Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear ~candice~,

Thank you for your comments.

I do not see the orientation as something people have consciously chosen. I do see the lifestyle as something people have consciously chosen though. I've said it before... the 'born gay' argument is a strawman, and it doesn't matter, because the biblical position on same sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general is not predicated on whether or not a homosexual is born that way.

I agree and disagree with you.

I agree that sexual orientation is not something people can "choose". I cannot choose to be a homosexual anymore than a homosexual can choose to be a heterosexual.

I don't understand what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle", so I am not ready to comment on that yet. Does lifestyle (the way you use the word) mean having intimate relations with a person of the same sex? Or does it mean to display the common stereotypes of affected speech and interest in the arts, fashion and cooking?

I agree with your view that the "born gay" argument is a strawman. The point whether or not god created them gay has nothing to do with their rights to get married to each other.

I disagree with your perspective that biblical prohibition of homosexuality should be the basis of our society's definitions or laws. If the bible were to be that basis, we would still have slaves (as long as we treat them well). The USA is a secular country, with its constitution firmly non-religious. As such, IMHO, we should afford all our citizens equal treatment under the law, including the rights and benefits associated with marriage, irrespective of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, color, vietnam veteran status or disability.

Regards,

UF

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Actually, I did not say sexual preference. I said it was sexual orientation. A preference connotes choice, which I think is your perspective on sexuality (hetero or homo). I do not share that perspective. I see sexual orientation as not choosable. Yes, couples do marry for many strange reasons, sometimes against their better judgment.

I believe, my dear ambivalent amphibian, that you undersell the value of choice.

My wife used to work in a gay-friendly environment (whatever that means) in which the topic of homosexuality being a choice arose. Nearly everyone she worked with insisted it was not a choice, but my wife directed the question to the only office member who actually identified themselves as a homosexual, and that individual testified that for her, it was indeed a choice

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear OldEnglishSheepdog,

Thanks for your response, my ancient furry, anglo pastoral canine.

My wife used to work in a

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Thanks for your response, my ancient furry, anglo pastoral canine.

I love it!

A few testimonies does not make the case. From what I have seen, the large majority of homosexuals do not consider sexual orientation a choice.

It demonstrates that it can be. If some people can chose, I sure don't see what suggests that others can't.

But it's a side issue in any case.

So, by your argument, sterile men and women cannot marry since their marriage would be, by your definition, a non-procreative one.

In addition, there are heterosexual couples who marry who never intend to have children, making those marriages non-procreative as well. Should they be prohibited from marrying?

Also, if couples marry, but did not want to procreate because of some genetic disorder, but wanted to adopt children (who are otherwise unwanted languishing in foster care), should they be prevented from marrying? What if this couple did not have any genetic disorder, but wanted to provide a home and love for adopted children? What if this couple were a homosexual couple?

My case is the same as the one in the article I attached.

It is not economically feasible to break it down to a case by case basis. That would defeat the whole purpose of offering the incentives by making it economically unfeasible for the sake of seeking out exceptions, but that's no reason to extend the definition to deliberately incorporate a group who are by definition exceptions to the purpose.

That's a red herring. You may as well wonder why there is such a disproportionate representation of christians compared to atheists in the incarcerated population.

Not at all. Christianity is a decision. It's a choice.

You just made my case by comparing homosexuality with another choice to involve oneself in an institution.

One could not, however, call themselves an atheist while affirming the deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ simply because they want to be head of the Atheist society in their area because that gets them 10% off coffee in the University coffee bar on Tuesdays.

It’s just not part of the definition of the Institution.

[~candice~]

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

Dear ~candice~,

Thank you for your comments.

I do not see the orientation as something people have consciously chosen. I do see the lifestyle as something people have consciously chosen though. I've said it before... the 'born gay' argument is a strawman, and it doesn't matter, because the biblical position on same sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general is not predicated on whether or not a homosexual is born that way.

I agree and disagree with you.

I agree that sexual orientation is not something people can "choose". I cannot choose to be a homosexual anymore than a homosexual can choose to be a heterosexual.

