USA To Use Foreign Aid To Promote Gay Rights

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Here is my bottom line on the issue.
If you redefine "marriage" to include two individuals of the same sex, then you have no argument against multiple partner marriages.
And the end of that path is madness.
I see a lot of argument on here about "liberty" and "freedom".
I see some of you who say that we as Christians should not oppose them.
Do you really believe that this is the end of the argument?

I’ll present a solidly conservative libertarian perspective on this. First, who defines marriage? Some divorcees are remarried. Many would never define their union as a “marriage” in that they don’t believe divorcees can remarry after divorce. Can I define anyone else’s marriage? Can they define mine? In the Bible we see several forms of marriage, none of them necessarily condemned, and many of the most holy men of God had one form or another of these marriages:

• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother marrying her was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.

Now, the NT puts forth the ideal marriage as being monogamous because marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church. One Lord, one faith. Even those listed in Hebrews 11 as being great men of faith often had more than one wife. Even King David had multiple wives, as did his son Solomon. Think of this… when writing the Psalms or the Proverbs, either one of these holy men of God may have spent the evening with a woman who wasn’t the woman he spent the evening with prior. And it had no bearing on their “holiness” before God...as long as the union was legal and binding.

Now, if in a free society people choose to enter polygamous marriages, what business is it of mine? Is it my job to vote and use the police force of GOVERNMENT to control other people from doing what I disagree with? They may live together as a family anyway. Do I support banning any residence with more than two adults (male and female) just to try to use GOVERNMENT to prevent this? As for me, and my home, we will obey the Word of God. Government isn’t the answer. In fact…liberty is and I’ll show you why.

First, Christians should oppose sin. Condemn sin. But we do it selectively when it comes to GOVERNMENT. Why? We have divorcees in our churches who are married and allowed full fellowship…when biblically they NEVER had the right to remarry according to many theologians. Yet we give a wimpy, “God will forgive.” attitude and move about our day. However, historically, if two persons of a different race wished to marry… we’d oppose it socially and politically. Why? We wanted to use the police force of GOVERNMENT to punish those we disagree with. And we do it today also. Do I agree with gay marriage? Emphatically NO. However, I disagree with lowering the Christian ethos to dependence upon GOVERNMENT to put a gun to people’s heads and MAKE them live as we desire them to. I’d rather leave such work to the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that the government has the right to make some drugs illegal?
Do you believe the government has the right to say abortion is not ok in the third trimester?
These too are "liberty" and "freedom" issues.
I could go on with many more examples.
Amazing

Ah…but you’ve forgotten the proper role of government over a free people. Government’s role is to protect the boarders, life, liberty, and property. Beyond this the GOVERNMENT should have no say. No power. If gay marriage threatened the integrity of our nation, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the lives of innocent citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the liberty of free citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the property of free citizens, we should expect GOVERNMENT to intervene.

I know gays living down the street from me. They live together. And they have yet to endanger the boarders, my life, my liberty, or my property. In fact, their part of the neighborhood watch and have helped to protect my property (home and personal effects).

Drugs are a different animal. Drugs are highly addictive and are used to enslave drug users. Many women have been forced into prostitution, adult entertainment, and human slavery to support their drug addiction. Addicts are rarely rational individuals. They will rob, steal, and even kill to gain the resources necessary to support their habit. Therefore drugs are a threat to the life, liberty, and property of a free people.

As for abortion, if life begins at conception, we should expect the government to protect said life.

The role of government is to protect the boarders and the life, liberty, and property of citizens. Government’s role is not to enforce a given “morality” based upon a specific religious interpretation upon citizens. We run a serious danger when we allow it to do so. Why? It is because in a democratic republic wherein officials are elected to represent the governed the pendulum of power often swings the other way. Consider this… Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Do we allow the GOVERNMENT to legislate social morality based upon religious principle or religious interpretation? It might sound like a good idea… as long as the majority of voting citizens are Christian. However, within the U.S. there are already Islamic political action committees forming. Their goal is to consolidate an Islamic voting block as they have in England and other European nations for the purpose of officially recognizing and even enforcing Islamic law. Please know this… a principled and Constitutional form of LIBERTY will stop them cold. But that means that we might have to allow for liberty in areas wherein we strongly disagree… just to set the precedent of preventing GOVERNMENT from becoming a tool to enforce religious moralities.

I promised above to demonstrate how liberty is the solution. As assuredly as there will be gay marriage…there will be gay divorce. The divorce rate among gay couples in foreign countries is far greater than non-gay couples. For example, a study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men (Andersson, Gunnar [February 2006]. The Demographics of Same-Sex "Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden. 43. Demography. pp. 79–98.) Allowing them to marry might be the greatest weapon we have AGAINST their lifestyle. Because as a greater number of these marriages go up in flames… we can assail the health of a normal heterosexual marriage with a scientific argument as it relates to the fabric of our society. Frankly, it will cause traditional marriage to shine as a more stable and enduring institution. It’s like free market economics. Let them put their product on the social stage next to traditional marriage. I assure you that our society will not like the taste of what they have to offer and you’ll notice something that’s been seen in other countries…after the initial boom in gay marriages... you’ll begin to see more and more gays shy away from them and the legal, social, and emotional problems they present. Also society will not take them very seriously and a “gay marriage” will not be regarded as a civil rights victory… but rather like a freakish train wreck. You’ll see a growing number of gays that don’t wish to get “entangled” in gay marriage. Until such liberty is granted to evaluate their social proposal in all it’s ugliness… this will continue to be a civil rights battle against two ideals and two opinions.

Liberty is a solution. Just as GOVERNMENT wrecks the economy when it intervenes to legislate business… GOVERNMENT will ultimately only cause more damage socially as we attempt to use it as a weapon to socially engineer society to control and/or punish those we don’t agree with.

So I propose that we them the liberties they think they so desperately want right now. They’ll learn that the problems are endemic to their moral choices, not social status. Yet, we use all time and resources at our disposal to protect our rights to speech and conscience within our churches.

I hope that offers a little perspective from my position.

If we successfully defeat their "civil rights movement". I'll be pleasantly surprised. I just don't see it happening. Courts have rarely ruled to curtail personal liberties. As long as it remains a civil rights issue, I see this as a loosing battle.