Why is endorsing gay marriage/civil unions bad?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

You fail to understand the point. We do not wish to control the state, but to force the state to abide by the rule of law (the Constitution). The state has been encroaching on our personal and religious freedoms for more than 100 years, and it is time that we draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, where will we be in another 5 years?

You mean Section 1 in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmm...

As an American, I believe that liberty is sacred... even if men abuse said liberty. In a free country... a man and woman who are divorcees and have no biblical right to marry can marry. In a free country... a person can purchase various forms of entertainment that might offend the moral and religious sensibilities of others. In a free country... a person can eat and drink as they choose. In a free country... a person can attend a biblical conservative church or a liberal church that accepts alternative lifestyles. A person can choose to attend a Mosque. A person can choose to join a coven. A person can choose to become Jewish and attend synagogue. In a free country... different races can marry. In a free country... different religions can marry.

I'm NOT for the gay lifestyle. I DO NOT endorce gay marriage. However... I am a champion of liberty. How do we balance true liberty... and our own personal religious beliefs? I think it's simple. We live what we believe. And allow other men to do the same. From there we join the great conversation about God and Christ and tell all who we believe Jesus truly was. He will draw His own.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

The point is that you can not change the definition of marriage without fundamentally reshaping the nature of society. The problem that is run into is simply that they do not have the power to change that definition at the whim of the legume sized cranial contents. That is why there is a struggle over this issue.

If you start to redefine marriage, you also must redefine the role of gender, sexuality, religion, politics, free speech, free association, and many other items. The problem is that they have decided to redefine to their hearts content regardless of the destruction done to the rest of society.

Same has been said about mixed marriages in the past. I heard an older man say that they were right and should have never allowed mixed marriages because if they hadn't, we'd not be dealing with this today.

Of course... I strongly disagree. I see no issue with different races marrying. But honestly, the same thing was said. Not only that... but we have "no fault" divorce and many attending churches are in their second or third marriage. Many of these marriages are unbiblical. Yet I'm not hearing much outcry against them. Most recognize that it's a free country and people are free to marry... even if a given church or mosque doesn't recognize the union.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You can allow for shared bank accounts and filing joint tax returns without defining the relationship as marriage. And I don't know many Christians who are arguing that.

Marriage is a binding social contract. Traditionally, it didn't even require the approval of those being married. It only required an agreement between the parents of the two families. If you examine history, culture, and religion you'll find that there isn't a set "definition" of marriage. Many cultures have polygamous marriage. Ancient Rome had "gay marriages".

This problem has been with us since the most ancient of times. This isn't anything new.

The truth is... YOU define your own marriage. The Government doesn't define your marriage. You do.

In fact, it can be argued that the problem IS the Government meddling in marriage. Perhaps we should "privatize" marriage. Allow private citizens and families to make notorized private contracts. If someone violates their marriage contract, take the offender to court over breach of contract and "divorce" them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Then someone needs to educate you on what marriage means.

Sorry... I found this a bit funny and thought of it when I read your post:

[Aquila]

I vote we fight for liberty. Fight for their liberties. Fight for ours. Let them know we are all for them being free to have all the rights every American enjoys. Yet tell them that we cannot perform those marriages in our churches. If a gay couple asks a church that doesn't believe in gay marriage to marry them... maybe that church should assist them with finding an "affirming" church where their "union" can be performed. If they try to force a church to marry them... PROTEST. Allow them to schedule and DON'T show up. Blue flu. LOL

[deacon blues]

Again, so what do we tell polygamists? What do we tell those who practice beastiality? What about all the other forms of sexual expression that are perverse? What about all the other odd relationship arrangements that the evil human heart can devise? Based on your rationale, how do we deny them their liberty to pursue happiness as they see fit?

No matter how much a libertarian you are, even libertarians (most I would think) believe lines are drawn somewhere. So why move the goal posts when marriage has been almost universally accepted for thousands of years as one man and one woman? Jesus clarified the air when he said, "From the beginning it was not so".

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You can allow for shared bank accounts and filing joint tax returns without defining the relationship as marriage. And I don't know many Christians who are arguing that.