I don't understand what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle", so I am not ready to comment on that yet. Does lifestyle (the way you use the word) mean having intimate relations with a person of the same sex? Or does it mean to display the common stereotypes of affected speech and interest in the arts, fashion and cooking?

I agree with your view that the "born gay" argument is a strawman. The point whether or not god created them gay has nothing to do with their rights to get married to each other.

I disagree with your perspective that biblical prohibition of homosexuality should be the basis of our society's definitions or laws. If the bible were to be that basis, we would still have slaves (as long as we treat them well). The USA is a secular country, with its constitution firmly non-religious. As such, IMHO, we should afford all our citizens equal treatment under the law, including the rights and benefits associated with marriage, irrespective of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, color, vietnam veteran status or disability.

Regards,

UF

Hi UF,

Oops I missed your post until now.

Homosexual lifestyle means acting on their orientation; gay sex etc etc.

However, just because I claimed people may be 'born gay' doesn't mean God made them that way . His creation has fallen, and we are now born with a sin nature, homosexuality is part of that IMHO. Likewise, since God didn't make them that way, I don't think that orientation is a static fixed thing and I believe the literature and my own experience testifies to this.

As for 'gay marriage', I do not think we should discriminate against particular sinners. Homosexuals should not have a lessor extent to health care or social security etc etc because their partner is same sex, but why do we have to group those rights together into something called marriage? Give them civil rights and unions, just don't call it marriage because it isn't.

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear ~candice~,

Thank you for your response.

As for 'gay marriage', I do not think we should discriminate against particular sinners. Homosexuals should not have a lessor extent to health care or social security etc etc because their partner is same sex, but why do we have to group those rights together into something called marriage? Give them civil rights and unions, just don't call it marriage because it isn't.

Yes, now that I know how you are using "sexual lifestyle", we all choose whether or not to have sex or remain celibate. Fortunately for our species, most of us choose to have sex.

If you support giving homosexual couples the same rights and privileges as those of heterosexual couples, and only withold the title marriage, you are a lot closer to my position than I thought.

However, I would like to probe you a little bit about your objection to the use of the word marriage. Obviously, marriage predates both christianity and judaism. And the definition of that word has changed over time. For example, most of the non-muslim world today do not permit polygamy. Back in history, polygamy was common practise. The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing special about the word marriage.

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

It's not the word 'marriage' I am trying to protect. I want to protect (see a continuance of, in it's purest original form) God honoured marriage that meets His design, of a man and a woman together for life to the exclusion of all others. I don't want relationships that are not God honouring to use the same label and pollute (for lack of a better word) the sanctity of God's design for marriage and sex.

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear ~candice~,

Thank you for your response.

It's not the word 'marriage' I am trying to protect. I want to protect (see a continuance of, in it's purest original form) God honoured marriage that meets His design, of a man and a woman together for life to the exclusion of all others. I don't want relationships that are not God honouring to use the same label and pollute (for lack of a better word) the sanctity of God's design for marriage and sex.

I understand your position, and have only the following to ask you to consider:

1) Most marriages throughout history, as it is today, do not meet your definition of your god-honored marriage that meets his design. I am interpreting more into what you term his design than just one man and one woman (to the exclusion of others). From my previous discussions with christians, they consider their god-desined marriage as really a three way marriage with god in between the husband and wife. Consider all those marriages that are not blessed by your god, but by other gods (or no gods), and other authorities (the state, or Justice of the Peace).

2) Previously you have argued to support equal rights and benefits for homosexual couples. Yet you would deny them "marriage" because they are in relationships that are not god-honoring. Would you deny other people "marriage" if they were heterosexual, but did not marry to meet "his design"? What of atheist couples who marry without any god-honoring? What of hindu couples who marry, without any of your god-honoring, but plenty of their god/s honoring? Would you deny them the right to marry?

3) It is a hard thing to attempt to impose your set of morals on others, especially when homosexual marriage has no effect on you. Bob and Ted getting married does not and cannot affect your marriage. They do not get married in any christian church. They are probably non-christians.

4) Christianity does not own the institution of marriage, nor do they own the definition of the word. As has been shown before, the definition changes with societal attitudes.

