is different, just because those people are trapped in that mentality (whether it is their choice or not) doesn't mean that you can't distinguish between them or draw some objective line.

When you make a distinction between desires in order to draw your lines, what values do you draw from?

I think there are several places where we can derive sensible lines. Things like willingness of participants, and consciousness of decisions (i.e. do they understand their actions well enough, as seen in age of consent and sobriety). The consequences of the manifestations of such desires should be taken into account. On a more human level there is a ton of subjectivity, as a lot of our morals comes from our culture and experience, but also innate feelings too. So there are a few different things to consider, and I think each case should be reviewed independently.

Really? How would you review a person hired to embalm a family member only to find out they had sex with her? How could you find anything acceptable with that? I am not even going to get into bestiality.

What do you consider acceptable in a sexual exchange?