WN: Obama declares support for gay marriage - AP

[~candice~]

Folks, I just deleted information and pictures of pederasty. Please don't repost it.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

It is not a matter of whether or not lust is sin. The question is whether or not we lift up sin? We don't celebrate lust. It just exists. In other words, homosexuals want to have us look at their sinful lifestyle as normal and ok. They even have gay pride parades. Why not have pedophile pride parades, and celebrate their diversity? Why not adulterer pride parades, or shop lifter pride parades, etc.? All people sin at times, in thoughts or deed, but not everyone demands we look at their sin as acceptable. That is the difference.

I think if most homosexuals had the ability to go about their lives as normal they would choose that. Not all have gay pride parades, I'm sure I pass by homosexuals on the street all the time without the slightest clue they are homosexual.

From the homosexual's perspective they aren't holding parades as a way to parade around sin, they are holding parades because they don't think their lifestyle is a sin &/or they believe this is an issue of social rights. You might see it as a parade with the intent to flaunt sin, however I don't think that is their intent/why they are having the parades.

I don't think your examples are apt when you look at morality (from a biblical perspective), cultural acceptance, & victimization.

Pedophilia is viewed as a sin, is culturally rebuked, and has a clear victim.

Shop lifting/theft is viewed as a sin, is culturally frowned upon, and has a clear victim.

Adultery is viewed as a sin, is culturally frowned upon, and has a clear victim.

Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't have a clear victim since both parties consent, and we have had fully functioning productive homosexual people in our society since...pretty much forever. Culturally and morally I think there is a lot of debate, certainly homosexuality should not be grouped in with those other things you mentioned.

[MorningGlory]

It is not a matter of whether or not lust is sin. The question is whether or not we lift up sin? We don't celebrate lust. It just exists. In other words, homosexuals want to have us look at their sinful lifestyle as normal and ok. They even have gay pride parades. Why not have pedophile pride parades, and celebrate their diversity? Why not adulterer pride parades, or shop lifter pride parades, etc.? All people sin at times, in thoughts or deed, but not everyone demands we look at their sin as acceptable. That is the difference.

I think if most homosexuals had the ability to go about their lives as normal they would choose that. Not all have gay pride parades, I'm sure I pass by homosexuals on the street all the time without the slightest clue they are homosexual.

From the homosexual's perspective they aren't holding parades as a way to parade around sin, they are holding parades because they don't think their lifestyle is a sin &/or they believe this is an issue of social rights. You might see it as a parade with the intent to flaunt sin, however I don't think that is their intent/why they are having the parades.

I don't think your examples are apt when you look at morality (from a biblical perspective), cultural acceptance, & victimization.

Pedophilia is viewed as a sin, is culturally rebuked, and has a clear victim.

Shop lifting/theft is viewed as a sin, is culturally frowned upon, and has a clear victim.

Adultery is viewed as a sin, is culturally frowned upon, and has a clear victim.

Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't have a clear victim since both parties consent, and we have had fully functioning productive homosexual people in our society since...pretty much forever. Culturally and morally I think there is a lot of debate, certainly homosexuality should not be grouped in with those other things you mentioned.

Sorry, Hamburgers, you're wrong. There ARE victims in homosexual relationships, and those are the two people involved. Do you seriously believe there will be no repercussions for them down the road?

[ColleenLovesMischief]

You might view homosexuality as a sin. I personally don't because I've known great people who are gay and simply are attracted to the same sex just as I am attracted to the opposite.

The Bible has already defined homosexuality as sin and you have already said that only God make that judgment call, so why are you contradicting God on the matter???

That's the part that boggles my mind the most. No religious institutions are being forced to marry gay people, this shouldn't matter for people when it doesn't affect them and the sin is going to happen regardless of whether it's an official 'marriage' or not.

That just shows how naive and uninformed you are.

The Homosexual community has NEVER been satisfied with tolerance. They are demanding total acceptance in every sphere of society. They don't want us to merely let them live their disgusting lifestyle in privacy. They are demanding to be able to be ordained as ministers in churches. They are trying to spread their influence into sectors of society for us to acquiese to their demands. If we say homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit, preachers could be arrested for hate crimes. If they are denied marriage in a church, it will and may very will be considered discrimination. It really is a major problem.