So you're wanting to make sure that homosexuals don't have the legal right to say that they're married? That's it? That's the whole point? It's all about what they can call themselves? Why would I care if two gay guys want to say they're married and throw a party to celebrate it? They can do that now, if they want to--it won't be recognized by the state, but they can still have a "wedding" and wear rings. Gays already have the ability to have the party portion of a marriage. This debate is really only about the legal side, and the legal side is the side I don't care about. Let them have their joint-filing status.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Again, so what do we tell polygamists? What do we tell those who practice beastiality? What about all the other forms of sexual expression that are perverse? What about all the other odd relationship arrangements that the evil human heart can devise? Based on your rationale, how do we deny them their liberty to pursue happiness as they see fit?

I think you're missing the point here. Homosexuals are already practicing perversion. This debate has nothing at all to do with preventing homosexuals from practicing a perverse act.

No matter how much a libertarian you are, even libertarians (most I would think) believe lines are drawn somewhere. So why move the goal posts when marriage has been almost universally accepted for thousands of years as one man and one woman? Jesus clarified the air when he said, "From the beginning it was not so".

Personally, I don't believe that polygamy should be illegal, either. In MANY cultures and in many eras polygamy has been not only acceptable but encouraged. I don't believe it's the ideal, but I certainly don't believe it's "perversion" on the scale of homosexuality or bestiality. If it is, then we'll have to lump a lot of Bible heroes in with gays and horse-lovers. I'm strongly opposed to that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Again, so what do we tell polygamists?

Polygamists have been with our country since it began. Many of the Native American people had more than one wife. Various groups fleeing persecution were polygamous. Early Mormons. Today we have Muslims imigrating to the United States that have polygamous families.

The point is that this is a cultural issue. There are various forms of marriage throughout the world. Why should the American government only recognize one form of marriage leaving many women and children without the legal protections due their union prior to arrival or based on their social standards?

What do we tell those who practice beastiality?

An animal isn't a citizen. Case closed. Not only that... an animal cannot be proven to have given legal concent. It's animal abuse.

What about all the other forms of sexual expression that are perverse? What about all the other odd relationship arrangements that the evil human heart can devise? Based on your rationale, how do we deny them their liberty to pursue happiness as they see fit?

Bro... there are various forms of sexual expression within monogamous Christian marriages. That's private. It's between an individual and their God. Do you want the Government policing what you and your wife to in order to determine the validity of your union? Bro... if you guys want to dress up like Bonnie and Clyde, or Superman and Lois Lane, or jus throw food at each other all night... that's your business.

Do you REALLY think this is something the GOVERNMENT should police??? Think about it.

The issue is that the Constitution of the U.S. requires that all "citizens" born or naturalized have equal protections and rights under the law. That's not me... that's the Constitution of the United States.

No matter how much a libertarian you are, even libertarians (most I would think) believe lines are drawn somewhere. So why move the goal posts when marriage has been almost universally accepted for thousands of years as one man and one woman? Jesus clarified the air when he said, "From the beginning it was not so".

Brother... for the majority of human history marriages were arranged. Also, for the majority of human history we have both multiple wives and concubines recognized within the marriage covenant. I'm no longer married. If I choose to remarry almost half of the Christians I know will tell me that I'm living in adultery. But isn't that my business? Isn't that between me and God? If my church allows a second marriage... isn't that my faith? I find it hard to see a set standard regarding marriage. For thousands of years kings and even Popes (at various times) have had wives and/or concubines. Concubinage was widespread in the first and second centuries. Even the Epistles of Paul indicate that an elder should be "the husband of one wife"... thereby implying that a man could be the husband of more than one woman and thereby disqualified for leadership in the church.

For me... the law is simple. If a given liberty doesn't endanger the life, liberty, or property of another without due process of law... let them be free. They will answer to God for how they use such liberty.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think you're missing the point here. Homosexuals are already practicing perversion. This debate has nothing at all to do with preventing homosexuals from practicing a perverse act.

True. They are already attending liberal churches who hold religious beliefs that allow for their lifestyle. They are having ceremonies and exchanging rings. They are even calling themselves "married" in spite of the governments refusal to recognize said unions. They already have many of the same rights as married couples. So it's getting to the point where it's becoming a silly social debate that is taking up much valuable time from the Gospel itself.

Personally, I don't believe that polygamy should be illegal, either. In MANY cultures and in many eras polygamy has been not only acceptable but encouraged. I don't believe it's the ideal, but I certainly don't believe it's "perversion" on the scale of homosexuality or bestiality. If it is, then we'll have to lump a lot of Bible heroes in with gays and horse-lovers. I'm strongly opposed to that.

LOL Excellent points.