Why is endorsing gay marriage/civil unions bad?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"Typically involving procreation" is the bases of the same-sex marriage argument. The Bible never speaks of anything save the relation between a man and a woman. (I Cor 7:1-5; Ephesians 5:22-33; I & II Peter)

It's totally obtuse, IMO, to reach beyond the foundation that the Bible clearly sets as the precedent to accommodate a weak and depraved society.

And if we want to be really accurate about the subject of homosexuality, we can look at Romans 1.

The biblical defintion of marriage is between one man and one woman. So what?

It's the legal institution of marriage I'm interested in discussing. Until Christianscan admit and understand the difference I can see why they have issues bringing up worthy points for this discussion.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And what my post meant was that your answer that it's like approving of homosexuality didn't make sense to me. I'm willing to hear an explaination on how its more like approving of homosexuality than any of the other things I mentioned.

Supporting the right for homosexuals to marry or have civil unions is simply not the same thing as supporting homosexuality. I'm still willing to hear arguments on how it is. I hear often that it is and it seems everyone has bought it hook line and sinker without giving it any thought because not one person is addressing that question.

Let's see...Who has bought what hook, line and sinker? Thousands of years of almost unanimous belief that marriage is one man and one woman and then sodomites come along and say its not fair that they can't be marries so we just automatically cave in and say they're right? Or could it be that your messiah president has crossed the line and now you're stuck having to defend him/it?

This one is going to cost him politically. It might cause the media to tingle, it might cause Hollywood to right fatter checks, but there are 32 states that have written some form of defense of marriage act or constitutional amendment or a ban on gay marriage. 32 states against and only about 6 for and the other states with nothing either way. The presidential election is not a strictly popular vote. Its a state by state election. It was a stupid political move and its going to cost hime some states.

So again what makes gay marriage good? What makes polygamy good? What about a man who says he and his dog have consentual relations and love each other? Some woman and her horse? Perversion takes on many forms frog...who are we to judge who should or shouldn't get "married"?

[MissBrattified]

Personally, I have two main thoughts on this issue, and they are surprisingly liberal:

1. I wish churches had jurisdiction over marriage ceremonies. Religious ceremonies should be held for those who want them, and everyone else can form secular (civil) unions. Giving this power back to the church and having the state only take care of paperwork and names and dates is the way it should be, IMO.
2. I don't really care WHO wants to form a civil union--whether its for the sake of sharing a household, sharing incomes, sharing dependents or sharing a bed--I really don't care. That's a legal issue that has nothing at all to do with the sanctity of God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. IMO, if roommates want to file a civil union for the 4-8 years they attend college so they can share household expenses, etc., they should be able to do so. It's a practical matter.

When I was about 13, we lived next door to a monogamous gay couple. One of them worked at the hospital as a nurse, the other one was a businessman. They had two very fat, spoiled, sweet basset hounds. I don't remember my parents ever being rude to them or complaining about them living next door. I certainly was never bothered by them, and I find it interesting that my parents didn't seem particularly bothered by them either.

My point is: I don't see the point of Christians digging in their heels and trying to prevent people from sharing bank accounts and filing joint income tax returns.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Personally, I have two main thoughts on this issue, and they are surprisingly liberal:

1. I wish churches had jurisdiction over marriage ceremonies. Religious ceremonies should be held for those who want them, and everyone else can form secular (civil) unions. Giving this power back to the church and having the state only take care of paperwork and names and dates is the way it should be, IMO.
2. I don't really care WHO wants to form a civil union--whether its for the sake of sharing a household, sharing incomes, sharing dependents or sharing a bed--I really don't care. That's a legal issue that has nothing at all to do with the sanctity of God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. IMO, if roommates want to file a civil union for the 4-8 years they attend college so they can share household expenses, etc., they should be able to do so. It's a practical matter.

When I was about 13, we lived next door to a monogamous gay couple. One of them worked at the hospital as a nurse, the other one was a businessman. They had two very fat, spoiled, sweet basset hounds. I don't remember my parents ever being rude to them or complaining about them living next door. I certainly was never bothered by them, and I find it interesting that my parents didn't seem particularly bothered by them either.

My point is: I don't see the point of Christians digging in their heels and trying to prevent people from sharing bank accounts and filing joint income tax returns.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Is allowing homosexual doctors approving of homosexuality? What about homosexual lawyers? (Both of these have to be liscensed by the state also). What about giving driver's liscenses to homosexuals? Isn't that approving of homosexuality? What about allowing them to eat in our restaurants? Is that approving of homosexuality.