Please do not label the entire community because of the loudmouth insistent spoiled babies. Many of my friends are homosexuals, and that isn't what they all want. Much like we as Christians get labeled because of things like Westboro Baptist, and some of our own outspoken "Bible thumpers" (to use the words we all are called because of a few or some). Many of my friends are actually pretty irritated because of some in the homosexual community who insist on marriage. All my friends want are legal rights. Most don't even want to call it marriage. Personally I would like to see marriage as only a Christian union. Any union outside the church being a civil union with the same legal rights, but a different defining word. I get incredibly frustrated with both sides because I can see both. No one seems willing to step back and say "if that were me how would I like to be treated". Christians are to be in the world but not of it. Does that give us the right to dictate rights to others? I don't think it does.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Sorry, Hamburgers, you're wrong. There ARE victims in homosexual relationships, and those are the two people involved. Do you seriously believe there will be no repercussions for them down the road?

I intended to break out sin (morality), cultural acceptance, and victimhood as in someone taking advantage of another. The victimhood you're describing is the morality/sin issue.

You may believe that the two people in the homosexual relationship are living in sin/ are victims to sin (and that's a valid claim to have even though I feel differently), but are they actually victimizing one another like a pedophile takes advantage of a child or a spouse takes advantage of another spouse via adultery? I don't think they are, in fact I think most homosexual relationships are between two consenting adults who care about one another.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

To Hamburgers, there was a time when it was perfectly normal for a 13 or 14 year old girl to marry. I don't care what society accepts as ok. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not two people of the same sex should be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, and I would say no. Marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman. My point with regard to pedophiles is that just as homosexuals claim they should be accepted because they can't help who they are attracted to, the same thing can apply to pedophiles if we go down that road. I don't care if homosexuals think they are in sin? I doubt that they do, but when they have gay pride events, they are celebrating sin. Sin is the transgression of God's laws accroding to scripture, so they are in sin whether they acknowledge it or don't.

I agree that marriage as far as the church/a religion is concerned should have the final say on if they allow homosexual marriage or not, but when we're speaking in strictly legal terms I don't think it holds up when we are talking about US law. For example a heterosexual couple can get married in the church (traditional christian marriage/covenant by God etc), however there are plenty of marriages between atheists, or other non-christian people all the time, and those are legal in the US.

Secular marriage is a commitment between two adults who profess their love for one another and promise to support each other for as long as they both live. These marriages have the exact same benefits & legal ramifications as one in the church. Why shouldn't this be extended to same sex couples who choose to make the same commitment from a legal perspective? I don't see why they shouldn't have the right to do so.

& regarding pedophilia etc again those are issues where it is considered illegal due to infringing on someone else's rights, just like rape or theft or murder. Even if the issue is someone can't change who they are attracted to there are very clear reasons why that should be prevented - the desire isn't reciprocated.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

That is not always true with regard to pedophiles. There are girls that are under 16 who would desire to marry adult men, but to do so would be considered statutory rape. Why? There was a time when it was common for a 13 or 14 year old to marry. I have less problems with a 14 year old girl marrying than a homosexual couple, which is unnatural.

There was also a time where people were considered old at 40. There might have been a time where 14 year olds married older men more frequently but it isn't now.

Also women were expected to marry and have children, and rely on the man in many cases. They were taught to depend on the man to make all the decisions etc. IMO it was still a adult -> child relationship.

By the way, who said a couple has to marry in a church to be acceptable? Any marriage between a man and a woman is still a marriage. That is because marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women. It is not marriage because a church says it is a marriage. Marriage is a spiritual union between a man and woman who commit to each other in the sight of God for life. You can't have a marriage between two men or two women. It is not the same thing as two homosexuals co-habitating and calling it a marriage, regardless of whether or not the couple is Christian or had their wedding in a church.

But... people enter in marriage all the time without a religious ceremony or in a non-Christian marriage. Regardless of who "started it" God hasn't always been a part of the equation in marriage, and isn't required to be in them today in the US. (by equation I mean the couple don't have a religious ceremony)

Unless you are making a claim that only Christian marriages are true marriages, in which case that's a whole different set of worms.

In addition to that, the issue to me is forcing someone to accept a homosexual union and give them the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple. Unless you do away with anti-descrimination laws, I will never support it. I don't recognize it. The state could declare two men married, and I still won't accept it, ever. The very idea is absurd. I have no desire to harrass them, or mistreat them, or do them any harm in any way, but I won't accept them as married, because marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex, even if a bunch of idiots in power claim it is so. In this matter, I know I am in the majority opinion, because in every state where it was put to a vote of the people, defense of traditional marriage laws passed. In my state, we just passed one with a 61 percent majority, even with all kind of scare tactics being used.

I don't see what anti-discrimination laws have to do with it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Oh Hamburgers!

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I am going to use the same reasoning you would to defend homosexual marriages to defend the marriage of a 14 year old girl to a 50 year old man. Who are you to judge whether that is right or wrong, if they love each other? If the girl wants to marry the 50 year old man, why shouldn't she be able to? Who are you to call her a child? We all mature at differen't ages. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds. You seem perfectly fine about judging that relationship, so you should be able to see why I would have issues with gay marriage. I see it as perverted. I actually see it as worse than the 14 year old girl being married to the 50 year old guy, though I don't see what they could possibly have in common?