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

1) Most marriages throughout history, as it is today, do not meet your definition of your god-honored marriage that meets his design. I am interpreting more into what you term his design than just one man and one woman (to the exclusion of others). From my previous discussions with christians, they consider their god-desined marriage as really a three way marriage with god in between the husband and wife. Consider all those marriages that are not blessed by your god, but by other gods (or no gods),

and other authorities (the state, or Justice of the Peace).

In the garden, God defined marriage as a man and woman together for life. If others what to take the word and make it mean something else, they can try, but calling a fish a dog doesn't make it a fish.

2) Previously you have argued to support equal rights and benefits for homosexual couples. Yet you would deny them "marriage" because they are in relationships that are not god-honoring. Would you deny other people "marriage" if they were heterosexual, but did not marry to meet "his design"? What of atheist couples who marry without any god-honoring? What of hindu couples who marry, without any of your god-honoring, but plenty of their god/s honoring? Would you deny them the right to marry?

I have no issue with atheist heterosexual couples getting married, or heterosexual couples of any false beliefs. I wish they would turn to the Lord and repent, but the scope of my comments is only whether or not their marriage set-up is a design of His, not their entire lives.

3) It is a hard thing to attempt to impose your set of morals on others, especially when homosexual marriage has no effect on you. Bob and Ted getting married does not and cannot affect your marriage. They do not get married in any christian church. They are probably non-christians.

Well, I get the impression you believe I am discriminating against homosexual couples and you would like to impose your morals on me by asking me to stop opposing gay marriage. So, is imposing morals on others right or wrong? I don't think it is.

Bob and Ted getting married dishonours the Lord and His ways and I cannot facilitate that. The consequences (and I claim it does affect me) are not the primary issue. Christians cannot condone actions He calls sin.

4) Christianity does not own the institution of marriage, nor do they own the definition of the word. As has been shown before, the definition changes with societal attitudes.

Regards,

UF

Society needs to turn to the Lord.

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear ~candice~,

Thank you for your response.

In the garden, God defined marriage as a man and woman together for life. If others what to take the word and make it mean something else, they can try, but calling a fish a dog doesn't make it a fish.

I guess you do not agree with me that different societies in our history have defined marriage differently. Your argument that your god-designed marriage to be what you claim it to be, was used at one time to defend anti-miscegenation laws. The proponents of anti-miscegenation laws claimed that race mixing was not part of the bible god's design for marriage. Fortunately, we saw through that argument.

I have no issue with atheist heterosexual couples getting married, or heterosexual couples of any false beliefs. I wish they would turn to the Lord and repent, but the scope of my comments is only whether or not their marriage set-up is a design of His, not their entire lives.

I guess you do not see the potential abuse of the continuation of your argument. Yesterday it is a differentiation between skin color. Today it is a differentiation between hetero and homosexual marriages. Tomorrow it could be a differentiation between religious beliefs (christian and other). Your argument covers all the bases to support prohibiting certain groups of people from marriage.

Well, I get the impression you believe I am discriminating against homosexual couples and you would like to impose your morals on me by asking me to stop opposing gay marriage. So, is imposing morals on others right or wrong? I don't think it is.

You are mistaken. I do not wish to impose my morals on you. You do not have to marry someone of the same sex. You are free to marry (if they consent) or not marry anyone. I am not prohibiting you from marrying anyone. I am not even asking you to stop your attempts at prohibiting marriage among a certain group of people. How can you think I am imposing my morals on you? All we are doing is exchanging opinions and ideas.

Bob and Ted getting married dishonours the Lord and His ways and I cannot facilitate that. The consequences (and I claim it does affect me) are not the primary issue. Christians cannot condone actions He calls sin.

Bob and Ted do not care about what your god thinks. Does this make them fair game for you to attempt to deny them the right to get married? Atheist heterosexual couples do not care what your god thinks. Does this make them fair game for you to attempt to deny them the right to get married? Christians sin all the time. Does this make them fair game for you to attempt to deny them the right to get married?

Society needs to turn to the Lord.

I understand that is your perspective. I do not share it. In fact, I think quite the opposite.

Regards,

UF

Edited June 12, 2011 by UndecidedFrog