I think we have a bad mentality here. Approving and endorsing of a homosexuals rights to do something is not approving of homosexuality. So I want to ask how does approving of homosexual marriage go beyond simple approval of homosexual marriage and into actual approval of homosexuality?

It's not a bad mentality. We don't necessarily have to know if a doctor, lawyer, or Indian Chief is a homosexual. But we know if two men are marrying each other they are.

Giving two men the right to marry each other is giving legitimacy to homosexuality.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Personally, I have two main thoughts on this issue, and they are surprisingly liberal:

1. I wish churches had jurisdiction over marriage ceremonies. Religious ceremonies should be held for those who want them, and everyone else can form secular (civil) unions. Giving this power back to the church and having the state only take care of paperwork and names and dates is the way it should be, IMO.
2. I don't really care WHO wants to form a civil union--whether its for the sake of sharing a household, sharing incomes, sharing dependents or sharing a bed--I really don't care. That's a legal issue that has nothing at all to do with the sanctity of God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. IMO, if roommates want to file a civil union for the 4-8 years they attend college so they can share household expenses, etc., they should be able to do so. It's a practical matter.

When I was about 13, we lived next door to a monogamous gay couple. One of them worked at the hospital as a nurse, the other one was a businessman. They had two very fat, spoiled, sweet basset hounds. I don't remember my parents ever being rude to them or complaining about them living next door. I certainly was never bothered by them, and I find it interesting that my parents didn't seem particularly bothered by them either.
My point is: I don't see the point of Christians digging in their heels and trying to prevent people from sharing bank accounts and filing joint income tax returns.

BTW

One comment though: What you have described in the bolded is marriage

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

It's not a bad mentality. We don't necessarily have to know if a doctor, lawyer, or Indian Chief is a homosexual. But we know if two men are marrying each other they are.

Giving two men the right to marry each other is giving legitimacy to homosexuality.

Yall keep on repeating yourselves. It's not enough to loudly shout repitevely that gay marriage legitmizes homosexuality. How does it go from legitimizing homosexual marriage to legitimizing homosexuality? There's a step missing there.

I think that not having laws banning homosexuality gives legitimacy to homosexuality. Giving homosexuals the right to marry or have civil unions only gives legiimacy to such marriages and not the lifestyle itself.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

BTW

One comment though: What you have described in the bolded is marriage

I don't agree. A wedding is a celebration of a marriage, and a marriage is a covenant. A marriage is making a commitment and taking vows before God and man(e.g., a wedding)--and then keeping those promises. Business is part of the package like having children is often part of the package, but that isn't all it's about.

That's like saying that couples who live together are already married. No, marriage is about declared commitment and follow-through.

My point with making the business part vague is more to say that if two friends who have no romantic interest at all wanted to live in the same household and share income and file joint returns, why couldn't they? A civil union is a business arrangement. I don't really care who enters into a business arrangement together or why, as long as it isn't for criminal purposes.

From a purely political perspective, conservatively speaking, ANY adults who want to do *business*, save on their taxes, share a bank account and throw a party to celebrate the arrangement should have the freedom to do so. Making homosexual unions illegal does NOTHING to discourage homosexuality. So why are we concerned with it? Are we trying to answer a sin problem with legislation?

[MissBrattified]

FTR, though, Obama isn't endorsing gay marriage because he's for minimal government and business arrangements. He's showing support for homosexuality in general and trying to get the gay vote. It's a ploy and it's for all the wrong reasons.

I don't care about civil unions because I don't think we should care about other people's legally binding contracts and I think religious ceremonies should be the jurisdiction of the church--not the government. It's not about endorsing someone's lifestyle; it's about believing the government should keep their noses out of personal lifestyle choices, unless there's something criminal going on.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yall keep on repeating yourselves. It's not enough to loudly shout repitevely that gay marriage legitmizes homosexuality. How does it go from legitimizing homosexual marriage to legitimizing homosexuality? There's a step missing there.

I think that not having laws banning homosexuality gives legitimacy to homosexuality. Giving homosexuals the right to marry or have civil unions only gives legiimacy to such marriages and not the lifestyle itself.

Gay marriage is not separate from the gay lifestyle. No gay lifestyle no need for gay marriage.