There are some clear reasons why a homosexual relationship is not analogous to a 14 year old -> 50 year old marriage.

1) Homosexual marriage is designed for two consenting adults. Should a homosexual become heterosexual somehow and decide to marry, it would be legally & socially acceptable. This is not the case with a 14 year old marrying someone almost 3x her age - it is neither legally nor socially acceptable. This is true regardless of sexual preference (ie a homosexual 50 year old man should not attempt to marry a 14 year old homosexual boy).

2) Marriage (hetero homo or otherwise) is a mutual profession of love and commitment between two humans. The idea is to be a partnership and have an equal share in the relationship. No such equal partnership can be found in a 14/50 year old relationship. The power balance is disproportionately shifted in the 50 year old's favor. The 14 year old will be forced to rely on the 50 year old an inordinate amount. The 50 year old is essentially exploiting their position/power/authority by marrying someone who does not have the same legal rights.

2a) Disclaimer: Perhaps there are some relationships like this that are mutual and truly based on love and commitment (probably not many but in the interest of fairness I'll buy it). The couple has a natural recourse: wait until the 14 year old becomes of legal age to marry. A homosexual in that same situation currently does not have the same liberty to do so.

3) Context matters when we're talking about women historically marrying very young. One man's murderer is another man's war hero given the right context Quite simply life was much different back then, with life spans being much shorter and the chance of a child dying at birth being much higher it was necessary for children to have children at an earlier age. That was also the woman's primary task - to have children and take care of the home. Marriage was often more about practicality & arrangements than it was about love. Now in the 21st century the context that made it allowable for young girls to marry older men has been removed; there simply isn't the same need for it and it (rightly) has become frowned upon in our society.

4) Divorce rates based on age: http://www.divorcerate.org/

Age Women Men

Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%

20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%

25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%

30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%

35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

We can debate the age that someone becomes mature enough to make a wise decision in marriage, but when 50-60% of marriages under the age of 25 end in divorce in this country compared to 30-40% for 25+, I think it makes a pretty solid point that most 13/14 year olds are NOT mature enough to make a good choice.

I already told you why I have a problem with anti-discrimination laws. I don't want the government to force homosexual marriage on people that object to it, by forcing them to give homosexual couples the same benefits they give heterosexual married couples. That is how gay marriage effects others, and why I will always oppose it.

Well by the same logic you could argue that all marriages are receiving unnecessary benefits compared to non-married people... why should marriage give you special benefits in the first place? Shouldn't you be opposing all marriage based on your concerns about benefits being given out? I don't recall the Bible making a mention of visitation rights being a mandatory benefit of marriage, do you? And we all know that the Bible does not require people to be married - you can be godly and single.

Again though regardless of personal beliefs, from a legal perspective you don't need to have religion in your marriage, and you still gain rights regarding the partner as well as legal status. I see no reason from this standpoint that homosexuals shouldn't receive the same treatment as heterosexuals.

[other one]

[4) Divorce rates based on age: http://www.divorcerate.org/

Age Women Men

Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%

20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%

25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%

30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%

35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

Looking at your numbers is looks to me like under 20 is much better than waiting untill you're 20 to 24. Especially for men.

By looking at these numers maybe we shoud ban marriage from 20 to 25 and not let anyone be married more than twice at the most unless thier spouse dies.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I've already provided similarities between homosexual relationships & heterosexual marriage; ultimately the key difference is the issues of who they marry, but the commitments, parties involved, & the reasons are all very similar, the only difference being that they are of the same sex.

I've shown how adult -> child marriage on the other hand is much different and how it simply has no place in the context of our society. I know you are trying to draw a parallel between this, man & animal & homosexual relationships, but it simply doesn't hold up for the reasons I've already described.

Since we are dealing with US law, the rights & freedoms of men & women are necessary to uphold. There are some clear exceptions: for example when your desired actions would infringe upon the rights of others, or put others in physical danger or undue trauma. Children are a protected class of people in that they are not considered as being able to provide informed consent.

Man & child relationship violates these rights (children rights/ informed consent)

Man & animal violates these rights (rights are extended to men; animals can't give informed consent)

Homosexual relationship of adults: Doesn't violate rights or others, doesn't put anyone in undue trauma or physical danger compared to other relationships, involves two consenting adults...

Again outside of religion & from a legal standpoint homosexuals should get the right to marry... if you are insistent that they have the same rights, then I think that we all should gain the right to marry someone from the same sex